round eight cases full text (complex crimes to end)

7/23/2019 Round Eight Cases Full Text (Complex Crimes to End)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/round-eight-cases-full-text-complex-crimes-to-end 1/104

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

ManilaFIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 131116 August 27, 1999

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.ANTONIO L. SANCHEZ, ARTEMIO AERION, LAN!RITO "!ING" PERA!ILLAS #$% LUISCORCOLON, accused,ANTONIO L. SANCHEZ #$% ARTEMIO AERION, accused-appellants.

PAR!O, J.:

hat is befo!e this "ou!t is an appeal f!o# the decision of Re$ional T!ial "ou!t, %!anch &'(,Pasi$ "it),& findin$ accused *ntonio +. Sanche, +uis "o!colon ) Fadialan, +and!ito Din$Pe!adillas and *!te#io *ve!ion $uilt) be)ond !easonable doubt of #u!de! co##itted NelsonPealosa and Ric/son Pealosa, and sentencin$ each of the accused, as follo0s1

23R3FOR3, fo!e$oin$ conside!ed, the "ou!t finds the accused *ntonio Sanche,+and!ito Din$ Pe!adillas, +uis "o!colon, and *!te#io *ve!ion 45I+T6 be)ond!easonable doubt of the c!i#e of M5RD3R punishable unde! *RT. 78 of theRevised Penal "ode and he!eb) sentences each of said accused to suffe! thepenalt) of reclusion perpetua and to pa) 9ointl) and seve!all), the hei!s of the victi#seach the su# of P&((,(((.(( fo! the death of Nelson Pealosa and Ric/sonPealosa, P:(,(((.(( as actual da#a$es and #o!al da#a$es of P:(,(((.(( ande;e#pla!) da#a$es of P<(,(((.(( and to pa) the costs.1âwphi1.nêt SO ORD3R3D."it) of Pasi$.Dece#be! =>, &??'.

@sAtB M*RI*NO M. 5M*+ICud$e=

On Ma!ch &, &??7, Senio! State P!osecuto! 2e!nani T. %a!!ios filed 0ith the Re$ional T!ial"ou!t, "ala#ba, +a$una, an info!#ation fo! double #u!de! a$ainst accused *ntonio +.Sanche, +uis "o!colon ) Fadialan, +and!ito Din$ Pe!adillas and *!te#io *ve!ion, theaccusato!) po!tion of 0hich !eads1

That on o! about *p!il &<, &??&, at about >17: p.#. #o!e o! less, in %a!an$a) "u!ba,Municipalit) of "alauan, P!ovince of +a$una, and 0ithin the 9u!isdiction of the2ono!able "ou!t, the above-na#ed accused conspi!in$, confede!atin$, and#utuall) aidin$ one anothe!, 0ith t!eache!) and evident p!e#editation, and 0ith theuse of a #oto! vehicle, at ni$ht ti#e, all the accused then bein$ a!#ed andco##itted in conside!ation of a p!ice, !e0a!d o! p!o#ise and of supe!io! st!en$th,did then and the!e 0illfull), unla0full), and feloniousl) shoot 0ith the use ofauto#atic 0eapons inflictin$ #ultiple $unshot 0ounds upon Nelson Pealosa andRic/son Pealosa 0hich caused thei! instantaneous deaths to the da#a$e and

p!e9udice of thei! hei!s and !elatives.

"ONTR*R6 TO +*.<

On Ma!ch &', &??7, the case 0as !affled to %!anch <7, Re$ional T!ial "ou!t, "ala#ba,+a$una.7 On Ma!ch &>, &??7, the cou!t o!de!ed the a!!est of accused *ntonio +. Sanche,+uis "o!colon and Din$ Pe!adillas. On the sa#e date, *!te#io *ve!ion volunta!il) su!!ende!edto the cou!t, 0hich o!de!ed *ve!ions t!ansfe! to the p!ovincial 9ail , Sta. "!u, +a$una.:

The!eafte!, the t!ial cou!t co##itted the accused to the custod) of p!ope! autho!ities.'

5pon a!!ai$n#ent on *p!il &(, &??:, all the accused pleaded not $uilt). > The t!ial of the casethe!eb) ensued. On Dece#be! =>, &??', the t!ial cou!t convicted all the accused of the

co#ple; c!i#e of double #u!de!, as cha!$ed, the dispositive po!tion of 0hich is set out in theopenin$ pa!a$!aph of this opinion.On Feb!ua!) =>, &??>, all the accused, e;cept Din$ Pe!adillas, 0e!e p!esent fo! thep!o#ul$ation of the decision. Pe!adillas 0as a #e#be! of the Philippine National Police and

0as unde! the custod) of his supe!io!s. The t!ial cou!t o!de!ed his custodian to e;plainaccuseds non-appea!ance. On Ma!ch &7, &??>, PA" Supt. Robe!to +. "alinisan, "hief, PNP-P*"" Tas/ Fo!ce 2aba$at, denied an) /no0led$e of the #u!de! case a$ainst Pe!adillas.2ence, Pe!adillas 0as not suspended f!o# the se!vice pendin$ t!ial. 2o0eve!, at the ti#e thatPe!adillas 0as to be p!esented to the cou!t fo! the p!o#ul$ation of the decision, he haddisappea!ed and could not be located b) his custodian.8 The p!o#ul$ation of the decision asto hi# 0as in absentia. Pe!adillas and "o!colon did not appeal f!o# the decision.*ccused *ntonio +. Sanche and *!te#io *ve!ion filed thei! !espective appeals to this "ou!t.The facts a!e as follo0s1On *p!il &<, &??&, at a!ound &(1(( in the #o!nin$, state 0itness Vivencio Malabanan, tea#leade! of a $!oup of police#en, 0ent to the %ishop "o#pound in "alauan, +a$una, as pa!t ofthe secu!it) fo!ce of #a)o! *ntonio +. Sanche. *fte! a 0hile, accused Din$ Pe!adillas a!!ivedand as/ed fo! #a)o! Sanche. Pe!adillas info!#ed #a)o! Sanche that the!e 0ould be abi!thda) pa!t) that ni$ht at D!. Vi!vilio Velecinas house in +anot, "alauan, +a$una, nea! theabode of Pe!adillas. Pe!adillas assu!ed #a)o! Sanche of Nelson Pealosas p!esencethe!eat. D!. Velecina 0as a political opponent of #a)o! Sanche fo! the #a)o!alt) seat of"alauan, +a$una, Ma)o! Sanche then !eplied, %ahala na /a)o #$a ana/. *)usin lan$ nin)oan$ t!abaho, and left the p!e#ises. Pe!adillas i##ediatel) called "o!colon and *ve!ion and!ela)ed the #essa$e E *)os na an$ pa$uusap at hu#anap na lan$ n$ sasa/)an. *ll theaccused, includin$ Malabanan, unde!stood it as an o!de! to /ill Nelson Pealosa, one of thepolitical leade!s of D!. Velecina.?

*fte!0a!ds, Pe!adillas, "o!colon and *ve!ion #ade a!!an$e#ents to acui!e t0o-0a) !adiosand a vehicle fo! the ope!ation. *t a!ound =1<( in the afte!noon, Malabanan and the th!eeaccused 0ent thei! sepa!ate 0a)s and a$!eed to #eet at #a)o! Sanche house at '1(( in theevenin$. Malabanan !etu!ned to his detach#ent a!ea at Da)ap, p!oceeded to the #unicipalhall, then 0ent ho#e 0he!e Pe!adillas fetched hi# at '1(( p.#. The) p!oceeded to #a)o!Sanche house 0he!e the) #et *ve!ion and "o!colon, 0ith the ca! and t0o-0a) !adios.&(

*t a!ound >1(( in the evenin$, Malabanan and the th!ee accused boa!ded the ca! and 0ent toMa!po!i Poult!) Fa!# in %a!an$a) +anot, nea! D!. Velecinas house. Pe!adillas ali$hted and

0al/ed to0a!ds his o0n house, nea! D!. Velecinas house, to chec/ 0hethe! Nelson Pealosa 0as at the pa!t).The!eafte!, usin$ the t0o-0a) !adio, Pe!adillas info!#ed the occupants of the ca! that NelsonPealosas 9eep 0as leavin$ the Velecina co#pound. *ccused *ve!ion i##ediatel) d!ove the

ca! to the f!ont of Pe!adillas house and the latte! hopped in the ca!s bac/ seat. "o!colon sat

in the f!ont seat beside hi#G 0itness Malabanan sat at the left side of the bac/seat andPe!adillas sta)ed at the !i$ht side of the bac/ seat. The $!oup pu!sued Pealosas 9eep. henthe accuseds ca! 0as passin$ Victo!ia Fa!#s, located about &(( #ete!s f!o# Pealosaco#pound, "o!colon o!de!ed *ve!ion to ove!ta/e Pealosas 9eep. *s the ca! ove!too/ the

9eep, Pe!adillas and "o!colon fi!ed at Pealosas 9eep, usin$ M-&' and bab) a!#alite !ifles,e;ecuted in auto#atic fi!in$ #ode. The!e 0e!e th!ee bu!sts of $unfi!e. %ased on the s/etchp!epa!ed b) Malabanan, illust!atin$ the !elative position of thei! ca! and Nelsons 9eep at theti#e of the shootin$, the assailants 0e!e at the left side of the 9eep.&&

Ric/son Pealosa, son of Nelson Pealosa, fell f!o# the 9eep. The 9eep, ho0eve!, continued!unnin$ in a i$a$ position until it ove!tu!ned in f!ont of I!ais Fa!#. *fte! the shootin$, theaccused p!oceeded to the house of #a)o! Sanche in %ai, +a$una, and !epo!ted to #a)o!Sanche that Pealosa 0as al!ead) dead.&=

To$ethe! 0ith his supe!io! SPO7 +ano!io and photo$!aphe! Ro#eo *lcanta!a, police#anDaniel 3sca!es 0ent to the c!i#e scene. The!e, he sa0 the bod) of Nelson Pealosa slu#pedat the d!ive! seat of the o0ne!-t)pe 9eep. The) !ecove!ed the bod) of Ric/son Pealosaslu#ped on a $!ass) place not fa! f!o# 0he!e the) found Nelson Pealosa. *fte! all theevidence and photo$!aphs 0e!e ta/en, the) b!ou$ht the cadave!s to Fune!a!ia See!e.Daniel 3sca!es sub#itted his investi$ation !epo!t of the incident to the P!ovincial Di!ecto!,+a$una PNP "o##and.&<

D!. Ruben %. 3scueta, Ru!al 2ealth Ph)sician, Ru!al 2ealth 5nit, "alauan, +a$una,conducted an autops) on the bodies of Nelson and Ric/son Pealosa. Nelson Pealosasuffe!ed #assive int!a-c!anial he#o!!ha$e and died of c!anial in9u!) due to $unshot 0ounds.Ric/son Pealosa died of #assive int!a tho!acic he#o!!ha$e due to $unshot 0ounds.&7 D!.3scueta, as a defense 0itness, testified that based on the points of ent!ance and e;it of the

0ounds sustained b) the Pealosas, it 0as not possible fo! the assailants to be at the left sideof the victi#s.&: It cont!adicted Malabanans testi#on) that the) 0e!e at the left side of thevicti#s 0hen the shootin$ too/ place. 2e fu!the! stated that based on the 0ounds inflicted onthe victi#s, the assailants 0e!e eithe! in a sittin$ o! suattin$ position 0hen the) shot thevicti#s. So#e of the 0ounds indicated an up0a!d t!a9ecto!) of the bullets.On Septe#be! &:, &??<, Canet P. "o!te, PNP ballistician, co#pleted the ballistic testsconducted on the t0elve @&=B e#pt) shel ls found at the c!i#e scene and the M-&' bab)a!#alite su!!ende!ed b) "o!colon.&' She concluded that the &= e#pt) shells 0e!e fi!ed usin$th!ee @

On *u$ust &8, &??:, *delina Pealosa, co##on la0 0ife of Nelson Pealosa and #othe! ofRic/son, testified that the 0hole fa#il) 0as in #ou!nin$ and could not eat afte! 0hathappened.&8 She testified that the fa#il) incu!!ed P=:(,(((.(( fo! fune!al e;penses, but failedto p!esent the app!op!iate !eceipts. She also stated that Nelson Pealosa 0as ea!nin$ one @&B#illion pesos per annum f!o# his businesses. 2o0eve!, no inco#e ta; !etu!n o! othe! p!oofs

0e!e sho0n to substantiate the state#ent.&?

The accused inte!posed the defense of alibi and denial.+uis "o!colon stated that he spent the 0hole da) of *p!il &<, &??&, until 81<( in the evenin$,supe!visin$ the poult!) fa!# of his e#plo)e!s, 3d$a!do Tanchico and O!lando Dion. 2edenied that he 0as in the co#pan) of *ve!ion and Pe!adillas that da), and that he pa!ticipatedin the Pealosa /illin$s. 2e denied that he 0as eve! assi$ned as a secu!it) $ua!d of #a)o!Sanche. 2e clai#ed that the #u!de! cha!$es 0e!e concocted a$ainst the# fo! his !efusal to

testif) a$ainst #a)o! Sanche in the 4o#e-Sa!#enta case. 2e alle$ed that he 0as

#alt!eated, to!tu!ed, elect!ocuted and fo!ced to i#plicate #a)o! Sanche in the 4o#e-Sa!#enta !ape-sla)in$s. 2e denied that he o0ned the M-&' bab) a!#alite used in /illi n$ thePealosas.=(

Detention p!isone! 4eo!$e Medialde co!!obo!ated "o!colons state#ent that the) 0e!ei#plicated in the Pealosa /illin$ fo! thei! !efusal to testif) a$ainst #a)o! Sanche. 2e clai#edthat Malabanan confessed to hi# that the latte! had /illed the Pealosas, but 0ith the aid of"*F45 #en and not he!ein accused. 2e ave!!ed that "o!colon and *ve!ion 0e!e 0!on$full)i#plicated in the #u!de! cha!$es in defe!ence to the 0ishes of the investi$ato!s.=& Hoilo *#a,

anothe! detention p!isone!, clai#ed that Malabanan confessed that he /illed the Pealosas,but did not #ention the involve#ent of "o!colon, *ve!ion and #a)o! Sanche. ==

*ccused *!te#io *ve!ion, a $odson of #a)o! Sanche, denied that he 0as involved in thePealosa sla)in$s. On *p!il &<, &??&, he clai#ed that he 0as in +ucena "it), attendin$ to hisailin$ fathe!. 2e sta)ed the!e until *p!il &:, &??&. 2e #aintained that he 0as 0!on$full)i#plicated in the Pealosa /illin$s fo! his !efusal to testif) a$ainst #a)o! Sanche !e$a!din$the 4o#e-Sa!#enta !ape-sla)in$s. Malabanan as/ed fo! his fo!$iveness fo! falsel)inc!i#inatin$ the# in the Pealosa case.=<

Cesus Ve!soa, PNP Office!, "a#p "!a#e, denied the alle$ations of Medialdea and *ve!ionthat the) 0e!e to!tu!ed and fo!ced to testif) a$ainst #a)o! Sanche. =7

*ccused #a)o! *ntonio +. Sanche stated on *p!il &=, &??&, he 0ent to *nilao, %atan$as, 0ith his fa#il). *!ound &1(( in the afte!noon of *p!il &<, &??&, his fa#il) 0ent to Ta$a)ta) "it)and sta)ed ove!ni$ht at Taal Vista +od$e. *!ound &(1(( in the #o!nin$ of *p!il &7, &??&, the)

0ent ho#e to "alauan, +a$una. *fte! !eachin$ his abode in "alauan a!ound &=1(( noon,#a)o! Sanche lea!ned of the a#bush-sla)in$s of the Pealosas. 2e i##ediatel) o!de!ed aninvesti$ation of the case. 2e denied an) involve#ent in the /illin$ of the victi#s. =:

The t!ial cou!t !uled that the p!osecutions evidence clea!l) and convincin$l) established thepa!ticipation of the fou! @7B accused in /illin$ the Pealosas. Malabanan $ave a since!e, f!an/and t!ust0o!th) account of the ci!cu#stances su!!oundin$ the /illin$. Fu!the!#o!e, the t!ialcou!t e;plained the disc!epancies bet0een Malabanans !ecollection of ho0 the victi#s 0e!eshot and D!. 3scuetas conclusion on 0hat t!anspi!ed based on the in9u!ies sustained b) thevicti#s.The t!ial cou!t stated that the docto!s conc lusion 0as based on the assu#ption that thevicti#s 0e!e in a sittin$ position inside the 9eep. 2o0eve!, it 0as possible that afte! the fi!stbu!st of $unfi!e, the victi#s 0e!e hit and fell. Du!in$ the second bu!st of $unfi!e, the victi#s

0e!e l)in$ do0n o! in a c!ouchin$ position. Thus, the ent!)-e;it points of the bullets did notenti!el) co!!espond to Malabanans account, 0hich 0as based on the assu#ption that thevicti#s did not chan$e thei! positions du!in$ the shootin$ incident.The t!ial cou!t !uled that the accused conspi!ed in co##ittin$ the c!i#e. T!eache!) 0asp!esent, the!eb) ualif)in$ the c!i#e to #u!de!. It app!eciated the a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stancesof evident p!e#editation, ni$htti#e and use of #oto! vehicle.The t!ial cou!t conside!ed the c!i#e as a co#ple; c!i#e of double #u!de! punishable unde!*!ticle 78 of the Revised Penal "ode. 2o0eve!, at the ti#e of the co##ission of the offenseon *p!il &<, &??&, the!e 0as a constitutional p!osc!iption on the i#position of the deathpenalt). Thus, each of the accused 0as sentenced to reclusion perpetua, and to pa) da#a$esto the hei!s of the victi#s, as ea!lie! uoted.*ccused #a)o! *ntonio +. Sanche and *!te#io *ve!ion 9ointl) appealed f!o# the decision to

the Sup!e#e "ou!t.

In thei! sole assi$n#ent of e!!o!, accused #a)o! Sanche and *ve!ion contended that the t!ialcou!t failed to !eco$nie the #ate!ial inconsistencies bet0een Malabanans testi#on) and theph)sical and scientific evidence p!esented befo!e it. The) pointed out the follo0in$inconsistencies, to 0it1

&. Malabanan testified that aB 0hen the) fi!ed at the victi#s, the) 0e!e about thesa#e elevationG=' bB the) used t0o @=B $uns in /illin$ the victi#sG=> cB the) 0e!e atthe left side of the victi#s 0hen the shootin$ incident occu!!ed.=8 2o0eve!, D!.3scuetas autops) !epo!t !evealed that1 &B the assailants 0e!e at a lo0e! elevationG

=B th!ee @, &??<, bea!s t0o @=B si$natu!es of the affiant Malabanan and datedSepte#be! &:, &??<. 2o0eve!, du!in$ c!oss-e;a#ination, Malabanan stated that hee;ecuted and si$ned the affidavit on one occasion onl), *u$ust &:, &??<.<. *u!elio "enteno testified in the case of 4o#e-Sa!#enta sla)in$s thatMalabanan onl) !esponded to the !epo!t that Pealosa had been /illed. 2e ave!!edthat cont!a!) to Malabanans !epo!t, the latte! 0as not at the c!i#e scene.

The t0o accused fu!the! ave!!ed that the #ate!ial incons istencies bet0een Malabananstesti#on) and the autops) and labo!ato!) findin$s and conclusions se!iousl) affect hisc!edibilit). The) st!essed that Malabanan has sufficient #otive to i#plicate #a)o! Sancheand "o!colon in the Pealosa /illin$s due to th!eats of #a)o! Sanche. The) alle$ed thatalthou$h $ene!all) alibi is conside!ed a 0ea/ defense, the!e a!e ti#es 0hen it is 0o!th) ofc!edence, such as in this case.The Solicito! 4ene!al suppo!ts the t!ial cou!ts !ulin$ that the p!osecution adeuatel)established the $uilt of the accused be)ond !easonable doubt. Malabanan positivel) identifiedthe accused as the pe!pet!ato!s. 2e testified in a cate$o!ical, st!ai$htfo!0a!d, spontaneousand f!an/ #anne!. The defense failed to satisfacto!il) sho0 that Malabanan had an ill #otiveto testif) falsel) a$ainst the accused. The alle$ed th!eat to Malabanans life 0as notadeuatel) established o! sufficient fo! hi# to falsel) i#plicate the accused. *s !e$a!ds thesupposed inconsistencies bet0een Malabanans account of the events vis á vis the autops)and ballistic !epo!ts, the Solicito! 4ene!al pointed out that both vehicles 0e!e !unnin$ at theti#e of the a#bush. It 0as a #atte! of instinct fo! the victi#s to shift positions as the) 0e!efi!ed upon. Thus, cont!a!) to D!. 3scuetas conclusion, it 0as not i#possible that the victi#s

0e!e hit f!o# the !i$ht side of thei! bodies, even if assailants 0e!e ph)sicall) situated at thevicti#s left side. 2ence, the appa!ent inconsistencies do not affect 0itness Malabanansc!edibilit).*fte! a ca!eful sc!utin) of the evidence on !eco!d, 0e a$!ee 0ith the t!ial cou!t that thep!osecution adeuatel) established accuseds $uilt be)ond !easonable doubt.Malabanan $ave a detailed account of the plannin$, p!epa!ation and the shootin$ incident. 2ena!!ated the pa!ticipation of each of the accused, to 0it1 @&B the o!de! $iven b) #a)o! Sancheto e;ecute PealosaG @=B *ve!ions acuisition of a vehicle and t0o-0a) !adios to be used fo!the ope!ation and in d!ivin$ the ca!G @<B Pe!adillas act of !ela)in$ the info!#ation that NelsonPealosas 9eep 0as leavin$ the Velecina co#poundG 7B the 0a) the) pu!sued the victi#sG and:B "o!colon and Pe!adillas act of fi!in$ and /illin$ the Pealosas.The accused concent!ated #ainl) on the see#in$ cont!adiction bet0een the na!!ation of

Malabanan on ho0 the victi#s 0e!e shot, and the ph)sicians !epo!t on the location of in9u!ies

sustained b) the#. 2o0eve!, as the Solicito! 4ene!al stated, both vehicles 0e!e !unnin$ atthe ti#e of the shootout. It 0as unli/el) that the victi#s d!ove in a st!ai$ht line pa!allel to thatof the assailants. In fact, Malabanan testified that 0hile bein$ fi!ed at, Pealosas 9eepne) 0as!unnin$ in i$a$ #anne!.=? It 0as a natu!al !eaction fo! Pealosa to evade the assailants as#uch as possible and to t!) to dod$e the bullets. Fu!the!#o!e, the assailants fi!ed the $uns inauto#atic fi!in$ #ode. Thus, the bullets bu!st out in diffe!ent di!ections si#ultaneousl). 2ence,it 0as not i#possible fo! the victi#s to be hit in diffe!ent pa!ts of the bod).This "ou!t has held ti#e and a$ain that an) #ino! lapses in the testi#on) of a 0itness tend

to butt!ess, !athe! than 0ea/en, his o! he! c!edibilit), since the) sho0 that he o! she 0asneithe! coached no! 0e!e his o! he! ans0e!s cont!ived. itnesses a!e not e;pected to!e#e#be! eve!) sin$le detail of an incident 0ith pe!fect o! total !ecall. <(

Fu!the!#o!e, the fact that the t!ial cou!t !elied on the testi#on) of a sin$le 0itness does noteffect the ve!dict of conviction. "!i#inals a!e convicted, not on the nu#be! of 0itnessesa$ainst the#, but on the c!edibilit) of the testi#on) of even one 0itness, 0ho is able toconvince the cou!t of the $uilt of the accused be)ond a shado0 of doubt. <& hat 0itness canbe #o!e c!edible than so#eone 0ho 0as in the plannin$, p!epa!ation and e;ecution of thec!i#e.The inconsistenc) bet0een the affidavit and testi#on) of Malabanan is too #ino! to affect hisc!edibilit). *t an) !ate, 0e have held that affidavits a!e $ene!all) subo!dinate in i#po!tance toopen cou!t decla!ations. *ffidavits a!e not co#plete !ep!oductions of 0hat the decla!ant has in#ind because the) a!e $ene!all) p!epa!ed b) the ad#iniste!in$ office! and the affiant si#pl)si$ns the# afte! the sa#e have been !ead to hi#. <=

*ccused-appellants !aised that Malabanans dela) in !epo!tin$ the involve#ent of the accusedin the c!i#e casts doubt on his c!edibilit). 2o0eve!, 9u!isp!udence teaches us that dela) in!evealin$ the identit) of the pe!pet!ato!s of a c!i#e does not necessa!il) i#pai! the c!edibilit)of a 0itness, especiall) 0he!e such 0itness $ives a sufficient e;planation fo! the dela).<< It

0as natu!al fo! Malabanan to /eep silent du!in$ that ti#e fo!, aside f!o# bein$ a co-conspi!ato!, #a)o! Sanche 0as a po0e!ful opponent."onseuentl), 0e find that accused-appellants defenses of alibi and denial a!e be!eft of #e!it.The defenses of alibi and denial a!e 0o!thless in the face of positive testi#on) of a 0itnesssho0in$ the involve#ent of each of the accused.2o0eve!, 0e disa$!ee 0ith the t!ial cou!t that the accused co##itted a sin$le co#ple; c!i#eof double #u!de!. *!ticle 78 of the Revised Penal "ode p!ovides that 0hen a sin$le actconstitutes t0o o! #o!e $!ave o! less $!ave felonies, o! 0hen an offense is a necessa!)#eans of co##ittin$ the othe!, the penalt) fo! the #o!e se!ious c!i#e in its #a;i#u# pe!iodshall be i#posed.The uestion is 0hethe! the act of shootin$ the victi#s usin$ a!#alites in auto#atic fi!in$#ode constitutes a sin$le act and, thus, the felonies !esultin$ the!ef!o# a!e conside!ed asco#ple; c!i#es. e !ule in the ne$ative.In People v . Vargas, Jr ., 0e !uled that seve!al shots f!o# a Tho#pson sub-#achine, in vie0of its special #echanis# causin$ seve!al deaths, althou$h caused b) a sin$le act of p!essin$the t!i$$e!, a!e conside!ed seve!al acts. *lthou$h each bu!st of shots 0as caused b) onesin$le act of p!essin$ the t!i$$e! of the sub-#achine$un, in vie0 of its special #echanis# thepe!son fi!in$ it has onl) to /eep p!essin$ the t!i$$e! of the sub-#achine$un, 0ith his fin$e!and it 0ould fi!e continuall). 2ence, it is not the act of p!essin$ the t!i$$e! 0hich should be

conside!ed as p!oducin$ the seve!al felonies, but the nu#be! of bullets 0hich actuall)

p!oduced the#.<7 In the instant case, Malabanan testified that he hea!d th!ee bu!sts of$unfi!e f!o# the t0o a!#alites used b) accused "o!colon and Pe!adillas. Thus, the accuseda!e c!i#inall) liable fo! as #an) offenses !esultin$ f!o# p!essin$ the t!i$$e! of the a!#alites.The!efo!e, accused a!e liable fo! t0o counts of #u!de! co##itted a$ainst the victi#s, Nelsonand Ric/son Pealosa, instead o f the co#ple; c!i#e of double #u!de!.3videntl), t!eache!) 0as p!esent in the e;ecution of the c!i#es. The attac/ a$ainst the victi#s,

0ho 0e!e una!#ed, 0as sudden, catchin$ the# una0a!e and $ivin$ the# no oppo!tunit) todefend the#selves.<: The p!esence of t!eache!) ualifies the c!i#es to #u!de!.

"onspi!ac) is li/e0ise adeuatel) established. Not0ithstandin$ the fact that #a)o! Sanche 0as not at the c!i#e scene, 0e a!e convinced that he 0as not onl) a co-conspi!ato!, he 0asthe #aste!#ind of the a#bush sla)in$s o! the p!incipal b) induce#ent.<' Malabanan testifiedthat Nelson Pealosa 0as /illed upon o!de! of #a)o! Sanche. *fte! the co##ission of thec!i#e, the assailants !epo!ted to #a)o! Sanche. In conspi!ac), it is not necessa!) to sho0that all the conspi!ato!s actuall) hit and /illed the victi#. hat is i#po!tant is that thepa!ticipants pe!fo!#ed specific acts 0ith such closeness and coo!dination as un#ista/abl) toindicate a co##on pu!pose o! desi$n in b!in$in$ about the death of the victi#. "onspi!ac)!ende!s appellants liable as co-p!incipals !e$a!dless of the e;tent and cha!acte! of thei!pa!ticipation because in conte#plation of la0, the act of one conspi!ato! is the act of all. <>

The t!ial cou!t p!ope!l) app!eciated the e;istence of evident p!e#editation. The p!osecutionclea!l) sho0ed the p!esence of the follo0in$ !euisites1 aB the ti#e 0hen the accuseddete!#ined to co##it the c!i#eG bB an act #anifestl) indicatin$ that the accused had clun$ tothei! dete!#inationG and cB sufficient lapse of ti#e bet0een such dete!#ination and e;ecutionto allo0 the# to !eflect upon the conseuences of thei! acts.<8 *s clea!l) as &(1(( in the#o!nin$, the accused had conspi!ed to /ill Nelson Pealosa. The) even loo/ed fo! t0o-0a)!adios and a vehicle to be used fo! the ope!ation. Indeed, sufficient ti#e had lapsed to allo0the accused to !eflect upon the conseuences of thei! actions.*ccused specificall) used a #oto! vehicle to e;ecute the c!i#e. Thus, the a$$!avatin$ci!cu#stance of use of a #oto! vehicle #ust be app!eciated.2o0eve!, 0e cannot app!eciate the $ene!ic a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stance of ni$htti#eG 0hile thec!i#e 0as co##itted at ni$ht, the p!osecution failed to sho0 that the #alefacto!s specificall)sou$ht this ci!cu#stance to facilitate the c!i#inal desi$n. <? The fact that the c!i#e happened at>1(( in the evenin$ does not indicate that accused #ade use of the da!/ness to conceal thec!i#e and thei! identities.*t the ti#e of the co##ission of the c!i#e on *p!il &<, &??&, the penalt) fo! #u!de! unde!*!ticle =78 of the Revised Penal "ode 0as reclusion temporal in its #a;i#u# pe!iod to death."onside!in$ the p!esence of a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stances, the accused should be sentenced tothe death penalt) fo! each #u!de!. 2o0eve!, in vie0 of the constitutional p!osc!iption of thedeath penalt) at that ti#e, each of the accused is sentenced to t0o @=B penalties of reclusion perpetua.Re$a!din$ the civil liabilit) of the accused, the t!ial cou!t o!de!ed the accused to pa) the hei!sof Nelson and Ric/son Pealosa each, the su# of P&((,(((.((, P:(,(((.(( as actualda#a$es, P:(,(((.(( as #o!al da#a$es, and P<(,(((.(( as e;e#pla!) da#a$es, and topa) the costs.The P:(,(((.(( a0a!d as actual da#a$es should be dee#ed as inde#nit) fo! the unti#el)de#ise of the victi#s. e have held that onl) e;penses suppo!ted b) !eceipts and 0hich

appea! to have been actuall) e;pended in connection 0ith the death of the victi#s #a) beallo0ed.7( No p!oof 0as p!esented to sustain the a0a!d of actual da#a$es.Si#ila!l), 0e can not a0a!d da#a$es fo! loss of ea!nin$ capacit). *ll that 0as p!esented inevidence 0as the testi#on) of the co##on la0 0ife, *delina Pealosa, that Nelson ea!nedP&,(((,(((.(( a )ea!. e have held that fo! lost inco#e due to death, the!e #ust beunbiased p!oof of the deceaseds ave!a$e inco#e. Self-se!vin$, hence un!eliable state#ent,is not enou$h.7&

"onside!in$ the attendance of a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stances, 0e sustain the a0a!d of e;e#pla!)

da#a$es of P<(,(((.((, pe! victi#, in acco!dance 0ith *!ticle ==<( of the "ivil "ode.

7=

*s !e$a!ds #o!al da#a$es, 0e affi!# the P:(,(((.(( a0a!ded to the hei!s of Ric/sonPealosa.7< 2is #othe!, *delina Pealosa, testified to the suffe!in$ caused b) his death. 77 ealso sustain the a0a!d of #o!al da#a$es to the hei!s of Nelson Pealosa. 2is co##on la0

0ife testified to the #ental an$uish suffe!ed b) the fa#il) due to Nelsons death.7: 5nde!*!ticle ==(' of the "ivil "ode, the spouse, le$iti#ate and ille$iti#ate descendancts andascendants of the deceased #a) de#and #o!al da#a$es fo! #ental an$uish b) !eason o f thedeath of the deceased. 2o0eve!, the co##on la0 0ife is not entitled to sha!e in the a0a!d of#o!al da#a$es.1âwphi1.nêt 23R3FOR3, the "ou!t MODIFI3S the decision of the Re$ional T!ial "ou!t, %!anch &'(,Pasi$ "it), and finds accused-appellants *ntonio +. Sanche and *!te#io *ve!ion $uilt)be)ond !easonable doubt of t0o @=B counts of #u!de!, and sentences each of the# to suffe!t0o @=B penalties of reclusion perpetua, and each to pa) 9ointl) and seve!all) the !espectivehei!s of victi#s Nelson and Ric/son Pealosa, as follo0s1

&B Inde#nit) fo! death - P:(,(((.((

=B Mo!al da#a$es - :(,(((.((

>8?-2, p!esided ove! b) Cud$e Ma!iano M. 5#ali, !ende!ed onDece#be! =>, &??', $ollo, pp. <>-''.= O!i$inal Reco!d, pp. 788-:&>.< O!i$inal Reco!d, p. &.7 P!esided ove! b) Cud$e F!ancisco M. 4ue!e!!o. On Ma!ch =8, &??7, the p!osecution filed a!euest fo! chan$e of venue 0ith the Sup!e#e "ou!t. On Ma) &', &??7, accused filed 0ith the3;ecutive Cud$e, "ala#ba, +a$una, a petition fo! !e-!affle, in vie0 of the i#pendin$ !eti!e#ent

of Cud$e 4ue!!e!o. The case 0as !affled to the sala of Cud$e No!be!to 6. 4e!alde, %!anch<', "ala#ba, +a$una. On Feb!ua!) =8, &??:, the Sup!e#e "ou!t $!anted the !euest fo!

chan$e of venue and t!ansfe!!ed the case to Re$ional T!ial "ou!t, %!anch >(, Pasi$ "it),p!esided ove! b) Cud$e 2a!!iet O. De#et!iou. On Ma!ch &7, &??:, Cud$e De#et!iouvolunta!il) inhibited he!self f!o# t!)in$ the case. The case eventuall) 0as !affled to %!anch&'(, Pasi$ "it), p!esided ove! b) Cud$e Ma!iano M. 5#ali.: O!i$inal Reco!d, p. &78.' *ntonio Sanche and +uis "o!colon 0e!e placed unde! the custod) of PNP "ustodial 4!oup,"a#p "!a#e, Jueon "it)G *!te#io *ve!ion 0as placed unde! the custod) of the P!ovinciala!den, P!ovincial Cail, Sta. "!u, +a$unaG Din$ Pe!adillas 0as placed unde! the custod) ofPAS!. Supt. Panfilo M. +acson, P*"" Tas/ Fo!ce, 2aba$at 2eadua!te!s, "a#p "!a#e,Jueon "it). %bid ., pp. &::, &:', &'=.> %bid ., pp. &?'-&??.8 O!i$inal Reco!d, pp. :<(-:<&.? TSN, Cune =(, &??:, pp. 8-&=, <?-7&, '=, ':.&( %bid ., pp. &<-&7, 7&-7'.&& %bid ., pp. &>-=(, =?-<:.&= %bid ., pp. =&-=<.&< 3;hibit **.&7 3;hibit %, p. : and 3;hibit 2, pp. &<-&7.&: TSN, Ma!ch &8, &??', pp. 7-?:.&' 3;hibit J.&> TSN, Ma) =<, &??:, pp. :-&7(.&8 TSN, *u$ust &8, &??:, p. =&.&? TSN, *u$ust &8, &??:, pp. &>-=(.=( TSN, Octobe! =7, &??:, pp. &&-'(.=& TSN, Octobe! =>, &??:, pp. 7-:&.== TSN, Nove#be! &7, &??:, pp. :-=>.=< %bid ., pp. =8-:7.=7 TSN, Septe#be! &>, &??', pp. 7-:(.=: TSN, Ma!ch &8, &??&, pp. ?8-&&>.=' TSN, Cune =(, &??:, pp. =&, ><.=> %bid ., pp. >&, >'.=8 %bid ., 3;hibit 5, pp. 78-:(.=? TSN, Cune =(, &??:, p. ><.<( People v. 2en!) %enito, 4.R. No. &=8(>=, Feb!ua!) &?, &???.<& %autista v. "ou!t of *ppeals, =88 S"R* &>&, &>8 @&??8B.<= People v. +usa, =88 S"R* =?', <(=-<(< @&??8B.<< People v. Pallo!ca, =88 S"R* &:&, &'7-&': @&??8B.<7 &87 S"R* =:7, ='< @&??(B, citing +.%. Re)es, The Revised Penal "ode, pp. ::?-:'(, %oo/I.<: People v. Silve!iano %otona, 4.R. No. &&:'?<, Ma!ch &>, &???.<' C&. People v. Taba$, ='8 S"R* &&: @&??>B.<> People v. "a!a, =8< S"R* ?', &(> @&??>B.<8 People v. Ro#ulo 4utie!!e, C!., 4.R. No. &&'=8&, Feb!ua!) 8, &???.<? People v. Oliano, =8> S"R* &:8, &>8 @&??8B.7( People v. "esa! Sanche, 4.R. No. &&87=<, Cune &', &???.7& People v. Ma!io Villanueva, 4.R. No. &==>7', Canua!) =?, &???.

7= People vs. *lfonso %adon, 4.R. No. &='&7<, Cune &(, &???.7< People vs. Ma!iano Ve!de, 4.R. No. &&?(>>, Feb!ua!) &(, &???.77 TSN, *u$ust &8, &??:, p. =&.7: %bid .

ManilaT2IRD DIVISION

G.R. No. L'()))6 !&*&+&- 13, 19))

CONSUELO E. MALLARI, petitione!,vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES #$% COURT OF APPEALS, !espondents.$odrigo '. (allari &or petitioner. FERNAN, C.J.:

Section ==, *!ticle IV of the &?>< "onstitution, !eite!ated as Section =&, *!ticle III in the &?8>"onstitution, p!ovides that @nBo pe!son shall be t0ice put in 9eopa!d) of punish#ent fo! thesa#e offense. This is the constitutional p!ovision !elied upon b) petitione! "onsuelo 3. Malla!iin challen$in$ the decision dated Dece#be! &(, &?>? of the "ou!t of *ppeals in "*-4.R. No.&?87?-"R, entitled People o& the Philippines versus Consuelo (allari , as 0ell as the!esolution of Nove#be! :, &?8& den)in$ he! #otion fo! !econside!ation. Petitione! attains he!

ob9ective.The antecedents a!e as follo0s1Petitione! "onsuelo 3. Malla!i, 0ith th!ee @<B othe!s, 0as accused of the c!i#e of 3stafa th!uFalsification of Public Docu#ent befo!e the then "ou!t of Fi!st Instance of Manila @"!i#inal"ase No. ?8((B. *s the othe! accused 0e!e at la!$e, the case p!oceeded onl) 0ith !espect to"onsuelo Malla!i, 0ho, upon a!!ai$n#ent, pleaded not $uilt). T!ial 0as conductedG afte! 0hich,the cou!t !ende!ed 9ud$#ent findin$ "onsuelo Malla!i $uilt) of the c!i#e cha!$ed andsentencin$ he! to i#p!ison#ent of one @&B )ea! and to inde#nif) the offended pa!t) Re#e$ioTapa0an in the a#ount of P&,:((.(( and to pa) the costs.Petitione!s appeal to the "ou!t of *ppeals, doc/eted as "* 4.R. No. &?87?-"R, !esulted inthe affi!#ance of the t!ial cou!ts decision 0ith a #odification as to the penalt). In lieu of thest!ai$ht penalt) of one @&B )ea!, an indete!#inate sentence of fou! @7B #onths and one @&B da)

as #ini#u#, to t0o @=B )ea!s and fou! @7B #onths, as #a;i#u#, 0as i#posed on petitione!. 1

In he! #otion fo! !econside!ation, petitione! contended that the decision in "*-4.R. No.&?87?-"R placed he! t0ice in 9eopa!d) of bein$ punished fo! the sa#e offense as she hadp!eviousl) been convicted, sentenced and p!obationed fo! the sa#e offense in "*-4.R. No.=(8&>-"R entitled People of the Philippines ve!sus "onsuelo Malla!i.5nconvinced, the appellate cou!t denied the #otion fo! !econside!ation in the assailed!esolution of Nove#be! :, &?8&, to 0it1

The cou!t 0ill no0 !esolve as to 0hethe! the accused #i$ht be placed t0ice in 9eopa!d), the "ou!t sustains the position ta/en b) the Solicito!-4ene!al that the actsof the accused in 4* ".R. No. &?87?-"R a!e diffe!ent and distinct f!o# the actsco##itted in ".*. 4.R. No. =(8&>-"R. "onside!in$ that the) 0e!e sepa!ate acts ofdeceit, the) a!e the!efo!e t0o sepa!ate c!i#es. 2

2ence, the instant petition fo! !evie0.%) the constitutional $ua!antee a$ainst double 9eopa!d), it is unde!stood that 0hen a pe!sonis cha!$ed 0ith an offense and the case is te!#inated eithe! b) acuittal o! conviction o! in an)othe! #anne! 0ithout the consent of the accused, the latte! cannot a$ain be cha!$ed 0ith thesa#e o! Identical offense. This p!inciple is founded upon the la0 of !eason, 9ustice andconscience. 3

To !aise the defense of double 9eopa!d), th!ee @<B !euisites #ust be p!esent1 @&B a fi!st 9eopa!d) #ust have attached p!io! to the secondG @=B the fi!st 9eopa!d) #ust have been validl)te!#inatedG and @<B the second 9eopa!d) #ust be fo! the sa#e offense as that in the fi!st.

ith the p!io! conviction b) a final 9ud$#ent of petitione! fo! the c!i#e of estafa th!ufalsification of public docu#ent in "*-4.R. No. =(8&>-"R, the!e is no uestion that the fi!stand second !euisites above enu#e!ated a!e p!esent in the case at ba!. The p!oble# then lies

0ith the thi!d !euisite. Is the c!i#e cha!$ed in "*-4.R. No. =(8&>-"R the sa#e as in thiscase @"*-4.R. No. &?87?-"RBKe !ule in the affi!#ative.The Info!#ation in "*-4.R. No. =(8&>-"R !eads1

That on o! about Dece#be! &:,&?>( in the "it) of Manila, Philippines, the saidaccused "3+3STINO 2*++*H4O, a Nota!) Public fo! and in the "it) of Manila andaccused "*R+OS S5N4*, DOMIN4O 3SPIN3++I and "ONS53+O M*++*RI, allp!ivate individuals, conspi!in$, and confede!atin$ to$ethe! 0ith othe!s 0hose t!uena#es and 0he!eabouts a!e still un/no0n and #utuall) helpin$ one anothe!, didthen and the!e 0ilfull), unla0full) and feloniousl) def!aud C5+I* S. S*"+O+O th!u

falsification of a public docu#ent in the follo0in$ #anne!, to 0it- the said accusedhavin$ so#eho0 obtained possession of T.".T. No. 7='?7, issued b) the Re$iste! ofDeeds of the P!ovince of "avite, belon$in$ to +eono!a I. %alde!as and dul)!e$iste!ed in the latte!s na#e and b) #eans of false #anifestations and f!audulent!ep!esentations 0hich the) #ade to said Culia S. Saclolo to the effect that said+eono!a I. %alde!as 0as badl) in need of #one) and that she 0as offe!in$ theafo!esaid lot as collate!al fo! a loan of P&,:((.(( then e;ecutin$, fo!$in$ andfalsif)in$ a Deed of Real 3state Mo!t$a$e ac/no0led$ed befo!e accused"3+3STINO 2*++*H4O, Nota!) Public fo! and in the "it) of Manila and ente!ed inthe latte!s nota!ial !e$iste! as Doc. No. <>&?, Pa$e No. >:, %oo/ No. LII, Se!ies of&?>( and the!efo!e a public docu#ent, b) then and the!e si$nin$ andAo! causin$ tobe si$ned the si$natu!e +eono!a I. %alde!as, the!eb) #a/in$ it appea! as it did

appea! in said docu#ent, that said +eono!a I. %alde!as had pa!ticipated in the

e;ecution of this Deed of Real 3state Mo!t$a$e b) si$nin$ he! na#e the!eon 0henin t!uth and in fact as the said accused o! an) of the# to si$n he! na#e the!eon andb) #eans of othe! deceits of si#ila! i#po!t, induced and succeeded in inducin$ saidCulia Saclolo to $ive and delive! as in fact the latte! $ave and delive!ed to saidaccused the said a#ount of P&,:((.(( said accused 0ell /no0in$ that thei!#anifestations 0e!e false and unt!ue and 0e!e #ade solel) fo! the pu!pose ofobtainin$ as in fact the) did obtain the said a#ount of P&,:((.(( 0hich, one @sicB inthei! possession, the) did then and the!e, 0ilfull), unla0full) and feloniousl),#isapp!op!iate, #isappl) and conve!t to thei! o0n pe!sonal use and benefit to theda#a$e and p!e9udice of said Culia S. Saclolo in said a#ount of P&,:((.((,Philippine "u!!enc). (

The Info!#ation in "*-4.R. No. &?87?-"R, on the othe! hand, !eads1That on o! about the &:th da) of Dece#be!, &?>( in the "it) of Manila, Philippines,the accused "elestino 2alla$o, a Nota!) Public fo! and in the "it) of Manila, andaccused "a!los Sun$a, Do#in$o 3spineli and "onsuelo Malla!i, all p!ivateindividuals, conspi!in$ and confede!atin$ to$ethe! 0ith othe!s 0hose t!ue na#esand 0he!eabouts a!e still un/no0n and #utuall) helpin$ one anothe!, did then andthe!e, 0ilfull), unla0full) and feloniousl) def!aud Re#e$io 4. Tapa0an th!ufalsification of a public docu#ent, in the follo0in$ #anne!, to 0it1 the accused havin$so#eho0 obtained possession of T!ansfe! "e!tificate of Title No. 7='?: issued b)the Re$iste! of Deeds of the P!ovince of "avite, belon$in$ to +eono!a &. %alde!asand dul) !e$iste!ed in the latte!s na#e, and b) #eans of false #anifestations andf!audulent !ep!esentations 0hich the) #ade to said Re#i$io 4. Tapa0an to theeffect that said +eono!a &. %alde!as 0as badl) in need of #one) and that she 0asoffe!in$ the afo!esaid lot as collate!al fo! a loan of P&,:((.((, then e;ecutin$,fo!$in$ and falsif)in$ a Deed of Real 3state Mo!t$a$e ac/no0led$ed befo!eaccused "elestino 2alla$o, Nota!) Public fo! and in the "it) of Manila and ente!edin the latte!s Nota!ial Re$iste! as Doc. No. <>&8G Pa$e No. >:, %oo/ No. LII, Se!iesof &?>(, and the!efo!e a public docu#ent, b) then and the!e si$nin$ andAo! causin$to be si$ned the si$natu!e +eono!a I. %alde!as, ove! the t)pe0!itten na#e+3ONOR* I. %*+D3R*S the!eb) #a/in$ it appea!, as it did appea! in saiddocu#ent, that said +eono!a I. %alde!as had pa!ticipated in the e;ecution of saidDeed of Real 3state Mo!t$a$e b) si$nin$ he! na#e the!eon neithe! had she

autho!ied said accused o! an)one of the# to si$n he! na#e the!eon, and b)#eans of othe! deceits of si#ila! i#po!t, induced and succeeded in inducin$ saidRe#e$io %. Tapa0an to $ive and delive! as in fact the latte! $ave and delive!ed tosaid accused, the a#ount of P&,:((.(( ... 6

In "*-4.R. No. =(8&>, the "ou!t of *ppeals #ade the follo0in$ obse!vations1... Testif)in$ fo! the p!osecution, 0itness Re#e$io Tapa0an e;plained ho0 CuliaSaclolo beca#e the #o!t$a$ee of the land in uestion b) decla!in$ that the accused"onsuelo 3. Malla!i he!ein afte! !efe!!ed to as the appellant, 0ho# he had /no0nsince childhood ca#e to his house in Rosa!io, "avite on Dece#be! &(, &?>(,b!in$in$ t0o @=B land titles both in the na#e of +eono!a %alde!as and told hi# thatshe 0anted to #o!t$a$e the titles fo! P&,:((.(( each because she and he! cousin+eono!a %alde!as 0e!e in $!eat need of #one) to pa) so#e ta;es 0ith the %u!eau

of "usto#s 0he!e the) have so#e $oods i#pounded. Not havin$ enou$h #one)

Tapa0an !efused. The appellant, ho0eve!, !etu!ned on Dece#be! &:, &?>( 0ith t0otitles and pleaded ane0 0ith Re#e$io Tapa0an and his 0ife fo! assistance becauseof he! and %alde!as $!eat need of #one). Tapa0an $ave in but because he had onl)P&,:((.(( 0hile the accused needed P<,(((.(( he too/ he! to his #othe!-in-la0,Culia Saclolo and 0as able to secu!e the a#ount of P&,:((.((. On the info!#ation$iven b) "onsuelo Malla!i that the deed of #o!t$a$e 0ould be p!epa!ed in the officeof *tt). "elestino 2alla$o at M.2. del Pila!, Manila 0he!e the #o!t$a$o! +eono!a%alde!as 0ould sho0 up, Tapa0an p!oceeded to the place indicated. I##ediatel)upon Tapa0ans a!!ival, *tt). 2alla$o phoned so#eone and 0ithin =( #inutes thepe!son a!!ived 0ho# "onsuelo Malla!i and *tt). 2alla$o int!oduced to Re#e$ioTapa0an as +eono!a %alde!as. The!eafte!, the #o!t$a$e deeds 0he!e p!epa!ed infavo! of Culia Saclolo and the othe! in favo! of Re#e$io Tapa0an fo! P&,:((.((each. The #o!t$a$e loan of P<,(((.(( 0as acco!din$l) delive!ed to the pe!son 0hoposed as +eono!a %alde!as. "onsuelo Malla!i and Do#in$o 3spinelli, assi$ned as

0itnesses to the said docu#ents. +ate!, du!in$ the p!eli#ina!) investi$ation at theFiscals Office, Tapa0an lea!ned that he 0as tolled @sicB because the pe!son 0hoposed as +eono!a %alde!as 0as a #an b) the na#e of "a!los Sun$a, 0ho, at theti#e the #o!t$a$e 0as constituted, 0as d!essed in a 0o#ans atti!e. Neithe!Re#e$io Tapa0an no! Culia Saclolo 0e!e able to !ecove! a po!tion of the #o!t$a$eloan. 7

Si#ila!l), the findin$s of facts in "*-4.R. No. &?87? !an thus1R3M34IO T*P**N stated that so#eti#e on Dece#be! &(, &?>(, his to0n#ate"onsuelo 3. Malla!i sa0 hi# at his house, 0hen she be$$ed hi# and his 0ife tolend he! cousin +eono!a %alde!as so#e a#ount to pa) ta;es and custo#s duties fo!i#po!ted f!uits i#pounded in the %u!eau of "usto#s offe!in$ as a collate!al t0o @=B"e!tificates of Title, t0o deeds of sale, and fou! @7B ta; decla!ations all in the na#eof +eono!a %alde!as. "onsuelo !etu!ned on Dece#be! &:, and !eite!ated he!!euest. Since he had onl) P&,:((.(( at that ti#e he convinced his #othe!-in-la0Culia Saclolo, to shell out additional a#ount of P&,:((.((. "onsuelo and he thenp!oceeded to the Office of *tt). "elestino 2alla$o in 3!#ita, Manila fo! thep!epa!ation of the docu#ents. This atto!ne) called up +eono!a %alde!as 0ho a!!ivedsho!tl) acco#panied b) th!ee @<B pe!sons one of 0ho# is the helpe! of *tt).2alla$o, Do#in$o 3spinelli. This +eono!a %alde!as 0as int!oduced to hi# b) *tt).

2alla$o and "onsuelo 0ho clai#ed he! to be a cousin 0ho# I should help. henthe t0o @=B deeds p!epa!ed b) *tt). 2alla$o one fo! hi# and the othe! fo! CuliaSaclolo 0e!e !ead), the) 0e!e si$ned b) hi#, Malla!i, 3spinelli, %alde!as and theatto!ne), afte! 0hich he delive!ed the #one) to the pe!son int!oduced as +eono!a%alde!as. )

* co#pa!ison of the Info!#ations filed in the t0o cases unde! conside!ation as 0ell as thefindin$s of facts of the appellate cou!t tells us that the) !efe! to the sa#e se!ies of acts. Thesese!ies of acts a#ount to 0hat is /no0n in la0 as a continued, continuous o! continuin$offense.* continued c!i#e is a sin$le c!i#e consistin$ of a se!ies of acts but all a!isin$ f!o# onec!i#inal !esolution. It is a continuous, unla0ful act o! se!ies of acts set on foot b) a sin$lei#pulse and ope!ated b) an uninte!#ittent fo!ce, ho0eve! lon$ a ti#e it #a) occup). *lthou$h

the!e a!e se!ies of acts, the!e is onl) one c!i#e co##itted. 2ence, onl) one penalt) shall bei#posed.The c!i#e of estafa th!u falsification of public docu#ent co##itted b) "onsuelo Malla!i,althou$h consu##ated th!ou$h a se!ies of acts, 0as set on foot b) the sin$le intent o!i#pulse to def!aud Re#e$io Tapa0an of a total a#ount of P<,(((.((. *nd cont!a!) to theappellate cou!ts obse!vation, the!e 0as onl) one deceit p!acticed b) petitione! on the t0o @=Bvicti#s, i.e. that bein$ in need of #one), +eono!a %alde!as 0as 0illin$ to #o!t$a$e t0o @=Blots as secu!it) fo! a loan of P<,(((.((. It 0as, in fact, b) #e!e pla) of fate that the secondvicti#, Culia Saclolo, should be d!a$$ed into the s0indle b) !eason of Tapa0an havin$ onl)P&,:((.(( at that ti#e. That the!e 0e!e t0o @=B victi#s, ho0eve!, did not acco!din$l) conve!tthe c!i#e into t0o sepa!ate offenses, as the dete!#inative facto! is the unit) o! #ultiplicit) ofthe c!i#inal intent o! of the t!ansactions fo! the fact should not be lost si$ht of that it is thein9u!) to the public 0hich a c!i#inal action see/s to !ed!ess, and b) such !ed!ess to p!event its!epetition, and not the in9u!) to individuals. 9

The sin$ula!it) of the offense co##itted b) petitione! is fu!the! de#onst!ated b) the fact thatthe falsification of the t0o @=B public docu#ents as a #eans of co##ittin$ estafa 0e!epe!fo!#ed on the sa#e date, in the sa#e place, at the sa#e ti#e and on the sa#e occasion.This "ou!t has held in the case of People v. de )eon, 1/ that the act of ta/in$ t0o o! #o!e!ooste!s in the sa#e place and on the sa#e occasion is dictated b) onl) one c!i#inal desi$nand the!efo!e, the!e is onl) one c!i#e of theft even if the !ooste!s a!e o0ned b) diffe!entpe!sons.It has also been !uled that 0hen t0o info!#ations !efe! to the sa#e t!ansaction, the secondcha!$e cannot p!ospe! because the accused 0ill the!eb) be placed in 9eopa!d) fo! the secondti#e fo! the sa#e offense. 11

Petitione!, havin$ al!ead) been convicted of the co#ple; c!i#e of estafa th!u falsification ofpublic docu#ent in "*-4.R. No. =(8&>-"R, it stands to !eason that she can no lon$e! be heldliable fo! the sa#e c!i#e in this case. The !ule a$ainst double 9eopa!d) p!otects the accusednot a$ainst the pe!il of second punish#ent but a$ainst bein$ t!ied fo! the sa#e offense. 12 ithout the safe$ua!d this !ule establishes in favo! of the accused, his fo!tune, safet) andpeace of #ind 0ould be enti!el) at the #e!c) of the co#plainin$ 0itness 0ho #i$ht !epeat hisaccusation as often as it is dis#issed b) the cou!t and 0heneve! he #i$ht see fit, sub9ect tono othe! li#itation o! !est!iction than his 0ill and pleasu!e. 13 The accused 0ould neve! be f!eef!o# the c!uel and constant #enace of a neve! endin$ cha!$e, 0hich the #alice of a

co#plainin$ 0itness #i$ht hold indefinitel) suspended ove! his head. 1

*'(+ %# P-*%-$ P$+ '+D'( D')%C+. No #an is punished t0ice fo! the sa#e fault o!offense.23R3FOR3, the instant petition is he!eb) 4R*NT3D. The 9ud$#ent of conviction in ".*.4.R. No. &?87?-"R is set aside on the $!ound of double 9eopa!d). No costs.SO ORD3R3D./utierre0, Jr., eliciano, idin and Cortes, JJ., concur. Foot$ot&s& P. =', Rollo1 *ssociate Custice Co!$e R. "ouia, ponenteG *ssociate Custices Nesto! %.*la#pa) and Isid!o ". %o!!o#eo, concu!!in$.= Pp. =8 &&(-&&& Rollo.

< Melo v. People, 8: Phil. >''.

7 People v. %oca!, &<8 S"R* &''.: P. '&, Rollo.' Pp. =-<, O!i$inal Reco!ds.> Decision in "*-4.R. No. =(8&>-"R, pp. >'->>, RolloG *ssociate Custice Ra#on 4. 4aviola,C!., ponenteG *ssociate Custices 2u$o 3. 4utie!!e, C!. and *#b!osio M. 4e!alde, concu!!in$.8 P. ==, Rollo.? 5.S. v. 4ustilo, &? Phil. =(8.&( 7? Phil. 7<>, !eite!ated in People v. Ca!anilla, :: S"R* :'<.&& People v. Sales, 4.R. No. +-8?=:, Ma) =&,&?:'.&= People v. 6la$an, :8 Phil. 8:&.&< Ma!tin, F!eedo# "onstitution of the Philippines, lst ed., p. <&'.&7 Culia V. Sotto, = Phil. =7>.

EN 0ANC

G.R. Nos. L'6/2('26. u4 1), 19(6.5

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff ' Appellee,s.AMA!O . HERNAN!EZ, ET AL., Defendants' Appellants.

R E S O L U T I O NCONCEPCION, J.:

This !efe!s to the petition fo! bail filed b) De&endant 2ppellant *#ado 2e!nande on Cune =',&?:7, and !ene0ed on Dece#be! ==, &?::. * si#ila! petition, filed on Dece#be! =8, &?:<,

had been denied b) a !esolution of this cou!t dated Feb!ua!) =, &?:7. *lthou$h not stated insaid !esolution, the sa#e 0as due #ainl) to these ci!cu#stances1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!) The p!osecution #aintains that 2e!nande is cha!$ed 0ith, and has been convicted of,!ebellion co#ple;ed 0ith #u!de!s, a!sons and !obbe!ies, fo! 0hich the capital punish#ent, itis clai#ed, #a) be i#posed, althou$h the lo0e! cou!t sentenced hi# #e!el) to lifei#p!ison#ent. 5pon the othe! hand, the defense contends, a#on$ othe! thin$s, that !ebellioncannot be co#ple;ed 0ith #u!de!, a!son, o! !obbe!). Inas#uch as the issue thus !aised hadnot been p!eviousl) settled sua!el), and this cou!t 0as then unable, as )et, to !each a definiteconclusion the!eon, it 0as dee#ed best not to distu!b, fo! the ti#e bein$, the cou!se of actionta/en b) the lo0e! cou!t, 0hich denied bail to the #ovant. *fte! #atu!e delibe!ation, ou!conside!ed opinion on said issue is as follo0s1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)The fi!st t0o pa!a$!aphs of the a#ended info!#ation in this case

!ead1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)

The unde!si$ned accuses @&B *#ado V. 2e!nande alias Victo! alias Soli#an alias *#adoalias *V2 alias Victo! Soli#an, @=B 4uille!#o "apadocia alias 2uan %anti lin$ alias "ap alias4. "apadocia, @<B Ma!iano P. %al$os alias %a/al alias Ton) "ollantes alias %onifacio, @7B*lf!edo Saulo alias 3lias alias F!ed alias *.%.S. alias *.%., @:B *nd!es %aisa, C!. alias %en alias*nd) @'B 4ena!o de la "!u alias 4onalo alias 4o!io alias *!on$, @>B *uilino %unsol alias*non$, @8B *d!iano Sa#son alias Dano), @?B Cuan C. "!u alias Cohnn) =, alias Cessie ilsonalias illia#, @&(B Cacobo 3spino, @&&B *#ado Racanda), @&=B Fe!#in Rodillas, and @&<BCulian +u#ano$ alias Manue, of the c!i#e of !ebellion 0ith #ultiple #u!de!, a!sons and!obbe!ies co##itted as follo0s1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)That on o! about Ma!ch &:, &?7:, and fo! so#e ti#e befo!e the said date and continuousl)the!eafte! until the p!esent ti#e, in the "it) of Manila, Philippines, and the place 0hich the)had chosen as the ne!ve cente! of all thei! !ebellious activities in the diffe!ent pa!ts of thePhilippines, the said accused, conspi!in$, confede!atin$, and coope!atin$ 0ith each othe!, as

0ell as 0ith the thi!t)-one @<&B De&endants cha!$ed in c!i#inal cases Nos. &7(>&, &7(8=,&7=>(, &7<&:, and &7<77 of the "ou!t of Fi!st Instance of Manila @decided Ma) &&, &?:&B andalso 0ith othe!s 0hose 0he!eabouts and identities a!e still un/no0n, the said accused andthei! co-conspi!ato!s, bein$ then office!s andAo! #e#be!s of, o! othe!0ise associated 0ith the"on$!ess of +abo! O!$aniations @"+OB fo!#e!l) /no0n as the "o##ittee on +abo!O!$aniation @"+OB, an active a$enc), o!$an, and inst!u#entalit) of the "o##unist Pa!t) ofthe Philippines @P..P.B, 0ith cent!al offices in Manila and chapte!s and affiliated o! associatedlabo! unions and othe! #ass o!$aniationsQ in diffe!ent places in the Philippines, and as sucha$enc), o!$an, and inst!u#entalit), full) coope!ates in, and s)nch!onies its ac tivities 0ith the!ebellious activities of the 2u/bon$ Ma$pala)an$ %a)an, @2.M.%.B and othe! o!$ans,a$encies, and inst!u#entalities of the "o##unist Pa!t) of the Philippines @P..P.B to the!eb)assu!e, facilitate, and effect the co#plete and pe!#anent success of the a!#ed !ebelliona$ainst the Republic of the Philippines, as the he!ein De&endants and thei! co-conspi!ato!shave in fact s)nch!onied the activities of the "+O 0ith the !ebellious activities of the 2M%and othe! a$encies, o!$ans and inst!u#entalities of the "o##unist Pa!t) of the Philippinesand have othe!0ise #aste!- #inded o! p!o#oted the coope!ative effo!ts bet0een the "+O and2M% and othe! a$encies, o!$ans, and inst!u#entalities of the P..P. in the p!osecution of the!ebellion a$ainst the Republic of the Philippines, and bein$ then also hi$h !an/in$ office!sandAo! #e#be!s of, o! othe!0ise affiliated 0ith, the "o##unist Pa!t) of the [email protected], 0hich is no0 activel) en$a$ed in an a!#ed !ebellion a$ainst the 4ove!n#ent of the

Philippines th!ou$h acts the!efo! co##itted and planned to be fu!the! co##itted in Manilaand othe! places in the Philippines, and of 0hich pa!t) the 2u/bon$ Mapa$pala)a n$ %a)anQ@2M%B, othe!0ise o! fo!#e!l) /no0n as the 2u/balahapsQ @2u/sB, is the a!#ed fo!ce, did thenand the!e 0illfull), unla0full) and feloniousl) help, suppo!t, p!o#ote, #aintain, cause, di!ectandAo! co##and the 2u/bon$ Mapa$pala)a n$ %a)anQ @2M%B o! the 2u/balahapsQ @2u/sB to!ise publicl) and ta/e a!#s a$ainst the Republic of the Philippines, o! othe!0ise pa!ticipate insuch a!#ed public up!isin$, fo! the pu!pose of !e#ovin$ the te!!ito!) of the Philippines f!o#the alle$iance to the $ove!n#ent and la0s the!eof as in fact the said 2u/bon$ Mapa$pala)an$ %a)anQ o! 2u/balahapsQ have !isen publicl) and ta/en a!#s to attain the said pu!pose b)then and the!e #a/in$ a!#ed !aids, so!ties and a#bushes, attac/s a$ainst police,constabula!) and a!#) detach#ents as 0ell as innocent civilians, and as a necessa!) #eansto co##it the c!i#e of !ebellion, in connection the!e0ith and in fu!the!ance the!eof, have then

and the!e co##itted acts of #u!de!, pilla$e, lootin$, plunde!, a!son, and planned dest!uction

of p!ivate and public p!ope!t) to c !eate and sp!ead chaos, diso!de!, te!!o!, and fea! so as tofacilitate the acco#plish#ent of the afo!esaid pu!pose, as follo0s, to

0it1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)Then follo0s a desc!iption of the #u!de!s, a!sons and !obbe!ies alle$edl) pe!pet!ated b) theaccused as a necessa!) #eans to co##it the c!i#e of !ebellion, in connection the!e0ith andin fu!the!ance the!eof.*!ticle 78 of the Revised Penal "ode p!ovides that1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)hen a sin$le act constitutes t0o o! #o!e $!ave o! less $!ave felonies, o! 0hen an offense isa necessa!) #eans fo! co##ittin$ the othe!, the penalt) fo! the #ost se!ious c!i#e shall bei#posed, the sa#e to be applied in its #a;i#u# pe!iod.It is obvious, f!o# the lan$ua$e of this a!ticle, that the sa#e p!esupposes the co##ission oft0o @=B o! #o!e c!i#es, and, hence, does not appl) 0hen the culp!it is $uilt) of onl) one c!i#e.*!ticle &<7 of said code !eads1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)The c!i#e of !ebellion o! insu!!ection is co##itted b) !isin$ publicl) and ta/in$ a!#s a$ainstthe 4ove!n#ent fo! the pu!pose of !e#ovin$ f!o# the alle$iance to said 4ove!n#ent o! itsla0s, the te!!ito!) of the Philippine Islands o! an) pa!t the!eof, of an) bod) of land, naval o!othe! a!#ed fo!ces, o! of dep!ivin$ the "hief 3;ecutive o! the +e$islatu!e, 0holl) o! pa!tiall), ofan) of thei! po0e!s o! p!e!o$atives.Pu!suant to *!ticle &<: of the sa#e code an) pe!son, #e!el) pa!ticipatin$ o! e;ecutin$ theco##ands of othe!s in a !ebellion shall suffe! the penalt) of p!ision #a)o! in its #ini#u#pe!iod.The penalt) is inc!eased to p!ision #a)o! and a fine not to e;ceed P=(,((( fo! an) pe!son

0ho p!o#otes, #aintains o! heads a !ebellion o! insu!!ection o! 0ho, 0hile holdin$ an) publicoffice o! e#plo)#ent, ta/es pa!t the!ein1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)&. en$a$in$ in 0a! a$ainst the fo!ces of the $ove!n#ent,=. dest!o)in$ p!ope!t), o!<. co##ittin$ se!ious violence,7. e;actin$ cont!ibutions o!:. dive!tin$ public funds f!o# the la0ful pu!pose fo! 0hich the) have been app!op!iated.hethe! pe!fo!#ed sin$l) o! collectivel), these five @:B classes of acts constitute onl) oneoffense, and no #o!e, and a!e, alto$ethe!, sub9ect to onl) one penalt) E p!ision #a)o! and afine not to e;ceed P=(,(((. Thus fo! instance, a public office! 0ho assists the !ebels b)tu!nin$ ove! to the#, fo! use in financin$ the up!isin$, the public funds ent!usted to his

custod), could neithe! be p!osecuted fo! #alve!sation of such funds, apa!t f!o# !ebellion, no!accused and convicted of the co#ple; c!i#e of !ebellion 0ith #alve!sation of public funds.The !eason is that such #alve!sation is inhe!ent in the c!i#e of !ebellion co##itted b) hi#. Infact, he 0ould not be $uilt) of !ebellion had he not so #isapp!op!iated said funds. In thei#position, upon said public office!, of the penalt) fo! !ebellion it 0ould even be i#p!ope! toconside! the a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stance of advanta$e ta/en b) the offende! of his publicposition, this bein$ an essential ele#ent of the c!i#e he had pe!pet!ated. No0, then, if theoffice held b) said offende! and the natu!e of the funds #alve!sed b) hi# cannot a$$!avatethe penalt) fo! his offense, it is clea! that neithe! #a) it 0o!sen the ve!) c!i#e co##itted b)the culp!it b) $ivin$ !ise, eithe! to an independent c!i#e, o! to a co#ple; c!i#e. Needless tosa), a #e!e pa!ticipant in the !ebellion, 0ho is not a public office!, should not be placed at a#o!e disadvanta$eous position than the p!o#ote!s, #aintaine!s o! leade!s of the #ove#ent,

o! the public office!s 0ho 9oin the sa#e, insofa! as the application of *!ticle 78 is conce!ned.

One of the #eans b) 0hich !ebellion #a) be co##itted, in the 0o!ds of said *!ticle &<:, is b)en$a$in$ in 0a! a$ainst the fo!ces of the $ove!n#ent and co##ittin$ se!ious violence inthe p!osecution of said 0a!. These e;p!essions i#pl) eve!)thin$ that 0a! connotes, na#el)Gchan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)!eso!t to a!#s, !euisition of p!ope!t) and se!vices, collection ofta;es and cont!ibutions, !est!aint of libe!t), da#a$e to p!ope!t), ph)sical in9u!ies and loss oflife, and the hun$e!, illness and unhappiness that 0a! leaves in its 0a/e E e;cept that, ve!)often, it is 0o!se than 0a! in the inte!national sense, fo! it involves inte!nal st!u$$le, a fi$htbet0een b!othe!s, 0ith a bitte!ness and passion o! !uthlessness seldo# found in a contestbet0een st!an$e!s. %ein$ 0ithin the pu!vie0 of en$a$in$ in 0a! and co##ittin$ se!iousviolence, said !eso!t to a!#s, 0ith the !esultin$ i#pai!#ent o! dest!uction of life and p!ope!t),constitutes not t0o o! #o!e offense, but onl) one c!i#e E that of !ebellion plain and si#ple.Thus, fo! instance, it has been held that the c!i#e of t!eason #a) be co##itted b) e;ecutin$eithe! a sin$le o! si#ila! intentional ove!t acts, diffe!ent o! si#ila! but distinct, and fo! that!eason, it #a) be conside!ed one sin$le continuous offense. @4uinto vs. Velu, >> Phil., 8(&,77 Off. 4a., ?(?.B @People vs. Pacheco, ?< Phil., :=&.BInas#uch as the acts specified in said *!ticle &<: constitute, 0e !epeat, one sin$le c!i#e, itfollo0s necessa!il) that said acts offe! no occasion fo! the application of *!ticle 78, 0hich!eui!es the!efo! the co##ission of, at least, t0o c!i#es. 2ence, this cou!t has neve! in thepast, convicted an) pe!son of the co#ple; c!i#e of !ebellion 0ith #u!de!. hat is #o!e, itappea!s that in eve!) one of the cases of !ebellion published in the Philippine Repo!ts, theDe&endants 0e!e convicted of si#ple !ebellion, althou$h the) had /illed seve!al pe!sons,so#eti#es peace office!s @5. S. vs. +a$nason, < Phil., 7>=G chan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)5. S.vs. %aldello, < Phil., :(?, 5. S. vs. *)ala, ' Phil., &:&G chan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)+ea$ue vs.People, >< Phil., &::B.Follo0in$ a pa!allel line a!e ou! decisions in the #o!e !ecent cases of t!eason, !esultin$ f!o#collabo!ation 0ith the Capanese du!in$ the 0a! in the Pacific. In fact, said cases 0ent fu!the!than the afo!e#entioned cases of !ebellion, in that the theo!) of the p!osecution to the effectthat the accused in said t!eason cases 0e!e $uilt) of the co#ple; c!i#e of t!eason 0ith#u!de! and othe! c!i#es 0as e;p!essl) and !epeatedl) !e9ected the!ein. Thus, co##entin$ onthe decision of the PeopleQs "ou!t findin$ the accused in People vs. P!ieto @8( Phil., &<8, 7:Off. 4a., <<=?B $uilt) of c!ala0 the c!i#e of t!eason co#ple;ed b) #u!de! and ph)sicalin9u!ies and sentencin$ hi# to death, and on the contention of the Sol icito! 4ene!al thatP!ieto had co##itted the co#ple; c!i#e of t!eason 0ith ho#icide, this cou!t, spea/in$

th!ou$h M!. Custice Tuason, said1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)The e;ecution of so#e of the $ue!!illa suspects #entioned in these counts and the inflictionof ph)sical in9u!ies on othe!s a!e not offenses sepa!ate f!o# t!eason. 5nde! the Philippinet!eason la0 and unde! the 5nited States constitution definin$ t!eason, afte! 0hich the fo!#e!

0as patte!ned, the!e #ust concu! both adhe!ence to the ene#) and $ivin$ hi# aid andco#fo!t. One 0ithout the othe! does not #a/e t!eason.In the natu!e of thin$s, the $ivin$ of aid and co#fo!t can onl) be acco#plished b) so#e /indof action. Its ve!) natu!e pa!ta/es, of a deed o! ph)sical activit) as opposed to a #entalope!ation. @"!a#e! vs. 5.S., ante.B This deed o! ph)sical activit) #a) be, and often is, in itselfa c!i#inal offense unde! anothe! penal statute o! p!ovision. 3ven so, 0hen the deed ischa!$ed as an ele#ent of t!eason it beco#es identified 0ith the latte! c!i#e and cannot be thesub9ect of a sepa!ate punish#ent, o! used in co#bination 0ith t!eason to inc !ease the penalt)

as *!ticle 78 of the Revised Penal "ode p!ovides. Cust as one cannot be punished fo!

possessin$ opiu# in a p!osecution fo! s#o/in$ the identical d!u$, and a !obbe! cannot beheld $uilt) of coe!cion o! t!espass to a d0ellin$ in a p!osecution fo! !obbe!), becausepossession of opiu# and fo!ce and t!espass a!e inhe!ent in s#o/in$ and in !obbe!)!espectivel), so #a) not a De&endant be #ade liable fo! #u!de! as a sepa!ate c!i#e o! incon9unction 0ith anothe! offense 0he!e, as in this case, it is ave!!ed as a constitutivein$!edient of t!eason c!ala0 . he!e #u!de! o! ph)sical in9u!ies a!e cha!$ed as ove!t acts oft!eason c!ala0 the) cannot be !e$a!ded sepa!atel) unde! thei! $ene!al deno#ination. @Italicssupplied.B*cco!din$l), 0e convicted the accused of si#ple t!eason and sentenced hi# to lifei#p!ison#ent.In People vs. +ab!a, 8& Phil., <>>, 7' Off. 4a., Supp. No. &, p. &:?, 0e used the follo0in$lan$ua$e1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)The lo0e! cou!t found 2ppellant $uilt) not onl) o f t!eason, but of #u!de!, fo! the /illin$ ofTo#as *bella, and, follo0in$ the p!ovisions of *!ticle 78 of the Revised Penal "ode sentencedhi# to death, the #a;i#u# penalt) p!ovided b) a!ticle &&7.The lo0e! cou!t e!!ed in findin$ 2ppellant $uilt) of the #u!de! of To#as *bella. The a!!estand /illin$ of To#as *bella fo! bein$ a $ue!illa, is alle$ed in count < of the info!#ation, as oneof the ele#ents of the c!i#e of t!eason fo! 0hich 2ppellant is p!osecuted. Such ele#entconstitute a pa!t of the le$al basis upon 0hich 2ppellant stands convicted of the c!i#e oft!eason. The /illin$ of To#as *bella cannot be conside!ed as le$al $!ound fo! convictin$ 2ppellant of an) c!i#e othe! than t!eason. The essentia l ele#ents of a $iven c!i#e cannot bedisinte$!ated in diffe!ent pa!ts, each one stand as a sepa!ate $!ound to convict the accused ofa diffe!ent c!i#e o! c!i#inal offense. The ele#ents constitutin$ a $iven c!i#e a!e inte$!al andinsepa!able pa!ts of a 0hole. In the conte#plation of the la0, the) cannot be used fo! doubleo! #ultiple pu!poses. The) can onl) be used fo! the sole pu!pose of sho0in$ the co##issionof the c!i#e of 0hich the) fo!# pa!t. The factual co#ple;it) of the c!i#e of t!eason does notendo0 it 0ith the functional abilit) of 0o!# #ultiplication o! a#oeba !ep!oduction. Othe!0ise,the accused 0ill have to face as #an) p!osecutions and convictions as the!e a!e ele#ents inthe c!i#e of t!eason, in open violation of the constitutional p!ohibition a$ainst double

9eopa!d). @Italics supplied.BThe sa#e conclusion 0as !eached in People vs. *libotod 8= Phil., &'7, 7' Off. 4a., &((:,despite the di!ect pa!ticipation of the De&endant the!ein in the #alt!eat#ent and /illin$ ofseve!al pe!sons.

In People vs. Vilo 8= Ph il., :=7, 7' Off. 4a., =:&>, 0e he ld1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)The PeopleQs "ou!t, ho0eve!, e!!ed in classif)in$ the c!i#e as t!eason 0ith #u!de!. The/illin$ of *#ado Sato!!e and one Se$undo is cha!$ed as an ele#ent of t!eason, and itthe!efo!e beco#es identified 0ith the latte! c!i#e, and cannot be the sub9ect of a sepa!atepunish#ent o! used in co#bination 0ith t!eason to inc!ease the penalt) as *!ticle 78 of theRevised Penal "ode p!ovides. @People vs. P!ieto, +-<??, 7: Off. 4a. <<=?. See, also Peoplevs. +ab!a, +-88', 7' Off. 4a., Supp. to No. &, &:?.B @Italics supplied.BTo the sa#e effect 0as ou! decision in People vs. Roble 8< Phil., &, 7' Off. 4a., 7=(>. estated the!ein1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)The cou!t held that the facts alle$ed in the info!#ation is a co#ple; c!i#e of t!eason 0ith#u!de!s, 0ith the !esult that the penalt) p!ovided fo! the #ost se!ious offense 0as to bei#posed on its #a;i#u# de$!ee. Vie0in$ the case f!o# the standpoint of #odif)in$

ci!cu#stances, the cou!t believed that the sa#e !esult obtained. It opined that the /illin$s

0e!e #u!de!s ualified b) t!eache!) and a$$!avated b) the ci!cu#stances of evidentp!e#editation, supe!io! st!en$th, c!uelt), and an a!#ed band.e thin/ this is e!!o!. The to!tu!es and #u!de!s set fo!th in the info!#ation a!e #e!$ed in andfo!#ed pa!t of the t!eason. The) 0e!e in this case the ove!t acts 0hich, besides t!aito!ousintention supplied a vital in$!edient in the c!i#e. @Italics supplied.BThe accused in People vs. Del$ado 8< Phil., ?, 7' Off. 4a., 7=&<, had been convicted b) thePeopleQs "ou!t of the c!i#e of t!eason co#ple;ed 0ith the c!i#e of #u!de! and sentenced tothe e;t!e#e penalt). In ou! decision, penned b) M!. Custice Monte#a)o!, 0e e;p!essedou!selves as follo0s1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)The 2ppellant he!ein 0as and is a Filipino citien. 2is adhe!ence to the Capanese fo!ces ofoccupation and $ivin$ the# aid and co#fo!t b) actin$ as thei! sp), unde!cove! #an,investi$ato!, and even /ille! 0hen necessa!) to co0 and co#pel the inhabitants to su!!ende!thei! fi!ea!#s and disclose info!#ation about the $ue!!illas has been full) established. 2is#anne! of investi$ation and #alt!eat#ent of so#e of his victi#s li/e Te!eso Sanche andPat!icio Suico, 0as so c!uel, b!utal and inhu#an that it is al#ost unbelievable that a Filipinocan co##it and p!actice such at!ocities especiall) on his o0n count!)#en. %ut, evidentl), 0a!,confusion and oppo!tunis# can and do p!oduce cha!acte!s and #onste! un/no0n du!in$peace and no!#al ti#es.The PeopleQs "ou!t found the 2ppellant $uilt) of t!eason co#ple;ed 0ith #u!de!. TheSolicito! 4ene!al, ho0eve!, #aintains that the offense co##itted is si#ple t!eason, citin$ thedoct!ine laid do0n b) this cou!t in the case of People vs. P!ieto, @+-<??, 7: Off. 4a., <<=?Bbut acco#panied b) the a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stance unde! *!ticle &7, pa!a$!aph =&, of theRevised Penal "ode, and not co#pensated b) an) #iti$atin$ ci!cu#stance, and he!eco##ends the i#position of the penalt) of death. e a$!ee 0ith the Solicito! 4ene!al thaton the basis of the !ulin$ of this cou!t in the case of People vs. P!ieto, sup!a, the 2ppellant #a) be convicted onl) a t!eason, and that the /illin$ and infliction of ph)sical in9u!iesco##itted b) hi# #a) not be sepa!ated f!o# the c!i#e of t!eason but should be !e$a!ded asacts pe!fo!#ed in the co##ission of t!eason, althou$h, as stated in said case, the b!utalit)

0ith 0hich the /illin$ o! ph)sical in9u!ies 0e!e ca!!ied out #a) be ta/en as an a$$!avatin$ci!cu#stance. @Italics supplied.Band !educed the penalt) f!o# death to life i#p!ison#ent and a fine of P=(,(((.Identical 0e!e the pe!tinent featu!es of the case of People vs. *dla0an, 8< Phil., &?7, 7' Off.4a., 7=??, in 0hich, th!ou$h M!. Custice Re)es @*B, 0e decla!ed1 chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)

c!ala0 0e find #e!it in the contention that 2ppellant should have not been convicted of theso called "o#ple; c!i#e of t!eason 0ith #u!de!, !obbe!), and !ape.Q The /illin$s, !obbe!), and!apin$ #entioned in the info!#ation a!e the!ein alle$ed not as specific offenses but as #e!eele#ents of the c!i#e of t!eason fo! 0hich the accused is bein$ p!osecuted. %ein$ #e!$ed inand identified 0ith the $ene!al cha!$ed the) cannot be used in co#bination 0ith the t!eason toinc!ease the penalt) unde! *!ticle 78 of the Revised Penal "ode. @People vs. P!ieto, +-<??,Canua!) =?, &?78, 7: Off. 4a., <<=?.B 2ppellant should, the!efo!e, be held $uilt) of t!easononl). @Italics supplied.BIn People vs. Su!alta, 8: Phil., >&7, 7> Off. 4a., 7:?:, the lan$ua$e used

0as1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!) c!ala0 %ut the PeopleQs "ou!t e!!ed in findin$ the 2ppellant $uilt) of the co#ple; c!i#e oft!eason 0ith #u!de!, because #u!de! 0as an in$!edient of the c!i#e of t!eason, as 0e have

he!etofo!e held in seve!al cases. @Italics supplied.B

This 0as !eite!ated in People vs. Navea, 8> Phil., &, 7> Off. 4a., Supp. No. &=, p.=:=1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)The Solicito! 4ene!al !eco##ends that the 2ppellant be sentenced fo! the co#ple; c!i#e oft!eason 0ith #u!de!. e have al!ead) !uled, ho0eve!, that 0he!e, as in the p!esent case, the/illin$ is cha!$ed as an ele#ent of t!eason, it beco#es identified 0ith the latte! c!i#e andcannot be the sub9ect of a sepa!ate punish#ent, o! used in co#bination 0ith t!eason toinc!ease the penalt) as *!ticle 78 of the Revised Penal "ode p!ovides. @Italics supplied.BThe uestion at ba! 0as, also, ta/en up in the case of "!isolo$o vs. People and Villalobos @?7Phil., 7>>B, decided on Feb!ua!) =', &?:7. The facts and the !ule the!ein laid do0n a!e setfo!th in ou! unani#ous decision in said case, f!o# 0hich 0e uote1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)The Petitioner Cuan D. "!isolo$o, a captain in the 5S*FF3 du!in$ the last 0o!ld 0a! and atthe ti#e of the filin$ of the p!esent petition a lieutenant colonel in the *!#ed Fo!ces of thePhilippines, 0as on Ma!ch &=, &?7', accused of t!eason unde! *!ticle &&7 of the RevisedPenal "ode in an info!#ation filed in the PeopleQs "ou!t. %ut befo!e the accused could beb!ou$ht unde! the 9u!isdiction of the cou!t, he 0as on Canua!) &<, &?7>, indicted fo! violationsof "o##on0ealth *ct No. 7(8, othe!0ise /no0n as the *!ticles of a!, befo!e a #ilita!) cou!tc!eated b) autho!it) of the *!#) "hief of Staff, the indict#ent containin$ th!ee cha!$es, t0o of

0hich, the fi!st and thi!d, 0e!e those of t!eason consistin$ in $ivin$ info!#ation and aid to theene#) leavin$ to the captu!e of 5S*FF3 office!s and #en and othe! pe!sons 0ith anti-Capanese !eputation and in u!$in$ #e#be!s of the 5S*FF3 to su!!ende! and coope!ate 0iththe ene#), 0hile the second 0as that of havin$ ce!tain civilians filled in ti#e of 0a!. Foundinnocent of the fi!st and thi!d cha!$es but $uilt) of the second, he 0as on Ma), 8, &?7>,sentenced b) the #ilita!) cou!t to life i#p!ison#ent.ith the app!oval on Cune &>, &?78, of Republic *ct No. <&& abolishin$ the PeopleQs "ou!t,the c!i#inal case in that cou!t a$ainst the Petitioner 0as, pu!suant to the p!ovisions of said*ct, t!ansfe!!ed to the "ou!t of Fi!st Instance of Ha#boan$a and the!e the cha!$es of t!eason

0e!e a#plified. *!!ai$ned in that cou!t upon the a#ended info!#ation, Petitioner p!esented a#otion to uash, challen$in$ the 9u!isdiction of the cou!t and pleadin$ double 9eopa!d)because of his p!evious sentence in the #ilita!) cou!t. %ut the cou!t denied the #otion and,afte! Petitioner had pleaded not $uilt), p!oceeded to t!ial, 0he!eupon, the p!esent petition fo!ce!tio!a!i and p!ohibition 0as filed in this cou!t to have the t!ial 9ud$e desist f!o# p!oceedin$

0ith the t!ial and dis#iss the case.It is, ho0eve!, clai#ed that the offense cha!$ed in the #ilita!) cou!t diffe!ent f!o# that

cha!$ed in the civil cou!t and that even $!antin$ that the offense 0as identical the #ilita!)cou!t had no 9u!isdiction to ta/e co$niance of the sa#e because the PeopleQs "ou!t hadp!eviousl) acui!ed 9u!isdiction ove! the case 0ith the !esult that the conviction in the cou!t#a!tial 0as void. In suppo!t of the fi!st point, it is u !$ed that the a#ended info!#ation filed inthe "ou!t of Fi!st Instance of Ha#boan$a contains ove!t acts distinct f!o# those cha!$ed inthe #ilita!) cou!t. %ut 0e note that 0hile ce!tain ove!t acts specified in the a#endedinfo!#ation in the Ha#boan$a cou!t 0e!e not specified in the indict#ent in the cou!t #a!tial,the) all a!e e#b!aced in the $ene!al cha!$e of t!eason, 0hich is a continuous offense and one

0ho co##its it is not c!i#inall) liable fo! as #an) c!i#es as the!e a!e ove!t acts, because allove!t act he has done o! #i$ht have done fo! that pu!pose constitute but a sin$le offense.Q@4uinto vs. Velu, 77. Off. 4a., ?(?G chan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)People vs. Pacheco, +-7>:(,p!o#ul$ated Cul) <&, &?:<.B In othe! 0o!ds, since the offense cha!$ed in the a#ended

info!#ation in the "ou!t of Fi!st Instance of Ha#boan$a is t!eason, the fact that the said

info!#ation contains an enu#e!ation of additional ova!t acts not specificall) #entioned in theindict#ent befo!e the #ilita!) cou!t is i##ate!ial since the ne0 alle$ed ove!t acts do not inthe#selves constitute a ne0 and distinct offense f!o# that of t!eason, and this cou!t has!epeatedl) held that a pe!son cannot be found $uilt) of t!eason and at the sa#e ti#e also$uilt) of ove!t acts specified in the info!#ation fo! t!eason even if those ove!t acts, conside!edsepa!atel), a!e punishable b) la0, fo! the si#ple !eason that those ove!t acts a!e not sepa!ateoffenses distinct f!o# that of t!eason but constitute in$!edients the!eof. @Italics supplied.BThus, insofa! as t!eason is conce!ned, the opinion of this cou!t, on the uestion 0hethe! saidc!i#e #a) be co#ple;ed 0ith #u!de!, 0hen the fo!#e! 0as co##itted th!ou$h the latte!, andit is so alle$ed in the info!#ation, had positivel) and clea!l) c!)stalied itself in the ne$ative asea!l) as Canua!) =?, &?78.e have not ove!loo/ed the decision in People vs. +ab!a @+-&=7(, decided on Ma) &=, &?7?B,the dispositive pa!t of 0hich pa!tl) !eads1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)he!efo!e, the ve!dict of $uilt) #ust be affi!#ed. *!ticles 78, &&7 and =78 of the RevisedPenal "ode a!e applicable to the offense of t!eason 0ith #u!de!. 2o0eve! fo! lac/ of sufficientvotes to i#pose the e;t!e#e penalt), the 2ppellant 0ill be sentenced to life i#p!ison#ent c!ala0 ..*lthou$h it #entions *!ticles 78 and =78 of the Revised Penal "ode and the offense oft!eason 0ith #u!de!, it should be noted that 0e affi!#ed the!ein the action of the PeopleQs"ou!t, 0hich, acco!din$ to the openin$ state#ent of ou! decision, convicted +ab!a of t!easona$$!avated 0ith #u!de!. %esides, the applicabilit) of said a!ticles 0as not discussed in saiddecision. It is obvious, f!o# a #e!e pe!usal the!eof, that this cou!t had no intention of passin$upon such uestion. Othe!0ise, it 0ould have e;plained 0h) it did not follo0 the !ule laiddo0n in the p!evious cases of P!ieto, +ab!a @*u$ust &(, &?78B, *libotod, Vilo, Roble, Del$adoand *dla0an @sup!aB, in 0hich the issue 0as e;plicitl) e;a#ined and decided in the ne$ative.Ou! continued adhe!ence to this vie0 in the subseuent cases of Su!alta, Navea, Pachecoand "!isolo$o, 0ithout even a passin$ !efe!ence to the second +ab!a case, sho0s that 0e didnot conside! the sa#e as !eflectin$ the opinion of the cou!t on said uestion. *t an) !ate,insofa! as it su$$ests othe!0ise, the position ta/en in the second +ab!a case #ust be dee#ed!eve!sed b) ou! decisions in said cases of Su!alta, Navea, Pacheco and "!isolo$o.It is t!ue that t!eason and !ebellion a!e distinct and diffe!ent f!o# each othe!. This does notdet!act, ho0eve!, f!o# the !ule that the in$!edients of a c!i#e fo!# pa!t and pa!cel the!eof,and, hence, a!e abso!bed b) the sa#e and cannot be punished eithe! sepa!atel) the!ef!o# o!

b) the application of *!ticle 78 of the Revised Penal "ode. %esides the!e is #o!e !eason toappl) said !ule in the c!i#e of !ebellion than in that of t!eason, fo! the la0 punishin$ !ebellion@*!ticle &<:, Revised Penal "odeB specificall) #entions the act of en$a$in$ in 0a! andco##ittin$ se!ious violence a#on$ its essential ele#ents E thus clea!l) indicatin$ thateve!)thin$ done in the p!osecution of said 0a!, as a #eans necessa!) the!efo!, is e#b!acedthe!ein E unli/e the p!ovision on t!eason @*!ticle &&7, Revised Penal "odeB 0hich is lesse;plicit the!eon.It is u!$ed that, if the c!i#e of assault upon a pe!son in autho!it) o! an a$ent of a pe!son inautho!it) #a) be co##itted 0ith ph)sical in9u!ies @5. S. vs. Montiel, ? Phil., &'=B, ho#icide@People vs. +o9o, := Phil., <?(B and #u!de! @5. S. vs. 4inosolon$o, =< Phil., &>&G chan!oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)5. S. vs. %alu)ot, 7( Phil., <8:B, and !ape #a) be pe!pet!ated 0ithph)sical in9u!ies @5. S. vs. *nda)a, <7 Phil., '?(B, then !ebellion #a), si#ila!l), be co#ple;ed

0ith #u!de!, a!son, o! !obbe!). The conclusion does not follo0, fo! en$a$in$ in 0a!, se!ious

violence, ph)sical in9u!ies and dest!uction of life and p!ope!t) a!e inhe!ent in !ebellion, but notin assault upon pe!sons in autho!it) o! a$ents of pe!sons in autho!it) o! in !ape. The 0o!d!ebellion evo/es, not #e!el) a chal len$e to the constituted autho!ities, but, also, civil 0a!, ona bi$$e! o! lesse! scale, 0ith all the evils that $o 0ith it, 0he!eas, neithe! !ape no! assaultupon pe!sons in autho!it) connotes necessa!il), o! even $ene!all), eithe! ph)sical in9u!ies, o!#u!de!. &In suppo!t of the theo!) that a !ebel 0ho /ills in fu!the!ance of the insu!!ection is $uilt) of theco#ple; c!i#e of !ebellion 0ith #u!de!, ou! attention has been called to *!ticle =77 of the oldPenal "ode of the Philippines, !eadin$1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)+os delitos pa!ticula!es co#etidos en una !ebelion o sedicion, o con #otivo de ellas, se!ancasti$ados !espectiva#ente se$un las disposiciones de este "odi$o."uando no puedan descub!i!se sus auto!es se!an penados co#o tales los 9efes p!incipalesde la !ebelion o sedicion.and to the follo0in$ obse!vations of "uello "alon @De!echo Penal, Vol. II, p. &&(B, in !elationthe!eto1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)Se establece aui ue el en una !ebelion o sedicion, o con #otivo de ellas, co#ete ot!osdelitos @v.$., !oba, #ata o lesionaB, se!a !esponsable de estos ade#as de los delitos de!ebelion o sedicion. +a dificultad consiste en estos casos en sepa!a! los accidentes de la!ebelion o sedicion de los delitos independientes de estas, ) co#o las le)es no contienen eneste punto p!ecepto al$uno aplicable, su solucion ha uedado enco#endada a los t!ibunales.+a 9u!isp!udencia ue estos han sentado conside!a co#o accidentes de la !ebelion o sedicion

E cu)a c!i#inalidad ueda e#bedida en la de estos delitos, ), po! tanto, no son puniblesespecial#ente E los hechos de escasa $!avedad @v.$., atentados, desacatos, lesiones#enos $!avesBG chan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)po! el cont!a!io, las inf!acciones $!aves, co#o elasesinato o las lesiones $!aves, se conside!an co#o delitos independientes de la !ebelion ode la sedicion.It should be noted, ho0eve!, that said *!ticle =77 of the old Penal "ode of the Philippines hasnot been included in ou! Revised Penal "ode. If the applicabilit) of *!ticle 78 to !ebellion 0asdete!#ined b) the e;istence of said *!ticle =77, then the eli#ination of the latte! 0ould beindicative of the cont!a!).%esides, the c!i#e of !ebellion, !efe!!ed to b) "uello "alon, 0as that punished in the SpanishPenal "ode, *!ticle =7< of 0hich p!ovides1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)Son !eos de !ebelion los ue se ala!en publica#ente ) en abie!ta hostilidad cont!a el

4obie!no pa!a cualuie!a de los ob9etossi$uientes1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)&. Dest!ona! al Re), depone! al Re$ente o Re$encia del Reino, o p!iva!les de su libe!tadpe!sonal u obli$a!les a e9ecuta! un acto cont!a!io a su voluntad.=. I#pedi! la celeb!acion dc las elecciones pa!a Diputados a "o!tes o Senado!es en todo elReino, o la !eunion le$iti#a de las #is#as.<. Disolve! las "o!tes o i#pedi! la delibe!acion de al$uno de los "ue!pos "ole$islado!es oa!!anca!les al$una !esolucion.7. 39ecuta! cualuie!a de los delitos p!evistos en el a!ticulo &':.:. Sust!ae! el Reino o pa!te de el o al$un cue!po de t!opa de tie!!a o de #a!, o cualuie!aot!a clase de fue!a a!#ada, de la obediencia del Sup!e#o 4obie!no.'. 5sa! ) e9e!ce! po! si o despo9a! a los Minist!os de la "o!ona de sus facultadesconstitucionales, o i#pedi!les o coa!ta!les su lib!e e9e!cicio. @*!ticulo &'>, "odi$o Penal de

&8:(. E Veanse las de#as conco!dancias del a!ticulo &8&.B

Thus, the Spanish Penal "ode did not specificall) decla!e that !ebellion includes the act ofen$a$in$ in 0a! a$ainst the fo!ces of the 4ove!n#ent and of usin$ se!ious violence fo! thepu!poses stated in *!ticle &<7 of the Revised Penal "ode. In vie0 of this e;p!ess statuto!)inclusion of the acts of 0a! and se!ious violence a#on$ the in$!edients of !ebellion in thePhilippines, it is clea! that the distinction #ade b) "uello "alon bet0een $!ave and less $!aveoffenses co##itted in the cou!se of an insu!!ection cannot be accepted in this 9u!isdiction.*$ain, if both classes of offenses a!e pa!t and pa!cel of a !ebellion, o! #eans necessa!)the!efo!, neithe! la0 no! lo$ic 9ustifies the e;clusion of the one and the inclus ion of the othe!.In fact, "uello "alon ad#its that the difficult) lies in sepa!atin$ the accidents of !ebellion o!sedition f!o# the offenses independent the!ef!o#. 3!$o, offenses that a!e not independentthe!ef!o#, but constitutin$ an inte$!al pa!t the!eof co##itted, p!ecisel), to ca!!) out theup!isin$ to its successful conclusion E a!e be)ond the pu!vie0 of *!ticle =77. Indeed, theabove uoted state#ent of "uello "alon E to the effect that $!ave felonies co##itted in thecou!se of an insu!!ection a!e independent the!ef!o# E 0as based upon a decision of theSup!e#e "ou!t of Spain of Feb!ua!) :, &8>=, 0hich 0e find !epo!ted in the "odi$o Penal deFilipinas, b) Cose Pe!e Rubio, as follo0s1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)3l T!ibunal Sup!e#o de Custicia en sentencia de : de Feb!e!o de &8>=, tienedecla!ado1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!) Jue se$un los a!ticulos &87 del "odi$o Penal de &8<(,) =:? del !efo!#ado @&8>(B, los delitos pa!ticula!es co#etidos en una !ebelion o sedicion ocon #otivo de ellas se casti$an !espectiva#ente se$un las disposiciones de los #is#os"odi$osG chan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)) con a!!e$lo al dec!eto de a#nistia de ? de *$osto de

&8>' estan solo co#p!endidos en auella $!acia las pe!sonas sentenciadas, p!ocesadas osu9atas a !esponsabilidad po! delitos politicos de cualuie!a especie -co#etidos desde el =?de Septie#b!e de &8'8G chan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)Jue el asesinato del 4obe!nado! "ivil de%u!$os no fue !esultado de #ovi#iento al$uno politico, sino de un #e!o tu#ulto ue i#p!i#ioel fanatis#o, ) cu)a unica apa!ente tendencia e!a i#pedi! ue auel funciona!io inventa!iasecie!tos ob9etos a!tisticos ue se decian e;istentes en la "ated!al1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!) Jue esto lo de#uest!an las salva9es voces de #ue!te p!ofe!idas po! los asesinos cont!a lape!sona del 4obe!nado!G chan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)sin ue al e9ecuta! en el #is#o !ecintodel te#plo los ho!!o!osos hechos ue apa!ecen en la causa, alasen bande!a politica al$unani die!an ot!o $!ito ue el, en auel #o#ento sac!ile$o e i#pio, de Viva la!eli$ion1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)Q Jue la ap!ecia! la Sala sentenciado!a los hechos!efe!entes al 4obe!nado! "ivil de delito de asesinato, pena!lo con a!!e$lo al "odi$o ) decla!a!

inaplicable el citado Dec!eto de *#nistia, no ha co#etido el e!!o! de de!echo sealado en loscasos &.U <.U del a!ticulo 7.U de la le) sob!e estableci#iento de la casacion c!i#inal, niinf!in$ido los a!ticulos =:( ) =:? del "odi$o Penal de &8>(. @Pa$e =<?G chan!oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)Italics supplied.B @See, also, 3l "odi$o Penal, b) 2idal$o 4a!cia, Vol. I,p. '=<.BQIt is appa!ent that said case is not in point. The!e 0as no issue the!ein on 0hethe! #u!de!#a) be co#ple;ed 0ith !ebellion o! sedition. The uestion fo! dete!#ination 0as 0hethe! the/ille!s of the victi# 0e!e $uilt) of the co##on c!i#e of #u!de!, o! should have been convictedonl) of !ebellion o! sedition. The cou!t adopted the fi!st alte!native, not because of the $!avit)of the acts pe!fo!#ed b) the accused, but because the) had no politi cal #otivation. Mo!eove!,the Endnote:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary to said uotation f!o# "uello "alon!eads1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)

+os atentados desacatos ) lesiones a la auto!idad u ot!os delitos cont!a el o!den publico

co#etidos en la sedicion o con #otivo de ella, no son delitos distintos de la sedicion, <octub!e &?(<, &? novie#b!e &?('G chan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)la !esistencia o aco#eti#iento ala fue!a publica po! los sediciosos es accidente de la !ebelion, =< #a)o &8?(.3l asesinato de un $obe!nado! co#etido en el cu!so de un tu#ulto debe pena!se co#o undelito co#un de asesinato, : feb!e!o &8>=. Sin e#ba!$o, la 9u!isp!udencia, t!atandose decie!tos delitos, es vacilanteG chan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)asi, v. $., el aco#eti#iento al tenientede alcalde se ha decla!ado en un fallo independiente de la pe!tu!bacion tu#ultua!iap!o#ovida pa!a i#pedi! al alcalde el cu#pli#iento de sus p!ovidencias, &' #a!o &88:,#ient!as ue un hecho analo$o se ha conside!ado en ot!a sentenda )a citada co#oaccidente de la !ebelion, < Octub!e &?(<. 3l aco#eti#iento de los sediciosos a la fue!apublica es accidente de la sedicion ) no uno de los delitos pa!ticula!es a ue se !efie!e estea!ticulo, =< de #a)o &8?(. 3nt!e estos delitos a ue alude el p!ecepto se hallan las lesionesue puedan causa! los sediciosos, &? novie#b!e &?('.@Endnote:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary =&, II "uelo "alon, De!echo Penal, pp. &&(-&&&.B@Italics supplied.BThus in a decision, dated Ma) =, &?<7, the Sup!e#e "ou!t of Spainheld1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)"onside!ando ue la nota defe!encial ent!e los delitos de !ebelion ) sedicion, de una pa!te, )el de atentado, esta constituida po! la ci!cunstancia de ala#iento publico ue ca!acte!ia alos p!i#e!os, los cuales, po! su indole $ene!ica, abso!ben a los de atentado ) de#asinf!acciones ue du!ante su co#ision ) con su #otivo se co#etan, ) afi!#andose co#o

hecho en la sentencia !ecu!!ida ue el p!ocesado Ma!iano 3steban Ma!tine !ealio, en unionde ot!os, el atendado ue se le i#puta sin ala!se publica#ente, cae po! su base el !ecu!sofundado en supuesto distinto. @Cu!isp!udencia "!i#inal, To#o &<(, p. ::&.B @Italics supplied.BTo the sa#e effect a!e, li/e0ise, the follo0in$1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)+a p!ovocacion ) el ataue a la 4ua!dia "ivil po! paisanos alado tu#ultua!ia#ente pa!ai#pedi! al Dele$ado de un 4obe!nado! civil el cu#pli#iento de sus p!ovidencias, no puedenesti#a!se constitutivos de un delito distinto del de sedicion, ni se!, po! tanto, pe!se$uidos )penados sepa!ada#ente.+a !esistencia o el aco#eti#iento de los sublevados a la fue!a publica constitu)e, en sucaso, una ci!cunstancia o accidente de la sedicion ) no es delito de los ue el "odi$o Penalen este a!ticulo @fo!#e!l) *!ticle =77, no0 *!ticle ==>B supone ue pueden co#ete!se en ellao con su #otivo, los cuales deno#ina delitos pa!ticula!es, ) #anda ue se penen confo!#e a

las disposiciones del p!opio "odi$o. @S. =<-:-8?(G chan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)4. =<-'-8?(Gchan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)t. 77G chan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)pa$ina '>&B @II Doct!ina Penal delT!ibunal Sup!e#o, p. =7&&.B @Italics supplied.B+a *udiencia condeno co#o auto!es de atentado a dos de los a#otinados ue a$!edie!on alalcalde, e inte!puesto !ecu!so de casacion cont!a la sentencia, el T!ibunal Sup!e#o la casa )anula, teniendo en cuenta lo dispuesto en el a!ticulo =:( @nu#e!o <.UB del "odi$o PenalG"onside!ando ue el acto llevado a cabo po! el $!upo constitu)e una ve!dade!a sedicion, sinue sea licito el dividi! este hecho ) califica!lo de atentado !especto a las pe!sonas uea$!edie!on a dicho alcalde, po!ue el aco#eti#iento fue un accidente de la sedicion, de lacual e!an todos !esponsables, )a se efectua!a po! los a$!upados en con9unto o po! uno solo,po! se! co#un el ob9eto ue se p!oponian ) no individualG chan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)) alcalifica! ) pena! este hecho la *udencia de 4e!ona, de atentado c!ala0, ha incu!!ido en e!!o!

de de!echo e inf!in$ido los a!ticulos =:( ) si$uientes del "odi$o Penal, po! no habe!los

aplicado, ) el ='<, nu#e!o =.U, en !elacion con el ='7, nu#e!os &.U ) <.U, po! su aplicacion c!ala0 @Sent. < octub!e &?(<. E 4ac. &= Dicie#b!eB @3nciclopedia Cu!idica 3spaola, To#o;;viii p. =:(B.These cases a!e in acco!d 0ith the te;t of said *!ticle =77, 0hich !efe!s, not to all offensesco##itted in the cou!se of a !ebellion o! on the occasion the!eof, but onl) to delitospa!ticula!es o! co##on c!i#es. No0, 0hat a!e delitos pa!ticula!es as the ph!ase is used insaid a!ticle =77K e uote f!o# Viada1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)+as disposicion del p!i#e! pa!!afo de este a!ticulo no puede se! #as 9ustaG chan!oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)con a!!e$lo a ella, los delitos pa!ticula!es o co#unes co#etidos en una!ebelion e! sedicion no debe!an !eputa!se co#o accidentes inhe!entes a estas, sino co#odelitos especiales, a dicha !ebelion ) sedicion a9enos, los ue debe!an se! !espectiva#entecasti$ados con las penas ue en este "odi$o se las sealan. Pe!o, ue delitos debe!anconside!a!se co#o co#unes, ) cuales co#o constitutivos de la p!opia !ebelion o sedicionK 3ncuanto a la !ebelion, no of!ece esta cuestion dificultad al$una, pues todo hecho ue no esteco#p!endido en uno ) ot!o de los ob9etos especificados en los seis nu#e!os del a!ticulo =7<se!a e;t!ao a la !ebelion, ) si se halla!e definido en al$un ot!o a!ticulo del "odi$o, cona!!e$lo a este debe!a se! casti$ado co#o delito pa!ticula!. Pe!o t!atandose de la sedicion,co#p!endiendose co#o ob9etos de la #is#a, en los nu#e!os <.U, 7.U ) :.U del a!ticulo =:(,hechos ue constitu)en ot!os tantos ataues a las pe!sonas o a la p!opiedad, cuales seconside!an co#o accidentes inhe!entes a la p!op!ia sedicion, ) cuales debe!an !eputa!seco#o delitos pa!ticula!es o co#unesK 3n cuanto a los casos de los nu#e!os 7.U ) :.U,

esti#anos ue el ob9eto politico ) social ue se !euie!a pa!a la !ealiacion de los actos enauellos co#p!endidos es el ue debe se!vi!nos de no!#a ) $uia pa!a distin$ui! lo inhe!entea la sedicion de lo ue es a9eno o e;t!ao a ella. "uando no e;ista ese ob9eto politico ) social,el acto de odio o ven$ana e9e!cido cont!a los pa!ticula!es o cualuie!a clase del 3stado, ) elatentado cont!a las p!opiedades de los ciudadanos o co!po!aciones #entados en el nu#e!o:.U del a!ticulo =:(, no se!an constitutivos del delito de sedicion, sino ue debe!an se!ap!eciados ) casti$ados co#o delitos co#unes, se$un las disposiciones !espectivas de este"odi$o E ) po! lo ue toca a los actos de odio o ven$ana e9e!cidos en la pe!sona o bienesde al$una *uto!idad o sus a$entes, esti#a#os ue debe!an !eputa!se co#o delitos co#unestodos auellos hechos innecesa!ios = pa!a la consecucion del fin pa!ticula! ue sep!opusie!an los sediciosos E ) co#o esenciales, constitutivos de la p!opia sedicion todosauellos actos de odio o ven$ana ue sean #edio !acional#ente necesa!io pa!a el lo$!o del

ob9eto especial a ue se enca#ina!an los esfue!os de los sublevados. *si, en el caso de la"uestion & e;puesta en el co#enta!io del a!ticulo =:8, es evidente ue el fin ue sep!opusie!on los sediciosos fue no pa$a! el i#puesto a cu)a cob!ana iba a p!ocede! elco#isionadoG chan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)pe!o pa!a lo$!a! este ob9eto, co#o lo lo$!a!on, fuep!eciso hace! sali! del pueblo al e9ecuto!, ) a este efecto, lo a#enaa!on, lo pe!si$uie!on )lle$a!on hasta lesiona!le. 3sas a#enaas ) lesiones no pudie!on ap!ecia!se, ni las ap!eciota#poco la Sala sentenciado!a, co#o delito co#un, sino co#o accidente inhe!ente a la#is#a sedicion, po! cuanto fue!on un #edio !acional#ente necesa!io pa!a la consecucion delfin dete!#inado ue se p!opusie!on los culpables.Pe!o cuando tal necesidad desapa!ece, cuando se hie!e po! he!i!, cuando se #ata po!#ata!, el hecho )a, no puede se! conside!ado co#o un accidente p!opio de la sedicion, sinoco#o un delito especial, al ue debe aplica!se la pena al #is#o co!!espondiente. @III Viada,

pp. <&&-<&=.B @Italics supplied.B



"uello "alon is even #o!e illu#inatin$. 2e sa)s1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)+a doct!ina cientifica conside!a los delitos lla#ados politicos co#o inf!acciones de unca!acte! especial distintas de los deno#inados delitos co#unes. De esta ap!eciacion hanacido la division de los delitos, desde el punto de vista de su natu!alea int!inseca, en delitospoliticos ) delitos co#unes o de de!echo co#un.Se !eputan delitos co#unes auellos ue lesionan bienes 9u!idicos individuales @v. $!., losdelitos cont!a la vida, cont!a la honestidad, cont!a la p!opiedad, etc.B+a nocion del delito politico no pa!ece tan cla!a. Desde lue$o !evisten este ca!acte! los ueatentan cont!a el o!den politico del 3stado, cont!a su o!den e;te!no @independencia de lanacion, inte$!idad del te!!ito!io, etc.B, o cont!a el inte!no @delitos cont!a el Cefe del 3stado,cont!a la fo!#a de 4obie!no, etc.B. Pe!o ta#bien pueden se! conside!ados co#o politicostodos los delitos, cualesuie!a ue sean incluso los de de!echo co#un, cuando fue!onco#etidos po! #oviles politicos. Deben, po! tanto, esti#a!se co#o inf!acciones de esta clase,no solo las ue ob9etiva#ente ten$an tal ca!acte! po! el inte!es politico ue lesionan, sinota#bien las ue, ap!eciadas sub9etiva#ente, #anifiestan una #otivacion de ca!acte! politico.*si pod!ia fo!#ula!es esta definicion1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!) es delito politico el co#etidocont!a el o!den politico del 3stado, asi co#o todo delito de cualuie!a ot!a clase dete!#inadopo! #oviles politicos. @"uello "alon, De!echo Penal, To#o I, pp. =7>-=7?.BIn sho!t, political c!i#es a!e those di!ectl) ai#ed a$ainst the political o!de!, as 0ell as suchco##on c!i#es as #a) be co##itted to achieve a political pu!pose. The decisive facto! is theintent o! #otive. If a c!i#e usuall) !e$a!ded as co##on li/e ho#icide, is pe!pet!ated fo! the

pu!pose of !e#ovin$ f!o# the alle$iance to the 4ove!n#ent the te!!ito!) of the PhilippinesIslands o! an) pa!t the!eof, then said offense beco#es st!ipped of its co##on co#ple;ion,inas#uch as, bein$ pa!t and pa!cel of the c!i#e of !ebellion, the fo!#e! acui!es the politicalcha!acte! of the la tte!."onfo!#abl) 0ith the fo!e$oin$, the case of #u!de! a$ainst the De&endant in 5. S. vs.+a!diabal @& Phil., >=?B E an insu!$ent 0ho /illed a p!isone! of 0a! because he 0as too

0ea/ to #a!ch 0ith the !et!eatin$ !ebel fo!ces, and could not be left behind 0ithoutendan$e!in$ the safet) of the latte! E 0as dis#issed upon the $!ound that the e;ecution ofsaid p!isone! of 0a! fo!#ed pa!t of, and 0as included in, the c!i#e of sedition, 0hich, in tu!n,

0as cove!ed b) an a#nest), to the benefits of 0hich said De&endant 0as entitled.T!ue, in 5. S. vs. *lfont @& Phil., &&:B, the co##ande! of an uno!$anied $!oup of insu!$ents

0as, pu!suant to *!ticle =77 of ou! old Penal "ode, convicted of ho#icide fo! havin$ shot and

/illed a 0o#an 0ho 0as d!ivin$ a vehicle. %ut the co#ple; c!i#e of !ebellion 0ith ho#icide 0as not conside!ed in that case. *pa!t f!o# this, the accused failed to established the !elationbet0een he! death and the insu!!ection. hat is #o!e, it 0as neithe! p!oved no! alle$ed thathe had been p!o#pted b) political !easons. In othe! 0o!ds, his offense 0as independent f!o#the !ebellion. The latte! 0as #e!el) the occas ion fo! the co##ission of the fo!#e!.It is note0o!th) that the afo!e#entioned decisions of this cou!t and the Sup!e#e "ou!t ofSpain in cases of t!eason, !ebellion and sedition, a!e in line 0ith the t!end in othe! count!ies,as 0ell as in the field of inte!national !elations. Refe!!in$ to the uestion as to 0hat offensesa!e political in natu!e, it 0as said in In !e 3eta @'= Fed. Rep., ?>=B1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)hat constitutes an offense of a political cha!acte! has not )et been dete!#ined b) 9udicialautho!it). Si! Ca#es Stephens, in his 0o!/, 2isto!) of the "!i#inal +a0 of 3n$land @Volu#e =,p. >&B, thin/s that it should be inte!p!eted to #ean that fu$itive c!i#inals a!e not to be

su!!ende!ed fo! e;t!adition c!i#es if those c!i#es 0e!e incidental to and fo!#ed a pa!t of

political distu!bances.Q M!. Cohn Stua!t Mill, in the house of co##ons, in &8'', 0hilediscussin$ an a#end#ent to the act of e;t!adition, on 0hich the t!eat) bet0een 3n$land andF!ance 0as founded, $ave this definition1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!) *n) offense co##itted inthe cou!se of o! fu!the!in$ of civil 0a!, insu!!ection, o! political co##otion.Q 2ansa!dQs DebatesVol. &87, p. =&&:. In the "astioni "ase, sup!a, decided in &8?&, the uestion 0as discussedb) the #ost e#inent counsel at the 3n$lish ba!, and conside!ed b) distin$uished 9ud$es,

0ithout a definition bein$ f!a#ed that 0ould d!a0 a fi;ed and ce!tain line bet0een a #unicipalo! co##on c!i#e and one of political cha!acte!. I do not thin/,Q said Den#an, C., it isnecessa!) o! desi!able that 0e should atte#pt to put into lan$ua$e, in the shape of ane;haustive definition, e;actl) the 0hole state of thin$s, o! eve!) state of thin$s, 0hich #i$htb!in$ a pa!ticula! case 0ithin the desc!iption of an offense of a political cha!acte!.Q In that case,"astioni 0as cha!$ed 0ith the #u!de! of one Rossi, b) shootin$ hi# 0ith a !evolve!, in theto0n of %ellinona, in the canton of Ticino, in S0ite!land. The deceased, Rossi, 0as a#e#be! of the state council of the canton of Ticino. "astioni 0as a cit ien of the sa#e canton.Fo! so#e ti#e p!evious to the #u!de!, #uch dissatisfaction had been felt and e;p!essed b) ala!$e nu#be! of inhabitants of Ticino at the #ode in 0hich the political pa!t) then in po0e!

0e!e conductin$ the $ove!n#ent of the canton. * !euest 0as p!esented to the $ove!n#entfo! a !evision of the constitution of the canton and, the $ove!n#ent havin$ declined to ta/e apopula! vote on that uestion, a nu#be! of the citiens of %ellinona, a#on$ 0ho# 0as"astioni, seied the a!senal of the to0n, f!o# 0hich the) too/ !ifles and a##unition, disa!#edthe $enda!#es, a!!ested and bound o! handcuffed seve!al pe!sons connected 0ith the

$ove!n#ent, and fo!ced the# to #a!ch in f!ont of the a!#ed c!o0d to the #unicipal palace.*d#ission to the palace 0as de#anded in the na#e of the people, and 0as !efused b) Rossiand anothe! #e#be! of the $ove!n#ent, 0ho 0e!e in the palace . The c!o0d then b!o/e openthe oute! $ate of the palace, and !ushed in, pushin$ befo!e the# the $ove!n#ent officials

0ho# the) had a!!ested and bound. "astioni, 0ho 0as a!#ed 0ith a !evolve!, 0as a#on$ thefi!st to ente!. * second doo!, 0hich 0as loc/ed, 0as b!o/en open, and at this ti#e, o!i##ediatel) afte!, Rossi, 0ho 0as in the passa$e, 0as shot th!ou$h the bod) 0ith a !evolve!,and died, ve!) soon afte!0a!ds. So#e othe! shots 0e!e fi!ed, but no one else 0as in9u!ed."astioni fled to 3n$land. 2is e;t!adition 0as !euested b) the fede!al council of S0ite!land.2e 0as a!!ested and ta/en befo!e a police #a$ist!ate, as p!ovided b) the statute, 0ho heldhi# fo! e;t!adition. *pplication 0as #ade b) the accused to the hi$h cou!t of 9ustice of3n$land fo! a 0!it of habeas co!pus. 2e 0as !ep!esented b) Si! "ha!les Russell, no0 lo!d

chief 9ustice. The atto!ne) $ene!al, Si! Richa!d ebste!, appea!ed fo! the c!o0n, and thesolicito! $ene!al, Si! 3d0a!d "la!/e, and Robe!t oodfal, fo! the fede!al council ofS0ite!land. This a!!a) of distin$uished counsel, and the hi$h cha!acte! of the cou!t,co##ends the case as one of the hi$hest autho!it). It appea!ed f!o# an ad#ission b) one ofthe pa!ties en$a$ed in the distu!bances that the death of Rossi 0as a #isfo!tune, and notnecessa!) fo! the !isin$.Q The opinions of the 9ud$es as to the political cha!acte! of the c!i#echa!$ed a$ainst "astioni, upon the facts stated, is e;ceedin$l) inte!estin$, but I need onl)!efe! to the follo0in$ passa$es. Cud$e Den#an sa)s1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)The uestion !eall) is 0hethe!, upon the facts, it is clea! that the #an 0as actin$ as one of anu#be! of pe!sons en$a$ed in acts of violence of a political cha!acte! 0ith a political ob9ect,and as pa!t of the political #ove#ent and !isin$ in 0hich he 0as ta/in$ pa!t.QCud$e 2a0/ins, in co##entin$ upon the cha!acte! of political offenses,

said1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)

I cannot help thin/in$ that eve!)bod) /no0s the!e a!e #an) acts of a political cha!acte! done 0ithout !eason, done a$ainst all !easonG chan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)but at the sa#e ti#e onecannot loo/ too ha!dl), and 0ei$h in $olden scales the acts of #en hot in thei! politicale;cite#ent. e /no0 that in heat, and in heated blood, #en often do thin$s 0hich a!e a$ainstand cont!a!) to !easonG chan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)but none the less an act of this desc!iption#a) be done fo! the pu!pose of fu!the!in$ and in fu!the!ance of a political !isin$, even thou$hit is an act 0hich #a) be deplo!ed and la#ented, as even c!uel and a$ainst all !eason, b)those 0ho can cal#l) !eflect upon it afte! the battle is ove!.QSi! Ca#es Stephens, 0hose definition as an autho! has al!ead) been cited, 0as one of the

9ud$es, and 9oined in the vie0s ta/en as to the political cha!acte! of the c!i#e cha!$ed a$ainst"astioni. The p!isone! 0as discha!$ed. *ppl)in$, b) analo$), the action of the 3n$lish cou!t inthat case to the fou! cases no0 befo!e #e, unde! conside!ation, the conclusion follo0s thatthe c!i#es cha!$ed he!e, associated as the) a!e 0ith the actual conflict of a!#ed fo!ces, a!eof a political cha!acte!.The d!aft of a t!eat) on Inte!national Penal +a0, adopted b) the con$!ess of Montevideo in&888, and !eco##ended b) the Inte!national *#e!ican "onfe!ence to the $ove!n#ents of the+atin-*#e!ican nations in &8?(, contains the follo0in$ p!ovisions @*!ticle=<B1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)Political offenses, offenses subve!sive of the inte!nal and e;te!nal safet) of a state o!co##on offenses connected 0ith these, shall not 0a!!ant e;t!adition. The dete!#ination of thecha!acte! of the offense is incu#bent upon the nations upon 0hich the de#and fo! e;t!adition

is #adeG chan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)and its decision shall be #ade unde! and acco!din$ to thep!ovisions of the la0 0hich shall p!ove to be #ost favo!able to theaccused1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)QI a# not a0a!e that an) pa!t of this "ode has been #ade the basis of t!eat) stipulationsbet0een an) of the *#e!ican nations, but the a!ticle cited #a) be at least accepted ase;p!essin$ the 0isdo# of leadin$ 9u!ists and diplo#ats. The a!ticle is i#po!tant 0ith !espect tot0o of its featu!es1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!) @&B p!ovides that a fu$itive shall not bee;t!adited fo! an offense connected 0ith a political offense, o! 0ith an offense subve!sive ofthe inte!nal o! e;te!nal safet) of the stateG chan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)and @=B the decision asto the cha!acte! of the offense shall be #ade unde! and acco!din$ to the p!ovisions of the la0

0hich shall p!ove #ost favo!able to the accused. The fi!st p!ovision is sanctioned b) "alvo, 0ho, spea/in$ of the e;e#ption f!o# e;t!adition of pe!sons cha!$ed 0ith political offenses,

sa)s1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)The e;e#ption even e;tends to acts connected 0ith political c!i#es o! offenses, and it isenou$h, as sa)s M!. Fuastin 2elioG chan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)that a co##on c!i#e beconnected 0ith a political act, that it be the outco#e of o! be in the outco#e of o! be in thee;ecution of such, to be cove!ed b) the p!ivile$e 0hich p!otects the latte!Q "alvo, D!oit Int.@<#e ed.B p. 7&<, section &='=.The second p!ovision of the a!ticle is founded on the b!oad p!inciples of hu#anit) foundeve!)0he!e in the c!i#inal la0, distin$uishin$ its ad#inist!ation 0ith !espect to even the 0o!stfeatu!es of ou! civiliation f!o# the c!uelties of ba!ba!is#. hen this a!ticle 0as unde!discussion in the inte!national *#e!ican confe!ence in ashin$ton, M!. Silva, of "olo#bia,sub#itted so#e obse!vations upon the difficult) of d!a0in$ a line bet0een an offense of apolitical cha!acte! and a co##on c!i#e, and incidentall) !efe!!ed to the c!i#e of !obbe!), in

te!#s 0o!th) of so#e conside!ation he!e. 2e sa id1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)

In the !evolutions, as 0e conduct the# in ou! count!ies, the co##on offenses a!e necessa!il)#i;ed up 0ith the political in #an) cases. * collea$ue 4ene!al "aa#ao @of 3cuado!B /no0sho0 0e ca!!) on 0a!s. * !evolutionist needs ho!ses fo! #ovin$, beef to feed his t!oops, etc.Gchan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)and since he does not $o into the public #a!/ets to pu!chase theseho!ses and that beef, no! the a!#s and saddles to #ount and euip his fo!ces, he ta/es the#f!o# the fi!st pastu!e o! shop he find at hand. This is called !obbe!) eve!)0he!e, and is aco##on offense in ti#e of peace, but in ti#e of 0a! it is a ci!cu#stance closel) allied to the#anne! of 0a$in$ it.Q Inte!national *#e!ican "onfe!ence, Vol. =, p. '&:. @Italics supplied.Be uote the follo0in$ f!o# Endnote:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary @=<B on pa$es =7?-=:(,Vol. I, of "uello "alonQs afo!esaid 0o!/ on De!echo Penal.3n al$unos "odi$o ) le)es de fecha p!o;i#a )a se halla una definicion de estos delitos. 3l"odi$o penal !uso, en el a!ticulo :8, define co#o delitos cont!a !evoluciona!iosQ los hechosenca#inados a de!!oca! o debilita! el pode! de los "onse9os de t!aba9ado!es ) ca#pesinos )de los $obie!nos de la 5nion de Republicas socialistas sovieticas, a dest!ui! o debilita! lase$u!idad e;te!io! de la 5nion de Republicas Sovieticas ) las conuistas econo#icas,politicas ) nacionales funda#entales de la !evolucion p!oleta!ia.Q 3l "odi$o Penal italiano de&?<( conside!a en eu a!ticulo 8.U co#o delito politico todo delito ue ofenda un inte!espolitico del 3stado o un de!echo politico del ciudadano.Q Ta#bien se !eputa politico el delitoco#un dete#inado, en todo o en pa!te po! #otivos politicos. 3n la le) ale#ana de e;t!adicionde =: dicie#b!e &?=? se definen asi1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!) Son delitos politicos losatentados punibles di!ecta#ente e9ecutados cont!a la e;istencia o la se$u!idad del 3stado,

cont!a el 9efe o cont!a un #ie#b!o del $obie!no del 3stado co#o tal, cont!a una co!po!acionconstitucional, cont!a los de!echos politicos las buenas !elaciones con el e;t!an9e!o.Q pa!!afo<.U, =.+a 'a. "onfe!encia pa!a la 5nificacion del De!echo penal @"openha$ue, <& a$osto E <septie#b!e &?<:B adopto la si$uiente nocion del delito politico1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)&. Po! delitos politicos se entienden los di!i$idos cont!a la o!$aniacion ) funciona#iento del3stado o cont!a los de!echos ue de esta o!$aniacion ) funciona#iento p!ovienen pa!a elculpable.=. Ta#bien se conside!an co#o delitos politicos los delitos de de!echo co#un ueconstitu)en hechos cone;os con la e9ecucion de los delitos p!evistos en seccion&.U1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!) co#o los hechos di!i$idos a favo!ece! la e9ecucion de un delitopolitico o a pe!#iti! al auto! de este delito sust!ae!se a la aplicacion de la le) penal.

<. No se conside!a!an delitos politicos auellos a los ue su auto! sea inducido po! un#otivo e$oista ) vil.7. No se conside!a!an delitos los ue c!een un peli$!o pa!a la co#unidad o un estado dete!!o!. @Italics supplied.BThus, national, as 0ell as inte!national, la0s and 9u!isp!udence ove!0hel#in$l) favo! thep!oposition that co##on c!i#es, pe!pet!ated in fu!the!ance of a political offense, a!e divestedof thei! cha!acte! as co##on offenses and assu#e the political co#ple;ion of the #ainc!i#e of 0hich the) a!e #e!e in$!edients, and, conseuentl), cannot be punished sepa!atel)f!o# the p!incipal offense, o! co#ple;ed 0ith the sa#e, to 9ustif) the i#position of a $!ave!penalt).The!e is one othe! !eason E and a funda#ental one at that E 0h) *!ticle 78 of ou! Penal"ode cannot be applied in the case at ba!. If #u!de! 0e!e not co#ple;ed 0ith !ebellion, and

the t0o c!i#es 0e!e punished sepa!atel) @assu#in$ that this could be doneB, the fo llo0in$

penalties 0ould be i#posable upon the #ovant, na#el)1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!) @&B fo! thec!i#e of !ebellion, a fine not e;ceedin$ P=(,((( and p!ision #a)o!, in the co!!espondin$pe!iod, dependin$ upon the #odif)in$ ci!cu#stances p!esent, but neve! e;ceedin$ &= )ea!sof p!ision #a)o!G chan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)and @=B fo! the c!i#e of #u!de!, !eclusionte#po!al in its #a;i#u# pe!iod to death, dependin$ upon the #odif)in$ ci!cu#stancesp!esent. In othe! 0o!ds, in the absence of a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stances, the e;t!e#e penalt)could not be i#posed upon hi#. 2o0eve!, unde! *!ticle 78, said penalt) 0ould have to be#eted out to hi#, even in the absence of a sin$le a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stance. Thus, saidp!ovision, if const!ued in confo!#it) 0ith the theo!) of the p!osecution, 0ould be unfavo!ableto the #ovant.5pon the othe! hand, said *!ticle 78 0as enacted fo! the pu!pose of favo!in$ the culp!it, not ofsentencin$ hi# to a penalt) #o!e seve!e than that 0hich 0ould be p!ope! if the seve!al actspe!fo!#ed b) hi# 0e!e punished sepa!atel). In the 0o!d of Rod!i$ueNava!!o1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)+a unificacion de penas en los casos de concu!so de delitos a ue hace !efe!encia estea!ticulo @>: del "odi$o de &?<=B, esta basado f!anca#ente en el p!incipio p!o !eo. @IIDoct!ina Penal del T!ibunal Sup!e#o de 3spaa, p. =&'8.B <e a!e a0a!e of the fact that this obse!vation !efe!s to *!ticle >& @late! >:B of the SpanishPenal "ode @the counte!pa!t of ou! *!ticle 78B, as a#ended in &?(8 and then in &?<=,!eadin$1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)+as disposiciones del a!ticulo ante!io! no son aplicables en el caso de ue un solo hecho

constitu)a dos o #as delitos, o cuando el uno de ellos sea #edio necesa!io pa!a co#ete! elot!o.3n estos casos solo se i#pond!a la pena co!!espondiente al delito #as $!ave en su $!ado#a;i#o, hasta el li#ite ue !ep!esente la su#a de las ue pudie!an i#pone!se, penandosepa!ada#ente los delitos."uando la pena asi co#putada e;ceda de este li#ite, se sanciona!an los delitos po!sepa!ado. @Rod!i$ue Nava!!o, Doct!ino Penal del T!ibunal Sup!e#o, Vol. II, p. =&'<.Band that ou! *!ticle 78 does not contain the ualification inse!ted in said a#end#ent,!est!ictin$ the i#position of the penalt) fo! the $!ave! offense in its #a;i#u# pe!iod to thecase 0hen it does not e;ceed the su# total of the penalties i#posable if the acts cha!$ed

0e!e dealt 0ith sepa!atel). The absence of said li#itation in ou! Penal "ode does not, to ou!#ind, affect substantiall) the spi!it of said *!ticle 78. Indeed, if one act constitutes t0o o! #o!e

offenses, the!e can be no !eason to inflict a punish#ent $!ave! than that p!esc!ibed fo! eachone of said offenses put to$ethe!. In di!ectin$ that the penalt) fo! the $!ave! offense be, insuch case, i#posed in its #a;i#u# pe!iod, *!ticle 78 could have had no othe! pu!pose thanto p!esc!ibe a penalt) lo0e! than the a$$!e$ate of the penalties fo! each offense, if i#posedsepa!atel). The !eason fo! this benevolent spi!it of *!ticle 78 is !eadil) disce!nible. hen t0oo! #o!e c!i#es a!e the !esult of a sin$le act, the offende! is dee#ed less pe!ve!se than 0henhe co##its said c!i#es th!u sepa!ate and distinct acts. Instead of sentencin$ hi# fo! eachc!i#e independentl) f!o# the othe!, he #ust suffe! the #a;i#u# of the penalt) fo! the #o!ese!ious one, on the assu#ption that it is less $!ave than the su# total of the sepa!atepenalties fo! each offense.Did the f!a#e!s of *!ticle 78 have a diffe!ent pu!pose in dealin$ the!ein 0ith an offense 0hichis a #eans necessa!) fo! the co##ission of anothe!K To be$in 0ith, the culp!it cannot, then,

be conside!ed as displa)in$ a $!eate! de$!ee of #alice than 0hen the t0o offenses a!e

independent of each othe!. On the cont!a!), since one offense is a necessa!) #eans fo! theco##ission of the othe!, the evil intent is one, 0hich, at least, uantitativel), is lesse! than

0hen the t0o offenses a!e un!elated to each othe!, because, in such event, he is t0ice $uilt)of havin$ ha!bo!ed c!i#inal desi$ns and of ca!!)in$ the sa#e into e;ecution. Fu!the!#o!e, it#ust be p!esu#ed that the ob9ect of *!ticle 78, in its enti!et), is onl) one. e cannot assu#ethat the pu!pose of the la0#a/e!, at the be$innin$ of the sin$le sentence of 0hich said a!ticleconsists, 0as to favo! the accused, and that, befo!e the sentence ended, the fo!#e! had achan$e of hea!t and tu!ned about face a$ainst the latte!. If the second pa!t of *!ticle 78 hadbeen #eant to be unfavo!able to the accused E and, hence, the e;act opposite of the fi!stpa!t E each 0ould have been placed in, sepa!ate p!ovisions, instead of in one sin$le a!ticle. Ifthe fi!st pa!t sou$ht to i#pose, upon the culp!it, a penalt) less $!ave than that 0hich he 0oulddese!ve if the t0o o! #o!e offenses !esultin$ f!o# his sin$le act 0e!e punished sepa!atel),then this, also, #ust be the pu!pose of the second pa!t, in deal in$ 0ith an offense 0hich is anecessa!) #eans fo! the co##ission of anothe!.The accu!ac) of this conclusion is bo!ne out b) the fact that, since &8:(, 0hen the counte!pa!tof ou! *!ticle 78 0as inse!ted in the Penal "ode of Spain, o! fo! ove! a centu!), it does notappea! to have been applied b) the Sup!e#e "ou!t the!eof to c!i#es of #u!de! co##itted infu!the!ance of an insu!!ection.Incidentall), 0e cannot accept the e;planation that c!i#es co##itted as a #eans necessa!)fo! the success of a !ebellion had to be p!osecuted sepa!atel) unde! the p!ovisions of *!ticle=:? of the Penal "ode of Spain, 0hich is the counte!pa!t of *!ticle =77 of ou! old Penal "ode.

To be$in 0ith, these a!ticles a!e pa!t of a substantive la0. The) do not $ove!n the #anne! o!#ethod of p!osecution of the culp!its. Then a$ain, said p!ecepts o!dain that co##on c!i#esco##itted du!in$ a !ebellion o! sedition, o! on the occasion the!eof, shall be !espectivel)punished acco!din$ to the p!ovisions of this "ode. *#on$ such p!ovisions 0as *!ticle ?(@late! *!ticle >&, then *!ticle >:B of the Spanish Penal "ode, and *!ticle 8? of ou! old Penal"ode, of 0hich *!ticle 78 of the Revised Penal "ode of the Philippines is a substantial!ep!oduction. 2ence, had the Sup!e#e "ou!t of Spain o! the Philippines believed that#u!de!s co##itted as a #eans necessa!) to attain the ai#s of an up!isin$ 0e!e co##onc!i#es, the sa#e 0ould have been co#ple;ed 0ith the !ebellion o! sedition, as the case #a)be.The cases of People vs. "ab!e!a @7< Phil., '7B and People vs. "ab!e!a @7< Phil., 8=B have notescaped ou! attention. Those cases involved #e#be!s of the constabula!) 0ho !ose publicl),

fo! the pu!pose of pe!fo!#in$ acts of hate and ven$eance upon the police fo!ce of Manila, andin an encounte! 0ith the latte!, /illed so#e #e#be!s the!eof. "ha!$ed 0ith and convicted ofsedition in the fi!st case, the) 0e!e accused of #u!de! in the second case. The) pleadeddouble 9eopa!d) in the second case, upon the $!ound that the facts alle$ed in the info!#ation

0e!e those set fo!th in the cha!$e in the fi!st case, in 0hich the) had been convicted. This plea 0as !e9ected upon the $!ound that the o!$anic la0 p!ohibited double 9eopa!d) fo! the sa#eoffense, and that the offense of sedition is distinct and diffe!ent f!o# that of #u!de!, althou$hboth 0e!e the !esult of the sa#e act.The uestion 0hethe! one offense 0as inhe!ent in, o! identified 0ith, the othe! 0as notdiscussed o! even conside!ed in said cases. %esides, the lo0e! cou!t applied, in the #u!de!case *!ticle 8? of the old Penal "ode E 0hich is the counte!pa!t of *!ticle 78 of the RevisedPenal "ode E but this "ou!t !efused to do so. *$ain, si#pl) because one act #a) constitute

t0o o! #o!e offenses, it does not follo0 necessa!il) that a pe!son #a) be p!osecuted fo! one

afte! conviction fo! the othe!, 0ithout violatin$ the in9unction a$ainst double 9eopa!d). Fo!instance, if a #an fi!es a shot$un at anothe!, 0ho suffe!s the!eb) seve!al in9u!ies, one of

0hich p!oduced his death, #a) he, afte! conviction fo! #u!de! o! ho#icide, based upon saidfatal in9u!), be accused o! convicted, in a sepa!ate case, fo! the non-fatal in9u!ies sus tained b)the victi#K O! #a) the fo!#e! be convicted of the co#ple; c!i#e of #u!de! o! ho#icide 0ithse!ious andAo! less se!ious ph)sical in9u!iesK The #e!e fo!#ulation of these uestions sufficesto sho0 that the li#itation of the !ule on double 9eopa!d) to a subseuent p!osecution fo! thesa#e offense does not constitute a license fo! the sepa!ate p!osecution of t0o offenses!esultin$ f!o# the sa#e act, if one offense is an essential ele#ent of the othe!. *t an) !ate, as!e$a!ds this phase of the issue, 0hich 0as not touched in the "ab!e!a cases, the !ule the!einlaid do0n #ust necessa!il) be conside!ed #odified b) ou! decision in the cases of People vs.+ab!a @7' Off. 4a., Supp. No. &, p. &:?B and "!isolo$o vs. People and Villalobos @sup!aB,insofa! as inconsistent the!e0ith.The #ain a!$u#ent in suppo!t of the theo!) see/in$ to co#ple; !ebellion 0ith #u!de! andothe! offenses is that 0a! E 0ithin the pu!vie0 of the la0s on !ebellion and sedition E #a)be 0a$ed o! levied 0ithout /illin$. This p!e#ise does not 0a!!ant, ho0eve!, the conclusionE d!a0n the!ef!o# E that an) /illin$ done in fu!the!ance of a !ebellion o! sedition isindependent the!ef!o#, and #a) be co#ple;ed the!e0ith, upon the $!ound that dest!uction ofhu#an life is not indispensable to the 0a$in$ o! lev)in$ of 0a!. * pe!son #a) /ill anothe!

0ithout inflictin$ ph)sical in9u!ies upon the latte!, such, fo! instance, as b) poisonin$,d!o0nin$, suffocation o! shoc/. 6et it is ad#itted that he 0ho fatall) stabs anothe! cannot be

convicted of ho#icide 0ith ph)sical in9u!ies. So too, it is undeniable that t!eason #a) beco##itted 0ithout to!tu!in$ o! #u!de!in$ an)bod). 6et, it is 0ell-settled that a citien 0ho$ives aid and co#fo!t to the ene#) b) ta/in$ di!ect pa!t in the #alt!eat#ent and assassinationof his @citienQsB count!)#en, in fu!the!ance of the 0ishes of said ene#), is $uilt) of plaint!eason, not co#ple;ed 0ith #u!de! o! ph)sical in9u!ies, the late! bein$ E as cha!$ed andp!oven E #e!e in$!edients of the fo!#e!. No0 then, if ho#icide #a) be an in$!edient oft!eason, 0h) can it not be an in$!edient of !ebellionK The p!oponents of the idea of !ebellionco#ple;ed 0ith ho#icide,. etc., have not even t!ied to ans0e! this uestion. Neithe! have the)assailed the 0isdo# of ou! afo!e#entioned decisions in t!eason cases.The "ou!t is conscious of the /een inte!est displa)ed, and the conside!able effo!ts e;e!ted, b)the 3;ecutive Depa!t#ent in the app!ehension and p!osecution of those believed to be $uilt)of c!i#es a$ainst public o !de!, of the lives lost, and the ti#e and #one) spent in connection

the!e0ith, as 0ell as of the possible i#plications o! !epe!cussions in the secu!it) of the State.The ca!eful conside!ation $iven to said polic) of a coo!dinate and co-eual b!anch of the4ove!n#ent is !eflected in the ti#e consu#ed, the e;tensive and intensive !esea!ch 0o!/unde!ta/en, and the #an) #eetin$s held b) the #e#be!s of the cou!t fo! the pu!pose ofelucidatin$ on the uestion unde! discussion and of settlin$ the sa#e.The !ole of the 9udicial depa!t#ent unde! the "onstitution is, ho0eve!, E clea! E to settle

9usticeable cont!ove!sies b) the application of the la0. *nd the latte! #ust be enfo!ced as it isE 0ith all its fla0s and defects, not affectin$ its validit) E not as the 9ud$es 0ould have it. Inothe! 0o!ds, the cou!ts #ust appl) the polic) of the State as set fo!th in its la0s, !e$a!dless ofthe 0isdo# the!eof.It is evident to us that the polic) of ou! statutes on !ebellion is to conside! all acts co##itted infu!the!ance the!eof E as specified in *!ticles &<7 and &<: of the

Revised1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!) Penal "ode E as constitutin$ onl) one c!i#e, punishable

0ith one sin$le penalt) E na#el), that p!esc!ibed in said *!ticle &<:. It is inte!estin$ to note,in this connection, that the penalties p!ovided in ou! old Penal "ode @*!ticles =<( to =<=B 0e!e#uch stiffe!, na#el)1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)&. +ife i#p!ison#ent to death E fo! the p!o#ote!s, #aintaine!s and leade!s of the !ebellion,and, also, fo! subo!dinate office!s 0ho held positions of autho!it), eithe! civil o! ecclesiastical,if the pu!pose of the #ove#ent 0as to p!oclai# the independence of an) po!tion of thePhilippine te!!ito!)G=. Reclusion te#po!al in its #a;i#u# pe!iod E fo! said p!o#ote!s, #aintaine!s and leade!sof the insu!!ection, and fo! its subo!dinate office!s, if the pu!pose of the !ebellion 0as an) ofthose enu#e!ated in *!ticle ==?, e;cept that #entioned in the p!ecedin$ pa!a$!aphG<. Reclusion te#po!al1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!) @aB fo! subo!dinate office!s othe! than thoseal!ead) adve!ted toG chan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)and @bB fo! #e!e pa!ticipants in the !ebellionfallin$ unde! the fi!st pa!a$!aph of No. = of *!ticle &>7G chan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)and7. P!ision #a)o! in its #ediu# pe!iod to !eclusion te#po!al in its #ini#u# pe!iod E fo!pa!ticipants not fallin$ unde! No. <.*fte! the cession of the Philippines to the 5nited States, the !i$o!s of the old Penal "ode 0e!ete#pe!ed. Its afo!e#entioned p!ovisions 0e!e supe!seded b) section < of *ct No. =?=, 0hich!educed the penalt) to i#p!ison#ent fo! not #o!e than ten @&(B )ea!s and a fine not e;ceedin$&(,(((, o! P=(,(((, fo! eve!) pe!son 0ho incites, sets on foot, assists o! en$a$es in an)!ebellion o! insu!!ection c!ala0 o! 0ho $ives aid and co#fo!t to an) one so en$a$in$ in such!ebellion o! insu!!ection. Such libe!al attitude 0as adhe!ed to b) the autho!s of the Revised

Penal "ode. The penalties the!ein a!e substantiall) identical to those p!esc!ibed in *ct =?=.*lthou$h the Revised Penal "ode inc!eased sli$htl) the penalt) of i#p!ison#ent fo! thep!o#ote!s, #aintaine!s and leade!s of the up!isin$, as 0ell as fo! public office!s 9oinin$ thesa#e, to a #a;i#u# not e;ceedin$ t0elve @&=B )ea!s of p!ision #a)o!, it !educed the penalt)of i#p!ison#ent fo! #e!e pa!ticipants to not #o!e than ei$ht @8B )ea!s of p!ision #a)o!, andeli#inated the fine.This beni$n #ood of the Revised Penal "ode beco#es #o!e si$nificant 0hen 0e bea! in#ind it 0as app!oved on Dece#be! 8, &?<( and beca#e effective on Canua!) &, &?<=. *t thatti#e the co##unists in the Philippines had al!ead) $iven a#ple p!oof of thei! 0idesp!eadactivities and of thei! desi$ns and potentialities. P!io! the!eto, the) had been unde!su!veillance b) the a$ents of the la0, 0ho $athe!ed evidence of thei! subve!sive #ove#ents,cul#inatin$ in the p!osecution of 3van$elista, Manahan @:> Phil., <:7G chan

!oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!):> Phil., <>=B, "apadocia @:> Phil., <'7B, Feleo @:> Phil., 7:&B, Nabon$@:> Phil., 7::B, and othe!s. In fact, the fi!st info!#ation a$ainst the fi!st t0o alle$ed that the)co##itted the c!i#e of incitin$ to sedition on and du!in$ the #onth of Nove#be!, &?<(, andfo! so#eti#e p!io! and subseuent the!eto.*s if this 0e!e not enou$h, the ve!) "onstitution adopted in &?<:, inco!po!ated a fo!#al andsole#n decla!ation @*!ticle II, section :B co##ittin$ the "o##on0ealth, and, then theRepublic of the Philippines, to the p!o#otion of social 9ustice. Soon late!, "o##on0ealth *ctNo. &(<, c!eatin$ the "ou!t of Indust!ial Relations, 0as passed. Then follo0ed a nu#be! ofothe! statutes i#ple#entin$ said constitutional #andate. It is not necessa!) to $o into thedetails of said le$islative enact#ents. Suffice it to sa) that the sa#e a!e p!edicated upon a!eco$nition of the fact that a $ood #an) of the p!oble#s conf!ontin$ the State a!e due tosocial and econo#ic evils, and that, unless the latte! a!e !e#oved o!, least #ini#ied, the

fo!#e! 0ill /eep on ha!assin$ the co##unit) and affectin$ the 0ell-bein$ of its #e#be!s.

Thus, the settled polic) of ou! la0s on !ebellion, since the be$innin$ of the centu!), has beenone of decided lenienc), in co#pa!ison 0ith the la0s enfo!ce du!in$ the Spanish !e$i#e. Suchpolic) has not suffe!ed the sli$htest alte!ation. *lthou$h the 4ove!n#ent has, fo! the past fiveo! si; )ea!s, adopted a #o!e vi$o!ous cou!se of action in the app!ehension of violato!s of saidla0 and in thei! p!osecution the established polic) of the State, as !e$a!ds the punish#ent ofthe culp!its has !e#ained unchan$ed since &?<=. It is not fo! us to conside! the #e!its andde#e!its of such polic). This falls 0ithin the p!ovince of the polic)-#a/in$ b!anch of the$ove!n#ent the "on$!ess of the Philippines. 2o0eve!, the follo0in$ uotation f!o# "uello"alon indicates the schools of thou$ht on this sub9ect and the !eason that #a) have

influenced ou! la0#a/e!s in #a/in$ thei! choice1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)Du!ante #uchos si$los, hasta tie#pos !elativa#ente ce!canos, se !eputaban los hechos ueho) lla#a#os delitos politicos co#o #as $!aves ) peli$!osos ue los c!i#enes co#unes. Seconside!aba ue #ient!as estos solo causan un dao individual, auellos p!oducen p!ofundaspe!tu!baciones en la vida collectiva lle$ando a pone! en peli$!o la #is#a vida del 3stado. 3nconsonancia con estas ideas fue!on !ep!i#idos con e;t!ao!dina!ia seve!idad ) desi$nadoscon la deno#inacion !o#ana de delitos de lesa #a9estad se catalo$a!on en las le)es penalesco#o los c!i#enes #as te#ibles.Pe!o desde hace poco #as de un si$lo se ha !ealiado en este punto una t!ansfo!#acionp!ofunda #e!ced a la cual la delincuencia politica de9o de ap!ecia!se con los seve!os c!ite!iosde antao uedando so#etida a un !e$i#en penal, po! !e$la $ene!al suave ) benevolo.3l o!i$en de este ca#bio se !e#onta, se$un opinion #u) difundida, a la !evolucion ue tuvo

lu$a! en F!ancia en el ao &8<(. 3l $obie!no de +uis Felipe establecio una honda sepa!acionent!e los delitos co#unes ) los politicos, siendo estos so#etidos a una penalidad #as suave) sus auto!es e;ceptuados de la e;t!adicion. I!!adiando a ot!os paises tuvie!on estas tan $!andifusion ue en casi todos los de !e$i#en libe!al-individualista se ha lle$ado a c!ea! unt!ata#iento desp!ovisto de seve!idad pa!a la !ep!esion de estos hechos. No solo las penascon ue se con#ina!on pe!die!on $!an pa!te de su anti$ua du!ea, sino ua en al$unospaises se c!eo un !e$i#en penal #as suave pa!a estos delicuentes, en ot!os se abolio pa!aellos la pena de #ue!te. Tan p!ofundo cont!aste ent!e el anti$uo ) el actual t!ata#iento de lac!i#inalidad politica en la #a)o!ia de los paises solo puede se! e;plicado po! las ideasnacidas ) difundidas ba9o los !e$i#enes politicos libe!alesace!ca de estos delitos )delincuentes. Po! una pa!te se ha afi!#ado ue la c!i#inalidad da estos hechos no contienela #is#a in#o!alidad ue la delincuencia co#un, ue es tan solo !elativa, ua depende del

tie#po, del lu$a!, da las ci!cu#stancias, de las instituciones del pais. Ot!os invocan laelevacion de los #oviles ) senti#ientos dete!#inantes de estos hechos, el a#o! a la pat!ia, laadhesion fe!viente a dete!#inadas ideas o p!incipios, el espi!itu de sac!ificio po! el t!iunfo deun ideal."ont!a su t!ato benevolo, del ue no pocas veces se han beneficiado peli$!osos#alhecho!es, se ha iniciado hace al$un tie#po una fue!te !eaccion @vease "ap. LV, <.U, bB,ue lle$o a alcana! conside!able seve!idad en las le$islaciones de tipo auto!ita!io, ) ueta#bien ha hallado eco, en fo!#a #as suave, en las de ot!os paises de constitucionde#oc!atica en los ue, especial#ente en los ulti#os aos, la f!ecuencia de a$itacionespoliticas ) sociales ha o!i$inado la publicacion de nu#e!osas le)es enca#inadas a lap!oteccion penal del 3stado. @"uello "alon, De!echo Penal, To#o &, pp. =:(-=:=.BSuch evils as #a) !esult f!o# the failu!e of the polic) of the la0 punishin$ the offense to

dovetail 0ith the polic) of the la0 enfo!cin$ a$encies in the app!ehension and p!osecution of

the offende!s a!e #atte!s 0hich #a) be b!ou$ht to the attention of the depa!t#entsconce!ned. The 9udicial b!anch cannot a#end the fo!#e! in o!de! to suit the latte!. The "ou!tcannot indul$e in 9udicial le$islation 0ithout violatin$ the p!inciple of sepa!ation of po0e!s,and, hence, unde!#inin$ the foundation of ou! !epublican s)ste#. In, sho!t, 0e cannot acceptthe theo!) of the p!osecution 0ithout causin$ #uch bi$$e! ha!# than that 0hich 0ouldalle$edl) !esult f!o# the adoption of the opposite vie0.In conclusion, 0e hold that, unde! the alle$ations of the a#ended info!#ation a$ainstDe&endant - 2ppellant *#ado V. 2e!nande, the #u!de!s, a!sons and !obbe!ies desc!ibedthe!ein a!e #e!e in$!edients of the c!i#e of !ebellion alle$edl) co##itted b) said De&endants,

as #eans necessa!) 7 fo! the pe!pet!ation of said offense of !ebellionG chan!oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)that the c!i#e cha!$ed in the afo!e#entioned a#ended info!#ation is,the!efo!e, si#ple !ebellion, not the co#ple; c!i#e of !ebellion 0ith #ultiple #u!de!, a!sons and!obbe!iesG chan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)that the #a;i#u# penalt) i#posable unde! such cha!$ecannot e;ceed t0elve @&=B )ea!s of p!ision #a)o! and a fine of P=(,(((G chan!oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)and that, in confo!#it) 0ith the polic) of this cou!t in dealin$ 0ithaccused pe!sons a#enable to a si#ila! punish#ent, said De&endant #a) be allo0ed bail.It is u!$ed that, in the e;e!cise of its disc!etion, the "ou!t should den) the #otion unde!conside!ation, because the secu!it) of the State so !eui!es, and because the 9ud$#ent ofconviction appealed f!o# indicates that the evidence of $uilt of *#ado V. 2e!nande is st!on$.2o0eve!, as held in a !esolution of this cou!t, dated Canua!) =?, &?:<, in the case of Montanovs. Oca#po @4.R. +-'<:=B1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)

c!ala0 to den) bail it is not enou$h that the evidence of $uilt is st!on$G chan!oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)it #ust also appea! that in case of conviction the De&endant Qs c!i#inalliabilit) 0ould p!obabl) call fo! a capital punish#ent. No clea! o! conclusive sho0in$ befo!ethis "ou!t has been #ade.In fact, in the case at ba!, De&endant *#ado V. 2e!nande 0as sentenced b) the lo0e! cou!t,not to the e;t!e#e penalt), but to life i#p!ison#ent. Fu!the!#o!e, individual f!eedo# is toobasic, too t!anscendental and vital in a !epublican state, li/e ou!s, to be denied upon #e!e$ene!al p!inciples and abst!act conside!ation of public safet). Indeed, the p!ese!vation oflibe!t) is such a #a9o! p!eoccupation of ou! political s)ste# that, not satisfied 0ith$ua!anteein$ its en9o)#ent in the ve!) fi!st pa!a$!aph of section @&B of the %ill of Ri$hts, thef!a#e!s of ou! "onstitution devoted pa!a$!aphs @<B, @7B, @:B, @'B, @>B, @8B, @&&B, @&=B, @&<B, @&7B,@&:B, @&'B, @&>B, @&8B, and @=&B of said section @&B to the p!otection of seve!al aspects of

f!eedo#. Thus, in line 0ith the lette! and spi!it of the funda#ental la0, 0e said in theafo!e#entioned case of Montano vs. Oca#po1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)3;clusion f!o# bail in capital offenses bein$ an e;ception to the othe!0ise absolute !i$ht$ua!anteed b) the constitution, the natu!al tendenc) of the cou!ts has been to0a!d a fai! andlibe!al app!eciation, !athe! than othe!0ise, of the evidence in the dete!#ination of the de$!eeof p!oof and p!esu#ption of $uilt necessa!) to 0a!!ant a dep!ivation of that !i$ht.; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;In the evaluation of the evidence the p!obabilit) of fli$ht is one othe! i#po!tant facto! to beta/en into account. The sole pu!pose of confinin$ accused in 9ail befo!e conviction, it has beenobse!ved, is to secu!e his p!esence at the t!ial. In othe! 0o!ds, if denial of bail is autho!ied incapital cases, it is onl) on the theo!) that the p!oof bein$ st!on$, the De&endant 0ould flee, ifhe has the oppo!tunit), !athe! than face the ve!dict of the 9u!). 2ence, the e;ception to the

funda#ental !i$ht to be bailed should be applied in di!ect !atio to the e;tent of the p!obabilit)

of evasion of p!osecution.The possibilit) of escape in this case, bea!in$ in #ind the De&endant Qs official and socialstandin$ and his othe! pe!sonal ci!cu#stances, see# !e#ote if not nil.This vie0 applies full) to *#ado V. 2e!nande, 0ith the pa!ticula!it) that the!e is an additionalci!cu#stance in his favo! E he has been detained since Canua!) &?:&, o! fo! #o!e than five@:B )ea!s, and it #a) still ta/e so#e ti#e to dispose of the case, fo! the sa#e has not been,and is not in a position to be, included, as )et, in ou! calenda!, inas#uch as the b!iefs fo!so#e 2ppellants E othe! than 2e!nande E as 0ell as the b!ief fo! the 4ove!n#ent, a!ependin$ sub#ission. It should be noted, also, that the decision appealed f!o# the opposition

to the #otion in uestion do not !eveal satisfacto!il) and conc!ete, positive act of the accusedsho0in$, sufficientl), that his p!ovincial !elease, du!in$ the pendenc) of the appeal, 0ould

9eopa!die the secu!it) of the State.he!efo!e, the afo!e#entioned #otion fo! bail of De&endant - 2ppellant *#ado V. 2e!nandeis he!eb) $!anted and, upon the filin$ of a bond, 0ith sufficient su!eties, in the su# ofP<(,(((, and its app!oval b) the cou!t, let said De&endant - 2ppellant be p!ovisionall) !eleased.It is SO OR!ERE!.P#-#s, C.J., R&4&s, A., 0#utst# A$g&o #$% R&4&s. .0.L., JJ., *o$*u-.0&$g8o$, ., *o$*u-s $ t& -&sut. S&:#-#t& O:$o$sPADILLA, J., dissentin:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

*#ado V. 2e!nande and othe!s 0e!e cha!$ed in the "ou!t of Fi!st Instance of Manila 0ith thec!i#e of !ebellion 0ith #ultiple #u!de!, a!sons and !obbe!ies. The bod) of the info!#ationcha!$ed that he and his co-De&endants conspi!ed and that as a necessa!) #eans to co##itthe c!i#e of !ebellion, in connection the!e0ith and in fu!the!ance the!eof, have then andthe!e co##itted acts of #u!de!, pilla$e, lootin$, plunde!, a!son, and planned dest!uction ofp!ivate and public p!ope!t) to c!eate and sp!ead chaos, diso!de!, te!!o!, and fea! so as tofacilitate the acco#plish#ent of the afo!esaid pu!pose, and !ecited the diffe!ent c!i#esco##itted b) the De&endants. *fte! t!ial *#ado V. 2e!nande 0as found $uilt) and sentencedto suffe! life i#p!ison#ent f!o# 0hich 9ud$#ent and sentence he appealed. The appeal ispendin$ in this "ou!t.5pon the $!ound that the!e is no co#ple; c!i#e of !ebellion 0ith #u!de!, the penalt) p!ovidedfo! to be i#posed upon pe!sons found $uilt) of !ebellion bein$ p!ision #a)o! and a fine not to

e;ceed P=(,((( onl), & the #a9o!it) $!ants the petition fo! bail filed b) the 2ppellant .Section &, pa!a$!aph &', *!ticle III, of the "onstitution p!ovides1 chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)*ll pe!sons shall befo!e conviction be bailable b) sufficient su!eties, e;cept those cha!$ed 0ithcapital offenses 0hen evidence of $uilt is st!on$. 3;cessive bail shall not be !eui!ed. @Italicssupplied.BThe pe!tinent sections of Rule &&( p!ovide1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)S3". <. Offenses less than capital befo!e conviction b) the "ou!t of Fi!st Instance. E *fte!

9ud$#ent b) a 9ustice of the peace and befo!e conviction b) the "ou!t of Fi!st Instance, theDe&endant shall be ad#itted to bail as of !i$ht.S3". 7. Noncapital offenses afte! conviction b) the "ou!t of Fi!st Instance. E *fte! convictionb) the "ou!t of Fi!st Instance De&endant #a), upon application, be bailed at the disc !etion ofthe cou!t.

S3". :. "apital offenses defined. * capital offense, as the te!# is used in this !ule, is an

offense 0hich, unde! the la0 e;istin$ at the ti#e of its co##ission, and at the ti#e of theapplication to be ad#itted to bail, #a) be punished b) death.S3". '. "apital offenses not bailable. E No pe!son in custod) fo! the co##ission of a capitaloffense shall be ad#itted to bail if the evidence of his $uilt is st!on$.S3". >. "apital offenses - bu!den of p!oof. E On the hea!in$ of an application fo! ad#issionto bail #ade b) an) pe!son 0ho is in custod) fo! the co##ission of a capital offense, thebu!den of sho0in$ that evidence of $uilt is st!on$ is on the p!osecution.S3". &<. %ail on appeal. E %ail upon appeal #ust confo!# in all !espects as p!ovided fo! inothe! cases of bail.

*cco!din$ to this Rule, a De&endant in a c!i#inal case afte! a 9ud$#ent of conviction b) theCustice of the Peace "ou!t and befo!e conviction b) the "ou!t of Fi!st Instance is entitled tobail. *fte! conviction b) the "ou!t of Fi!st Instance he, upon application, #a) still be bailed innon-capital offenses but at the disc!etion of the cou!t. hen the info!#ation cha!$es a capitaloffense the De&endant is not entitled to bail if the evidence of his $uilt is st!on$. Of cou!se this#eans befo!e conviction. *fte! conviction fo! a capital offense, the De&endant has absolutel)no !i$ht to bail, because even befo!e conviction a De&endant cha!$ed 0ith capital offense isnot entitled to bail if the evidence of $uilt is st!on$. So that should a De&endant cha!$ed 0ith acapital offense appl) fo! bail befo!e conviction, the p!osecution #ust establish and sho0 thatthe evidence of the De&endant Qs $uilt is st!on$ if the application fo! bail be ob9ected to. *fte!conviction of a De&endant cha!$ed 0ith a capital offense the!e is no st!on$e! evidence of his$uilt than the 9ud$#ent !ende!ed b) the t!ial cou!t. The 9ud$#ent is entitled to full faith and

c!edit. 5ntil afte! the evidence shall have been !evie0ed and the !evie0in$ cou!t shall havefound that the t!ial cou!t co##itted e!!o! in convictin$ the De&endant of the c!i#e cha!$ed, the

9ud$#ent and sentence of the t!ial cou!t in such c!i#inal case #ust be ta/en at its face valueand be $iven full faith and c!edit b) this "ou!t.ithout a !evie0 of the evidence p!esented in the case, the #a9o!it) has ta/en up anddiscussed the uestion 0hethe!, unde! and pu!suant to the p!ovisions of a!ticle &<: of theRevised Penal "ode, the co#ple; c!i#e of !ebellion 0ith #u!de! #a) a!ise o! e;ist o! beco##itted and has !eached the conclusion that #u!de! as an incident to !ebellion, isinte$!ated, i#bibed, inco!po!ated, o! abso!bed in, o! pa!t and pa!cel of, the last #entionedc!i#e. Fo! that !eason it is of the opinion that, as the info!#ation filed a$ainst *#ado V.2e!nande does not cha!$e a capital offense, he #a) be ad#itted to bail at the disc!etion ofthe "ou!t.

3ven if the #a9o!it) opinion that the c!i#e cha!$ed in the info!#ation is !ebellion onl) E anon-capital offense E be co!!ect, still the $!antin$ of bail afte! conviction is disc!etiona!), and Isee no plausible !eason fo! the !eve!sal of this "ou!tQs p!evious stand, because the secu!it) ofthe State is at sta/e.Fo! these !easons I dissent. !"#$E!A%"&, J., dissentin:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary 5nable to a$!ee to the !esolution of the #a9o!it), I a# const!ained to dissent the!ef!o#, not so#uch f!o# the pa!t the!eof $!antin$ the #otion fo! bail, as 0he!e it holds not onl) that the!ecan be no co#ple; c!i#e of !ebellion 0ith #ultiple #u!de!, !obbe!), a!son, etc., but that thesec!i#es 0hen co##itted du!in$ and on the occasion of a !ebellion, a!e abso!bed b) the latte!.The ne0 doct!ine no0 bein$ laid do0n besides bein$, to #) #ind, uite !adical and in open

and clea! cont!avention of public polic), is funda#ental and of fa!-!eachin$ conseuences,

and I feel it #) dut) not onl) to voice #) dissent but also to state the !easons in suppo!tthe!eof.The !esolution cites and uotes *!ticle &<: of the Revised Penal "ode to suppo!t its theo!)that the five acts enu#e!ated the!ein pa!ticula !l) those of en$a$in$ in 0a! a$ainst the fo!cesof the $ove!n#ent, dest!o)in$ p!ope!t) and co##ittin$ se!ious violence, cove! all the#u!de!s, !obbe!ies, a!sons, etc., co##itted on the occasion of o! du!in$ a !ebellionG chan!oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)and it p!oceeds to asse!t that the e;p!essions used in said a!ticle, suchas en$a$in$ in 0a! a$ainst the fo!ces of the $ove!n#ent and co##ittin$ se!ious violencei#pl) eve!)thin$ that 0a! connotes such as ph)sical in9u!ies and loss of life. In this

connection, it is of p!ofit and even necessa!) to !efe! to *!ticle &<7 of the Revised Penal "odedefinin$ and desc!ibin$ ho0 the c!i#e of !ebellion is co##itted.*!t. &<7. Rebellion o! insu!!ection E 2o0 co##itted. E The c!i#e of !ebellion o!insu!!ection is co##itted b) !isin$ publicl) and ta/in$ a!#s a$ainst the 4ove!n#ent fo! thepu!pose of !e#ovin$ f!o# the alle$iance to said 4ove!n#ent o! its la0s, the te!!ito!) of thePhilippine Islands o! an) pa!t the!eof, of an) bod) of land, naval o! othe! a!#ed fo!ces, o! ofdep!ivin$ the "hief 3;ecutive o! the +e$islatu!e, 0holl) o! pa!tiall), of an) of thei! po0e!s o!p!e!o$atives.*cco!din$ to the above a!ticle, !ebellion is co##itted b) !isin$ publicl) and ta/in$ a!#sa$ainst the $ove!n#ent fo! the pu!pose o! pu!poses enu#e!ated in said a!ticle. In othe!

0o!ds, the co##ission of !ebellion is co#plete and consu##ated if a $!oup of pe!sons fo! thepu!poses enu#e!ated in the a!ticle, !ise publicl), ta/e up a!#s and asse#ble. It is not

necessa!) fo! its consu##ation that an)bod) be in9u!ed o! /illed, be it a $ove!n#ent soldie! o!civilian, o! that innocent pe!sons be fo!cibl) dep!ived of thei! p!ope!ties b) #eans of !obbe!)o! that thei! sto!es and houses be looted and then bu!ned to the $!ound. Stated diffe!entl),#u!de!s, !obbe!ies, a!sons, etc., a!e not necessa!) o! indispensable in the co##ission of!ebellion and, conseuentl), a!e not in$!edients o! ele#ents of the latte!.*!ticle 78 of the Revised Penal "ode p!ovidin$ fo! Penalt) fo! co#ple; c!i#es !eadsthus1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)*RT. 78. Penalt) fo! co#ple; c!i#es. E hen a sin$le act constitutes t0o o! #o!e $!ave o!less $!ave felonies, o! 0hen an offense is a necessa!) #eans fo! co##ittin$ the othe!, thepenalt) fo! the #ost se!ious c!i#e shall be i#posed, the sa#e to be applied in its #a;i#u#pe!iod. @*s a#ended b) *ct No. 7(((.BFo! bette! unde!standin$, I dee# it advisable to asce!tain and e;plain the #eanin$ of the

ph!ase necessa!) #eans used in *!ticle 78. Necessa!) #eans as inte!p!eted b)c!i#inolo$ists, 9u!ists and le$al co##entato!s, does not #ean indispensable #eans, becauseif it did, then the offense as a necessa!) #eans to co##it anothe! 0ould be anindispensable ele#ent of the latte! and 0ould be an in$!edient the!eof. That 0ould be t!ue inthe offense of t!espass to d0ellin$ to co##it !obbe!) in an inhabited house, o! the infliction ofph)sical in9u!ies to co##it ho#icide o! #u!de!. The ph!ase necessa!) #eans used in *!ticle78, #e!el) si$nifies that fo! instance, a c!i#e such as si#ple estafa can be and o!dina!il) isco##itted in the #anne! defined and desc!ibed in the Penal "odeG chan!oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)but, if the estafado! !eso!ts to o! e#plo)s falsification, #e!el) tofacilitate and insu!e his co##ittin$ the estafa, then he is $uilt) of the co#ple; c!i#e of estafath!u falsification. So, if one desi!in$ to !ape a ce!tain 0o#an, instead of 0aitin$ fo! anoppo!tunit) 0he!e she could be alone o! helpless, in the fields o! so#e isolated place, abducts

he! b) fo!ce and ta/es he! to a fo!est to !avish he!G chan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)o! he ente!s he!

ho#e th!ou$h a 0indo0 at ni$ht and !apes he! in he! !oo#, then he is $uilt) of the co#ple;c!i#e of abduction 0ith !ape o! !ape 0ith t!espass to d0ellin$. The !eason is that theco##ission of abduction of t!espass to d0ellin$ a!e not indispensable #eans o! in$!edients ofthe c!i#e of !ape. The) a!e but #eans selected b) the culp!it to facilitate and ca!!) outpe!haps #o!e uic/l) his evil desi$ns on his victi#. Sa)s the e#inent Spanish co##entato!,4!oia!d, on this point1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)5na cosa analo$a acontece !especto de los delitos cone;ionados con una !elacion de #edioa fin. Ta#bien en ellos la unidad de acto #o!al, ue da vida al delito, hace lo$ica la i#posicionde una sola pena. P!eciso es, sin e#ba!$o, distin$ui! el caso en ue el delito #edio sea

#edio necesa!io de !ealia! el del ito fin, del caso en ue sea pu!a#ente #edio, pe!o no#edio indispensable. 3n auel, el delito #edio no es, en !ealidad, sino una condicion p!ecisa,una ci!cu#stancia sine ua non, un ele#ento inte$!al de la accion punible concebida co#ofin. Sin pasa! po! uno, se!ia i#posible lle$a! al ot!o. +a voluntad, lib!e e inteli$ente, tieneentonces po! unico ob9eto lle$a! al delito fin. Si al !eco!!e! su ca#ino ha de pasa!,indispensable#ante, po! la co#ision de ot!o hecho punible, no dos, sino un delito hab!a uecasti$a!, toda ves ue uno fue el #al lib!e#ente ue!ido, no siendolo el ot!o po! si, sino entanto ue e!a necesa!io pa!a obtene!, la !ealiacion del #al p!oposito concebido.; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;*si, ha) ue !econoce! ue es plausible ue, cuando un delito es #edio de !ealia! ot!o, sei#pon$a al culpable la pena co!!espondiente al #a)o! en su $!ado #a;i#oG chan!oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)pe!o ue no los es si !esulta ue ha sido #edio necesa!io. Po! lo

cont!a!io, pa!a ue sea 9usto el au#ento de pena, con a!!e$lo a la doct!ina $ene!al ace!ca deldelito ) las ci!cunstancia a$!avantes, es p!eciso ue e;istan ) no se ap!ovechen ot!osp!ocedi#ientos, ot!os !ecu!sos, #as o #enos faciles pa!a consu#a! el delito. 3ntonces la!esponsibilidad se hace #a)o! eli$iendo un #edio ue sea un delito en si. 3l ue puede,haciendo uso de su libe!tad ) de su inteli$encia, esco$e! ent!e va!ios p!ocedi#ientos pa!alle$a! a un fin, ) se decide po! uno ue po! si solo constitu)e delito, de este delito nonecessa!io pa!a la !ealiacion del p!o)ectado co#o fin, debe !esponde! ta#bien.; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;39e#plo1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!) el allana#iento de do#icilio co#o #edio de lle$a! aldelito de violacion. No es condicion necesa!ia, pa!a ue la violacion pueda !ealia!se, elent!a! en la #o!ada a9ena cont!a la voluntad de su dueo. Sin esa ci!cunstancia, el delitopuede e;isti!. *ho!a bienG chan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)si el c!i#inal acepta co#o #edio de

lle$a! a la violacion el allana#iento de do#icilio, este delito ) el de violacion deben se!casti$ados obse!vandose en la aplicacion del casti$o una unidad de penalidad ue $ua!decie!ta analo$ia con la unidad de pensa#iento ue llevo en culpable a la !aliacion de a#bosdelitos. Pa!a estos ) analo$os casos, la !aon ap!ueba la i#posicion de la #as $!ave de laspenas en su $!ado #a;i#o. @4!oia!d, 3l "odi$o Penal de &8>(, To#o II, pp. 7?:-7?'.B*ppl)in$ the above obse!vations to the c!i#e of !ebellion as defined in *!ticle &<7, the sa#e#a) be co##itted b) #e!el) !isin$ publicl) and ta/in$ a!#s a$ainst the $ove!n#ent, such as

0as done on seve!al occasions as alle$ed in the info!#ation fo! !ebellion in the p!esent case 0he!e a $!oup of 2u/balahaps, ente!ed to0ns, ove!po0e!ed the $ua!ds at the P!esidenciaconfiscated fi!ea!#s and the contents of the #unicipal t!easu!e!Qs safe, e;acted cont!ibutionsin the fo!# of #one), food-stuffs and clothin$ f!o# the !esidents and #aintained vi!tual cont!olof the to0n fo! a fe0 hou!s. That is si#ple but consu##ated !ebellion. Mu!de!, !obbe!), a!son,

etc., a!e not necessa!) o! indispensable to consu##ate the c!i#e of !ebellion.

%ut in othe! cases, this $!oup o! othe! $!oups of dissidents in o!de! to facilitate achievin$ thei!ob9ective to ove!th!o0 the $ove!n#ent, acco!din$ to the findin$s of the t!ial cou!ts in seve!alcases of !ebellion, !eso!ted to lootin$ and !obbe!ies to !aise funds to finance thei! #ove#ent,so#eti#es /illin$ civilians 0ho !efused to cont!ibute o! to be !ec!uited to au$#ent the fo!cesof the !ebels o! 0ho 0e!e suspected of $ivin$ info!#ation to the $ove!n#ent fo!ces of the#ove#ents of the dissidents. So#eti#es, ho#es of to0n and ba!!io !esidents a!e set on fi!eand bu!ned to the $!ound in !ep!isal o! in o!de! to st!i/e te!!o! into the hea!ts of theinhabitants, so that the) 0ould be #o!e a#enable to the !ule and the de#ands of the !ebels.*t othe! ti#es, civilians 0e!e /idnapped fo! pu!poses of !anso#, and so#e hosta$es /illed

0hen the !anso# 0as not paid o! 0as not fo!thco#in$. In the !aid on "a#p Macabulos inTa!lac, besides shootin$ do0n soldie!s and office!s, buildin$s 0e!e set on fi!e, inducin$ thehospital, as a !esult of 0hich, patients includin$ a Red "!oss nu!se 0e!e /illed. In anothe!case, a passen$e! bus containin$ about fo!t) civilian passen$e!s in Sta. "!u, Ha#bales, 0asheld up b) these a!#ed dissidentsG chan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)the passen$e!s 0e!e !obbed ofthei! #one) and 9e0el!) and fou!teen of the# 0e!e shot to death. The pa!t) of M!s. *u!o!aJueon 0hile on its 0a) to the to0n of %ale!, 0as a#bushed in %on$abon$, Nueva 3ci9a b)the dissidents and seve!al #e#be!s of the pa!t), includin$ he!self, he! dau$hte!, he! son-in-la0, Ma)o! %e!na!do of Jueon "it), and othe!s 0e!e /illed, and thei! pe!sons despoiled of

9e0el!ies and belon$in$s. It is clea! that all these acts of #u!de!, vandalis#, bandit!) andpilla$e cannot be !e$a!ded as in$!edients and indispensable ele#ents of the c!i#e of!ebellion. The afo!ecited acts and cases, the enu#e!ation of 0hich is fa! f!o# co#plete, a!e

not based on #e!e suspicion o! hea!sa). The) a!e alle$ed as facts in the nu#e!ous countscontained in co#plaints o! info!#ations fo! !ebellion 0ith #ultiple #u!de!, !obbe!), a!son,/idnappin$, etc. in seve!al sepa!ate cases in the "ou!ts of Fi!st Instance, so#e still pendin$t!ial-but uite a nu#be! al!ead) decided and no0 pendin$ appeal befo!e us. The!e #ust be#uch t!uth to these cha!$es and counts because in the case a$ainst 2u/ Sup!e#o +uis Ta!uc,illia# Po#e!o) et al., @c!i#inal case No. &?&'' ".F.I., ManilaB Po#e!o) pleaded $uilt) to allthe thi!t) counts a$ainst hi#G chan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)so did Ta!uc afte! seven counts hadbeen eli#inated f!o# the thi!t) contained in the info!#ation. *#on$ the t0ent) th!ee counts!e#ainin$ to 0hich Ta!uc pleaded $uilt) 0e!e the holdin$ up of fo!t) civilians in a passen$e!bus in Sta. "!u, Ha#bales, and the ni$ht !aid on "a#p Macabulos 0he!e hospital patientsand a Red "!oss nu!se 0e!e /illed.Since the above #entioned c!i#es o f #ultiple #u!de!, !obbe!), /idnappin$, etc., a!e not

in$!edients of !ebellion no! indispensable to its co##ission but onl) #eans selected ande#plo)ed b) the offende!s to co##it !ebellion and achieve thei! $oal, a co#ple; c!i#e isco##itted unde! *!ticle 78 of the Revised Penal "ode.4oin$ bac/ to the theo!) of the #a9o!it) in the !esolution that the ph!ase en$a$in$ in 0a! andco##ittin$ se!ious violence used in *!ticle &<7, cove!s the c!i#es of #u!de!, !obbe!), a!son,etc., co##itted du!in$ a !ebellion, I e#phaticall) disa$!ee. 3n$a$in$ in 0a! and lev)in$ 0a!,a$ainst the $ove!n#ent, a!e $ene!al te!#s e#plo)ed in the 5nited States statutes to define!ebellion and t!eason. The) a!e used inte!chan$eabl) and have the sa#e #eanin$ in ou! la0on !ebellion and t!eason, @*!ticles &&7, &<7, &<:, Revised Penal "odeB 0hich a!e based on*ct =?= of *#e!ican o!i$in. The) do not necessa!il) #ean actual /illin$ of $ove!n#ent t!oops,#uch less of innocent civilians.+ev)in$ a!. E The asse#blin$ of a bod) of #en fo! the pu!pose of effectin$ b) fo!ce a

t!easonable ob9ectG chan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)and all 0ho pe!fo!# an) pa!t, ho0eve!, #inute,

o! ho0eve! !e#ote f!o# the scene of action, and 0ho a!e lea$ued in the $ene!al conspi!ac),a!e conside!ed as en$a$ed in lev)in$ 0a!, 0ithin the #eanin$ of the constitution. @%ouvie!Qs+a0 Dictiona!), Vol. =, p. &?<8.BThis T!ibunal defines lev)in$ 0a! in the case of 5.S. vs. +a$nason, < Phil., 7>8-?,thus1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)hateve! diffe!ences the!e #a) have been a#on$ the ea!l) 9ud$es as to 0hethe! an a!#ed!esistance to the enfo!ce#ent of a public la0 @see *ct No. =?=, section :, &B constituted alev)in$ of 0a! o! not, and 0a! o! 0as not t!eason, )et the) 0e!e all unani#ous in holdin$ thatacts of violence co##itted b) an a!#ed bod) of #en 0ith the pu!pose of ove!th!o0in$ the

4ove!n#ent 0as lev)in$ 0a! a$ainst the 5nited States, and 0as the!efo!e t!eason, 0hethe!it 0as done b) ten #en o! ten thousand. @See 5nited States vs. 2an0a), = all., 9!., &<?G chan!oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)=' Fed. "ases, &(:.B; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;*s the act of en$a$in$ in a !ebellion is lev)in$ 0a!, and the!efo!e t!eason, the sa#e actsee#s to be punished b) both sections and in diffe!ent 0a)s. @5. S. vs. +a$nason, < Phil., 78-?.BCust as a citien can co##it t!eason b) adhe!in$ to the ene#) and co##ittin$ t!easonableove!t acts such as pointin$ out and helpin$ a!!est $ue!!illas, acco#pan)in$ ene#) soldie!s onpat!ol and $ivin$ valuable info!#ation to the ene#), 0ithout hi#self /illin$ an)one of hiscount!)#en, this althou$h *!ticle &&7 uses the ph!ase lev)in$ 0a! to define-t!eason, so,althou$h *!ticle &<: uses the ph!ase en$a$in$ in 0a!, a $!oup of individuals #a) also

co##it !ebellion b) #e!el) !isin$ publicl) and ta/in$ a!#s a$ainst the $ove!n#ent 0ithoutfi!in$ a sin$le shot o! inflictin$ a sin$le 0ound.%ut the #a9o!it) sa)s that se!ious violence #entioned in *!ticle &<7 #a) include #u!de!. To#e, this vie0 is untenable. F!o# se!ious violence to the capital offense of #u!de!, ce!tainl), isa fa! c!). %esides, se!ious violence can also be on thin$s. In #) opinion, the diffe!ent acts#entioned in *!ticle &<:, a#on$ the#, dest!o)in$ p!ope!t), co##ittin$ se!ious violence,e;actin$ cont!ibutions o! dive!tin$ public funds, instead of $ivin$ license and unli#ited leave to!ebels and dissidents to en$a$e in #ass #u!de!, lootin$ and 0holesale dest!uction ofp!ope!t), on the cont!a!), se!ve to li#it and !est!ict the violations of la0 that #a) be included inand abso!bed b) !ebellion. *!ticle &<: #entions those ac ts 0hich $ene!all) acco#pan) apublic a!#ed up!isin$. hen !ebels !aid a to0n o! ba!!io, #anhandlin$ of civilians 0hoobst!uct thei! #ove#ents o! fail to ca!!) out thei! o!de!s such as to lend thei! ca!abaos and

ca!ts fo! t!anspo!tation pu!poses, o! to cont!ibute food, clothes, #edicines, #one) etc., #a)be e;pected. The !ebels #a) e#plo) fo!ce to disa!# the police#an $ua!din$ the P!esidenciaand if he offe!s !esistance beat hi# up o!, once inside, b!ea/ do0n the doo! of the t!easu!e!Qsoffice, blo0 up his safe and ca!!) a0a) the #one) contents the!eof. *ll these acts involveviolence, even se!ious violence on pe!sons and thin$s, includin$ dive!sion of public funds. %ut/no0in$ that these la0 violations, !elativel) not se!ious, a!e $ene!all) unavoidable in publica!#ed up!isin$s involvin$ hastil) asse#bled pe!sons and $!oups 0ith little disciplineQ the la0tole!ates the#, conside!in$ the# as pa!t of the !ebellion. %ut 0hen !ebels !ob innocentcivilians, /idnap the# fo! pu!poses of !anso#, even /ill the# #e!el) because the) fail to pa)the !anso#, and civilian houses a!e put to the to!ch, endan$e!in$ the lives of the in#atesGchan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!) 0hen civilians a!e /illed fo! !efusin$ to cont!ibute, o! on #e!esuspicion of thei! $ivin$ info!#ation to the $ove!n#ent, I cannot believe that these b!utal act

a!e condoned b) the la0 and a!e to be included in the c!i#e of !ebellion.

The #a9o!it) leans heavil) on ou! decisions in seve!al t!eason cases 0he!ein 0e !efused o!failed to convict of the co#ple; c!i#e of t!eason 0ith #ultiple #u!de!. To #e, those cases a!eneithe! cont!ollin$ no! applicable fo! seve!al !easons. *l#ost inva!iabl), indict#ent in thoset!eason cases alle$ed the /illin$s co##itted b) the indictees as in$!edients and ele#ents oft!eason. The) a!e #entioned as the ove!t acts to establish and p!ove t!eason. Natu!all), thecou!t held that bein$ in$!edients of the c!i#e of t!eason the) cannot be conside!ed as distinctand sepa!ate offenses fo! the pu!pose of appl)in$ *!ticle 78 of the Revised Penal "ode.*nothe! !eason is that, t!eason bein$ a capital offense, this cou!t did not see an) i##ediatenecessit) fo! conside!in$ and appl)in$ the theo!) of co#ple; c!i#e because the !esult 0ould

in #an) cases be p!acticall) the sa#e. In othe! 0o!ds, t!eason #i$ht )et be said to abso!b thec!i#e of ho#icide, even of #u!de!, because as !e$a!ds the penalt), the) a!e of the sa#ecate$o!). Still anothe! !eason, not an uni#po!tant one is that at that ti#e, opinion a#on$ the#e#be!s of this T!ibunal on the uestion of co#ple; c!i#e of t!eason 0ith ho#icide, sedi tion

0ith #u!de! and !ebellion 0ith #u!de!, a!son, !obbe!), etc., had not )et c!)stalied, one 0a) o!the othe!. So, 0e p!efe!!ed to avoid !ulin$ on the issue, speciall) since b) conside!in$ theco##ission of #u!de!, !obbe!), etc., in t!eason as a$$!avatin$ the c!i#e, 0e 0ould achievethe sa#e !esult as !e$a!ds the penalt) to be i#posed.%ut in the case of People vs. Pe!fecto +ab!a, 4.R. No. &=7(, Ma) &=, &?7?, this cou!t th!ou$hM!. Custice %en$on, accepted the vie0 of the Solicito! 4ene!al that unde! *!ticle 78 of theRevised Penal "ode, +ab!a 0as $uilt) of the co#ple; c!i#e of t!eason 0ith #u!de!, as sho0nb) the dispositive pa!t of ou! decision in that case, 0hich is uoted

belo01chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)he!efo!e, the ve!dict of $uilt #ust be affi!#ed. *!ticle 78, &&7 and =78 of the Revised Penal"ode a!e applicable to the offense of t!eason 0ith #u!de!. 2o0eve!, fo! lac/ of sufficient votesto i#pose the e;t!e#e penalt), the 2ppellant 0ill be sentenced to life i#p!ison#ent.The onl) !eason 0h) the death penalt) 0as not i#posed in said case 0as because of lac/ ofsufficient votes but evidentl), the Custices 0e!e a$!eed as to the application of *!ticle 78 of thePenal "ode !e$a!din$ co#ple; c!i#es.Then in the t!eason case of People vs. %a!!a#eda, 8: Phil., >8?, 7> Off. 4a., :(8=, on thest!en$th of ou! decision in the case of +ab!a, the Solicito! 4ene!al !eco##ended that%a!!a#eda be also convicted of the co#ple; c!i#e of t!eason 0ith #ultiple #u!de! andsentenced to death. This T!ibunal accepted the Solicito! 4ene!alQs !eco##endation andi#posed the death penalt) in the follo0in$ lan$ua$e1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)

e ente!tain not the least doubt as to the $uilt of the 2ppellant . 2is ve!) counsel de oficio 0ho #ade an anal)sis of the testi#onies of the 0itnesses fo! the p!osecution andpainsta/in$l) stated the# in detail in his b!ief, a$!ees that his client is $uilt) althou$h he p!a)sthat the sentence of life i#p!ison#ent be affi!#ed. The Solicito! 4ene!al, ho0eve!,!eco##ends that the penalt) of death be i#posed upon the 2ppellant . "onside!in$ that thet!eason co##itted b) the 2ppellant 0as acco#panied not onl) b) the app!ehension of*#e!icans @5. S. citiensB and thei! delive!) to the Capanese fo!ces 0hich evidentl) late!e;ecuted the#, but also b) /illin$ 0ith his o0n hands not onl) one but seve!al Filipinos, hiso0n count!)#en, and that in addition to this, he too/ pa!t in the #ass /illin$ and slau$hte! of#an) othe! Filipinos, 0e a!e const!ained to a$!ee to said !eco##endation. 2o0eve!,unpleasant, even painful is the co#pliance 0ith ou! dut), 0e he!eb) i#pose upon the 2ppellant Teodo!o %a!!a#eda the penalt) of death 0hich 0ill be ca!!ied out on a da) to be

fi;ed b) the t!ial cou!t 0ith in thi!t) @<(B da)s afte! the !etu!n of the !eco!d of the case to said

cou!t.ith the t0o afo!ecited cases, it #a) not be said that the Sup!e#e "ou!t has al0a)s held thatthe!e can be no co#ple; c!i#e of t!eason 0ith #u!de!.The theo!) of the #a9o!it) is that the c!i#e of !ebellion 0ith the #a;i#u# penalt) of t0elve)ea!s and fine, abso!bs the othe! c!i#es of #u!de!, !obbe!), a!son, /idnappin$, etc., as lon$as the latte! a!e co##itted in the cou!se and in fu!the!ance of the fo!#e!. The idea of onec!i#e abso!bin$ a #o!e se!ious one 0ith a #o!e seve!e penalt) does not !eadil) appeal to the!easonable and lo$ical #ind 0hich can onl) co#p!ehend a thin$ abso!bin$ anothe! s#alle! o!less than itself in volu#e, in i#po!tance, in value o! in cate$o!). That is 0h) Cud$e Montesa in

the th!ee cases, People vs. 2e!nande, People vs. 3spi!itu, and People vs. Medina, c!i#inalcases Nos. &:78&, &:7>? and &7&& !espectivel), of the "ou!t of Fi!st Instance, Manila, in hisdecision convictin$ the accused the!ein, in disposin$ of the theo!) of abso!ption, u!$ed uponhi# b) counsel fo! the defense to the effect that the c!i#e of !ebellion abso!bs the c!i#e of#u!de!, !obbe!), a!son, etc., #ade the follo0in$ obse!vations1 chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)The theo!) of abso!ption tenaciousl) adhe!ed to b) the defense to the effect that !ebellionabso!bs all these #o!e se!ious offenses is p!eposte!ous to sa) the least, conside!in$ that it isboth ph)sicall) and #etaph)sicall) i#posible fo! a s#alle! unit o! entit) to abso!b a bi$$e!one. @Montesa, C., People vs. 2e!nande 4.R. No. &:78&, P. >8.Be need not $o into an acade#ic discussion of this uestion because as a #atte! of la0, #)opinion, c!i#inal 9u!isp!udence, e;poundin$ the c!i#inal la0 na#el) the Penal "ode and thePenal "ode of Spain, on 0hich it is based, e;p!essl) and clea!l) decla!e that the co##on

c!i#es of #u!de!, !obbe!), a!son, etc., co##itted in the cou!se o! b) !eason of !ebellion, a!esepa!ate c!i#es, not to be #e!$ed in o! abso!bed b) !ebellion and should be p!osecutedsepa!atel). *!ticle =:? of the Penal "ode of Spain, of &8>( on 0hich ou! Penal "odep!o#ul$ated in &88>, 0as based, p!ovides as follo01chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)+os delitos pa!ticula!es co#etidos en una !ebellion o sedicion o con #otivo de ellas, se!ancasti$ados !espectiva#ente, se$un las disposiciones de este "odi$o."uando no puedan descub!i!se sus auto!es, se!an penados co#o tales los 9efes p!incipalesde la !ebelion o sedicion. @4!oia!d, 3l "odi$o Penal de &8>(, To#o III, *!ticulo =:?, p. '7?.BIn co##entin$ on *!ticle =:? of the Spanish Penal "ode, Viadasa)s1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)+a disposicion del p!i#e! pa!!afo de este a!ticulo no puede se! #as 9us taG chan!oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)con a!!e$lo a ella, los delitos pa!ticula!es o co#unes co#etidos en una

!ebellion o sedicion no debe!an !eputa!se co#o accidentes inhe!entes a estas, sino co#odelitos especiales a dicha !ebellion ) sedicion a9enos, los ue debe!an se! !espectiva#entecasti$ados con als penas ue en este "odi$o se les sealan. Pe!o ue delitos debe!anconside!a!se co#o co#unes, ) cuales co#o constitutivos de la p!opia !ebelion o sedicionK 3ncuanto a la !ebelion, no of!ece este cuestion dificultad al$una, pues todo hecho ue no esteco#p!endido en uno u ot!o de los ob9etos especificados en los seis nu#e!os del *!ticulo =7<se!a e;t!ao a la !ebelion, ) si se este debe!a se! casti$ado co#o delito pa!ticula!.Q @Viada,"odi$o Penal, To#o II, &?8-&??.BPea, anothe! co##entato!, !efe!!in$ to *!ticle =:? of the Spanish Penal 4ode, has thefollo0in$ to sa)1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)+a disposicion de este a!ticulo es sob!ada#ente 9usta, pe!o cuando se entende!a ue elhecho es independiente de la insu!$enciaK T!atandose de la !ebelion no ha) p!oble#a, pues

todos los fines ue se indican en el *!ticulo =&7 se distin$uen facil#ente de un asesinato, un

!obo, una violacion, etc. 3l p!oble#a puede su!$i! con la sedicion, en cu)os t!es ulti#osnu#e!os, dice un auto!, se tipifican conductas ue #u) bien pueden se! subsi#idas en ot!oslu$a!es del "odi$o. 3l T.S. pa!ece ue si$ue este p!incipio $ene!al1 chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)las inf!acciones $!aves se conside!an co#o delitos independientes, en ca#bio los hechos de#eno! $!avedad puedan se! conside!ados co#o accidentes de la !ebelion. 3n este sentido, elT.S. ha decla!ado ue son acc identes de la !ebelion, los desacatos ) lesiones a la auto!idad )ot!os delitos cont!a el o!den publico, asi co#o la !esistencia o aco#etiendo a la fue!a publica@=< Ma)o &8?(B. 3l abuso de supe!io!idad ta#bien es inhe!ente el ala#iento tu#ultua!io @&?novie#b!e &?('.B @Pea De!edes Penal, To#o II pp. 8?-?(.B

*nothe! co##entato!, *. Juintano Ripolles, sa)s of *!ticle =:? of the Spanish Penal "ode,counte!pa!t of *!ticle =77 of ou! old Penal "ode1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)+a concu!!encia de delitos consi$nada en este a!ticulo no puede se! #as 9usta, bien ue ladificultad pe!sista sie#p!e pa!a dete!#ina! cuales han de se! los pa!ticula!es accidentales )cuales los inte$!antes de la p!opia subve!sion. 5na doct!ina de#asiado si#plista, ue ha sidoa #enudo se$uida po! la Cu!isp!udencia, es la de esti#a! ue, abso!biendo el delito #as$!ave al ue lo es #enos, todo el ue po! deba9o del de !ebelion o sedicion se!a anulado po!este. Pa!a los del la #is#a natu!alea, la cosa es incuestionable, pe!o no pa!a los ue laten$an dive!sa, entendiendo po! la est!aa e i#p!ecisa e;p!esion de @pa!ticula!esB a lasinf!acciones co#unes o no politicas. @*. Juintano Ripolles, "o#enta!ios al "odi$o Penal Vol.II, pp. &(&-&(=G chan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)cu!sivas con neust!as.B*nothe! distin$uished le$al co##entato! $ives his vie0 on the sa#e *!ticle

=:?1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)Se establece aui ue en una !ebelion o sedicion, o con #otivo de ellas, co#ente ot!osdelitos @v. $., !oba, #ata o lesionaB, se!a !esponsable de estos ade#as de los delitos de!ebelion o sedicion. +a dificultad consiste en estos casos en sepa!a! los accidentes de la!ebelion o sedicion de los delitos independientes de estas, ) co#o las le)es no contienen eneste punto p!ecepto al$uno aplicable, su solucion ha uedado enco#endada a los t!ibunales.+a 9u!isp!udencia ue estos han sentado conside!a co#o accidentes de la !ebelion o sedicionE cu)a c!i#inalidad ueda e#bebida en la de estos delitos, ), po! tanto, no son puniblesespecial#ente E los hechos de escasa $!avedad @v1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)$., atentados,desacatos, lesiones #enos $!avesBG chan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)po! el cont!a!io, lasinf!acciones $!aves, co#o el asesinato o las lesiones $!aves, se conside!an co#o delitosindependientes de la !ebelion o del la sedicion. @"uello "alon, Vol. = De!echo Penal p. &&(.B

Finall), 4!oia!d, anothe! e#inent co##entato! of the Penal code of Spain, in co##entin$ onthe sa#e *!ticle =:? of the Spanish Penal "ode of &8>(, sa)s thefollo0in$1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)No necesita nin$uno el pa!!afo p!i#e!o de este a!ticulo. *unue no se hubie!a esc!ito en el"odi$o, ha!ian los T!ibunales lo ue dice. Se!ia necesa!io pa!a ue asi no sucedie!a el uefue!a la !ebelion un #otivo de e;encion de !esponsabilidad c!i#inal pa!a las de#as clases dedelitos. @4!oia!d To#o <, ':(.BIt 0ill be seen that Spanish 9u!ists and le$al co##entato!s a!e, 0ith !efe!ence to *!ticle =:? ofthe Spanish Penal "ode of &8>(, unani#ous in the opinion that this p!ovision of the "!i#inal+a0 is 9ust and fai! because one should not ta/e advanta$e of his co##ittin$ the c!i#e of!ebellion b) co##ittin$ othe! #o!e se!ious c!i#e such as #u!de!, !obbe!), a!son, etc., 0ithi#punit). The above #uch co##ented *!ticle =:? of the Spanish Penal "ode has its

counte!pa!t in *!ticle =77 of ou! old Penal "ode in p!acticall) the sa#e 0o!din$ and

ph!aseolo$)1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)*RT. =7. *ll othe! c!i#es co##itted in the cou!se of a !ebellion of seditious #ove#ent, o! onoccasion the!eof, shall be punished in acco!dance 0ith the !ules of this "ode.If the pe!pet!ato!s of such c!i#es cannot be discove!ed, the p!incipal leade!s of the !ebelliono! sedition shall be punished the!efo!e as p!incipals.In this 9u!isdiction, 0e have faithfull) obse!ved and applied this penal p!ovision. In the cases of5. S. vs. "ab!e!a, et al., 7< Phil., pa$e '7 and pa$e 8= fo! sedition and #ultiple #u!de!!espectivel), 0he!ein #e#be!s of the Philippine constabula!) attac/ed and /illed seve!alpolice#en in the "it) of Manila, this "ou!t convicted said soldie!s, fi!st, of sedition and late!, of

#ultiple #u!de!, clea! p!oof that the #u!de!s co##itted in the cou!se of and b) !eason of thesedition 0e!e not included in and abso!bed b) sedition, this despite the fact that ou! la0 onsedition then, section : of *ct No. =?=, uses the 0o!ds E !ise publicl) and tu#ultuousl), ino!de! to attain b) fo!ce o! outside of le$al #ethods an) of the follo0in$ ob9ects a!e $uilt) ofsedition. In the #ultiple #u!de! case, the se!$eants and co!po!als of the constabula!), 0hotoo/ pa!t in the /illin$ of the cit) police#en, 0e!e sentenced to death. This cou!t in that casesaid1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)It is #e!el) statin$ the obvious to sa) that sedition is not the sa#e offense as #u!de!.Sedition is a c!i#e a$ainst public o!de!G chan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)#u!de! is a c!i#e a$ainstpe!sons. Sedition is a c!i#e di!ected a$ainst the e;istence of the State, the autho!it) of the$ove!n#ent, and the $ene!al public t!anuilit)G chan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)#u!de! is a c!i#edi!ected a$ainst the lives of individuals. @5. S. vs. *bad @&?(=B & Phil. 7<>.B Sedition in its

#o!e $ene!al sense is the !aisin$ of co##otions o! distu!bances in the stateG chan!oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)#u!de! at co##on la0 is 0he!e a pe!son of sound #ind and disc!etionunla0full) /ills an) hu#an bein$, in the peace of the sove!ei$n, 0ith #alice afo!ethou$ht,e;p!ess o! i#plied.The offenses cha!$ed in the t0o info!#ations fo! sedition and #u!de! a!e pe!fectl) distinct inpoint of la0, ho0eve!, nea!l) the) #a) be connected in point of fact. Not alone a!e theoffenses eo no#ine diffe!ent, but the alle$ations in the bod) of the info!#ations a!e diffe!ent.The $ist of the info!#ation fo! sedition is the public and tu#ultuous up!isin$ of theconstabula!) in o!de! to attain b) fo!ce and outside of le$al #ethods the ob9ect of indictin$ anact of hate and !even$e upon the pe!sons of the police fo!ce of the cit) of Manila b) fi !in$ atthe# in seve!al places in the cit) of ManilaG chan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)the $ist of theinfo!#ation in the #u!de! case is that the constabula!), conspi!in$ to$ethe!, ille$all) and

c!i#inall) /illed ei$ht pe!sons and $!avel) 0ounded th!ee othe!s. The c!i#es of #u!de! andse!ious ph)sical in9u!ies 0e!e not necessa!il) included in the info!#ation fo! seditionG chan!oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)and the De&endants could not have been convicted of these c!i#esunde! the fi!st info!#ation. @Phil. Vol. 7<, pa$es ??-&((.BThe!e is an insinuation #ade in the #a9o!it) !esolution, that the *#e!ican +a0 on sedition and!ebellion, the o!i$in of ou! p!esent la0 on the sub9ect, is #o!e beni$n and libe!al than itscounte!pa!t in the Spanish Penal "ode, definin$ and penaliin$ sedition and !ebellion, andthat unde! *#e!ican 9u!isp!udence, !ebellion and sedition include c!i#es li/e #u!de!, !obbe!),a!son, etc., co##itted in the cou!se the!eof. %ut it 0ill be noticed that of the nine Custices 0hosi$ned the decision in the case of People vs. "ab!e!a fo! #ultiple #u!de!, five, includin$ M!.Custice Malcol#, 0ho penned the decision, 0e!e *#e!icans, supposed to be steeped in*#e!ican +a0 and the co##on la0, and )et the) all held that sedition 0he!e fo!ce is

e;pected to be used, did not, include #u!de!. It is evident that the insinuation #ade in the

#a9o!it) !esolution is not e;actl) bo!ne out b) the "ab!e!a case.The #a9o!it) as/s 0h) in the past, especiall) up to &?<=, 0hen ou! Revised Penal "ode 0asp!o#ul$ated no one had eve! been p!osecuted, #uch less convicted of !ebellion o! seditionco#ple;ed 0ith #u!de!, !obbe!), etc., if it is t!ue that the!e is such a co#ple; c!i#e of!ebellion 0ith #u!de!. Fo! that #atte!, one #a) even as/ 0h) the constabula!) soldie!s in the"ab!e!a case 0e!e not cha!$ed 0ith the co#ple; c!i#e of sedition 0ith #u!de!. The !easonand the ans0e! a!e obvious. 5ntil &?<=, the )ea! of the p!o#ul$ation of ou! Revised Penal"ode, ou! old Penal "ode included *!ticle =77, the counte!-pa!t of *!ticle =:? of the SpanishPenal "ode, to the effect that co##on c!i#es li/e #u!de!, !obbe!), a!son, co##itted on the

occasion o! b) !eason of a !ebellion o! sedition, a!e to be p!osecuted sepa!atel). That 0as 0h) insu!$ents 0ho co##itted !ebellion o! insu!!ection 0ith ho#icide o! #u!de! du!in$ thefi!st da)s of the *#e!ican !e$i#e in the Philippines, could not be cha!$ed 0ith the co#ple;c!i#e of !ebellion 0ith #u!de!G chan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)and that e;plains 0h) "ab!e!a andhis co-accused could not be cha!$ed 0ith the co#ple; c!i#e of sedition 0ith #ultiple #u!de!,but 0e!e p!osecuted sepa!atel) fo! #ultiple #u!de!.The #a9o!it) also as/s 0h) the insu!$ents in the )ea! &?(& and &?(= 0e!e cha!$ed onl) 0ith!ebellion but neve! 0ith #u!de! despite the fact that the!e 0as p!oof that the) also hadco##itted #u!de! in the cou!se of the !ebellion o! insu!!ection. The !eason to #) #ind 0asthat, sho!tl) the!eafte!, ca#e the p!ocla#ation of a#nest) issued b) P!esident Mcinle) of the5nited States, 0hich a#nest) cove!ed not onl) the c!i#e of !ebellion but also othe! violationsof the la0 co##itted in the cou!se of the !ebellion.

Then ca#e ou! Revised Penal "ode p!o#ul$ated in &?<=. It is a !evision of ou! old Penal"ode of &88>. One of the pu!poses of the !evision 0as si#plification, and eli#ination ofunnecessa!) p!ovisions. In p!oof of this, 0hile ou! Penal "ode of &88> contained '&& a!ticles,ou! Revised Penal "ode contains onl) <'> a!ticles. *#on$ the a!ticles of the old Penal "odenot included in the Revised Penal "ode, is *!ticle =77. Does the o#ission o! eli#ination of*!ticle =77 #ean that no0, co##on c!i#es li/e #u!de!, !obbe!), a!son, etc., co##itted in thecou!se of a !ebellion o! sedition a!e abso!bed b) !ebellion o! seditionK 2a!dl). It cannot be thatthe co##ittee on !evision and ou! le$islato!s abandoned the idea and the theo!) contained insaid *!ticle =77, because as I have al!ead) e;plained, all the Spanish co##entato!s and

9u!ists co##entin$ on this pa!ticula! p!ovision of the Spanish Penal "ode a!e a$!eed that it isa 9ust and !easonable p!ovision, so that sedition and !ebellion #a) not be utilied as a cloa/ ofi##unit) in the co##ission of othe! se!ious c!i#es. To #e, the !eason fo! the o#ission is that

it 0as !eall) unnecessa!). *s 4!oia!d said in his co##enta!) al!ead) !ep!oduced, even if thatp!ovision 0e!e not e#bodied in the penal code, the cou!t 0ould still appl) saidp!ovision1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)No necesita nin$uno el pa!!afo p!i#e!o de este a!ticulo. *unue no se hubie!a e;c!ito en el"odi$o, ha!ian los T!ibunales lo ue dice. Se!ia necesa!io pa!a ue asi no sucedie!a el uefue!a la !ebelion un #otivo de e;encion de !esponsabilidad c!i#inal pa!a las de#as clases dedelitos. @4!oia!d To#o <, ':(.BThe #e#be!s of the co##ittee on !evision of ou! old Penal "ode 0ho #ust have beenfa#ilia! 0ith the opinion and co##ents of e#inent Spanish 9u!ists, pa!ticula!l) the aboveco##ent of 4!oia!d undoubtedl), dee#ed the p!ovision of *!ticle =77 supe!fluous andunnecessa!), and so o#itted it in the !evision. 2o0eve!, this o#ission of *!ticle =77 of ou!Penal "ode in the ne0, has an i#po!tant effect. No lon$e! shall 0e be obli$ed to p!osecute

#u!de!, !obbe!), a!son, /idnappin$, etc., co##itted in the cou!se of and b) !eason of a

sedition o! a !ebellion, sepa!atel). The p!osecution is no0 f!ee to co#bine these co##onc!i#es 0ith the c!i#es of sedition o! !ebellion and cha!$e a co#ple; c!i#e. *nd that is 0hathas been done in the p!osecution of the nu#e!ous cases of !ebellion.This idea, this theo!) of co#ple; c!i#e of !ebellion 0ith #ultiple #u!de!, etc., is not such ast!an$e, e;t!ava$ant o! fantastic p!oposition o! idea. e a!e not the onl) ones holdin$ thisvie0. Out of seven sepa!ate cases, all involvin$ the co#ple; c!i#e of !ebellion 0ith #ultiple#u!de! and etc., decided in the "ou!t of Fi!st Instance, not lon$ a$o, cases No. &7(>( EPeople vs. +avaG chan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)No. &:87& E People vs. 2e!nandeG chan!oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)No. =8>8 E People vs. "apadociaG chan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)No.

&(7(( E People vs. Salvado! No. =>(7 E People vs. NavaG chan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)No.&?&'' E People vs. Po#e!o) and the sa#e case &?&'' E People vs. Ta!uc, onl) one 9ud$e,2on. 4!e$o!io Na!vasa, of the "ou!t of Fi!st Instance of Manila, held that the!e is no co#ple;c!i#e of !ebellion 0ith #u!de!, and his holdin$ 0as based #ainl) if not enti!el) on thedecisions of this T!ibunal in the t!eason cases 0hich as I have al !ead) e;plained, a!e notcont!ollin$ o! applicable. In the othe! cases, five 9ud$es of "ou!ts of Fi!st Instance, Cud$esOca#po, "astelo, %a!celona, 4at#aitan, and Montesa, held that the!e is such a co#ple;c!i#e of !ebellion 0ith #u!de! and actuall) convicted the accused of said co#ple; c!i#e.*$ain, in the case of People vs. 5#ali, et al., c!i#inal case No. &&(<> of the "ou!t of Fi!stInstance of Jueon P!ovince, Cud$e 4ustavo Victo!iano, convicted the accused of theco#ple; c!i#e of !ebellion 0ith #ultiple #u!de!, etc. Recentl), in seve!al c!i#inal casespendin$ in Pan$asinan, involvin$ the co#ple; c!i#es of !ebellion 0ith #ultiple #u!de!, etc.,

Cud$e Mo!fe of the "ou!t of Fi!st Instance of that p!ovince actin$ upon #otions to uash theinfo!#ations on the $!ound that the!e 0as no such co#ple; c!i#e of !ebellion 0ith #u!de! andconseuentl), the info!#ations 0e!e not in acco!dance 0ith la0, fo! cha!$in$ #o!e than oneoffense, in a 0ell !easoned and conside!ed o!de!, denied the sa#e and held that the!e is aco#ple; c!i#e of !ebellion 0ith #u!de!. Of cou!se, these opinions of 9ud$es of the lo0e!cou!ts a!e not bindin$ on this t!ibunal but su!el), the) a!e pe!suasive and cannot be i$no!ed.*t least, the) sho0 that the!e a!e othe!s, lea!ned in the la0, 0ho subsc!ibe to the theo!) ofco#ple; c!i#e of !ebellion 0ith #u!de!, a!son, etc.Ou! decision in the case of People vs. 5#ali, @?' Phil., &8:B, p!o#ul$ated on Nove#be! =?,&?:7, is anothe! p!oof that #u!de!s co##itted in the cou!se of sedition o! !ebellion a!e notabso!bed b) the latte!. In said case, this cou!t in a unani#ous decision found the De&endants the!ein $uilt) of sedition, #ultip le #u!de!, a!son, f!ust!ated #u!de! and ph)sical in9u!ies and

sentenced the# acco!din$l). The uestion #a) a$ain be as/ed, if the!e is such a co#ple;c!i#e of sedition 0ith #u!de!, a!son, etc., 0h) 0e!e 5#ali and his co-accused not convictedof this co#ple; c!i#eK The ans0e! is found in a po!tion of ou! decision in that case 0hich 0euote1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)The last point to be dete!#ined is the natu!e of the offense o! offenses co##itted. 2ppellants

0e!e cha!$ed 0ith and convicted of the co#ple; c!i#e of !ebellion 0ith #ultiple #u!de!,f!ust!ated #u!de!, a!son and !obbe!). Is the!e such a co#ple; c!i#e of !ebellion 0ith #ultiple#u!de!, etc.K hile the Solicito! 4ene!al in his b!ief clai#s that 2ppellants a!e $uilt) of saidco#ple; c!i#e and in suppo!t of his stand as/s fo! leave to inco!po!ate b) !efe!enceQ hisp!evious a!$u#ents in opposin$ 5#aliQs petition fo! bail, counsel fo! 2ppellants conside!ed itunnecessa!) to discuss the e;istence o! non- e;istence of such co#ple; c!i#e, sa)in$ thatthe natu!e of the c!i#e co##itted is of no #o#ent to he!ein 2ppellants because the) had

absolutel) no pa!t in it 0hatsoeve!Q. Fo! the p!esent, and 0ith !espect to this pa!ticula! case,

0e dee# it unnecessa!) to decide this i#po!tant and cont!ove!sial uestion, defe!!in$ itsconside!ation and dete!#ination to anothe! case o! occasion #o!e oppo!tune, 0hen it is #o!edi!ectl) and sua!el) !aised and both pa!ties $iven an oppo!tunit) to discuss and a!$ue theuestion #o!e adeuatel) and e;haustivel). "onside!in$ that, assu#in$ fo! the #o#ent thatthe!e is no such co#ple; c!i#e of !ebellion 0ith #u!de!G chan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)etc., andthat conseuentl) 2ppellants could not have been le$all) cha!$ed 0ith it, #uch less convictedof said co#ple; c!i#e, and the info!#ation should the!efo!e, be !e$a!ded as havin$ cha!$ed#o!e than one offense, cont!a!) to Rule &(', section &= and Rule &&<, section =@eB, of theRules of "ou!t, but that 2ppellants havin$ inte!posed no ob9ection the!eto, the) 0e!e p!ope!l)

t!ied fo! and la0full) convicted if $uilt) of the seve!al and sepa!ate c!i#es cha!$ed the!ein, 0ehave decided and 0e !ule that the 2ppellants #a) p!ope!l) be convicted of said seve!al andsepa!ate c!i#es, as he!einafte! specified. e feel pa!ticula!l) suppo!ted and 9ustified in thisstand that 0e ta/e, b) the !esult of the case, na#el), that the p!ison sentence 0e i#pose doesnot e;ceed, e;cept pe!haps in actual du!ation, that #eted out b) the cou!t belo0, 0hich is lifei#p!ison#ent.The #a9o!it) !esolution invo/es and applies the p!inciple of the so called p!o !eo in connection

0ith *!ticle 78 of ou! Revised Penal "ode on co#ple; c!i#es, to the effect that said a!ticleshould not be applied 0hen the !esultin$ penalt) e;ceeds the su# total of the seve!al c!i#esco##itted constitutin$ the co#ple; c !i#e. *cco!din$ to the #a9o!it), the theo!) of p!o !eo isthat the p!inciple of co#ple; c!i#e 0as adopted fo! the benefit of the accused and not to hisp!e9udiceG chan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)so, it is to be applied 0hen the #a;i#u# of the penalt)

fo! the #o!e se!ious c!i#e is less in seve!it) o! du!ation of i#p!ison#ent than the su# total ofthe seve!al c!i#es co##itted, but not othe!0ise. This is a novel theo!) in this 9u!isdiction. To#) /no0led$e it has neve! been advanced befo!e. *ll alon$ and du!in$ all these )ea!s, thecou!ts of this count!) not e;cludin$ this au$ust t!ibunal had been appl)in$ the p!ovisions of*!ticle 78 of the Revised Penal "ode, and its sou!ce, *!ticle 8? of ou! Penal "ode of &88>,!e$a!dless of 0hethe! o! not the !esultin$ penalt) 0as p!e9udicial to the accused. *s a #atte!of fact, in #ost cases the !esultin$ penalt) i#posed b) this t!ibunal in co#ple; c!i#es 0as#uch #o!e seve!e and of lon$e! du!ation @i#p!ison#entB than the su# total of the t0o o!#o!e c!i#es co##itted. In the nu#e!ous cases decided b) this cou!t involvin$ the co#ple;c!i#e of estafa th!ou$h falsification, the #a;i#u# of the penalt) fo! the #o!e se!ious c!i#e offalsification 0as i#posed althou$h it e;ceeded the total of the penalties fo! estafa and fo!falsification. In cases of !ape 0ith ph)sical in9u!ies the #a;i#u# of the penalt) fo! the c!i#e of

!ape 0as i#posed althou$h it e;ceeded in du!ation and seve!it) the total of the penalt) fo!!ape and that fo! the !elativel) li$ht penalt) fo! ph)sical in9u!ies. In the case of People vs.Pa!ulan @88 Phil., '&:B, involvin$ the co#ple; c!i#e of /idnappin$ 0ith #u!de!, this t!ibunalapplied the p!ovision of *!ticle 78 of the Revised Penal "ode and 0ould have sentenced theaccused to death, 0e!e it not fo! one dissentin$ vote based not on the applicabilit) of *!ticle78, but on the uestion of 9u!isdiction. Said this cou!t1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)+a pena ue debe i#pone!se al acusado Pa!ulan es la del delito #as $!ave de secuest!o ensu $!ado #a;i#o, o sea, pena capital. Pe!o el Ma$ist!ado S!. Tuason, consecuente con suopinion disidente en Pa!ulan cont!a Rodas, sup!a, no puede confi!#a! la pena capitali#puesta po! el Cu$ado de P!i#e!a Instancia de Manila ue se$un el no tenia 9u!isdiccionsob!e la p!esente causa. 3n vista de este voto disidente, el p!esidente del t!ibunal S!. Pa!as )t!es #a$ist!ados aunue c!een ue el acusado Pa!ulan, po! las p!uebas p!esentadas, #e!ece

pena capital, con todo no pueden vota! po! la co#fi!#acion po!ue el delito se co#etio antes

de la ap!obacion de la +e) de la Republica No. =?', ue solo e;i$e ocho votos pa!a lai#posicion de la pena capital. *nto#atica#ente, po! #iniste!io de la le) debe i#pone!se aPa!ulan la pena in#ediata#ente infe!io! a la de #ue!te, ue es la de !eclusion pe!petua conlas acceso!ias. @88 Phil., p. '=7.BThen in the case of People vs. 4uillen W 7> Off. 4a., <7<<, involvin$ the co#ple; c!i#e of#u!de! and #ultiple atte#pted #u!de! co##itted b) the accused 0ith a sin$le act of hu!lin$ ahand $!enade at P!esident Ro;as, this t!ibunal in a pe! cu!ia# decision, i$no!in$ thea$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stances that attended the co##ission of the c!i#e, applied the #a;i#u#of the penalt) fo! the #o!e se!ious c!i#e of #u!de! in acco!dance 0ith *!ticle 78 of the

Revised Penal "ode and sentenced the accused to death. Othe! instances and cases #a) becited ad libitu# to sho0 that in this 9u!isdiction and in this t!ibunal, the p!inciple of p!o !eo 0asneve! ente!tained, #uch less accepted.O!i$in of p!o !eo p!inciple5p to the )ea! &?(8, the Spanish Penal "ode had the follo0in$ p!ovisions fo! co#ple;c!i#es1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)+as disposiciones del a!ticulo ante!io! no son aplicables en el caso de ue un solo hechoconstitu)a dos o #as delitos, o cuando el uno de ellos sea #edio necesa!io pa!a co#ete! elot!o.3n estos casos solo se i#pond!a la pena co!!espondiente al delito #as $!ave, aplicandola ensu $!ado #a;i#o.The above p!ovisions 0e!e copied in ou! Penal "ode of &88> unde! *!ticle 8? 0hich !eads

thus1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)The p!ovisions of the ne;t p!ecedin$ a!ticle a!e not applicable to cases in 0hich a sin$le actconstitutes t0o o! #o!e c!i#es, o! 0hen one offense is a necessa!) #eans fo! co##ittin$ theothe!.In these cases, onl) the penalt) of the #o!e se!ious c!i#e shall be i#posed, the sa#e to beapplied in its #a;i#u# de$!ee.On Canua!) <, &?(8, the Spanish Penal "ode 0as a#ended, pa!ticula!l) pa!a$!aph = of*!ticle ?( the!eof so as to add to said pa!a$!aph the follo0in$clause1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)2asta el li#ite ue !ep!esente la su#a de las dos ue pudie!an i#pone!se, penandosepa!ada#ente a#bos delitos.so that since Canua!) &?(8, *!ticle ?( of the Spanish Penal "ode

!eads1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)+as disposiciones del a!ticulo ante!io! no son aplicables en el caso de ue un solo hechoconstitu)a dos o #as delitos, o cuando el uno de ellos sea #edio necesa!io pa!a co#ete! elot!o.3n estos casos solo se i#pond!a la pena co!!espondiente al delito #as $!ave, aplicandola eneu $!ado #a;i#o hasta el li#ite ue !ep!esente la su#a de las dos ue pudie!an i#pone!se,penando sepa!ada#ente a#bos delitos.The a#end#ent is the p!ovision fo! the so called p!o !eo !ule. %ut 0e neve! accepted #uchless follo0ed said innovation in the Philippines. e did not a#end *!ticle 8? of ou! old Penal"ode pa!ticula!l) pa!a$!aph = the!eof so as to add the clause1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)2asta el li#ite ue !ep!esente la su#a de las dos ue pudie!an i#pone!se, penandosepa!ada#ente a#bos delitos.

inse!ted b) the a#endin$ Spanish +a0 o f Canua!) <, &?(8 to the second pa!a$!aph of *!ticle

?( of the Spanish Penal "ode. Fu!the!#o!e, 0hen 0e d!afted and p!o#ul$ated ou! RevisedPenal "ode in &?<= @*!ticle No. <8&:B 0e i$no!ed and did not accept the a#end#ent to theSpanish Penal "ode that favo!ed one accused of a co#ple; c!i#e as !e$a!ds the penalt), sothat no0 ou! la0 on the sub9ect is contained in *!ticle 78 of the Revised Penal "ode 0hich asa#ended b) *ct No. 7(((, !eads as follo0s1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)*RT. 78. Penalt) fo! co#ple; c!i#es. E hen a sin$le act constitutes t0o o! #o!e $!ave o!less felonies, o! 0hen an offense is a necessa!) #eans fo! co##ittin$ the othe!, the penalt)fo! the #ost se!ious c!i#e shall be i#posed, the sa#e to be applied in its #a;i#u# pe!iod.@*s a#ended b) *ct No. 7(((.B

The #a9o!it) !esolution #a/es a #o!e o! less e;tensive disse!tation and citation of autho!itieson the la0 of e;t!adition, intended to sho0 that co##on c!i#es such as #u!de!, etc.,co##itted on the occasion of o! in the cou!se of the co##ission of political c!i#es li/esedition and !ebellion, a!e not sub9ect to e;t!adition. e believe that these citations and thesea!$u#ents a!e neithe! !elevant no! applicable. *ll 0e can sa) is that a #u!de! co##itted inthe cou!se of a !ebellion o! sedition #a) be conside!ed a political c!i#e in conte#plation ofthe e;t!adition la0 and that a pe!son accused of said #u!de! is not sub9ect to e;t!adition. %uta c!i#e #a) be conside!ed political f!o# the standpoint of the e;t!adition la0 and )et #a) be!e$a!ded b) the count!) 0he!e co##itted as a co##on c!i#e sepa!ate and distinct f!o# the!ebellion o! sedition in the cou!se of 0hich it 0as co##itted, and, conseuentl), sub9ect top!osecution. Mo!eove!, the fact that a #u!de! co##itted in the cou!se of a sedition o!!ebellion is e;cluded f!o# the scope of the e;t!adition a$!ee#ent bet0een nations, is p!oof

and a!$u#ent that 0e!e it not fo! its e;clusion, the #e#be! nations of the e;t!aditiona$!ee#ent, 0he!e #u!de!s a!e co##itted in the cou!se of a !ebellion o! sedition #a) and

0ould e;t!adite the offende!s, on the theo!) that said #u!de!s a!e sepa!ate f!o# and a!e notabso!bed b) the !ebellion o! seditionG chan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)othe!0ise, the!e 0ould be noneed fo! e;cludin$ such c!i#es of #u!de!, a!son, etc., co##itted du!in$ a !ebellion o!sedition, f!o# the scope of the e;t!adition la0. *nd a#on$ such nations 0hich conside! theseco##on c!i#es of #u!de!, etc., as sepa!ate f!o# !ebellion o! sedit ion du!in$ 0hich the) 0e!eco##itted, a!e Spain, as sho0n b) *!ticle =:? of its Penal "ode, and the Philippines asillust!ated in the cases of 5.S. vs. "ab!e!a and People vs. 5#ali, sup!a. 4!oia!d lists do0nseve!al count!ies that conside! co##on c!i#es co##itted du!in$ a !ebellion o! sedition assub9ect to p!osecution1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)"odi$o del "anton de Hu!ich.

S. >:. Si con #otivo de la sedicion o co#o consecuencia fue!en co#etidos ot!os delitos,estos se!aan casti$ados confo!#e a las disposiciones penales pa!a los #is#os fi9adas."odi$o de Pe!u.*RT. &7:. +os !eos de !ebelion, sedicion o asonada son !esponsables de los delitosespeciales ue co#eten, obse!vandose lo dispuesto en el *!ticulo 7:.*RT. &7'. Si no pudiese ave!i$ua!se uien de los sublevados co#etio el delito especial, seha!a !esponsable a los auto!es del tu#ulto."odi$o del "hile.*RT. &<&. +os delitos pa!ticula!es co#etidos en un sublevacion o con #otivo de ella, se!ancasti$ados !espectava#ente con las penad desi$nadas pa!a ellos, no obstante le dispuestoen el a!ticulo &=?. E Si no pueden decub!i!se los auto!es, se!an conside!ados ) penadosco#o co#plices de tales delitos los 9efes p!incipales o subalte!nos de los sublevados ue

hallandose en la posibilidad de i#pedi!los no lo hubie!en hecho.

"odi$o del Pa !a$ua).*RT. <8(. +os delitos pa!ticula!es co#etidos en la sedicion o con #otivo de ella, se!ancasti$ados con la pena ue les co!!esponda po! las le)es !espectivas."odi$o de la Republica *!$entina.*RT. =<&. +os ue co#eten delitos co#unes con #otivo de la !ebelion #otin o asonada ocon ocasion de ella, se!an casti$ados con la pena ue co!!esponde a esos delitos."odi$o de 2ondu!as.*RT. ==7. @"o#o el nuest!o.B@4!oia!d, 3l "odi$o Penal de &8>(, Vol. <, *!ticulo =:?, p. ':(.B

In 9ustice to the De&endants- 2ppellants in the p!esent case, I 0ish to e;plain and #a/e clea!that in #entionin$ and desc!ibin$ the se!ious c!i#es of #u!de!, !obbe!), a!son, /idnappin$,etc., alle$ed to have been co##itted in the cou!se of the !ebellion o! b) !eason the!eof, I a#not !efe!!in$ pa!ticula!l) to the cha!$e o! cha!$es and counts alle$ed a$ainst the#. Thei! caseis no0 pendin$ appeal in this t!ibunal and thei! $uilt o! innocence of said cha!$es o! counts

0ill be decided in due ti#e. *nd so, I a# not i#putin$ o! att!ibutin$ to the# the se!iousviolations of la0 I have #entioned in this opinion. Rathe!, I a# #a/in$ $ene!al !efe!ence tothe info!#ations filed in othe! cases, especiall) in the info!#ations a$ainst +uis Ta!uc andillia# Po#e!o) 0hich case is not onl) decided but also is closed.In conclusion, I hold that unde! the la0 and unde! $ene!al p!inciples !ebellion punished 0ith a#a;i#u# penalt) of t0elve @&=B )ea!s and fine cannot possibl) abso!b a #uch #o!e se!iousc!i#es li/e #u!de! o! /idnappin$ 0hich a!e capital offenses and ca!!) the #a;i#u# penalt) of

death. It is ha!d fo! the #ind to $!asp the idea that a pe!son co##ittin$ one lone #u!de! #a)be headed fo! the elect!ic chai!G chan !oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)but if pe!pet!ates seve!al #u!de!s,/idnappin$s, a!sons, and !obbe!ies and du!in$ thei! pe!pet!ation, 0as still co##ittin$ anothe!c!i#e, that of t!)in$ to ove!th!o0 his o0n $ove!n#ent b) fo!ce, then all he $ets is t0elve )ea!sand fine. Since, the se!ious c!i#es li/e #ultiple #u!de!, !obbe!), a!son, /idnappin$, etc.,co##itted du!in$ the !ebellion a!e not in$!edients of, no! a!e the) indispensable to theco##ission of !ebellion, and 0e!e but #eans f!eel) selected b) the !ebels to facilitate thei!co##ission of !ebellion o! to achieve and speed up thei! !ealiation of thei! ob9ect, 0hich 0asto ove!th!o0 the $ove!n#ent and i#plant thei! o0n s)s te# said to be of co##unistic ideolo$),then unde! *!ticle 78 of the Revised Penal "ode, the co#ple; c!i#e of !ebellion 0ith #u!de!,etc., 0as co##itted.Cud$in$ b) the nu#e!ous acts of at!ocit) contained in the seve!al info!#ations filed a$ainst

the !ebels in diffe!ent cases, not onl) $ove!n#ent soldie!s and office!s, but innocent civiliansb) the hund!eds 0e!e #u!de!ed. Sto!es and ho#es 0e!e lootedG chan!oblesvi!tuala0lib!a!)not onl) public buildin$s, li/e p!esidencias and $ove!n#ent hospitals, butalso p!ivate buildin$s and ho#es 0e!e bu!ned to the $!ound. *nd as a !esult of these ac ts ofte!!o!is#, enti!e ba!!ios 0e!e abandoned and lando0ne!s, especiall) o0ne!s of landedestates, evacuated to the p!ovincial capitals o! to the cities fo! pe!sonal secu!it). *nd it see#sthat these acts of bandit!) and pilla$e still continue thou$h on a s#alle! scale.Settled public polic) o! the polic) of the 4ove!n#ent as !e$a!ds !ebellion and the c!i#esa$ainst pe!sons and p!ope!t) co##itted b) the !ebels is clea!. ith thei! ta;es, the citiensa!e #aintainin$ a la!$e a!#) to put do0n the !ebellion. Substantial !e0a!ds !an$in$ f!o# P:((to P&((,((( a!e offe!ed fo! the app!ehension of the !ebels, speciall) the leade!s. * !ebelleade! 0ith a P&((,((( p!ice on his head, afte! a ca#pai$n of seve!al )ea!s b) the a!#), and

afte! the loss of lives of #an) soldie!s and civilian $uides, is finall) captu!ed. The $ove!n#ent

pa)s do0n the P&((,((( to those !esponsib le fo! the captu!e and cha!$es hi# 0ith theco#ple; c!i#e of !ebellion 0ith #ultiple #u!de!, /idnappin$, etc., E a capital offense. Pendin$t!ial, he as/s to be !eleased on bail and unde! the doct!ine bein$ laid do0n b) us, he is set atlibe!t), f!ee to $o bac/ to the hills to !esu#e his dissident activities 0he!e he left off, b) #e!el)postin$ a bond co!!espondin$ to a #a;i#u# i#p!ison#ent of t0elve )ea!s @P&=,(((B and afine the a#ount of 0hich is left to the disc!etion of the t!ial cou!t. If he 9u#ps his bail andassu#in$ that the full a#ount of the bond is confiscated, still, the 4ove!n#ent 0hich paidP&((,((( fo! his captu!e is the lose!. It 0ill have to 0a$e anothe! ca#pai$n to !ecaptu!e hi#and pe!haps offe! anothe! !e0a!d fo! his app!ehension. This 0ould illust!ate the 0ide

dive!$ence bet0een the polic) of the 4ove!n#ent and the p!esent !ulin$ of the "ou!t. That isnot as it should be. The th!ee depa!t#ents of the 4ove!n#ent, the 3;ecutive, the +e$islativeand the Cudicial Depa!t#ent, thou$h independent of each othe!, should function as a tea#,ha!#oniousl), and in coope!ation, all fo! the public 0elfa!e. The) cannot 0o!/ at c!osspu!poses. *ll th!ee should be $uided b) the settled public polic) of the state and this applies tothe cou!ts. In the case of Rubi vs. p!ovincial boa!d of Mindo!o, <? Phil., pp. >&8-&?, this cou!tspea/in$ about the !elation bet0een inte!p!etation of the la0 b) the cou!ts and public polic),said1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)*s a point 0hich has been left fo! the end of this decision and 0hich, in case of doubt, 0ouldlead to the dete!#ination that section =&7: is valid, is the attitude 0hich the cou!ts shouldassu#e to0a!ds the settled polic) of the 4ove!n#ent. In a late decision 0ith 0hich 0e a!e infull acco!d, 4a#ble vs. Vande!bilt 5nive!sit) @=(( South0este!n Repo!te! :&(B the "hief of

Custice of the Sup!e#e "ou!t of Tennessee 0!ites1chan!oblesvi!tualla0lib!a!)e can see no ob9ection to the application of public polic) as a !atio decidendi. 3ve!) !eall)ne0 uestion that co#es befo!e the cou!ts is, in the last anal)sis, dete!#ined on the theo!),

0hen not dete!#ined b) diffe!entiation of the p!inciple of a p!io! case o! line of cases, o! b)the aid of analo$ies fu!nished b) such p!io! cases. In balancin$ conflictin$ solutions, that oneis pe!ceived to tip the scales 0hich the cou!t believes 0ill best p!o#ote the public 0elfa!e in itsp!obable ope!ation as a $ene!al !ule o! p!inciple .QCustice 2ol#es, in one of the apho!is#s fo! 0hich he is 9ustl) fa#ous, said that constitutionalla0, li/e othe! #o!tal cont!ivances, has to ta/e so#e chances. @%linn vs. Nelson &?&& ===5.S., &.B If in the final decision of the #an) $!ave uestions 0hich this case p!esents, thecou!t #ust ta/e a chance, it should be, 0ith a vie0 to upholdin$ the la0, 0ith a vie0 to theeffectuation of the $ene!al $ove!n#ental polic), and 0ith a vie0 to the cou!tQs pe!fo!#in$ its

dut) in no na!!o0 and bi$oted sense, but 0ith that b!oad conception 0hich 0ill #a/e thecou!ts as p!o$!essive and effective a fo!ce as a!e the othe! depa!t#ents of the 4ove!n#ent.No0, b) the #a9o!it) !esolution, this "ou!t 0ould sp!ead the #antle of i##unit) ove! all thesese!ious c!i#es a$ainst pe!sons and p!ope!t) on the theo!) that the) a!e all cove!ed b),included in, and abso!bed b) the c!i#e of !ebellion. 5nde! this p!otective #antle e;tended b)us, instead of cu!bin$ and discou!a$in$ the co##ission of these co##on se!ious c!i#es inacco!dance 0ith public polic), the co##ission of said c!i#es 0ould be encou!a$ed. No lon$e!

0ould evil-#inded #en, outla0s, bandits, hesitate to /ill and !ob and /idnap, because b)p!etendin$ to be !ebels o! to be en$a$ed in !ebellion, thei! acts of at!ocit) 0ould be cove!edb) !ebellion, fo! 0hich the) 0ould $et, at #ost, t0elve @&=B )ea!s and fine. No lon$e! 0ould thespect!e of the death penalt) and the elect!ic chai! han$ s0o!d of Da#ocles-li/e ove! theheads of 0ould be /idnappe!s, #u!de!e!s and a!sonists because b) #e!el) clai#in$ to have

co##itted anothe! additional c!i#e, !ebellion, unde! the doct!ine laid do0n b) the #a9o!it)

!esolution, capital punish#ent fo! all capital c!i#es the) have co##itted o! #a) co##it, isauto#aticall) !educed to t0elve @&=B )ea!s and fine. It is evident that the effect of theinte!p!etation b) this "ou!t of the la0 on co#ple; c!i#es, in !elation to !ebellion and theco##on se!ious c!i#es co##itted du!in$ and in the cou!se the!eof, !uns counte! to thesettled public polic) on the sub9ect.Sad, indeed, is the !ole bein$ pla)ed b) this T!ibunal in la)in$ do0n a doct!ine of such fa!!eachin$ conseuences and in #) opinion of such baneful not to sa) disast!ous effects onpeace and o!de! and pe!sonal secu!it), dia#et!icall) and utte!l) opposed to settled publicpolic), 0hen afte! all, 0e have no0 the oppo!tunit) and the choice of acceptin$ and adoptin$

anothe! vie0, anothe! inte!p!etation of the la0 on co#ple; c!i#es, to be #o!e !easonable,#o!e lo$ical and ce!tainl), #o!e in acco!dance 0ith public polic), and #o!e in /eepin$ 0ithpeace and o!de!, pe!sonal secu!it) and the public 0elfa!e.Fo! the fo!e$oin$ !easons, I dissent.E$%&$*#, JJ., *o$*u-s. LA'&AD"&, J., dissentin:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary I full) a$!ee 0ith the dissentin$ opinion of M!. Custice Monte#a)o! in so fa! as he holds thatthe co#ple; c!i#e of !ebellion 0ith #u!de! e;ists unde! ou! la0. I also concu! 0ith the opinionof M!. Custice Padilla in so fa! as he holds that the petition fo! bail should be denied becauseof the dan$e! that the !elease of the Petitioner - 2ppellant #a) cause to the secu!it) of theState. *s the 2ppellant has been convicted b) the "ou!t of Fi!st Instance, he #a) be ad#itted

to bail in the sound disc!etion of the cou!t. In the inte!est of secu!it) the disc!etion should notbe e;e!cised in favo! of the $!antin$ of bail. Endnotes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary 1. %n the 2nda3a case the victim was a girl twelve 3ears o& age. 4. he in&ormation in the case at bar alleges that the acts therein set &orth were committed5as a necessar3 means to commit the crime o& rebellion.6 7. #ee, also the comentarios el Codigo Penal, b3 2. 8uintano $ipolles 9Vol. %, pp. 7:;"7:<=and Derecho Penal, b3 ederico Puig Pe>a 9Vol. 1, p. 4?:=. @. %n the language o& the in&ormation. 1. 2rticle 17A, $evised Penal Code. B ?A Phil., 7<.

Manila3N %*N"

G.R. No. 92163 u$& (, 199/

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HA0EAS CORPUS. UAN PONCE ENRILE,petitione!vs.U!GE AIME SALAZAR ;P-&s%$g u%g& o< t& R&go$# T-# Cou-t o< =u&8o$ Ct40-. 1/35, SENIOR STATE PROSECUTOR AURELIO TRAMPE, PROSECUTORFER!INAN! R. A0ESAMIS, AN! CIT> ASSISTANT CIT> PROSECUTOR EULOGIOMANAN=UIL, NATIONAL 0UREAU OF INESTIGATION !IRECTOR ALFRE!O LIM,0RIG. GEN. E!GAR !ULA TORRES ;Su:&-$t&$%&$t o< t& No-t&-$ Po*& !st-*t?AN!@ OR AN> AN! ALL PERSONS HO MA> HAE ACTUAL CUSTO!> OER THEPERSON OF UAN PONCE ENRILE, !espondents.G.R. No. 9216 u$& (, 199/SPS. RE0ECCO E. PANLILIO AN! ERLIN!A E. PANLILIO, petitione!s,

vs.PROSECUTORS FERNAN!O !E LEON, AURELIO C. TRAMPE, FFR!INAN! R.A0ESAMIS, AN! EULOGIO C. MANAN=UIL, #$% HON. AIME . SALAZAR, R., $ s*#:#*t4 #s P-&s%$g u%g&, R&go$# T-# Cou-t, =u&8o$ Ct4, 0-#$* 1/3,!espondents. NARASA, J .BThi!t)-fou! )ea!s afte! it 0!ote histo!) into ou! c!i#inal 9u!isp!udence, People vs. ernande0 1 once #o!e ta/es cente! sta$e as the focus of a conf!ontation at la0 that 0ould !e-e;a#ine, ifnot the validit) of its doct!ine, the li#its of its applicabilit). To be su!e, the inte!venin$ pe!iodsa0 a nu#be! of si#ila! cases 2 that too/ issue 0ith the !ulin$-all 0ith a #a!/ed lac/ ofsuccess-but none, it 0ould %ee#, 0he!e season and ci!cu#stance had #o!e effectivel)

conspi!ed to att!act 0ide public attention and e;cite i#passioned debate, even a#on$

la)#enG none, ce!tainl), 0hich has seen uite the /ind and !an$e of a!$u#ents that a!e no0b!ou$ht to bea! on the sa#e uestion.The facts a!e not in dispute. In the afte!noon of Feb!ua!) =>, &??(, Senate Mino!it) Floo!+eade! Cuan Ponce 3n!ile 0as a!!ested b) la0 enfo!ce#ent office!s led b) Di!ecto! *lf!edo+i# of the National %u!eau of Investi$ation on the st!en$th of a 0a!!ant issued b) 2on. Cai#eSalaa! of the Re$ional T!ial "ou!t of Jueon "it) %!anch &(<, in "!i#inal "ase No.?(&(?7&. The 0a!!ant had issued on an info!#ation si$ned and ea!lie! that da) filed b) apanel of p!osecuto!s co#posed of Senio! State P!osecuto! *u!elio ". T!a#pe, StateP!osecuto! Fe!dinand R. *besa#is and *ssistant "it) P!osecuto! 3ulo$io Mananuil, C!.,

cha!$in$ Senato! 3n!ile, the spouses Rebecco and 3!linda Panlilio, and 4!e$o!io 2onasan 0ith the c!i#e of !ebellion 0ith #u!de! and #ultiple f!ust!ated #u!de! alle$edl) co##itteddu!in$ the pe!iod of the failed coup atte#pt f!o# Nove#be! =? to Dece#be! &(, &??(.Senato! 3n!ile 0as ta/en to and held ove!ni$ht at the N%I headua!te!s on Taft *venue,Manila, 0ithout bail, none havin$ been !eco##ended in the info!#ation and none fi;ed in thea!!est 0a!!ant. The follo0in$ #o!nin$, Feb!ua!) =8, &??(, he 0as b!ou$ht to "a#p To#asa!in$al in Jueon "it) 0he!e he 0as $iven ove! to the custod) of the Supe!intendent of theNo!the!n Police Dist!ict, %!i$. 4en. 3d$a!do Dula To!!es. 3

On the sa#e date of Feb!ua!) =8, &??(, Senato! 3n!ile, th!ou$h counsel, filed the petition fo!habeas corpus he!ein @0hich 0as follo0ed b) a supple#ental petition filed on Ma!ch =, &??(B,alle$in$ that he 0as dep!ived of his constitutional !i$hts in bein$, o! havin$ been1@aB held to ans0e! fo! c!i#inal offense 0hich does not e;ist in the statute boo/sG

@bB cha!$ed 0ith a c!i#inal offense in an info!#ation fo! 0hich no co#plaint 0as initiall) filedo! p!eli#ina!) investi$ation 0as conducted, hence 0as denied due p!ocessG@cB denied his !i$ht to bailG and@dB a!!ested and detained on the st!en$th of a 0a!!ant issued 0ithout the 9ud$e 0ho issued itfi!st havin$ pe!sonall) dete!#ined the e;istence of p!obable cause.

The "ou!t issued the 0!it p!a)ed fo!, !etu!nable Ma!ch :, &??( and set the plea fo! hea!in$ onMa!ch ', &??(. ( On Ma!ch :, &??(, the Solicito! 4ene!al filed a consolidated !etu!n 6 fo! the!espondents in this case and in 4.R. No. ?=&'7 7 hich had been conte#po!aneousl) butsepa!atel) filed b) t0o of Senato! 3n!iles co-accused, the spouses Rebecco and 3!lindaPanlilio, and !aised si#ila! uestions. Said !etu!n u!$ed that the petitione!s case does not fall

0ithin the ernande0 !ulin$ because-and this is puttin$ it ve!) si#pl)-the info!#ation inernande0 cha!$ed #u!de!s and othe! co##on c!i#es co##itted as a necessar3 means &or

the commission o& rebellion, 0he!eas the info!#ation a$ainst Sen. 3n!ile et al. cha!$ed#u!de! and f!ust!ated #u!de! co##itted on the occasion, but not in &urtherance, o& rebellion. Stated othe!0ise, the Solicito! 4ene!al 0ould distin$uish bet0een the co#ple; c!i#e @delitoco#ple9oB a!isin$ f!o# an offense bein$ a necessa!) #eans fo! co##ittin$ anothe!, 0hich is!efe!!ed to in the second clause of *!ticle 78, Revised Penal "ode, and is the sub9ect of theernande0 !ulin$, and the co#pound c!i#e @delito co#puestoB a!isin$ f!o# a sin$le actconstitutin$ t0o o! #o!e $!ave o! less $!ave offenses !efe!!ed to in the fi!st clause of the sa#epa!a$!aph, 0ith 0hich ernande0 0as not conce!ned and to 0hich, the!efo!e, it should notappl).The pa!ties 0e!e hea!d in o!al a!$u#ent, as scheduled, on Ma!ch ', &??(, afte! 0hich the"ou!t issued its Resolution of the sa#e date ) $!antin$ Senato! 3n!ile and the Panliliospouses p!ovisional libe!t) conditioned upon thei! filin$, 0ithin =7 hou!s f!o# notice, cash o!

su!et) bonds of P&((,(((.(( @fo! Senato! 3n!ileB and P=((,(((.(( @fo! the PanliliosB,

!espectivel). The Resolution stated that it 0as issued 0ithout p!e9udice to a #o!e e;tended!esolution on the #atte! of the p!ovisional libe!t) of the petitione!s and st!essed that it 0as notpassin$ upon the le$al issues !aised in both cases. Fou! Me#be!s of the "ou!t 9 voted a$ainst$!antin$ bail to Senato! 3n!ile, and t0o 1/ a$ainst $!antin$ bail to the Panlilios.The "ou!t no0 add!esses those issues insofa! as the) a!e !aised and liti$ated in Senato!3n!iles petition, 4.R. No. ?=&'<.The pa!ties o!al and 0!itten pleas p!esented the "ou!t 0ith the follo0in$ options1@aB abandon ernande0 and adopt the #ino!it) vie0 e;p!essed in the #ain dissent of CusticeMonte#a)o! in said case that !ebellion cannot abso!b #o!e se!ious c!i#es, and that unde!

*!ticle 78 of the Revised Penal "ode !ebellion #a) p!ope!l) be co#ple;ed 0ith co##onoffenses, so-calledG this option 0as su$$ested b) the Solicito! 4ene!al in o!al a!$u#entalthou$h it is not offe!ed in his 0!itten pleadin$sG@bB hold ernande0 applicable onl) to offenses co##itted in fu!the!ance, o! as a necessa!)#eans fo! the co##ission, of !ebellion, but not to acts co##itted in the cou!se of a !ebellion

0hich also constitute co##on c!i#es of $!ave o! less $!ave cha!acte!G@cB #aintain ernande0 as appl)in$ to #a/e !ebellion abso!b all othe! offenses co##itted inits cou!se, 0hethe! o! not necessa!) to its co##ission o! in fu!the!ance the!eof.On the fi!st option, eleven @&&B Me#be!s of the "ou!t voted a$ainst abandonin$ 2e!nande.T0o @=B Me#be!s felt that the doct!ine should be !e-e;a#ined. 1/'A In the vie0 of the #a9o!it),the !ulin$ !e#ains $ood la0, its substantive and lo$ical bases have 0ithstood all subseuentchallen$es and no ne0 ones a!e p!esented he!e pe!suasive enou$h to 0a!!ant a co#plete

!eve!sal. This vie0 is !einfo!ced b) the fact that not too lon$ a$o, the incu#bent P!esident,e;e!cisin$ he! po0e!s unde! the &?8' F!eedo# "onstitution, sa0 fit to !epeal, a#on$ othe!s,P!esidential Dec!ee No. ?7= of the fo!#e! !e$i#e 0hich p!ecisel) sou$ht to nullif) o!neut!alie ernande0 b) enactin$ a ne0 p!ovision @*!t. &7=-*B into the Revised Penal "ode tothe effect that @0Bhen b) !eason, o! on the occasion, of an) of the c!i#es penalied in this"hapte! @"hapte! I of Title <, 0hich includes !ebellionB, acts 0hich constitute offenses upon

0hich $!ave! penalties a!e i#posed b) la0 a!e co##itted, the penalt) fo! the #ost se!iousoffense in its #a;i#u# pe!iod shall be i#posed upon the offende!. 11 In thus actin$, theP!esident in effect b) le$islative flat !einstated ernande0 as bindin$ doct!ine 0ith the effect ofla0. The "ou!t can do no less than acco!d it the sa#e !eco$nition, absent an) sufficientl)po0e!ful !eason a$ainst so doin$.On the second option, the "ou!t unani#ousl) voted to !e9ect the theo!) that ernande0 is, o!

should be, li#ited in its application to offenses co##itted as a necessa!) #eans fo! theco##ission of !ebellion and that the !ulin$ should not be inte!p!eted as p!ohibitin$ theco#ple;in$ of !ebellion 0ith othe! co##on c!i#es co##itted on the occasion, but not infu!the!ance, the!eof. hile fou! Me#be!s of the "ou!t felt that the p!oponents a!$u#ents

0e!e not enti!el) devoid of #e!it, the consensus 0as that the) 0e!e not sufficient to ove!co#e 0hat appea!s to be the !eal th!ust of ernande0 to !ule out the co#ple;in$ of !ebellion 0ithan) othe! offense co##itted in its cou!se unde! eithe! of the afo!ecited clauses of *!ticle 78,as is #ade clea! b) the follo0in$ e;ce!pt f!o# the #a9o!it) opinion in that case1The!e is one othe! !eason-and a funda#ental one at that-0h) *!ticle 78 of ou! Penal "odecannot be applied in the case at ba!. If #u!de! 0e!e not co#ple;ed 0ith !ebellion, and the t0oc!i#es 0e!e punished sepa!atel) @assu#in$ that this could be doneB, the follo0in$ penalties

0ould be i#posable upon the #ovant, na#el)1 @&B fo! the c!i#e of !ebellion, a fine not

e;ceedin$ P=(,((( and prision ma3or, in the co!!espondin$ pe!iod, dependin$ upon the

#odif)in$ ci!cu#stances p!esent, but neve! e;ceedin$ &= )ea!s of prision ma3or, and @=B fo!the c!i#e of #u!de!, reclusion temporal in its #a;i#u# pe!iod to death, dependin$ upon the#odif)in$ ci!cu#stances p!esent. in othe! 0o!ds, in the absence of a$$!avatin$ci!cu#stances, the eEtreme penalt3 could not be imposed upon hi#. 2o0eve!, unde! *!ticle78 said penalt3 would have to be meted out to hi#, even in the absence o& a singleaggravating circumstance. Thus, said p!ovision, if const!ued in confo!#it) 0ith the theo!) ofthe p!osecution, 0ould be un&avorable to the #ovant.5pon the othe! hand, said *!ticle 78 0as enacted fo! the pu!pose of &avoring the culp!it, not ofsentencin$ hi# to a penalt) more severe than that 0hich 0ould be p!ope! if the seve!al acts

pe!fo!#ed b) hi# 0e!e punished sepa!atel). In the 0o!ds of Rod!i$ue Nava!!o1+a unificacion de penas en los casos de concu!so de delitos a ue hace !efe!encia estea!ticulo @>: del "odi$o de &?<=B, esta basado f!anca#ente en el p!incipio p!o !eo. @II Doct!inaPenal del T!ibunal Sup!e#o de 3spana, p. =&'8.Be a!e a0a!e of the fact that this obse!vation !efe!s to *!ticle >& @late! >:B of the SpanishPenal "ode @the counte!pa!t of ou! *!ticle 78B, as a#ended in &?(8 and then in &?<=, !eadin$1+as disposiciones del a!ticulo ante!io! no son aplicables en el caso de ue un solo hechoconstitu)a dos o #as delitos, o cuando el uno de ellos sea #edio necesa!io pa!a co#ete! elot!o.3n estos casos solo se i#pond!a la pena co!!espondiente al delito #as $!ave en su $!ado#a;i#o, hasta el li#ite ue !ep!esents la su#a de las ue pudie!an i#pone!se, penandosepa!ada#ente los delitos.

"uando la pena asi co#putada e;ceda de este li#ite, se sanciona!an los delitos po!sepa!ado. @Rod!i$ue Nava!!o, Doct!ina Penal del T!ibunal Sup!e#o, Vol. II, p. =&'<Band that ou! *!ticle 78 does not contain the ualification inse!ted in said a#end#ent,!est!ictin$ the i#position of the penalt) fo! the $!ave! offense in its #a;i#u# pe!iod to thecase 0hen it does not e;ceed the su# total of the penalties i#posable if the acts cha!$ed

0e!e dealt 0ith sepa!atel). The absence of said li#itation in ou! Penal "ode does not, to ou!#ind, affect substantiall) the spi!it of said *!ticle 78. Indeed, if one act constitutes t0o o! #o!eoffenses, the!e can be no !eason to inflict a punish#ent $!ave! than that p!esc!ibed fo! eachone of said offenses put to$ethe!. In di!ectin$ that the penalt) fo! the $!ave! offense be, insuch case, i#posed in its #a;i#u# pe!iod, *!ticle 78 could have had no othe! pu!pose thanto p!esc!ibe a penalt) lower than the a$$!e$ate of the penalties fo! each offense, if i#posedsepa!atel). The !eason fo! this benevolent spi!it of a!ticle 78 i s !eadil) disce!nible. hen t0o

o! #o!e c!i#es a!e the !esult of a sin$le act, the offende! is dee#ed less pe!ve!se than 0henhe co##its said c!i#es th!u sepa!ate and distinct acts. Instead of sentencin$ hi# fo! eachc!i#e independentl) f!o# the othe!, he #ust suffe! the #a;i#u# of the penalt) fo! the #o!ese!ious one, on the assu#ption that it is less $!ave than the su# total of the sepa!atepenalties fo! each offense. 12

The !e9ection of both options shapes and dete!#ines the p!i#a!) !ulin$ of the "ou!t, 0hich isthat ernande0 !e#ains bindin$ doct!ine ope!atin$ to p!ohibit the co#ple;in$ of !ebellion 0ithan) othe! offense co##itted on the occas ion the!eof, eithe! as a #eans necessa!) to itsco##ission o! as an unintended effect of an activit) that constitutes !ebellion.This, ho0eve!, does not 0!ite &inis to the case. Petitione!s $uilt o! innocence is not he!einui!ed into, #uch less ad9ud$ed. That is fo! the t!ial cou!t to do at the p!ope! ti#e. The"ou!ts !ulin$ #e!el) p!ovides a ta/e-off point fo! the disposition of othe! uestions !elevant to

the petitione!s co#plaints about the denial of his !i$hts and to the p!op!iet) of the !ecou!se hehas ta/en.The "ou!t !ules fu!the! @b) a vote of && to <B that the info!#ation filed a$ainst the petitione!does in fact cha!$e an offense. Dis!e$a!din$ the ob9ectionable ph!asin$ that 0ould co#ple;!ebellion 0ith #u!de! and #ultiple f!ust!ated #u!de!, that indict#ent is to be !ead as cha!$in$simple rebellion. Thus, in ernande0, the "ou!t said1In conclusion, 0e hold that, under the allegations o& the amended in&ormation a$ainstdefendant-appellant *#ado V. 2e!nande, the #u!de!s, a!sons and !obbe!ies desc!ibedthe!ein a!e mere ingredients of the c!i#e of !ebellion alle$edl) co##itted b) said defendants,

as #eans necessa!) @7B fo! the pe!pet!ation of said offense of !ebellionG that the c!i#echarged in the afo!e#entioned a#ended info!#ation is, the!efo!e, si#ple !ebellion, not theco#ple; c!i#e of !ebellion 0ith #ultiple #u!de!, a!sons and !obbe!iesG that the #a;i#u#penalt) i#posable unde! such cha!$e cannot e;ceed t0elve @&=B )ea!s of prision ma3or and afine of P=2,222G and that, in confo!#it) 0ith the polic) of this cou!t in dealin$ 0ith accusedpe!sons a#enable to a si#ila! punish#ent, said defendant #a) be allo0ed bail. 13

The plaint of petitione!s counsel that he is cha!$ed 0ith a c!i#e that does not e;ist in thestatute boo/s, 0hile technicall) co!!ect so fa! as the "ou!t has !uled that !ebellion #a) not beco#ple;ed 0ith othe! offenses co##itted on the occasion the!eof, #ust the!efo!e bedis#issed as a #e!e fli$ht of !heto!ic. Read in the conte;t of ernande0, the info!#ation doesindeed cha!$e the petitione! 0ith a c!i#e defined and punished b) the Revised Penal "ode1si#ple !ebellion.

as the petitione! cha!$ed 0ithout a co#plaint havin$ been initiall) filed andAo! p!eli#ina!)investi$ation conductedK The !eco!d sho0s othe!0ise, that a co#plaint a$ainst petitione! fo!si#ple !ebellion 0as filed b) the Di!ecto! of the National %u!eau of Investi$ation, and that onthe st!en$th of said co#plaint a p!eli#ina!) investi$ation 0as conducted b) the !espondentp!osecuto!s, cul#inatin$ in the filin$ of the uestioned info!#ation. 1 The!e is nothin$inhe!entl) i!!e$ula! o! cont!a!) to la0 in filin$ a$ainst a !espondent an indict#ent fo! anoffense diffe!ent f!o# 0hat is cha!$ed in the initiato!) co#plaint, if 0a!!anted b) the evidencedeveloped du!in$ the p!eli#ina!) investi$ation.It is also contended that the !espondent Cud$e issued the 0a!!ant fo! petitione!s a!!est

0ithout fi!st personall3 dete!#inin$ the e;istence of p!obable cause b) e;a#inin$ unde! oatho! affi!#ation the co#plainant and his 0itnesses, in violation of *!t. III, sec. =, of the"onstitution. 1( This "ou!t has al!ead) !uled, ho0eve!, that it is not the unavoidable dut) of the

9ud$e to #a/e such a pe!sonal e;a#ination, it bein$ sufficient that he follo0s establishedp!ocedu!e b) personall3 evaluatin$ the !epo!t and the suppo!tin$ docu#ents sub#itted b) thep!osecuto!. 16 Petitione! clai#s that the 0a!!ant of a!!est issued ba!el) one hou! and t0ent)#inutes afte! the case 0as !affled off to the !espondent Cud$e, 0hich ha!dl) $ave the latte!sufficient ti#e to pe!sonall) $o ove! the volu#inous !eco!ds of the p!eli#ina!) investi$ation. 17 Me!el) because said !espondent had 0hat so#e #i$ht conside! onl) a !elativel) b!ief pe!iod

0ithin 0hich to co#pl) 0ith that dut), $ives no !eason to assu#e that he had not, o! could nothave, so co#pliedG no! does that sin$le ci!cu#stance suffice to ove!co#e the le$alp!esu#ption that official dut) has been !e$ula!l) pe!fo!#ed.Petitione! finall) clai#s that he 0as denied the !i$ht to bail. In the li$ht of the "ou!ts!eaffi!#ation of ernande0 as applicable to petitione!s case, and of the lo$ical and necessa!)co!olla!) that the info!#ation a$ainst hi# should be conside!ed as cha!$in$ onl) the c!i#e of

si#ple !ebellion, 0hich is bailable befo!e conviction, that #ust no0 be accepted as a co!!ect



p!oposition. %ut the uestion !e#ains1 4iven the facts f!o# 0hich this case a!ose, 0as apetition fo! habeas corpus in this "ou!t the app!op!iate vehicle fo! asse!tin$ a !i$ht to bail o!vindicatin$ its denialKThe c!i#inal case befo!e the !espondent Cud$e 0as the no!#al venue fo! invo/in$ thepetitione!s !i$ht to have p!ovisional libe!t) pendin$ t!ial and 9ud$#ent. The o!i$inal 9u!isdictionto $!ant o! den) bail !ested 0ith said !espondent. The co!!ect cou!se 0as fo! petitione! toinvo/e that 9u!isdiction b) filin$ a petition to be ad#itted to bail, clai#in$ a !i$ht to bail pe! seb) !eason of the 0ea/ness of the evidence a$ainst hi#. Onl) afte! that !e#ed) 0as denied b)the t!ial cou!t should the !evie0 9u!isdiction of this "ou!t have been invo/ed, and even then,

not 0ithout fi!st appl)in$ to the "ou!t of *ppeals if app!op!iate !elief 0as also available the!e.3ven acceptance of petitione!s p!e#ise that $oin$ b) the ernande0 !ulin$, the info!#ationcha!$es a non-e;istent c!i#e o!, cont!a!il), theo!iin$ on the sa#e basis that it cha!$es #o!ethan one offense, 0ould not e;cuse o! 9ustif) his i#p!ope! choice of !e#edies. 5nde! eithe!h)pothesis, the obvious !ecou!se 0ould have been a #otion to uash b!ou$ht in the c!i#inalaction befo!e the !espondent Cud$e. 1)

The!e thus see#s to be no uestion that *ll the $!ounds upon 0hich petitione! has foundedthe p!esent petition, 0hethe! these 0ent into the substance of 0hat is cha!$ed in theinfo!#ation o! i#puted e!!o! o! o#ission on the pa!t of the p!osecutin$ panel o! of the!espondent Cud$e in dealin$ 0ith the cha!$es a$ainst hi#, 0e!e o!i$inall) 9usticiable in thec!i#inal case befo!e said Cud$e and should have been b!ou$ht up the!e ins tead of di!ectl) tothis "ou!t.

The!e 0as and is no !eason to assu#e that the !esolution of an) of these uestions 0asbe)ond the abilit) o! co#petence of the !espondent Cud$e-indeed such an assu#ption 0ouldbe de#eanin$ and less than fai! to ou! t!ial cou!tsG none 0hateve! to hold the# to be of suchco#ple;it) o! t!anscendental i#po!tance as to disualif) eve!) cou!t, e;cept this "ou!t, f!o#decidin$ the#G none, in sho!t that 0ould 9ustif) b) passin$ established 9udicial p!ocessesdesi$ned to o!de!l) #ove liti$ation th!ou$h the hie!a!ch) of ou! cou!ts. Pa!enthenticall), this isthe !eason behind the vote of fou! Me#be!s of the "ou!t a$ainst the $!ant of bail to petitione!1the vie0 that the t!ial cou!t should not thus be p!ecipitatel) ousted of its o!i$inal 9u!isdiction to$!ant o! den) bail, and if it e!!ed in that #atte!, denied an oppo!tunit) to co!!ect its e!!o!. It#a/es no diffe!ence that the !espondent Cud$e he!e issued a 0a!!ant of a!!est fi;in$ no bail.I##e#o!ial p!actice sanctions si#pl) follo0in$ the p!osecuto!s !eco##endation !e$a!din$bail, thou$h it #a) be pe!ceived as the bette! cou!se fo! the 9ud$e motu proprio to set a bail

hea!in$ 0he!e a capital offense is cha!$ed. 19

It is, in an) event, incu#bent on the accused asto 0ho# no bail has been !eco##ended o! fi;ed to clai# the !i$ht to a bail hea!in$ andthe!eb) put to p!oof the st!en$th o! 0ea/ness of the evidence a$ainst hi#.It is ap!opos to point out that the p!esent petition has t!i$$e!ed a !ush to this "ou!t of othe!pa!ties in a si#ila! situation, all appa!entl) ta/in$ thei! cue f!o# it, dist!ustful o! conte#ptuousof the efficac) of see/in$ !ecou!se in the !e$ula! #anne! 9ust outlined. The p!olife!ation ofsuch pleas has onl) cont!ibuted to the dela) that the petitione! #a) have hoped to avoid b)co#in$ di!ectl) to this "ou!t.Not onl) because popula! inte!est see#s focused on the outco#e of the p!esent petition, butalso because to 0ash the "ou!ts hand off it on 9u!isdictional $!ounds 0ould onl) co#poundthe dela) that it has al!ead) $one th!ou$h, the "ou!t no0 decides the sa#e on the #e!its. %utin so doin$, the "ou!t cannot e;p!ess too st!on$l) the vie0 that said petition inte!dicted the

o!de!ed and o!de!l) p!o$!ession of p!oceedin$s that should have sta!ted 0ith the t!ial cou!t

and !eached this "ou!t onl) if the !elief appealed fo! 0as denied b) the fo!#e! and, in ap!ope! case, b) the "ou!t of *ppeals on !evie0.+et it be #ade ve!) clea! that he!eafte! the "ou!t 0ill no lon$e! countenance, but 0ill $ivesho!t sh!ift to, pleas li/e the p!esent, that clea!l) sho!t-ci!cuit the 9udicial p!ocess and bu!den it

0ith the !esolution of issues p!ope!l) 0ithin the o!i$inal co#petence of the lo0e! cou!ts. hathas thus fa! been stated is euall) applicable to and decisive of the petition of the Panliliospouses @4.R. No. ?=&'7B 0hich is vi!tuall) Identical to that of petitione! 3n!ile in factualmilieu and is the!efo!e dete!#inable on the sa#e p!inciples al!ead) set fo!th. Said spouseshave uncontestedl) pleaded 2/ that 0a!!ants of a!!est issued a$ainst the# as co-accused of

petitione! 3n!ile in "!i#inal "ase No. ?(-&(?7&, that 0hen the) appea!ed befo!e N%I Di!ecto!*lf!edo +i# in the afte!noon of Ma!ch &, &??(, the) 0e!e ta/en into custod) and detained

0ithout bail on the st!en$th of said 0a!!ants in violation-the) clai#-of thei! constitutional !i$hts.It #a) be that in the li$ht of conte#po!a!) events, the act of !ebellion has lost thatuitessentian) ui;otic ualit) that 9ustifies the !elative lenienc) 0ith 0hich it is !e$a!ded andpunished b) la0, that p!esent-da) !ebels a!e less i#pelled b) love of count!) than b) lust fo!po0e! and have beco#e no bette! than #e!e te!!o!ists to 0ho# nothin$, not even the sanctit)of hu#an life, is allo0ed to stand in the 0a) of thei! a#bitions. Nothin$ so unde!sco!es thisabe!!ation as the !ash of see#in$l) senseless /illin$s, bo#bin$s, /idnappin$s and asso!ted#a)he# so #uch in the ne0s these da)s, as often pe!pet!ated a$ainst innocent civilians asa$ainst the #ilita!), but b) and la!$e att!ibutable to, o! even clai#ed b) so-called !ebels to bepa!t of, an on$oin$ !ebellion.

It is enou$h to $ive an)one pause-and the "ou!t is no e;ception-that not even the c!o0dedst!eets of ou! capital "it) see# safe f!o# such unsettlin$ violence that is dis!uptive of thepublic peace and st)#ies eve!) effo!t at national econo#ic !ecove!). The!e is an appa!entneed to !est!uctu!e the la0 on !ebellion, eithe! to !aise the penalt) the!efo! o! to clea!l) defineand deli#it the othe! offenses to be conside!ed as abso!bed the!eb), so that it cannot beconvenientl) utilied as the u#b!ella fo! eve!) so!t of ille$al activit) unde!ta/en in its na#e.The "ou!t has no po0e! to effect such chan$e, fo! it can onl) inte!p!et the la0 as it stands atan) $iven ti#e, and 0hat is needed lies be)ond inte!p!etation. 2opefull), "on$!ess 0illpe!ceive the need fo! p!o#ptl) seiin$ the initiative in this #atte!, 0hich is p!ope!l) 0ithin itsp!ovince.23R3FOR3, the "ou!t !eite!ates that based on the doct!ine enunciated in People vs.ernande0, the uestioned info!#ation filed a$ainst petitione!s Cuan Ponce 3n!ile and the

spouses Rebecco and 3!linda Panlilio #ust be !ead as cha!$in$ si#ple !ebellion onl), hencesaid petitione!s a!e entitled to bail, befo!e final conviction, as a #atte! of !i$ht. The "ou!tsea!lie! $!ant of bail to petitione!s bein$ #e!el) p!ovisional in cha!acte!, the p!oceedin$s inboth cases a!e o!de!ed R3M*ND3D to the !espondent Cud$e to fi; the a#ount of bail to beposted b) the petitione!s. Once bail is fi;ed b) said !espondent fo! an) of the petitione!s, theco!!espondin$ bail bond flied 0ith this "ou!t shall beco#e &unctus o&icio. No p!onounce#entas to costs.SO ORD3R3D.Cru0, /anca3co and $egalado, JJ., concur.(edialdea, J., concurs in /.$. *o. :41;@ but tooF no part in /.$. *o. :41;7.Cortes and /ri>o"2Guino, JJ., are on leave.

S&:#-#t& O:$o$s MELENCIO'HERRERA, J., concu!!in$1I 9oin #) collea$ues in holdin$ that the ernande0 doct!ine, 0hich has been 0ith us fo! thepast th!ee decades, !e#ains $ood la0 and, thus, should !e#ain undistu!bed, despite pe!iodicchallen$es to it that, i!onicall), have onl) se!ved to st!en$then its p!onounce#ents.I ta/e e;ception to the vie0, ho0eve!, that habeas corpus 0as not the p!ope! !e#ed).2ad the Info!#ation filed belo0 cha!$ed #e!el) the si#ple c!i#e of Rebellion, that p!opositioncould have been plausible. %ut that Info!#ation cha!$ed Rebellion co#ple;ed 0ith Mu!de!

and Multiple F!ust!ated Mu!de!, a c!i#e 0hich does not e;ist in ou! statute boo/s. The cha!$e 0as obviousl) intended to #a/e the penalt) fo! the #ost se!ious offense in its #a;i#u#pe!iod i#posable upon the offende! pu!suant to *!ticle 78 of the Rev ised Penal "ode. Thus,no bail 0as !eco##ended in the Info!#ation no! 0as an) p!esc!ibed in the a!!ant of *!!estissued b) the T!ial "ou!t.5nde! the attendant ci!cu#stances, the!efo!e, to have filed a Motion to Juash befo!e thelo0e! "ou!t 0ould not have b!ou$ht about the speed) !elief f!o# unla0ful !est!aint thatpetitione! 0as see/in$. Du!in$ the pendenc) of said Motion befo!e the lo0e! "ou!t, petitione!could have continued to lan$uish in detention. %esides, the !it of abeas Corpus #a) stillissue even if anothe! !e#ed), 0hich is less effective, #a) be availed of @"have vs. "ou!t of*ppeals, =7 S"R* ''<B.It is t!ue that habeas corpus 0ould o!dina!il) not he 0hen a pe!son is unde! custod) b) vi!tue

of a p!ocess issued b) a "ou!t.The "ou!t, ho0eve!, #ust have 9u!isdiction to issue the p!ocess. In this case, the "ou!t belo0#ust be dee#ed to have been ousted of 9u!isdiction 0hen it ille$all) cu!tailed petitione!slibe!t). 2abeas co!pus is thus available.The 0!it of habeas co!pus is available to !elieve pe!sons f!o# unla0ful !est!aint. %ut 0he!ethe detention o! confine#ent is the !esult of a p!ocess issued b) the cou!t o! 9ud$e o! b) vi!tueof a 9ud$#ent o! sentence, the 0!it o!dina!il) cannot be availed of. %t ma3 still be invoFedthough i& the process, Hudgment or sentence proceeded &rom a court or tribunal the Hurisdictiono& which ma3 be assailed. 'ven i& it had authorit3 to act at the outset, it is now the prevailingdoctrine that a deprivation o& constitutional right, i& shown to eEist, would oust it o& Hurisdiction.%n such a case, habeas corpus could be relied upon to regain oneIs libert3 @"eleste vs.People, <& S"R* <?&B 3#phasis e#phasis.

The Petition fo! habeas corpus 0as p!ecisel) p!e#ised on the violation of petitione!sconstitutional !i$ht to bail inas#uch as !ebellion, unde! the p!esent state of the la0, is abailable offense and the c!i#e fo! 0hich petitione! stands accused of and fo! 0hich he 0asdenied bail is non-e;istent in la0.hile liti$ants should, as a !ule, ascend the steps of the 9udicial ladde!, nothin$ should stopthis "ou!t f!o# ta/in$ co$niance of petitions b!ou$ht befo!e it !aisin$ u!$ent constitutionalissues, an) p!ocedu!al fla0 not0ithstandin$.The !ules on habeas corpus a!e to be libe!all) const!ued @4ana0a) v. Juilen, 7= Phil. 8(:B,the 0!it of habeas corpus bein$ the funda#ental inst!u#ent fo! safe$ua!din$ individualf!eedo# a$ainst a!bit!a!) and la0less state action. The scope and fle;ibilit) of the 0!it-itscapacit) to !each all #anne! of ille$al detention-its abilit3 to cut through barriers o& &orm and procedural ma0es"have al0a)s been e#phasied and 9ealousl) $ua!ded b) cou!ts and

la0#a/e!s @4u#abon v. Di!ecto! of %u!eau of P!isons, <> S"R* 7=(B e#phasis supplied.

The p!olife!ation of cases in this "ou!t, 0hich follo0ed in the 0a/e of this Petition, 0asb!ou$ht about b) the insistence of the p!osecution to cha!$e the c!i#e of Rebellion co#ple;ed

0ith othe! co##on offenses not0ithstandin$ the fact that this "ou!t had not )et !uled on thevalidit) of that cha!$e and had $!anted p!ovisional libe!t) to petitione!.If, indeed, it is desi!ed to #a/e the c!i#e of Rebellion a capital offense @no0 punishable b)reclusion perpetuaB, the !e#ed) lies in le$islation. %ut *!ticle &7=-* 1 of the Revised Penal"ode, alon$ 0ith P.D. No. ?7=, 0e!e !epealed, fo! bein$ !ep!essive, b) 3O No. &8> on :Cune &?8>. 3O &8> fu!the! e;plicitl) p!ovided that *!ticle &<7 @and othe!s enu#e!atedB of theRevised Penal "ode 0as !esto!ed to its full fo!ce and effect as it e;isted befo!e said

a#endato!) dec!ees. 2avin$ been so !epealed, this "ou!t is be!eft of po0e! to le$islate intoe;istence, unde! the $uise of !e-e;a#inin$ a settled doct!ine, a c!eatu!e un/no0n in la0- theco#ple; c!i#e of Rebellion 0ith Mu!de!. The !e#and of the case to the lo0e! "ou!t fo! fu!the!p!oceedin$s is in o!de!. The !it of abeas Corpus has se!ved its pu!pose. GUTIERREZ, R., J., concu!!in$1I 9oin the "ou!ts decision to $!ant the petition. In !eite!atin$ the !ule that unde! e;istin$ la0!ebellion #a) not be co#ple;ed 0ith #u!de!, the "ou!t e#phasies that it cannot le$islate ane0-c!i#e into e;istence no! p!esc!ibe a penalt) fo! its co##ission. That function ise;clusivel) fo! "on$!ess.I 0!ite this sepa!ate opinion to #a/e clea! ho0 I vie0 ce!tain issues a!isin$ f!o# these cases,especiall) on ho0 the defective info!#ations filed b) the p!osecuto!s should have been

t!eated.I a$!ee 0ith the ponente that a petition fo! habeas co!pus is o!dina!il) not the p!ope!p!ocedu!e to asse!t the !i$ht to bail. 5nde! the special ci!cu#stances of this case, ho0eve!,the petitione!s had no othe! !ecou!se. The) had to co#e to us.Fi!st, the t!ial cou!t 0as ce!tainl) a0a!e of the decision in People v. 2e!nande, ?? Phil. :&:@&?:'B that the!e is no such c!i#e in ou! statute boo/s as !ebellion co#ple;ed 0ith #u!de!,that #u!de! co##itted in connection 0ith a !ebellion is abso!bed b) the c!i#e of !ebellion, andthat a !eso!t to a!#s !esultin$ in the dest!uction of life o! p!ope!t) constitutes neithe! t0o o!#o!e offenses no! a co#ple; c!i#e but one c!i#e-!ebellion pu!e and si#ple.Second, ernande0 has been the la0 fo! <7 )ea!s. It has been !eite!ated in euall)sensational cases. *ll la0)e!s and even la0 students a!e a0a!e of the doct!ine. *tte#pts tohave the doct!ine !e-e;a#ined have been consistentl) !e9ected b) this "ou!t.

Thi!d, P!esident Ma!cos th!ou$h the use of his then le$islative po0e!s, issued P!es. Dec!ee?7=, the!eb) installin$ the ne0 c!i#e of !ebellion co#ple;ed 0ith offenses li/e #u!de! 0he!e$!ave! penalties a!e i#posed b) la0. 2o0eve!, P!esident *uino usin$ he! then le$islativepo0e!s e;p!essl) !epealed PD ?7= b) issuin$ 3;ec. O!de! &8>. She the!eb) e!ased the c!i#eof !ebellion co#ple;ed 0ith #u!de! and #ade it clea! that the ernande0 doct!ine !e#ains thecont!ollin$ !ule. The p!osecution has not e;plained 0h) it insists on !esu!!ectin$ an offensee;p!essl) 0iped out b) the P!esident. The p!osecution, in effect, uestions the action of theP!esident in !epealin$ a !ep!essive dec!ee, a dec!ee 0hich, acco!din$ to the !epeal o!de!, isviolative of hu#an !i$hts.Fou!th, an) !e-e;a#ination of the 2e!nande doct!ine b!in$s the e; post facto p!inciple intothe pictu!e. Decisions of this "ou!t fo!# pa!t of ou! le$al s)ste#. 3ven if 0e decla!e that!ebellion #a) be co#ple;ed 0ith #u!de!, ou! decla!ation can not be #ade !et!oactive 0he!e

the effect is to i#p!ison a pe!son fo! a c!i#e 0hich did not e;ist until the Sup!e#e "ou!t!eve!sed itself.*nd fifth, the atte#pts to distin$uish this case f!o# the ernande0 case b) st!essin$ that the/illin$s cha!$ed in the info!#ation 0e!e co##itted on the occasion of, but not a necessa!)#eans fo!, the co##ission of !ebellion !esult in outlandish conseuences and i$no!e thebasic natu!e of !ebellion. Thus, unde! the p!osecution theo!) a bo#b d!opped on PTV-7 0hich/ills $ove!n#ent t!oope!s !esults in si#ple !ebellion because the act is a necessa!) #eans to#a/e the !ebellion succeed. 2o0eve!, if the sa#e bo#b also /ills so#e civilians in thenei$hbo!hood, the d!oppin$ of the bo#b beco#es !ebellion co#ple;ed 0ith #u!de! because

the /illin$ of civilians is not necessa!) fo! the success of a !ebellion and, the!efo!e, the /illin$sa!e onl) on the occasion of but not a necessa!) #eans fo! the co##ission of !ebellion.This a!$u#ent is pue!ile.The c!i#e of !ebellion consists of #an) acts. The d!oppin$ of one bo#b cannot be isolated asa sepa!ate c!i#e of !ebellion. Neithe! should the d!oppin$ of one hund!ed bo#bs o! the fi!in$of thousands of #achine $un bullets be b!o/en up into a hund!ed o! thousands of sepa!ateoffenses, if each bo#b o! each bullet happens to !esult in the dest!uction of life and p!ope!t).The sa#e act cannot be punishable b) sepa!ate penalties dependin$ on 0hat st!i/es thefanc) of p!osecuto!s-punish#ent fo! the /illin$ of soldie!s o! !et!ibution fo! the deaths ofcivilians. The p!osecution also loses si$ht of the !e$!ettable fact that in total 0a! and in!ebellion the /illin$ of civilians, the la)in$ 0aste of civilian econo#ies, the #assac!e ofinnocent people, the blo0in$ up of passen$e! ai!planes, and othe! acts of te!!o!is# a!e all

used b) those en$a$ed in !ebellion. e cannot and should not t!) to asce!tain the intent of!ebels fo! each sin$le act unless the act is plainl) not connected to the !ebellion. e cannotuse *!ticle 78 of the Revised Penal "ode in lieu of still-tobe-enacted le$islation. The /illin$ ofcivilians du!in$ a !ebel attac/ on #ilita!) facilities fu!the!s the !ebellion and is pa!t of the!ebellion.The t!ial cou!t 0as ce!tainl) a0a!e of all the above conside!ations. I cannot unde!stand 0h)the t!ial Cud$e issued the 0a!!ant of a!!est 0hich cate$o!icall) states the!ein that the accusedwas not entitled to bail . The petitione! 0as co#pelled to co#e to us so he 0ould not bea!!ested without bail fo! a none;istent c!i#e. The t!ial cou!t fo!$ot to appl) an establisheddoct!ine of the Sup!e#e "ou!t. o!se, it issued a 0a!!ant 0hich !eve!sed <7 )ea!s ofestablished p!ocedu!e based on a 0ell-/no0n Sup!e#e "ou!t !ulin$.*ll cou!ts should !e#e#be! that the) fo!# pa!t of an independent 9udicial s)ste#G the) do not

belon$ to the p!osecution se!vice. * cou!t should neve! pla) into the hands of the p!osecutionand blindl) co#pl) 0ith its e!!oneous #anifestations. Faced 0ith an info!#ation cha!$in$ a#anifestl) non-e;istent c!i#e, the dut3 o& a trial court is to throw it out. O!, at the ve!) leastand 0he!e possible, #a/e it confo!# to the la0.* lo0e! cou!t cannot !e-e;a#ine and !eve!se a decision of the Sup!e#e "ou!t especiall) adecision consistentl) follo0ed fo! <7 )ea!s. he!e a Cud$e disa$!ees 0ith a Sup!e#e "ou!t!ulin$, he is f!ee to e;p!ess his !ese!vations in the bod) of his decision, o!de!, o! !esolution.2o0eve!, an) 9ud$#ent he !ende!s, an) o!de! he p!esc!ibes, and an) p!ocesses he issues must &ollow the #upreme Court precedent. * t!ial cou!t has no 9u!isdiction to !eve!se o! i$no!ep!ecedents of the Sup!e#e "ou!t. In this pa!ticula! case, it should have been the Solicito!4ene!al co#in$ to this "ou!t to uestion the lo0e! cou!ts !e9ection of the application fo! a

0a!!ant of a!!est 0ithout bail. It should have been the Solicito!-4ene!al p!ovo/in$ the issue of

!e-e;a#ination instead of the petitione!s as/in$ to be f!eed f!o# thei! a!!est fo! a non-e;istentc!i#e.The p!inciple bea!s !epeatin$1Respondent "ou!t of *ppeals !eall) 0as devoid of an) choice at all. It could not have !uled inan) othe! 0a) on the le$al uestion !aised. This T!ibunal havin$ spo/en, its dut) 0as to obe).It is as si#ple as that. The!e is !elevance to this e;ce!pt f!o# %a!!e!a v. %a!!e!a. @+-<&:8?,Cul) <&, &?>(, <7 S"R* ?8B The delicate tas/ of asce!tainin$ the si$nificance that attaches toa constitutional o! statuto!) p!ovision, an e;ecutive o!de!, a p!ocedu!al no!# o! a #unicipalo!dinance is co##itted to the 9udicia!). It thus discha!$es a !ole no less c !ucial than that

appe!tainin$ to the othe! t0o depa!t#ents in the #aintenance of the !ule of la0. To assu!estabilit) in le$al !elations and avoid confusion, it has to spea/ 0ith one voice. It does so 0ithfinalit), lo$icall) and !i$htl), th!ou$h the hi$hest 9udicial o!$an, this "ou!t. hat it sa)s thenshould be definitive and autho!itative, bindin$ on those occup)in$ the lo0e! !an/s in the

9udicial hie!a!ch). The) have to defe! and to sub#it. @%bid , &(>. The opinion of Custice +au!elin People v. Ve!a, ': Phil. :' &?<> 0as citedB. The ensuin$ pa!a$!aph of the opinion in%a!!e!a fu!the! e#phasies the point1 Such a thou$ht 0as !eite!ated in an opinion of CusticeC.%.+. Re)es and fu!the! e#phasied in these 0o!ds1 Cud$e 4audencio "lo!ibel need not be!e#inded that the Sup!e#e "ou!t, b) t!adition and in ou! s)ste# of 9udicial ad#inist!ation, hasthe last 0o!d on 0hat the la0 isG it is the final a!bite! of an) 9ustifiable cont!ove!s). The!e isonl) one Sup!e#e "ou!t f!o# 0hose decisions all othe! cou!ts should ta/e thei! bea!in$s.@%bid . Custice C.%.+. Re)es spo/e thus in *lbe!t v. "ou!t of Fi!st Instance of Manila @%!. VIB, +-

='<'7, Ma) =?, &?'8, =< S"R* ?78, ?'&. @Tu$ade v. "ou!t of *ppeals, 8: S"R* ==' &?>8.See also *lbe!t v. "ou!t of Fi!st Instance, =< S"R* ?78 &?'8 and Vi!-Cen Shippin$ andMa!ine Se!vices, Inc. v. N+R", &=: S"R* :>> &?8<BI find the situation in #pouses Panlilio v. Prosecutors ernando de )eon, et al. even #o!eine;plicable. In the case of the Panlilios, an) p!obable cause to co##it the non- e;istentc!i#e of !ebellion co#ple;ed 0ith #u!de! e;ists onl) in the #inds of the p!osecuto!s, not inthe !eco!ds of the case.I have $one ove! the !eco!ds and pleadin$s fu!nished to the #e#be!s of the Sup!e#e "ou!t. Ilistened intentl) to the o!al a!$u#ents du!in$ the hea!in$ and it 0as uite appa!ent that theconstitutional !eui!e#ent of p!obable cause 0as not satisfied. In fact, in ans0e! to #) ue!)fo! an) othe! p!oofs to suppo!t the issuance of a 0a!!ant of a!!est, the ans0e! 0as that theevidence would be submitted in due time to the t!ial cou!t.

The spouses Panlilio and one pa!ent have been in the !estau!ant business fo! decades. 5nde!the !eco!ds of these petitions, an) !estau!ant o0ne! o! hotel #ana$e! 0ho se!ves food to!ebels is a co-conspi!ato! in the !ebellion. The absu!dit) of this p!oposition is appa!ent if 0ebea! in #ind that !ebels !ide in buses and 9eepne)s, eat #eals in !u!al houses 0hen #ealti#efinds the# in the vicinit), 9oin 0eddin$s, fiestas, and othe! pa!ties, pla) bas/etball 0ith ba!!io)ouths, attend #asses and chu!ch se!vices and othe!0ise #i; 0ith people in va!ious$athe!in$s. 3ven if the hosts !eco$nie the# to be !ebels and fail to shoo the# a0a), it doesnot necessa!il) follo0 that the fo!#e! a!e co-conspi!ato!s in a !ebellion.The onl) basis fo! p!obable cause sho0n b) the !eco!ds of the Panlilio case is the alle$ed factthat the petitione!s se!ved food to !ebels at the 3n!ile household and a hotel supe!viso! as/edt0o o! th!ee of thei! 0aite!s, 0ithout !eason, to $o on a vacation. "lea!l), a #uch, #uchst!on$e! sho0in$ of p!obable cause #ust be sho0n.

In #alonga v. Cru0 Pa>o, &<7 S"R* 7<8 @&?8:B, then Senato! Salon$a 0as cha!$ed as aconspi!ato! in the heinous bo#bin$ of innocent civilians because the #an 0ho planted thebo#b had, so#eti#e ea!lie!, appea!ed in a $!oup photo$!aph ta/en du!in$ a bi!thda) pa!t) inthe 5nited States 0ith the Senato! and othe! $uests. It 0as a case of conspi!ac) p!ovedth!ou$h a $!oup pictu!e. 2e!e, it is a case of conspi!ac) sou$ht to p!oved th!ou$h the cate!in$of food.The "ou!t in #alonga st!essed1The pu!pose of a p!eli#ina!) investi$ation is to secu!e the innocent a$ainst hast), #aliciousand opp!essive p!osecution, and to p!otect hi# f!o# an open and public accusation of c!i#e,

f!o# the t!ouble, e;pense and an;iet) of a public t!ial, and also to p!otect the state f!o#useless and e;pensive t!ials . @T!ocio v. Manta, &&8 S"R* =7&G citin$ 2ashi#n v. %oncan, >&Phil. =&'B. The !i$ht to a p!eli#ina!) investi$ation is a statuto!) $!ant, and to 0ithhold it 0ouldbe to t!ans$!ess constitutional due p!ocess. @See People v. Oandasa, =: S"R* =>>B2o0eve!, in o!de! to satisf) the due p!ocess clause it is not enou$h that the p!eli#ina!)investi$ation is conducted in the sense of #a/in$ su!e that a t!ans$!esso! shall not escape

0ith i#punit). * p!eli#ina!) investi$ation se!ves not onl) the pu!poses of the State. Mo!ei#po!tant, it is a pa!t of the $ua!antees of f!eedo# and fai! pla) 0hich a!e bi!th!i$hts of all 0holive in ou! count!). It is, the!efo!e, i#pe!ative upon the fiscal o! the 9ud$e as the case #a) be,to !elieve the accused f!o# the pain of $oin$ th!ou$h a t!ial once it is asce!tained that theevidence is insufficient to sustain a p!i#a facie case o! that no p!obable cause e;ists to fo!# asufficient belief as to the $uilt of the accused. *lthou$h the!e is no $ene!al fo!#ula o! fi;ed

!ule fo! the dete!#ination of p!obable cause since the sa#e #ust be decided in the li$ht of theconditions obtainin$ in $iven situations and its e;istence depends to a la!$e de$!ee upon thefindin$ o! opinion of the 9ud$e conductin$ the e;a#ination, such a findin$ should not dis!e$a!dthe facts befo!e the 9ud$e no! !un counte! to the clea! dictates of !eason @See +a "he#ise+acoste, S.*. v. Fe!nande, &=? S"R* <?&B. The 9ud$e o! fiscal, the!efo!e, should not $o on

0ith the p!osecution in the hope that so#e c!edible evidence #i$ht late! tu!n up du!in$ t!ial fo!this 0ould be a fla$!ant violation of a basic !i$ht 0hich the cou!ts a!e c!eated to uphold. Itbea!s !epeatin$ that the 9udicia!) lives up to its #ission b) vitaliin$ and not deni$!atin$constitutional !i$hts. So it has been befo!e. It should continue to be so. @ id ., pp. 7'&- 7'=B%ecause of the fo!e$oin$, I ta/e e;ception to that pa!t of the ponencia 0hich 0ill !ead theinfo!#ations as cha!$in$ si#ple !ebellion. This case did not a!ise f!o# innocent e!!o!. If aninfo!#ation cha!$es #u!de! but its contents sho0 onl) the in$!edients of ho#icide, the Cud$e

#a) !i$htl) !ead it as cha!$in$ ho#icide. In these cases, ho0eve!, the!e is a delibe!ateatte#pt to cha!$e the petitione!s fo! an offense 0hich this "ou!t has !uled as non-e;istent.The p!osecution 0anted 2e!nande to be !eve!sed. Since the p!osecution has filedinfo!#ations fo! a c!i#e 0hich, unde! ou! !ulin$s, does not e;ist, those info!#ations should bet!eated as null and void. Ne0 info!#ations cha!$in$ the co!!ect offense should be filed. *nd in4.R. No. ?=&'7, an e;t!a effo!t should be #ade to see 0hethe! o! not the P!inciple in #alongav. Cru0 Patio, et al. 9supra= has been violated.The "ou!t is not, in an) 0a), p!eventin$ the 4ove!n#ent f!o# usin$ #o!e effective 0eaponsto supp!ess !ebellion. If the 4ove!n#ent feels that the cu!!ent situation calls fo! the i#positionof #o!e seve!e penalties li/e death o! the c!eation of ne0 c!i#es li/e !ebellion co#ple;ed 0ith#u!de!, the !e#ed) is 0ith "on$!ess, not the cou!ts.I, the!efo!e, vote to 4R*NT the petitions and to ORD3R the !espondent cou!t to DISMISS the

void info!#ations fo! a non-e;istent c!i#e.

FELICIANO, J., concu!!in$1I concu! in the !esult !eached b) the #a9o!it) of the "ou!t.I believe that the!e a!e ce!tain aspects of the ernande0 doct!ine that, as an abst!act uestionof la0, could stand !ee;a#ination o! cla!ification. I have in #ind in pa!ticula! #atte!s such asthe co!!ect o! app!op!iate !elationship bet0een *!ticle &<7 and *!ticle &<: of the RevisedPenal "ode. This is a #atte! 0hich !elates to the le$al concept of !ebellion in ou! le$al s)ste#.If one e;a#ines the actual te!#s of *!ticle &<7 @entitled1 Rebellion o! Insu!!ection-2o0"o##ittedB, it 0ould appea! that this *!ticle specifies both the overt acts and the criminal

purpose 0hich, 0hen put to$ethe!, 0ould constitute the offense of !ebellion. Thus, *!ticle &<7states that the c!i#e of !ebellion is co##itted b) !isin$ publicl) and ta/in$ a!#s a$ainst the4ove!n#ent @i.e., the ove!t acts co#p!isin$ !ebellionB, fo! the pu!pose of @i.e., the specificc!i#inal intent o! political ob9ectiveB !e#ovin$ f!o# the alle$iance to said $ove!n#ent o! itsla0s the te!!ito!) of the Republic of the Philippines o! an) pa!t the!eof, o! an) bod) of land,naval o! othe! a!#ed fo!ces, o! dep!ivin$ the "hief 3;ecutive o! the +e$islatu!e, 0holl) o!pa!tiall), of thei! po0e!s o! p!e!o$atives. *t the sa#e ti#e, *!ticle &<: @entitled1 Penalt) fo!Rebellion o! Insu!!ection.B sets out a lis tin$ of acts o! pa!ticula! #easu!es 0hich appea! to fallunde! the !ub!ic of !ebellion o! insu!!ection1 en$a$in$ in 0a! a$ainst the fo!ces of the4ove!n#ent, dest!o)in$ p!ope!t) o! co##ittin$ se!ious violence, e;actin$ cont!ibutions o!dive!tin$ public funds f!o# the la0ful pu!pose fo! 0hich the) have been app!op!iated. *!ethese #odalities of !ebellion generall3 O! a!e the) pa!ticula! #odes b) 0hich those 0ho

promote K L, maintain K L or head K L a rebellion or insurrectionM co##it !ebellion, o! pa!ticula!#odes of pa!ticipation in a !ebellion b3 public o&&icers or emplo3ees "lea!l), the scope of thele$al concept of !ebellion !elates to the distinction bet0een, on the one hand, theindispensable acts o! in$!edients of the c!i#e of !ebellion unde! the Revised Penal "ode and,on the othe! hand, diffe!in$ optional #odes of see/in$ to ca!!) out the political o! socialob9ective of the !ebellion o! insu!!ection.The difficult) that is at once !aised b) an) effo!t to e;a#ine once #o!e even the aboveth!eshold uestions is that the !esults of such !e-e;a#ination #a) 0ell be that acts 0hichunde! the ernande0 doct!ine a!e abso!bed into !ebellion, #a) be cha!acte!ied as sepa!ateo! disc!ete offenses 0hich, as a #atte! of la0, can eithe! be p!osecuted sepa!atel) f!o#!ebellion o! p!osecuted unde! the p!ovisions of *!ticle 78 of the Revised Penal "ode, 0hich@both "lause & and "lause = the!eofB clea!l) envisa$e the e;istence of at least t0o @=B distinct

offenses. To !each such a conclusion in the case at ba!, 0ould, as fa! as I can see, !esult incollidin$ 0ith the funda#ental non-!et!oactivit) p!inciple @*!ticle 7, "ivil "odeG *!ticle ==,Revised Penal "odeG both in !elation to *!ticle 8, "ivil "odeB.The non-!et!oactivit) !ule applies to statutes p!incipall). %ut, statutes do not e;ist in theabst!act but !athe! bea! upon the lives of people 0ith the specific fo!# $iven the# b) 9udicialdecisions inte!p!etin$ thei! no!#s. Cudicial decisions const!uin$ statuto!) no!#s $ive specificshape and content to such no!#s. In ti#e, the statuto!) no!#s beco#e enc!usted 0ith the$losses placed upon the# b) the cou!ts and the $losses beco#e inte$!al 0ith the no!#s @"fCalteE v. Palomar , &8 S"R* =7> &?''B. Thus, 0hile in le$al theo!), 9udicial inte!p!etation of astatute beco#es pa!t of the la0 as of the date that the la0 0as o!i$inall) enacted, I believethis theo!) is not to be applied !i$o!ousl) 0he!e a ne0 9udicial doct!ine is announced, inpa!ticula! one ove!!ulin$ a p!evious e;istin$ doct!ine of lon$ standin$ @he!e, <' )ea!sB and

#ost speciall) not 0he!e the statute const!ued is c!i#inal in natu!e and the ne0 doct!ine is

#o!e one!ous fo! the accused than the p!e-e;istin$ one @People v. Cabinal, :: S"R* '(>&?>7G People v. +ice!a, ': S"R* =>( &?>:G 4u#abon v. Di!ecto! of P!isons, <> S"R* 7=(&?>&B. Mo!eove!, the non-!et!oactivit) !ule 0hethe! in !espect of le$islative acts o! 9udicialdecisions has constitutional i#plications. The p!evailin$ !ule in the 5nited States is that a

9udicial decision that !et!oactivel) !ende!s an act c!i#inal o! enhances the seve!it) of thepenalt) p!esc!ibed fo! an offense, is vulne!able to constitutional challen$e based upon the !ulea$ainst e; post facto la0s and the due p!ocess clause @%ouie v. "it) of "olu#bia, <>8 5S<7>,&= +. 3d. =d 8?7 &?'7G Ma!/s v. 5.S., 7< 5S &88, :& +. 3d. =d ='( &?>>G Devine v.Ne0 Me;ico Depa!t#ent of "o!!ections, 8'' F. =d <<? &?8?B.

It is u!$ed b) the Solic ito! 4ene!al that the non-!et!oactivit) p!inciple does not p!esent an) !ealp!oble# fo! the !eason that the ernande0 doct!ine 0as based upon *!ticle 78, secondclause, of the Revised Penal "ode and not upon the fi!st clause the!eof, 0hile it is p!ecisel)the fi!st clause of *!ticle 78 that the 4ove!n#ent he!e invo/es. It is, ho0eve!, open to se!iousdoubt 0hethe! ernande0 can !easonabl) be so si#pl) and sha!pl) cha!acte!ied. *ndassu#in$ the ernande0 could be so cha!acte!ied, subseuent cases !efe! to theernande0 doct!ine in te!#s 0hich do not distin$uish clea!l) bet0een the fi!st clause and thesecond clause of *!ticle 78 @e.$., People v. 4e!oni#o, &(( Phil. ?( &?:'G People v.Rod!i$ue, &(> Phil. ':? &?'(B. Thus, it appea!s to #e that the c!itical uestion 0ould be

0hethe! a #an of o!dina!) intelli$ence 0ould have necessa!il) !ead o! unde!stood theernande0 doct!ine as !efe!!in$ e;clusivel) to *!ticle 78, second clause. Put in sli$htl)diffe!ent te!#s, the i#po!tant uestion 0ould be 0hethe! the ne0 doct!ine he!e p!oposed b)

the 4ove!n#ent could fai!l) have been de!ived b) a #an of ave!a$e intelli$ence @o! counselof ave!a$e co#petence in the la0B f!o# an e;a#ination of *!ticles &<7 and &<: of theRevised Penal "ode as inte!p!eted b) the "ou!t in the ernande0 and subseuent cases. Tofo!#ulate the uestion ill these te!#s 0ould al#ost be to co#pel a ne$ative ans0e!,especiall) in vie0 of the conclusions !eached b) the "ou!t and its seve!al Me#be!s toda).Finall), the!e appea!s to be no uestion that the ne0 doct!ine that the 4ove!n#ent 0ouldhave us discove! fo! the fi!st ti#e since the p!o#ul$ation of the Revised Penal "ode in &?<=,

0ould be #o!e one!ous fo! the !espondent accused than the si#ple application of theernande0 doct!ine that #u!de!s 0hich have been co##itted on the occasion of and infu!the!ance of the c!i#e of !ebellion #ust be dee#ed abso!bed in the offense of si#ple!ebellion.I a$!ee the!efo!e that the info!#ation in this case #ust be vie0ed as cha!$in$ onl) the c!i#e

of si#ple !ebellion. FERNAN, C.J., concu!!in$ and dissentin$1I a# const!ained to 0!ite this sepa!ate opinion on 0hat see#s to be a !i$id adhe!ence to the&?:' !ulin$ of the "ou!t. The nu#e!ous challen$es to the doct!ine enunciated in the case ofPeople vs. ernande0, ?? Phil. :&: @&?:'B should at once de#onst!ate the need to !edefinethe applicabilit) of said doct!ine so as to #a/e it confo!#able 0ith accepted and 0ell-settledp!inciples of c!i#inal la0 and 9u!isp!udence.To #) #ind, the 2e!nande doct!ine should not be inte!p!eted as an all-e#b!acin$ autho!it)fo! the !ule that all co##on c!i#es co##itted on the occasion, o ! in fu!the!ance of, o! inconnection 0ith, !ebellion a!e abso!bed b) the latte!. To that e;tent, I cannot $o alon$ 0ith thevie0 of the #a9o!it) in the instant case that 2e!nande !e#ains bindin$ doct!ine ope!atin$ to

p!ohibit the co#ple;in$ of !ebellion 0ith an) othe! offense co##itted on the occasion the!eof,

eithe! as a #eans necessa!) to its co##ission o! as an unintended effect of an activit) thatconstitutes !ebellion @p. ?, DecisionB.The 2e!nande doct!ine has se!ved the pu!pose fo! 0hich it 0as appealed b) the "ou!t in&?:' du!in$ the co##unist-inspi!ed !ebellion of the 2u/s. The chan$es in ou! societ) in thespan of <7 )ea!s since then have fa!-!eachin$ effects on the all-e#b!acin$ applicabilit) of thedoct!ine conside!in$ the e#e!$ence of alte!native #odes of seiin$ the po0e!s of the dul)constituted 4ove!n#ent not conte#plated in *!ticles &<7 and &<: of the Revised Penal "odeand thei! conseuent effects on the lives of ou! people. The doct!ine 0as $ood la0 then, but Ibelieve that the!e is a ce!tain aspect of the 2e!nande doct!ine that needs cla!ification.

ith all due !espect to the vie0s of #) b!eth!en in the "ou!t, I believe that the "ou!t, in theinstant case, should have fu!the! conside!ed that distinction bet0een acts o! offenses 0hicha!e indispensable in the co##ission of !ebellion, on the one hand, and those acts o! offensesthat a!e merel3 necessar3 but not indispensable in the co##ission of !ebellion, on the othe!.The #a9o!it) of the "ou!t is co!!ect in adoptin$, albeit i#pliedl), the vie0 in 2e!nande casethat 0hen an offense pe!pet!ated as a necessa!) #eans of co##ittin$ anothe!, 0hich is anele#ent of the latte!, the !esultin$ inte!loc/in$ c!i#es should be conside!ed as onl) one si#pleoffense and #ust be dee#ed outside the ope!ation of the co#ple; c!i#e p!ovision @*!ticle 78Bof the Revised Penal "ode. *s in the case of 2e!nande, the "ou!t, ho0eve!, failed in theinstant case to distin$uish 0hat is indispensable f!o# 0hat is #e!el) necessa!) in theco##ission of an offense, !esultin$ thus in the !ule that co##on c!i#es li/e #u!de!, a!son,!obbe!), etc. co##itted in the cou!se o! on the occasion of !ebellion a!e abso!bed o! included

in the latte! as ele#ents the!eof.The !elevance of the distinction i s si$nificant, #o!e pa!ticula!l), if applied to conte#po!aneousevents happenin$ in ou! count!) toda). Theo!eticall), a c!i#e 0hich is indispensable in theco##ission of anothe! #ust necessa!il) be an ele#ent of the latte!G but a c!i#e that is #e!el)necessa!) but not indispensable in the co##ission of anothe! is not an ele#ent of the latte!,and if and 0hen actuall) co##itted, b!in$s the inte!loc/in$ c!i#e 0ithin the ope!ation of theco#ple; c!i#e p!ovision @*!t. 78B of the Revised Penal "ode. ith that distinction, co##onc!i#es co##itted a$ainst 4ove!n#ent fo!ces and p!ope!t) in the cou!se of !ebellion a!ep!ope!l) conside!ed indispensable ove!t acts of !ebellion and a!e lo$icall) abso!bed in it asvi!tual in$!edients o! ele#ents the!eof, but co##on c!i#es co##itted a$ainst the civilianpopulation in the cou!se o! on the occasion of !ebellion and in fu!the!ance the!eof, #a) benecessa!) but not indispensable in co##ittin$ the latte!, and #a), the!efo!e, not be

conside!ed as ele#ents of the sa id c!i#e of !ebellion. To illust!ate, the deaths occu!!in$ du!in$a!#ed conf!ontation o! clashes bet0een $ove!n#ent fo!ces and the !ebels a!e abso!bed inthe !ebellion, and 0ould be those !esultin$ f!o# the bo#bin$ of #ilita!) ca#ps andinstallations, as these acts a!e indispensable in ca!!)in$ out the !ebellion. %ut delibe!atel)shootin$ do0n an una!#ed innocent civilian to instill fea! o! c!eate chaos a#on$ the people,althou$h done in the fu!the!ance of the !ebellion, should not be abso!bed in the c!i#e of!ebellion as the felonious act is #e!el) necessa!), but not indispensable. In the latte! case,*!ticle 78 of the Revised Penal "ode should appl).The occu!!ence of a coup d etat in ou! count!) as a #ode of seiin$ the po0e!s of the dul)-constituted $ove!n#ent b) sta$in$ su!p!ise attac/s o! occup)in$ cente!s of po0e!s, of 0hichthis "ou!t should ta/e 9udicial notice, has int!oduced a ne0 di#ension to the inte!p!etation ofthe p!ovisions on !ebellion and insu!!ection in the Revised Penal "ode. 4ene!all), as a #ode

of seiin$ the po0e!s of the dul) constituted $ove!n#ent, it falls 0ithin the conte#plation of

!ebellion unde! the Revised Penal "ode, but, st!ictl) const!ued, a coup detat pe! se is a classb) itself. The #anne! of its e;ecution and the e;tent and #a$nitude of its effects on the livesof the people distin$uish a coup detat f!o# the t!aditional definition and #odes of co##issionattached b) the Revised Penal "ode to the c!i#e of !ebellion as applied b) the "ou!t to theco##unist-inspi!ed !ebellion of the &?:(s. * coup detat #a) be e;ecuted successfull)

0ithout its pe!pet!ato!s !eso!tin$ to the co##ission of othe! se!ious c!i#es such as #u!de!,a!son, /idnappin$, !obbe!), etc. because of the ele#ent of su!p!ise and the p!ecise ti#in$ ofits e;ecution. In e;t!e#e cases 0he!e #u!de!, a!son, !obbe!), and othe! co##on c!i#es a!eco##itted on the occasion of a coup d etat, the distinction !efe!!ed to above on 0hat is

necessa!) and 0hat is indispensable in the co##ission of the coup detat should bepainsta/in$l) conside!ed as the "ou!t should have done in the case of he!ein petitione!s.I concu! in the !esult insofa! as the othe! issues a!e !esolved b) the "ou!t but I ta/e e;ceptionto the vote of the #a9o!it) on the b!oad application of the 2e!nande doct!ine.0I!IN, J., concu!!in$ and dissentin$1I concu! 0ith the #a9o!it) opinion e;cept as !e$a!ds the dispositive po!tion the!eof 0hicho!de!s the !e#and of the case to the !espondent 9ud$e fo! fu!the! p!oceedin$s to fi; thea#ount of bail to be posted b) the petitione!.I sub#it that the p!oceedin$s need not be !e#anded to the !espondent 9ud$e fo! the pu!poseof fi;in$ bail since 0e have const!ued the indict#ent he!ein as cha!$in$ si#ple !ebellion, anoffense 0hich is bailable. "onseuentl), habeas corpus is the p!ope! !e#ed) available topetitione! as an accused 0ho had been cha!$ed 0ith si#ple !ebellion, a bailable offense but

0ho had been denied his !i$ht to bail b) the !espondent 9ud$e in violation of petitione!sconstitutional !i$ht to bail. In vie0 the!eof, the !esponsibilit) of fi;in$ the a#ount of bail andapp!oval the!eof 0hen filed, devolves upon us, if co#plete !elief is to be acco!ded to petitione!in the instant p!oceedin$s.It is indubitable that befo!e conviction, ad#ission to bail is a #atte! of !i$ht to the defendant,accused befo!e the Re$ional T!ial "ou!t of an offense less than capital @Section &< *!ticle III,"onstitution and Section <, Rule &&7B. Petitione! is, befo!e 5s, on a petition fo! habeas corpus p!a)in$, a#on$ othe!s, fo! his p!ovisional !elease on bail. Since the offense cha!$ed@const!ued as si#ple !ebellionB ad#its of bail, it is incu#bent upon us # the e;e!cise of ou!

9u!isdiction ove! the petition fo! habeas corpus @Section : @&B, *!ticle VIII, "onstitutionG Section=, Rule &(=B, to $!ant petitione! his !i$ht to bail and havin$ ad#itted hi# to bail, to fi; thea#ount the!eof in such su#s as the cou!t dee#s !easonable. The!eafte!, the !ules !eui!e that

the p!oceedin$s to$ethe! 0ith the bond shall fo!th0ith be ce!tified to the !espondent t!ialcou!t @Section &7, Rule &(=B.*cco!din$l), the cash bond in the a#ount of P &((,(((.(( posted b) petitione! fo! hisp!ovisional !elease pu!suant to ou! !esolution dated Ma!ch ', &??( should no0 be dee#edand ad#itted as his bail bond fo! his p!ovisional !elease in the case @si#ple !ebellionB pendin$befo!e the !espondent 9ud$e, 0ithout necessit) of a !e#and fo! fu!the! p!oceedin$s,conditioned fo! his @petitione!sB appea!ance befo!e the t!ial cou!t to abide its o!de! o!

9ud$#ent in the said case. SARMIENTO, J., concu!!in$ and dissentin$1I a$!ee that People v. 2e!nande 1 should abide. Mo!e than th!ee decades afte! 0hich it 0aspenned, it has fi!#l) settled in the to#es of ou! 9u!isp!udence as co!!ect doct!ine.

*s 2e!nande put it, !ebellion #eans en$a$in$ # 0a! a$ainst the fo!ces of the $ove!n#ent,2 0hich i#plies !eso!t to a!#s, !euisition of p!ope!t) and se!vices, collection of ta;es andcont!ibutions, !est!aint of libe!t), da#a$e to p!ope!t), ph)sical in9u!ies and loss of life, and thehun$e!, illness and unhappiness that 0a! leaves in its 0a/e. ... 3 0hethe! co##itted infu!the!ance, of as a necessa!) #eans fo! the co##ission, o! in the cou!se, of !ebellion. To sa)that !ebellion #a) be co#ple;ed 0ith an) othe! offense, in this case #u!de!, is to pla) into acont!adiction in te!#s because e;actl), !ebellion includes #u!de!, a#on$ othe! possiblec!i#es.I also a$!ee that the info!#ation #a) stand as an accusation fo! si#ple !ebellion. Since the

acts co#plained of as constitutin$ !ebellion have been e#bodied in the info!#ation, #entionthe!ein of #u!de! as a co#ple;in$ offense is a su!plusa$e, because in an) case, the c!i#e of!ebellion is left full) desc!ibed.

*t an) !ate, the $ove!n#ent need onl) a#end the info!#ation b) a cle!ical co!!ection, since ana#end#ent 0ill not alte! its substance.I dissent, ho0eve!, insofa! as the #a9o!it) o!de!s the !e#and of the #atte! of bail to the lo0e!cou!t. I ta/e it that 0hen 0e, in ou! Resolution of Ma!ch ', &??(, $!anted the petitione!p!ovisional libe!t) upon the filin$ of a bond of P&((,(((.((, 0e $!anted hi# bail. The factthat 0e $ave hi# p!ovisional libe!t) is in #) vie0, of no #o#ent, because bail #eansp!ovisional libe!t). It 0ill se!ve no useful pu!pose to have the t!ial cou!t hea! the incident a$ain

0hen 0e ou!selves have been satisfied that the petitione! is entitled to te#po!a!) f!eedo#.

PA!ILLA, J., dissentin$1I concu! in the #a9o!it) opinion insofa! as it holds that the !ulin$ in People vs. ernande0, ??Phil. :&: !e#ains bindin$ doct!ine ope!atin$ to p!ohibit the co#ple;in$ of !ebellion 0ith an)othe! offense co##itted on the occasion the!eof, ei the! as a #eans necessa!) to itsco##ission o! as an unintended effect of an activit) that constitutes !ebellion.I dissent, ho0eve!, f!o# the #a9o!it) opinion insofa! as it holds that the info!#ation inuestion, 0hile cha!$in$ the co#ple; c!i#e of !ebellion 0ith #u!de! and #ultiple f!ust!ated#u!de!, Mis to be read as charging simple rebellion.M The p!esent cases a!e to be distin$uished f!o# the ernande0 case in at least one @&B#ate!ial !espect. In the ernande0 case, this "ou!t 0as conf!onted 0ith an appealed case,i.e., 2e!nande had been convicted b) the t!ial cou!t of the co#ple; c!i#e of !ebellion 0ith#u!de!, a!son and !obbe!), and his plea to be !eleased on bail befo!e the Sup!e#e "ou!t,

pendin$ appeal, $ave bi!th to the no0 celeb!ated ernande0 doct!ine that the c!i#e of!ebellion co#ple;ed 0ith #u!de!, a!son and !obbe!) does not e;ist. In the p!esent cases, onthe othe! hand, the "ou!t is conf!onted 0ith an original case, i.e., 0he!e an info!#ation hasbeen !ecentl) filed in the t!ial cou!t and the petitione!s have not even pleaded the!eto.Fu!the!#o!e, the Sup!e#e "ou!t, in the ernande0 case, 0as $!ound-b!ea/in$ on the issueof 0hethe! !ebellion can be co#ple;ed 0ith #u!de!, a!son, !obbe!), etc. In the p!esent cases,on the othe! hand, the p!osecution and the lo0e! cou!t, not onl) had the ernande0 doct!ine@as case law B, but 3;ecutive O!de! No. &8> of P!esident "o!aon ". *uino dated : Cune&?8> @as statutor3 law B to bind the# to the le$al p!oposition that the crime o& rebellioncompleEed with murder, and multiple &rustrated murder does not eEist.*nd )et, not0ithstandin$ these unmistaFable and controlling beacon li$hts-absent 0hen this"ou!t laid do0n the ernande0 doct!ine-the p!osecution has insisted in filin$, and the lo0e!

cou!t has pe!sisted in hea!in$, an info!#ation cha!$in$ the petitione!s 0ith !ebellion

co#ple;ed 0ith #u!de! an #ultiple f!ust!ated #u!de!. hat in&ormation is clearl3 a nullit3 and plainl3 void ab initio. Its head should not be allo0ed to su!face. *s a nullit) in substantive la0,it cha!$es nothin$G it has $iven !ise to nothin$. The 0a!!ants of a!!est issued pu!suant the!etoa!e as null and void as the info!#ation on 0hich the) a!e ancho!ed. *nd, since the enti!euestion of the info!#ations validit) is befo!e the "ou!t in these habeas co!pus cases, Iventu!e to sa) that the info!#ation is &atall3 de&ective, even unde! p!ocedu!al la0, because itcha!$es #o!e than one @&B offense @Sec. &<, Rule &&(, Rules of "ou!tB.I sub#it then that it is not fo! this "ou!t to ene!$ie a dead and, at best, fatall) dec!epitinfo!#ation b) labellin$ o! baptiin$ it diffe!entl) f!o# 0hat it announces itself to be. The

p!osecution #ust file an entirel3 new and proper info!#ation, fo! this enti!e e;e!cise to #e!itthe se!ious conside!ation of the cou!ts.*""ORDIN4+6, I vote to 4R*NT the petitions, J5*S2 the 0a!!ants of a !!est, and ORD3Rthe info!#ation fo! !ebellion co#ple;ed 0ith #u!de! and #ultiple f!ust!ated #u!de! in "!i#inal"ase Nos. ?(-&(?7&, RT" of Jueon "it), DISMISS3D."onseuentl), the petitione!s should be o!de!ed pe!#anentl) !eleased and thei! bailscancelled.Paras, J., concurs.

S&:#-#t& O:$o$sMELENCIO'HERRERA, J., concu!!in$1

I 9oin #) collea$ues in holdin$ that the ernande0 doct!ine, 0hich has been 0ith us fo! thepast th!ee decades, !e#ains $ood la0 and, thus, should !e#ain undistu!bed, despite pe!iodicchallen$es to it that, i!onicall), have onl) se!ved to st!en$then its p!onounce#ents.I ta/e e;ception to the vie0, ho0eve!, that habeas corpus 0as not the p!ope! !e#ed).2ad the Info!#ation filed belo0 cha!$ed #e!el) the si#ple c!i#e of Rebellion, that p!opositioncould have been plausible. %ut that Info!#ation cha!$ed Rebellion co#ple;ed 0ith Mu!de!and Multiple F!ust!ated Mu!de!, a c!i#e 0hich does not e;ist in ou! statute boo/s. The cha!$e

0as obviousl) intended to #a/e the penalt) fo! the #ost se!ious offense in its #a;i#u#pe!iod i#posable upon the offende! pu!suant to *!ticle 78 of the Rev ised Penal "ode. Thus,no bail 0as !eco##ended in the Info!#ation no! 0as an) p!esc!ibed in the a!!ant of *!!estissued b) the T!ial "ou!t.5nde! the attendant ci!cu#stances, the!efo!e, to have filed a Motion to Juash befo!e the

lo0e! "ou!t 0ould not have b!ou$ht about the speed) !elief f!o# unla0ful !est!aint thatpetitione! 0as see/in$. Du!in$ the pendenc) of said Motion befo!e the lo0e! "ou!t, petitione!could have continued to lan$uish in detention. %esides, the !it of abeas Corpus #a) stillissue even if anothe! !e#ed), 0hich is less effective, #a) be availed of @"have vs. "ou!t of*ppeals, =7 S"R* ''<B.It is t!ue that habeas corpus 0ould o!dina!il) not he 0hen a pe!son is unde! custod) b) vi!tueof a p!ocess issued b) a "ou!t.The "ou!t, ho0eve!, #ust have 9u!isdiction to issue the p!ocess. In this case, the "ou!t belo0#ust be dee#ed to have been ousted of 9u!isdiction 0hen it ille$all) cu!tailed petitione!slibe!t). 2abeas co!pus is thus available.The 0!it of habeas co!pus is available to !elieve pe!sons f!o# unla0ful !est!aint. %ut 0he!ethe detention o! confine#ent is the !esult of a p!ocess issued b) the cou!t o! 9ud$e o! b) vi!tue

of a 9ud$#ent o! sentence, the 0!it o!dina!il) cannot be availed of. %t ma3 still be invoFed

though i& the process, Hudgment or sentence proceeded &rom a court or tribunal the Hurisdict iono& which ma3 be assailed. 'ven i& it had authorit3 to act at the outset, it is now the prevailingdoctrine that a deprivation o& constitutional right, i& shown to eEist, would oust it o& Hurisdiction.%n such a case, habeas corpus could be relied upon to regain oneIs libert3 @"eleste vs.People, <& S"R* <?&B 3#phasis e#phasis.The Petition fo! habeas corpus 0as p!ecisel) p!e#ised on the violation of petitione!sconstitutional !i$ht to bail inas#uch as !ebellion, unde! the p!esent state of the la0, is abailable offense and the c!i#e fo! 0hich petitione! stands accused of and fo! 0hich he 0asdenied bail is non-e;istent in la0.

hile liti$ants should, as a !ule, ascend the steps of the 9udicial ladde!, nothin$ should stopthis "ou!t f!o# ta/in$ co$niance of petitions b!ou$ht befo!e it !aisin$ u!$ent constitutionalissues, an) p!ocedu!al fla0 not0ithstandin$.The !ules on habeas corpus a!e to be libe!all) const!ued @4ana0a) v. Juilen, 7= Phil. 8(:B,the 0!it of habeas corpus bein$ the funda#ental inst!u#ent fo! safe$ua!din$ individualf!eedo# a$ainst a!bit!a!) and la0less state action. The scope and fle;ibilit) of the 0!it-itscapacit) to !each all #anne! of ille$al detention-its abilit3 to cut through barriers o& &orm and procedural ma0es"have al0a)s been e#phasied and 9ealousl) $ua!ded b) cou!ts andla0#a/e!s @4u#abon v. Di!ecto! of %u!eau of P!isons, <> S"R* 7=(B e#phasis supplied.The p!olife!ation of cases in this "ou!t, 0hich follo0ed in the 0a/e of this Petition, 0asb!ou$ht about b) the insistence of the p!osecution to cha!$e the c!i#e of Rebellion co#ple;ed

0ith othe! co##on offenses not0ithstandin$ the fact that this "ou!t had not )et !uled on the

validit) of that cha!$e and had $!anted p!ovisional libe!t) to petitione!.If, indeed, it is desi!ed to #a/e the c!i#e of Rebellion a capital offense @no0 punishable b)reclusion perpetuaB, the !e#ed) lies in le$islation. %ut *!ticle &7=-* 1 of the Revised Penal"ode, alon$ 0ith P.D. No. ?7=, 0e!e !epealed, fo! bein$ !ep!essive, b) 3O No. &8> on :Cune &?8>. 3O &8> fu!the! e;plicitl) p!ovided that *!ticle &<7 @and othe!s enu#e!atedB of theRevised Penal "ode 0as !esto!ed to its full fo!ce and effect as it e;isted befo!e saida#endato!) dec!ees. 2avin$ been so !epealed, this "ou!t is be!eft of po0e! to le$islate intoe;istence, unde! the $uise of !e-e;a#inin$ a settled doct!ine, a c!eatu!e un/no0n in la0- theco#ple; c!i#e of Rebellion 0ith Mu!de!. The !e#and of the case to the lo0e! "ou!t fo! fu!the!p!oceedin$s is in o!de!. The !it of abeas Corpus has se!ved its pu!pose. GUTIERREZ, R., J., concu!!in$1

I 9oin the "ou!ts decision to $!ant the petition. In !eite!atin$ the !ule that unde! e;istin$ la0!ebellion #a) not be co#ple;ed 0ith #u!de!, the "ou!t e#phasies that it cannot le$islate ane0-c!i#e into e;istence no! p!esc!ibe a penalt) fo! its co##ission. That function ise;clusivel) fo! "on$!ess.I 0!ite this sepa!ate opinion to #a/e clea! ho0 I vie0 ce!tain issues a!isin$ f!o# these cases,especiall) on ho0 the defective info!#ations filed b) the p!osecuto!s should have beent!eated.I a$!ee 0ith the ponente that a petition fo! habeas co!pus is o!dina!il) not the p!ope!p!ocedu!e to asse!t the !i$ht to bail. 5nde! the special ci!cu#stances of this case, ho0eve!,the petitione!s had no othe! !ecou!se. The) had to co#e to us.Fi!st, the t!ial cou!t 0as ce!tainl) a0a!e of the decision in People v. 2e!nande, ?? Phil. :&:@&?:'B that the!e is no such c!i#e in ou! statute boo/s as !ebellion co#ple;ed 0ith #u!de!,

that #u!de! co##itted in connection 0ith a !ebellion is abso!bed b) the c!i#e of !ebellion, and

that a !eso!t to a!#s !esultin$ in the dest!uction of life o! p!ope!t) constit utes neithe! t0o o!#o!e offenses no! a co#ple; c!i#e but one c!i#e-!ebellion pu!e and si#ple.Second, ernande0 has been the la0 fo! <7 )ea!s. It has been !eite!ated in euall)sensational cases. *ll la0)e!s and even la0 students a!e a0a!e of the doct!ine. *tte#pts tohave the doct!ine !e-e;a#ined have been consistentl) !e9ected b) this "ou!t.Thi!d, P!esident Ma!cos th!ou$h the use of his then le$islative po0e!s, issued P!es. Dec!ee?7=, the!eb) installin$ the ne0 c!i#e of !ebellion co#ple;ed 0ith offenses li/e #u!de! 0he!e$!ave! penalties a!e i#posed b) la0. 2o0eve!, P!esident *uino usin$ he! then le$islativepo0e!s e;p!essl) !epealed PD ?7= b) issuin$ 3;ec. O!de! &8>. She the!eb) e!ased the c!i#e

of !ebellion co#ple;ed 0ith #u!de! and #ade it clea! that the ernande0 doct!ine !e#ains thecont!ollin$ !ule. The p!osecution has not e;plained 0h) it insists on !esu!!ectin$ an offensee;p!essl) 0iped out b) the P!esident. The p!osecution, in effect, uestions the action of theP!esident in !epealin$ a !ep!essive dec!ee, a dec!ee 0hich, acco!din$ to the !epeal o!de!, isviolative of hu#an !i$hts.Fou!th, an) !e-e;a#ination of the 2e!nande doct!ine b!in$s the e; post facto p!inciple intothe pictu!e. Decisions of this "ou!t fo!# pa!t of ou! le$al s)ste#. 3ven if 0e decla!e that!ebellion #a) be co#ple;ed 0ith #u!de!, ou! decla!ation can not be #ade !et!oactive 0he!ethe effect is to i#p!ison a pe!son fo! a c!i#e 0hich did not e;ist until the Sup!e#e "ou!t!eve!sed itself.*nd fifth, the atte#pts to distin$uish this case f!o# the ernande0 case b) st!essin$ that the/illin$s cha!$ed in the info!#ation 0e!e co##itted on the occasion of, but not a necessa!)

#eans fo!, the co##ission of !ebellion !esult in outlandish conseuences and i$no!e thebasic natu!e of !ebellion. Thus, unde! the p!osecution theo!) a bo#b d!opped on PTV-7 0hich/ills $ove!n#ent t!oope!s !esults in si#ple !ebellion because the act is a necessa!) #eans to#a/e the !ebellion succeed. 2o0eve!, if the sa#e bo#b also /ills so#e civilians in thenei$hbo!hood, the d!oppin$ of the bo#b beco#es !ebellion co#ple;ed 0ith #u!de! becausethe /illin$ of civilians is not necessa!) fo! the success of a !ebellion and, the!efo!e, the /illin$sa!e onl) on the occasion of but not a necessa!) #eans fo! the co##ission of !ebellion.This a!$u#ent is pue!ile.The c!i#e of !ebellion consists of #an) acts. The d!oppin$ of one bo#b cannot be isolated asa sepa!ate c!i#e of !ebellion. Neithe! should the d!oppin$ of one hund!ed bo#bs o! the fi!in$of thousands of #achine $un bullets be b!o/en up into a hund!ed o! thousands of sepa!ateoffenses, if each bo#b o! each bullet happens to !esult in the dest!uction of life and p!ope!t).

The sa#e act cannot be punishable b) sepa!ate penalties dependin$ on 0hat st!i/es thefanc) of p!osecuto!s-punish#ent fo! the /illin$ of soldie!s o! !et!ibution fo! the deaths ofcivilians. The p!osecution also loses si$ht of the !e$!ettable fact that in total 0a! and in!ebellion the /illin$ of civilians, the la)in$ 0aste of civilian econo#ies, the #assac!e ofinnocent people, the blo0in$ up of passen$e! ai!planes, and othe! acts of te!!o!is# a!e allused b) those en$a$ed in !ebellion. e cannot and should not t!) to asce!tain the intent of!ebels fo! each sin$le act unless the act is plainl) not connected to the !ebellion. e cannotuse *!ticle 78 of the Revised Penal "ode in lieu of still-tobe-enacted le$islation. The /illin$ ofcivilians du!in$ a !ebel attac/ on #ilita!) facilities fu!the!s the !ebellion and is pa!t of the!ebellion.The t!ial cou!t 0as ce!tainl) a0a!e of all the above conside!ations. I cannot unde!stand 0h)the t!ial Cud$e issued the 0a!!ant of a!!est 0hich cate$o!icall) states the!ein that the accused

was not entitled to bail . The petitione! 0as co#pelled to co#e to us so he 0ould not be

a!!ested without bail fo! a none;istent c!i#e. The t!ial cou!t fo!$ot to appl) an establisheddoct!ine of the Sup!e#e "ou!t. o!se, it issued a 0a!!ant 0hich !eve!sed <7 )ea!s ofestablished p!ocedu!e based on a 0ell-/no0n Sup!e#e "ou!t !ulin$.*ll cou!ts should !e#e#be! that the) fo!# pa!t of an independent 9udicial s)ste#G the) do notbelon$ to the p!osecution se!vice. * cou!t should neve! pla) into the hands of the p!osecutionand blindl) co#pl) 0ith its e!!oneous #anifestations. Faced 0ith an info!#ation cha!$in$ a#anifestl) non-e;istent c!i#e, the dut3 o& a trial court is to throw it out. O!, at the ve!) leastand 0he!e possible, #a/e it confo!# to the la0.* lo0e! cou!t cannot !e-e;a#ine and !eve!se a decision of the Sup!e#e "ou!t especiall) a

decision consistentl) follo0ed fo! <7 )ea!s. he!e a Cud$e disa$!ees 0ith a Sup!e#e "ou!t!ulin$, he is f!ee to e;p!ess his !ese!vations in the bod) o f his decision, o!de!, o! !esolution.2o0eve!, an) 9ud$#ent he !ende!s, an) o!de! he p!esc!ibes, and an) p!ocesses he issues must &ollow the #upreme Court precedent. * t!ial cou!t has no 9u!isdiction to !eve!se o! i$no!ep!ecedents of the Sup!e#e "ou!t. In this pa!ticula! case, it should have been the Solicito!4ene!al co#in$ to this "ou!t to uestion the lo0e! cou!ts !e9ection of the application fo! a

0a!!ant of a!!est 0ithout bail. It should have been the Solicito!-4ene!al p!ovo/in$ the issue of!e-e;a#ination instead of the petitione!s as/in$ to be f!eed f!o# thei! a!!est fo! a non-e;istentc!i#e.The p!inciple bea!s !epeatin$1Respondent "ou!t of *ppeals !eall) 0as devoid of an) choice at all. It could not have !uled inan) othe! 0a) on the le$al uestion !aised. This T!ibunal havin$ spo/en, its dut) 0as to obe).

It is as si#ple as that. The!e is !elevance to this e;ce!pt f!o# %a!!e!a v. %a!!e!a. @+-<&:8?,Cul) <&, &?>(, <7 S"R* ?8B The delicate tas/ of asce!tainin$ the si$nificance that attaches toa constitutional o! statuto!) p!ovision, an e;ecutive o!de!, a p!ocedu!al no!# o! a #unicipalo!dinance is co##itted to the 9udicia!). It thus discha!$es a !ole no less c !ucial than thatappe!tainin$ to the othe! t0o depa!t#ents in the #aintenance of the !ule of la0. To assu!estabilit) in le$al !elations and avoid confusion, it has to spea/ 0ith one voice. It does so 0ithfinalit), lo$icall) and !i$htl), th!ou$h the hi$hest 9udicial o!$an, this "ou!t. hat it sa)s thenshould be definitive and autho!itative, bindin$ on those occup)in$ the lo0e! !an/s in the

9udicial hie!a!ch). The) have to defe! and to sub#it. @%bid , &(>. The opinion of Custice +au!elin People v. Ve!a, ': Phil. :' &?<> 0as citedB. The ensuin$ pa!a$!aph of the opinion in%a!!e!a fu!the! e#phasies the point1 Such a thou$ht 0as !eite!ated in an opinion of CusticeC.%.+. Re)es and fu!the! e#phasied in these 0o!ds1 Cud$e 4audencio "lo!ibel need not be

!e#inded that the Sup!e#e "ou!t, b) t!adition and in ou! s)ste# of 9udicial ad#inist!ation, hasthe last 0o!d on 0hat the la0 isG it is the final a!bite! of an) 9ustifiable cont!ove!s). The!e isonl) one Sup!e#e "ou!t f!o# 0hose decisions all othe! cou!ts should ta/e thei! bea!in$s.@%bid . Custice C.%.+. Re)es spo/e thus in *lbe!t v. "ou!t of Fi!st Instance of Manila @%!. VIB, +-='<'7, Ma) =?, &?'8, =< S"R* ?78, ?'&. @Tu$ade v. "ou!t of *ppeals, 8: S"R* ==' &?>8.See also *lbe!t v. "ou!t of Fi!st Instance, =< S"R* ?78 &?'8 and Vi!-Cen Shippin$ andMa!ine Se!vices, Inc. v. N+R", &=: S"R* :>> &?8<BI find the situation in #pouses Panlilio v. Prosecutors ernando de )eon, et al. even #o!eine;plicable. In the case of the Panlilios, an) p!obable cause to co##it the non- e;istentc!i#e of !ebellion co#ple;ed 0ith #u!de! e;ists onl) in the #inds of the p!osecuto!s, not inthe !eco!ds of the case.I have $one ove! the !eco!ds and pleadin$s fu!nished to the #e#be!s of the Sup!e#e "ou!t. I

listened intentl) to the o!al a!$u#ents du!in$ the hea!in$ and it 0as uite appa!ent that the

constitutional !eui!e#ent of p!obable cause 0as not satisfied. In fact, in ans0e! to #) ue!)fo! an) othe! p!oofs to suppo!t the issuance of a 0a!!ant of a!!est, the ans0e! 0as that theevidence would be submitted in due time to the t!ial cou!t.The spouses Panlilio and one pa!ent have been in the !estau!ant business fo! decades. 5nde!the !eco!ds of these petitions, an) !estau!ant o0ne! o! hotel #ana$e! 0ho se!ves food to!ebels is a co-conspi!ato! in the !ebellion. The absu!dit) of this p!oposition is appa!ent if 0ebea! in #ind that !ebels !ide in buses and 9eepne)s, eat #eals in !u!al houses 0hen #ealti#efinds the# in the vicinit), 9oin 0eddin$s, fiestas, and othe! pa!ties, pla) bas/etball 0ith ba!!io)ouths, attend #asses and chu!ch se!vices and othe!0ise #i; 0ith people in va!ious

$athe!in$s. 3ven if the hosts !eco$nie the# to be !ebels and fail to shoo the# a0a), it doesnot necessa!il) follo0 that the fo!#e! a!e co-conspi!ato!s in a !ebellion.The onl) basis fo! p!obable cause sho0n b) the !eco!ds of the Panlilio case is the alle$ed factthat the petitione!s se!ved food to !ebels at the 3n!ile household and a hotel supe!viso! as/edt0o o! th!ee of thei! 0aite!s, 0ithout !eason, to $o on a vacation. "lea!l), a #uch, #uchst!on$e! sho0in$ of p!obable cause #ust be sho0n.In #alonga v. Cru0 Pa>o, &<7 S"R* 7<8 @&?8:B, then Senato! Salon$a 0as cha!$ed as aconspi!ato! in the heinous bo#bin$ of innocent civilians because the #an 0ho planted thebo#b had, so#eti#e ea!lie!, appea!ed in a $!oup photo$!aph ta/en du!in$ a bi!thda) pa!t) inthe 5nited States 0ith the Senato! and othe! $uests. It 0as a case of conspi!ac) p!ovedth!ou$h a $!oup pictu!e. 2e!e, it is a case of conspi!ac) sou$ht to p!oved th!ou$h the cate!in$of food.

The "ou!t in #alonga st!essed1The pu!pose of a p!eli#ina!) investi$ation is to secu!e the innocent a$ainst hast), #aliciousand opp!essive p!osecution, and to p!otect hi# f!o# an open and public accusation of c!i#e,f!o# the t!ouble, e;pense and an;iet) of a public t!ial, and also to p!otect the state f!o#useless and e;pensive t!ials . @T!ocio v. Manta, &&8 S"R* =7&G citin$ 2ashi#n v. %oncan, >&Phil. =&'B. The !i$ht to a p!eli#ina!) investi$ation is a statuto!) $!ant, and to 0ithhold it 0ouldbe to t!ans$!ess constitutional due p!ocess. @See People v. Oandasa, =: S"R* =>>B2o0eve!, in o!de! to satisf) the due p!ocess clause it is not enou$h that the p!eli#ina!)investi$ation is conducted in the sense of #a/in$ su!e that a t!ans$!esso! shall not escape

0ith i#punit). * p!eli#ina!) investi$ation se!ves not onl) the pu!poses of the State. Mo!ei#po!tant, it is a pa!t of the $ua!antees of f!eedo# and fai! pla) 0hich a!e bi!th!i$hts of all 0holive in ou! count!). It is, the!efo!e, i#pe!ative upon the fiscal o! the 9ud$e as the case #a) be,

to !elieve the accused f!o# the pain of $oin$ th!ou$h a t!ial once it is asce!tained that theevidence is insufficient to sustain a p!i#a facie case o! that no p!obable cause e;ists to fo!# asufficient belief as to the $uilt of the accused. *lthou$h the!e is no $ene!al fo!#ula o! fi;ed!ule fo! the dete!#ination of p!obable cause since the sa#e #ust be decided in the li$ht of theconditions obtainin$ in $iven situations and its e;istence depends to a la!$e de$!ee upon thefindin$ o! opinion of the 9ud$e conductin$ the e;a#ination, such a findin$ should not dis!e$a!dthe facts befo!e the 9ud$e no! !un counte! to the clea! dictates of !eason @See +a "he#ise+acoste, S.*. v. Fe!nande, &=? S"R* <?&B. The 9ud$e o! fiscal, the!efo!e, should not $o on

0ith the p!osecution in the hope that so#e c!edible evidence #i$ht late! tu!n up du!in$ t!ial fo!this 0ould be a fla$!ant violation of a basic !i$ht 0hich the cou!ts a!e c!eated to uphold. Itbea!s !epeatin$ that the 9udicia!) lives up to its #ission b) vitaliin$ and not deni$!atin$constitutional !i$hts. So it has been befo!e. It should continue to be so. @ id ., pp. 7'&- 7'=B

%ecause of the fo!e$oin$, I ta/e e;ception to that pa!t of the ponencia 0hich 0ill !ead theinfo!#ations as cha!$in$ si#ple !ebellion. This case did not a!ise f!o# innocent e!!o!. If aninfo!#ation cha!$es #u!de! but its contents sho0 onl) the in$!edients of ho#icide, the Cud$e#a) !i$htl) !ead it as cha!$in$ ho#icide. In these cases, ho0eve!, the!e is a delibe!ateatte#pt to cha!$e the petitione!s fo! an offense 0hich this "ou!t has !uled as non-e;istent.The p!osecution 0anted 2e!nande to be !eve!sed. Since the p!osecution has filedinfo!#ations fo! a c!i#e 0hich, unde! ou! !ulin$s, does not e;ist, those info!#ations should bet!eated as null and void. Ne0 info!#ations cha!$in$ the co!!ect offense should be filed. *nd in4.R. No. ?=&'7, an e;t!a effo!t should be #ade to see 0hethe! o! not the P!inciple in #alonga

v. Cru0 Patio, et al. 9supra= has been violated.The "ou!t is not, in an) 0a), p!eventin$ the 4ove!n#ent f!o# usin$ #o!e effective 0eaponsto supp!ess !ebellion. If the 4ove!n#ent feels that the cu!!ent situation calls fo! the i#positionof #o!e seve!e penalties li/e death o! the c!eation of ne0 c!i#es li/e !ebellion co#ple;ed 0ith#u!de!, the !e#ed) is 0ith "on$!ess, not the cou!ts.I, the!efo!e, vote to 4R*NT the petitions and to ORD3R the !espondent cou!t to DISMISS thevoid info!#ations fo! a non-e;istent c!i#e. FELICIANO, J., concu!!in$1I concu! in the !esult !eached b) the #a9o!it) of the "ou!t.I believe that the!e a!e ce!tain aspects of the ernande0 doct!ine that, as an abst!act uestionof la0, could stand !ee;a#ination o! cla!ification. I have in #ind in pa!ticula! #atte!s such as

the co!!ect o! app!op!iate !elationship bet0een *!ticle &<7 and *!ticle &<: of the RevisedPenal "ode. This is a #atte! 0hich !elates to the le$al concept of !ebellion in ou! le$al s)ste#.If one e;a#ines the actual te!#s of *!ticle &<7 @entitled1 Rebellion o! Insu!!ection-2o0"o##ittedB, it 0ould appea! that this *!ticle specifies both the overt acts and the criminal purpose 0hich, 0hen put to$ethe!, 0ould constitute the offense of !ebellion. Thus, *!ticle &<7states that the c!i#e of !ebellion is co##itted b) !isin$ publicl) and ta/in$ a!#s a$ainst the4ove!n#ent @i.e., the ove!t acts co#p!isin$ !ebellionB, fo! the pu!pose of @i.e., the specificc!i#inal intent o! political ob9ectiveB !e#ovin$ f!o# the alle$iance to said $ove!n#ent o! itsla0s the te!!ito!) of the Republic of the Philippines o! an) pa!t the!eof, o! an) bod) of land,naval o! othe! a!#ed fo!ces, o! dep!ivin$ the "hief 3;ecutive o! the +e$islatu!e, 0holl) o!pa!tiall), of thei! po0e!s o! p!e!o$atives. *t the sa#e ti#e, *!ticle &<: @entitled1 Penalt) fo!Rebellion o! Insu!!ection.B sets out a lis tin$ of acts o! pa!ticula! #easu!es 0hich appea! to fall

unde! the !ub!ic of !ebellion o! insu!!ection1 en$a$in$ in 0a! a$ainst the fo!ces of the4ove!n#ent, dest!o)in$ p!ope!t) o! co##ittin$ se!ious violence, e;actin$ cont!ibutions o!dive!tin$ public funds f!o# the la0ful pu!pose fo! 0hich the) have been app!op!iated. *!ethese #odalities of !ebellion generall3 O! a!e the) pa!ticula! #odes b) 0hich those 0ho promote K L, maintain K L or head K L a rebellion or insurrectionM co##it !ebellion, o! pa!ticula!#odes of pa!ticipation in a !ebellion b3 public o&&icers or emplo3ees "lea!l), the scope of thele$al concept of !ebellion !elates to the distinction bet0een, on the one hand, theindispensable acts o! in$!edients of the c!i#e of !ebellion unde! the Revised Penal "ode and,on the othe! hand, diffe!in$ optional #odes of see/in$ to ca!!) out the political o! socialob9ective of the !ebellion o! insu!!ection.The difficult) that is at once !aised b) an) effo!t to e;a#ine once #o!e even the aboveth!eshold uestions is that the !esults of such !e-e;a#ination #a) 0ell be that acts 0hich

unde! the ernande0 doct!ine a!e abso!bed into !ebellion, #a) be cha!acte!ied as sepa!ate

o! disc!ete offenses 0hich, as a #atte! of la0, can eithe! be p!osecuted sepa!atel) f!o#!ebellion o! p!osecuted unde! the p!ovisions of *!ticle 78 of the Revised Penal "ode, 0hich@both "lause & and "lause = the!eofB clea!l) envisa$e the e;istence of at least t0o @=B distinctoffenses. To !each such a conclusion in the case at ba!, 0ould, as fa! as I can see, !esult incollidin$ 0ith the funda#ental non-!et!oactivit) p!inciple @*!ticle 7, "ivil "odeG *!ticle ==,Revised Penal "odeG both in !elation to *!ticle 8, "ivil "odeB.The non-!et!oactivit) !ule applies to statutes p!incipall). %ut, statutes do not e;ist in theabst!act but !athe! bea! upon the lives of people 0ith the specific fo!# $iven the# b) 9udicialdecisions inte!p!etin$ thei! no!#s. Cudicial decisions const!uin$ statuto!) no!#s $ive specific

shape and content to such no!#s. In ti#e, the statuto!) no!#s beco#e enc!usted 0ith the$losses placed upon the# b) the cou!ts and the $losses beco#e inte$!al 0ith the no!#s @"fCalteE v. Palomar , &8 S"R* =7> &?''B. Thus, 0hile in le$al theo!), 9udicial inte!p!etation of astatute beco#es pa!t of the la0 as of the date that the la0 0as o!i$inall) enacted, I believethis theo!) is not to be applied !i$o!ousl) 0he!e a ne0 9udicial doct!ine is announced, inpa!ticula! one ove!!ulin$ a p!evious e;istin$ doct!ine of lon$ standin$ @he!e, <' )ea!sB and#ost speciall) not 0he!e the statute const!ued is c!i#inal in natu!e and the ne0 doct!ine is#o!e one!ous fo! the accused than the p!e-e;istin$ one @People v. Cabinal, :: S"R* '(>&?>7G People v. +ice!a, ': S"R* =>( &?>:G 4u#abon v. Di!ecto! of P!isons, <> S"R* 7=(&?>&B. Mo!eove!, the non-!et!oactivit) !ule 0hethe! in !espect of le$islative acts o! 9udicialdecisions has constitutional i#plications. The p!evailin$ !ule in the 5nited States is that a

9udicial decision that !et!oactivel) !ende!s an act c!i#inal o! enhances the seve!it) of the

penalt) p!esc!ibed fo! an offense, is vulne!able to constitutional challen$e based upon the !ulea$ainst e; post facto la0s and the due p!ocess clause @%ouie v. "it) of "olu#bia, <>8 5S<7>,&= +. 3d. =d 8?7 &?'7G Ma!/s v. 5.S., 7< 5S &88, :& +. 3d. =d ='( &?>>G Devine v.Ne0 Me;ico Depa!t#ent of "o!!ections, 8'' F. =d <<? &?8?B.It is u!$ed b) the Solic ito! 4ene!al that the non-!et!oactivit) p!inciple does not p!esent an) !ealp!oble# fo! the !eason that the ernande0 doct!ine 0as based upon *!ticle 78, secondclause, of the Revised Penal "ode and not upon the fi!st clause the!eof, 0hile it is p!ecisel)the fi!st clause of *!ticle 78 that the 4ove!n#ent he!e invo/es. It is, ho0eve!, open to se!iousdoubt 0hethe! ernande0 can !easonabl) be so si#pl) and sha!pl) cha!acte!ied. *ndassu#in$ the ernande0 could be so cha!acte!ied, subseuent cases !efe! to theernande0 doct!ine in te!#s 0hich do not distin$uish clea!l) bet0een the fi!st clause and thesecond clause of *!ticle 78 @e.$., People v. 4e!oni#o, &(( Phil. ?( &?:'G People v.

Rod!i$ue, &(> Phil. ':? &?'(B. Thus, it appea!s to #e that the c!itical uestion 0ould be 0hethe! a #an of o!dina!) intelli$ence 0ould have necessa!il) !ead o! unde!stood theernande0 doct!ine as !efe!!in$ e;clusivel) to *!ticle 78, second clause. Put in sli$htl)diffe!ent te!#s, the i#po!tant uestion 0ould be 0hethe! the ne0 doct!ine he!e p!oposed b)the 4ove!n#ent could fai!l) have been de!ived b) a #an of ave!a$e intelli$ence @o! counselof ave!a$e co#petence in the la0B f!o# an e;a#ination of *!ticles &<7 and &<: of theRevised Penal "ode as inte!p!eted b) the "ou!t in the ernande0 and subseuent cases. Tofo!#ulate the uestion ill these te!#s 0ould al#ost be to co#pel a ne$ative ans0e!,especiall) in vie0 of the conclusions !eached b) the "ou!t and its seve!al Me#be!s toda).Finall), the!e appea!s to be no uestion that the ne0 doct!ine that the 4ove!n#ent 0ouldhave us discove! fo! the fi!st ti#e since the p!o#ul$ation of the Revised Penal "ode in &?<=,

0ould be #o!e one!ous fo! the !espondent accused than the si#ple application of the

ernande0 doct!ine that #u!de!s 0hich have been co##itted on the occasion of and in

fu!the!ance of the c!i#e of !ebellion #ust be dee#ed abso!bed in the offense of si#ple!ebellion.I a$!ee the!efo!e that the info!#ation in this case #ust be vie0ed as cha!$in$ onl) the c!i#eof si#ple !ebellion. FERNAN, C.J., concu!!in$ and dissentin$1I a# const!ained to 0!ite this sepa!ate opinion on 0hat see#s to be a !i$id adhe!ence to the&?:' !ulin$ of the "ou!t. The nu#e!ous challen$es to the doct!ine enunciated in the case ofPeople vs. ernande0, ?? Phil. :&: @&?:'B should at once de#onst!ate the need to !edefine

the applicabilit) of said doct!ine so as to #a/e it confo!#able 0ith accepted and 0ell-settledp!inciples of c!i#inal la0 and 9u!isp!udence.To #) #ind, the 2e!nande doct!ine should not be inte!p!eted as an all-e#b!acin$ autho!it)fo! the !ule that all co##on c!i#es co##itted on the occasion, o! in fu!the!ance of, o! inconnection 0ith, !ebellion a!e abso!bed b) the latte!. To that e;tent, I cannot $o alon$ 0ith thevie0 of the #a9o!it) in the instant case that 2e!nande !e#ains bindin$ doct!ine ope!atin$ top!ohibit the co#ple;in$ of !ebellion 0ith an) othe! offense co##itted on the occas ion the!eof,eithe! as a #eans necessa!) to its co##ission o! as an unintended effect of an activit) thatconstitutes !ebellion @p. ?, DecisionB.The 2e!nande doct!ine has se!ved the pu!pose fo! 0hich it 0as appealed b) the "ou!t in&?:' du!in$ the co##unist-inspi!ed !ebellion of the 2u/s. The chan$es in ou! societ) in thespan of <7 )ea!s since then have fa!-!eachin$ effects on the all-e#b!acin$ applicabilit) of the

doct!ine conside!in$ the e#e!$ence of alte!native #odes of seiin$ the po0e!s of the dul)constituted 4ove!n#ent not conte#plated in *!ticles &<7 and &<: of the Revised Penal "odeand thei! conseuent effects on the lives of ou! people. The doct!ine 0as $ood la0 then, but Ibelieve that the!e is a ce!tain aspect of the 2e!nande doct!ine that needs cla!ification.ith all due !espect to the vie0s of #) b!eth!en in the "ou!t, I believe that the "ou!t, in theinstant case, should have fu!the! conside!ed that distinction bet0een acts o! offenses 0hicha!e indispensable in the co##ission of !ebellion, on the one hand, and those acts o! offensesthat a!e merel3 necessar3 but not indispensable in the co##ission of !ebellion, on the othe!.The #a9o!it) of the "ou!t is co!!ect in adoptin$, albeit i#pliedl), the vie0 in 2e!nande casethat 0hen an offense pe!pet!ated as a necessa!) #eans of co##ittin$ anothe!, 0hich is anele#ent of the latte!, the !esultin$ inte!loc/in$ c!i#es should be conside!ed as onl) one si#pleoffense and #ust be dee#ed outside the ope!ation of the co#ple; c!i#e p!ovision @*!ticle 78B

of the Revised Penal "ode. *s in the case of 2e!nande, the "ou!t, ho0eve!, failed in theinstant case to distin$uish 0hat is indispensable f!o# 0hat is #e!el) necessa!) in theco##ission of an offense, !esultin$ thus in the !ule that co##on c!i#es li/e #u!de!, a!son,!obbe!), etc. co##itted in the cou!se o! on the occasion of !ebellion a!e abso!bed o! includedin the latte! as ele#ents the!eof.The !elevance of the distinction i s si$nificant, #o!e pa!ticula!l), if applied to conte#po!aneousevents happenin$ in ou! count!) toda). Theo!eticall), a c!i#e 0hich is indispensable in theco##ission of anothe! #ust necessa!il) be an ele#ent of the latte!G but a c!i#e that is #e!el)necessa!) but not indispensable in the co##ission of anothe! is not an ele#ent of the latte!,and if and 0hen actuall) co##itted, b!in$s the inte!loc/in$ c!i#e 0ithin the ope!ation of theco#ple; c!i#e p!ovision @*!t. 78B of the Revised Penal "ode. ith that distinction, co##onc!i#es co##itted a$ainst 4ove!n#ent fo!ces and p!ope!t) in the cou!se of !ebellion a!e

p!ope!l) conside!ed indispensable ove!t acts of !ebellion and a!e lo$icall) abso!bed in it as

vi!tual in$!edients o! ele#ents the!eof, but co##on c!i#es co##itted a$ainst the civilianpopulation in the cou!se o! on the occasion of !ebellion and in fu!the!ance the!eof, #a) benecessa!) but not indispensable in co##ittin$ the latte!, and #a), the!efo!e, not beconside!ed as ele#ents of the said c!i#e of !ebellion. To illust!ate, the deaths occu!!in$ du!in$a!#ed conf!ontation o! clashes bet0een $ove!n#ent fo!ces and the !ebels a!e abso!bed inthe !ebellion, and 0ould be those !esultin$ f!o# the bo#bin$ of #ilita!) ca#ps andinstallations, as these acts a!e indispensable in ca!!)in$ out the !ebellion. %ut delibe!atel)shootin$ do0n an una!#ed innocent civilian to instill fea! o! c!eate chaos a#on$ the people,althou$h done in the fu!the!ance of the !ebellion, should not be abso!bed in the c!i#e of

!ebellion as the felonious act is #e!el) necessa!), but not indispensable. In the latte! case,*!ticle 78 of the Revised Penal "ode should appl).The occu!!ence of a coup d etat in ou! count!) as a #ode of seiin$ the po0e!s of the dul)-constituted $ove!n#ent b) sta$in$ su!p!ise attac/s o! occup)in$ cente!s of po0e!s, of 0hichthis "ou!t should ta/e 9udicial notice, has int!oduced a ne0 di#ension to the inte!p!etation ofthe p!ovisions on !ebellion and insu!!ection in the Revised Penal "ode. 4ene!all), as a #odeof seiin$ the po0e!s of the dul) constituted $ove!n#ent, it falls 0ithin the conte#plation of!ebellion unde! the Revised Penal "ode, but, st!ictl) const!ued, a coup detat pe! se is a classb) itself. The #anne! of its e;ecution and the e;tent and #a$nitude of its effects on the livesof the people distin$uish a coup detat f!o# the t!aditional definition and #odes of co##issionattached b) the Revised Penal "ode to the c!i#e of !ebellion as applied b) the "ou!t to theco##unist-inspi!ed !ebellion of the &?:(s. * coup detat #a) be e;ecuted successfull)

0ithout its pe!pet!ato!s !eso!tin$ to the co##ission of othe! se!ious c!i#es such as #u!de!,a!son, /idnappin$, !obbe!), etc. because of the ele#ent of su!p!ise and the p!ecise ti#in$ ofits e;ecution. In e;t!e#e cases 0he!e #u!de!, a!son, !obbe!), and othe! co##on c!i#es a!eco##itted on the occasion of a coup d etat, the distinction !efe!!ed to above on 0hat isnecessa!) and 0hat is indispensable in the co##ission of the coup detat should bepainsta/in$l) conside!ed as the "ou!t should have done in the case of he!ein petitione!s.I concu! in the !esult insofa! as the othe! issues a!e !esolved b) the "ou!t but I ta/e e;ceptionto the vote of the #a9o!it) on the b!oad application of the 2e!nande doct!ine.0I!IN, J., concu!!in$ and dissentin$1I concu! 0ith the #a9o!it) opinion e;cept as !e$a!ds the dispositive po!tion the!eof 0hicho!de!s the !e#and of the case to the !espondent 9ud$e fo! fu!the! p!oceedin$s to fi; thea#ount of bail to be posted b) the petitione!.

I sub#it that the p!oceedin$s need not be !e#anded to the !espondent 9ud$e fo! the pu!poseof fi;in$ bail since 0e have const!ued the indict#ent he!ein as cha!$in$ si#ple !ebellion, anoffense 0hich is bailable. "onseuentl), habeas corpus is the p!ope! !e#ed) available topetitione! as an accused 0ho had been cha!$ed 0ith si#ple !ebellion, a bailable offense but

0ho had been denied his !i$ht to bail b) the !espondent 9ud$e in violation of petitione!sconstitutional !i$ht to bail. In vie0 the!eof, the !esponsibilit) of fi;in$ the a#ount of bail andapp!oval the!eof 0hen filed, devolves upon us, if co#plete !elief is to be acco!ded to petitione!in the instant p!oceedin$s.It is indubitable that befo!e conviction, ad#ission to bail is a #atte! of !i$ht to the defendant,accused befo!e the Re$ional T!ial "ou!t of an offense less than capital @Section &< *!ticle III,"onstitution and Section <, Rule &&7B. Petitione! is, befo!e 5s, on a petition fo! habeas corpus p!a)in$, a#on$ othe!s, fo! his p!ovisional !elease on bail. Since the offense cha!$ed

@const!ued as si#ple !ebellionB ad#its of bail, it is incu#bent upon us # the e;e!cise of ou!

9u!isdiction ove! the petition fo! habeas corpus @Section : @&B, *!ticle VIII, "onstitutionG Section=, Rule &(=B, to $!ant petitione! his !i$ht to bail and havin$ ad#itted hi# to bail, to fi; thea#ount the!eof in such su#s as the cou!t dee#s !easonable. The!eafte!, the !ules !eui!e thatthe p!oceedin$s to$ethe! 0ith the bond shall fo!th0ith be ce!tified to the !espondent t!ialcou!t @Section &7, Rule &(=B.*cco!din$l), the cash bond in the a#ount of P &((,(((.(( posted b) petitione! fo! hisp!ovisional !elease pu!suant to ou! !esolution dated Ma!ch ', &??( should no0 be dee#edand ad#itted as his bail bond fo! his p!ovisional !elease in the case @si#ple !ebellionB pendin$befo!e the !espondent 9ud$e, 0ithout necessit) of a !e#and fo! fu!the! p!oceedin$s,

conditioned fo! his @petitione!sB appea!ance befo!e the t!ial cou!t to abide its o!de! o! 9ud$#ent in the said case. SARMIENTO, J., concu!!in$ and dissentin$1I a$!ee that People v. 2e!nande 1 should abide. Mo!e than th!ee decades afte! 0hich it 0aspenned, it has fi!#l) settled in the to#es of ou! 9u!isp!udence as co!!ect doct!ine.*s 2e!nande put it, !ebellion #eans en$a$in$ # 0a! a$ainst the fo!ces of the $ove!n#ent,2 0hich i#plies !eso!t to a!#s, !euisition of p!ope!t) and se!vices, collection of ta;es andcont!ibutions, !est!aint of libe!t), da#a$e to p!ope!t), ph)sical in9u!ies and loss of life, and thehun$e!, illness and unhappiness that 0a! leaves in its 0a/e. ... 3 0hethe! co##itted infu!the!ance, of as a necessa!) #eans fo! the co##ission, o! in the cou!se, of !ebellion. To sa)that !ebellion #a) be co#ple;ed 0ith an) othe! offense, in this case #u!de!, is to pla) into a

cont!adiction in te!#s because e;actl), !ebellion includes #u!de!, a#on$ othe! possiblec!i#es.I also a$!ee that the info!#ation #a) stand as an accusation fo! si#ple !ebellion. Since theacts co#plained of as constitutin$ !ebellion have been e#bodied in the info!#ation, #entionthe!ein of #u!de! as a co#ple;in$ offense is a su!plusa$e, because in an) case, the c!i#e of!ebellion is left full) desc!ibed.

*t an) !ate, the $ove!n#ent need onl) a#end the info!#ation b) a cle!ical co!!ection, since ana#end#ent 0ill not alte! its substance.I dissent, ho0eve!, insofa! as the #a9o!it) o!de!s the !e#and of the #atte! of bail to the lo0e!cou!t. I ta/e it that 0hen 0e, in ou! Resolution of Ma!ch ', &??(, $!anted the petitione!p!ovisional libe!t) upon the filin$ of a bond of P&((,(((.((, 0e $!anted hi# bail. The factthat 0e $ave hi# p!ovisional libe!t) is in #) vie0, of no #o#ent, because bail #eans

p!ovisional libe!t). It 0ill se!ve no useful pu!pose to have the t!ial cou!t hea! the incident a$ain 0hen 0e ou!selves have been satisfied that the petitione! is entitled to te#po!a!) f!eedo#. PA!ILLA, J., dissentin$1I concu! in the #a9o!it) opinion insofa! as it holds that the !ulin$ in People vs. ernande0, ??Phil. :&: !e#ains bindin$ doct!ine ope!atin$ to p!ohibit the co#ple;in$ of !ebellion 0ith an)othe! offense co##itted on the occasion the!eof, ei the! as a #eans necessa!) to itsco##ission o! as an unintended effect of an activit) that constitutes !ebellion.I dissent, ho0eve!, f!o# the #a9o!it) opinion insofa! as it holds that the info!#ation inuestion, 0hile cha!$in$ the co#ple; c!i#e of !ebellion 0ith #u!de! and #ultiple f!ust!ated#u!de!, Mis to be read as charging simple rebellion.M The p!esent cases a!e to be distin$uished f!o# the ernande0 case in at least one @&B

#ate!ial !espect. In the ernande0 case, this "ou!t 0as conf!onted 0ith an appealed case,

i.e., 2e!nande had been convicted b) the t!ial cou!t of the co#ple; c!i#e of !ebellion 0ith#u!de!, a!son and !obbe!), and his plea to be !eleased on bail befo!e the Sup!e#e "ou!t,pendin$ appeal, $ave bi!th to the no0 celeb!ated ernande0 doct!ine that the c!i#e of!ebellion co#ple;ed 0ith #u!de!, a!son and !obbe!) does not e;ist. In the p!esent cases, onthe othe! hand, the "ou!t is conf!onted 0ith an original case, i.e., 0he!e an info!#ation hasbeen !ecentl) filed in the t!ial cou!t and the petitione!s have not even pleaded the!eto.Fu!the!#o!e, the Sup!e#e "ou!t, in the ernande0 case, 0as $!ound-b!ea/in$ on the issueof 0hethe! !ebellion can be co#ple;ed 0ith #u!de!, a!son, !obbe!), etc. In the p!esent cases ,on the othe! hand, the p!osecution and the lo0e! cou!t, not onl) had the ernande0 doct!ine

@as case law B, but 3;ecutive O!de! No. &8> of P!esident "o!aon ". *uino dated : Cune&?8> @as statutor3 law B to bind the# to the le$al p!oposition that the crime o& rebellioncompleEed with murder, and multiple &rustrated murder does not eEist.*nd )et, not0ithstandin$ these unmistaFable and controlling beacon li$hts-absent 0hen this"ou!t laid do0n the ernande0 doct!ine-the p!osecution has insisted in filin$, and the lo0e!cou!t has pe!sisted in hea!in$, an info!#ation cha!$in$ the petitione!s 0ith !ebellionco#ple;ed 0ith #u!de! an #ultiple f!ust!ated #u!de!. hat in&ormation is clearl3 a nullit3 and plainl3 void ab initio. Its head should not be allo0ed to su!face. *s a nullit) in substantive la0,it cha!$es nothin$G it has $iven !ise to nothin$. The 0a!!ants of a!!est issued pu!suant the!etoa!e as null and void as the info!#ation on 0hich the) a!e ancho!ed. *nd, since the enti!euestion of the info!#ations validit) is befo!e the "ou!t in these habeas co!pus cases, Iventu!e to sa) that the info!#ation is &atall3 de&ective, even unde! p!ocedu!al la0, because it

cha!$es #o!e than one @&B offense @Sec. &<, Rule &&(, Rules of "ou!tB.I sub#it then that it is not fo! this "ou!t to ene!$ie a dead and, at best, fatall) dec!epitinfo!#ation b) labellin$ o! baptiin$ it diffe!entl) f!o# 0hat it announces itself to be. Thep!osecution #ust file an entirel3 new and proper info!#ation, fo! this enti!e e;e!cise to #e!itthe se!ious conside!ation of the cou!ts.*""ORDIN4+6, I vote to 4R*NT the petitions, J5*S2 the 0a!!ants of a !!est, and ORD3Rthe info!#ation fo! !ebellion co#ple;ed 0ith #u!de! and #ultiple f!ust!ated #u!de! in "!i#inal"ase Nos. ?(-&(?7&, RT" of Jueon "it), DISMISS3D."onseuentl), the petitione!s should be o!de!ed pe!#anentl) !eleased and thei! bailscancelled.Paras, J., concurs.

Foot$ot&s& ?? Phil. :&: @&?:'B.= People vs. +ava, =8 S"R* >= @&?:'BG People vs. 4e!oni#o, &(( Phil. ?( @&?:'BG People vs.Ro#a$osa, &(< Phil. =( @&?:8BG and People vs. Rod!i$ue, &(> Phil. ':? @&?'(B.< Rollo, 4.R. No. ?=&'<, pp. <=-<7.7 Rollo, 4.R. No. ?=&'<, pp. <7 et se.: Rollo, 4.R. No. ?=&'<, p. ='.' Rollo, 4.R. No. ?=&'<, pp. <(:-<:?.> O!i$inall) a petition fo! certiorari and p!ohibition 0hich the "ou!t, upon #otion of thepetitione!s, !esolved to t!eat as a petition fo! habeas co!pusG Rollo, 4.R. No. ?=&'7, pp. &=8-&=?.8 Rollo, 4.R. No. ?=&'<, pp. 7(>-7&&.

? Fe!nan, ".C., and Na!vasa, "o!tes and 4!ino-*uino, CC.

&( Fe!nan, ".C. and Na!vasa, C.&(-* T0o Me#be!s a on leave.&& 3;ecutive O!de! No. &8> issued Cune :, &?8>.&= People vs. 2e!nande, supra at :7&-:7<.&< %d., at ::&.&7 Rollo, 4.R. No. ?=&'<, pp. >8->? and ><->'.&7 #upra, footnote 7.&: Soliven vs. Ma/asia!, &'> S"R* <?7.&> Rollo, 4.R. No. ?=&'<, pp. 7'-7>.

&8 Sec. =, Rule &&>, Rules of "ou!t.&? Oca#po vs. %e!nabe, >> Phil. ::.=( Rollo, 4.R. No. ?=&'7, pp. &=7-&=:.Melencio-2e!!e!a, C., Opinion& *RT. &7=-*-"ases 0he!e othe! offenses a!e co##itted.-hen b) !eason o! on theoccasion of an) of the c!i#es penalied in this "hapte!, acts 0hich constitute offenses upon

0hich $!ave! penalties a!e i#posed b) la0 a!e co##itted, the penalt) fo! the #ost se!iousoffense in its #a;i#u# pe!iod shall be i#posed upon the offende!.Sa!#iento, C., "oncu!!in$& ?? Phil. :&: @&?:'B.= #upra, :=(.< #upra, :=&.

7 5S v. Santia$o, 7& Phil. >?< @&?&>B.


ManilaS3"OND DIVISION

G.R. No. 172716 No&+&- 17, 2/1/

ASON ILER 4 AGUILAR, Petitione!,vs.HON. MARIA ROENA MO!ESTO'SAN PE!RO, u%g& o< t& M&t-o:ot#$ T-# Cou-t,0-#$* 71, P#sg Ct4, #$% EANGELINE PONCE, Respondents.

D 3 " I S I O N

CARPIO, J.:The "ase

The petition see/s the !evie0& of the O!de!s= of the Re$ional T!ial "ou!t of Pasi$ "it) affi!#in$sub-silencio a lo0e! cou!tQs !ulin$ findin$ inapplicable the Double Ceopa!d) "lause to ba! asecond p!osecution fo! Rec/less I#p!udence Resultin$ in 2o#icide and Da#a$e to P!ope!t).This, despite the accusedQs p!evious conviction fo! Rec/less I#p!udence Resultin$ in Sli$htPh)sical In9u!ies a!isin$ f!o# the sa#e incident $!oundin$ the second p!osecution.

The FactsFollo0in$ a vehicula! collision in *u$ust =((7, petitione! Cason Ivle! @petitione!B 0as cha!$edbefo!e the Met!opolitan T!ial "ou!t of Pasi$ "it), %!anch >& @MeT"B, 0ith t0o sepa!ateoffenses1 @&B Rec/less I#p!udence Resultin$ in Sli$ht Ph)sical In9u!ies @"!i#inal "ase No.8=<'>B fo! in9u!ies sustained b) !espondent 3van$eline +. Ponce @!espondent PonceBG and @=B

Rec/less I#p!udence Resultin$ in 2o#icide and Da#a$e to P!ope!t) @"!i#inal "ase No.8=<''B fo! the death of !espondent PonceQs husband Nesto! ". Ponce and da#a$e to thespouses PonceQs vehicle. Petitione! posted bail fo! his te#po!a!) !elease in both cases.On > Septe#be! =((7, petitione! pleaded $uilt) to the cha!$e in "!i#inal "ase No. 8=<'> and

0as #eted out the penalt) of public censu!e. Invo/in$ this conviction, petitione! #oved touash the Info!#ation in "!i#inal "ase No. 8=<'' fo! placin$ hi# in 9eopa!d) of secondpunish#ent fo! the sa#e offense of !ec/less i#p!udence.The MeT" !efused uashal, findin$ no identit) of offenses in the t0o cases. <

*fte! unsuccessfull) see/in$ !econside!ation, petitione! elevated the #atte! to the Re$ionalT!ial "ou!t of Pasi$ "it), %!anch &:> @RT"B, in a petition fo! ce!tio!a!i @S.".*. No. =8(<B.Mean0hile, petitione! sou$ht f!o# the MeT" the suspension of p!oceedin$s in "!i#inal "aseNo. 8=<'', includin$ the a!!ai$n#ent on &> Ma) =((:, invo/in$ S.".*. No. =8(< as a

p!e9udicial uestion. ithout actin$ on petitione!Qs #otion, the MeT" p!oceeded 0ith thea!!ai$n#ent and, because of petitione!Qs absence, cancelled his bail and o!de!ed his a!!est.7 Seven da)s late!, the MeT" issued a !esolution den) in$ petitione!Qs #otion to suspendp!oceedin$s and postponin$ his a!!ai$n#ent until afte! his a!!est.: Petitione! sou$ht!econside!ation but as of the filin$ of this petition, the #otion !e#ained un!esolved.Rel)in$ on the a!!est o!de! a$ainst petitione!, !espondent Ponce sou$ht in the RT" thedis#issal of S.".*. No. =8(< fo! petitione!Qs loss of standin$ to #aintain the suit. Petitione!contested the #otion.

The Rulin$ of the T!ial "ou!tIn an O!de! dated = Feb!ua!) =((', the RT" dis#issed S.".*. No. =8(<, na!!o0l) $!oundin$its !ulin$ on petitione!Qs fo!feitu!e of standin$ to #aintain S.".*. No. =8(< a!isin$ f!o# theMeT"Qs o!de! to a!!est petitione! fo! his non-appea!ance at the a!!ai$n#ent in "!i#inal "ase

No. 8=<''. Thus, 0ithout !eachin$ the #e!its of S.".*. No. =8(<, the RT" effectivel) affi!#edthe MeT". Petitione! sou$ht !econside!ation but this p!oved unavailin$. '

2ence, this petition.Petitione! denies abscondin$. 2e e;plains that his petition in S.".*. No. =8(< const!ained hi#to fo!e$o pa!ticipation in the p!oceedin$s in "!i#inal "ase No. 8=<''. Petitione! distin$uisheshis case f!o# the line of 9u!isp!udence sanctionin$ dis#issal of appeals fo! abscondin$appellants because his appeal befo!e the RT" 0as a special civil action see/in$ a p!e-t!ial!elief, not a post-t!ial appeal of a 9ud$#ent of conviction.>

Petitione! la#ents the RT"Qs failu!e to !each the #e!its of his petition in S.".*. =8(<. Invo/in$

9u!isp!udence, petitione! a!$ues that his constitutional !i$ht not to be placed t0ice in 9eopa!d)of punish#ent fo! the sa#e offense ba!s his p!osecution in "!i#inal "ase No. 8=<'', havin$been p!eviousl) convicted in "!i#inal "ase No. 8=<'> fo! the sa#e offense of !ec/lessi#p!udence cha!$ed in "!i#inal "ase No. 8=<''. Petitione! sub#its that the #ultipleconseuences of such c!i#e a!e #ate!ial onl) to dete!#ine his penalt).Respondent Ponce finds no !eason fo! the "ou!t to distu!b the RT"Qs decision fo!feitin$petitione!Qs standin$ to #aintain his petition in S.".*. =8(<. On the #e!its, !espondent Poncecalls the "ou!tQs attention to 9u!isp!udence holdin$ that li$ht offenses @e.$. sli$ht ph)sicalin9u!iesB cannot be co#ple;ed unde! *!ticle 78 of the Revised Penal "ode 0ith $!ave o! less$!ave felonies @e.$. ho#icideB. 2ence, the p!osecution 0as obli$ed to sepa!ate the cha!$e in"!i#inal "ase No. 8=<'' fo! the sli$ht ph)sical in9u!ies f!o# "!i#inal "ase No. 8=<'> fo! theho#icide and da#a$e to p!ope!t).

In the Resolution of ' Cune =((>, 0e $!anted the Office of the Solicito! 4ene!alQs #otion not tofile a co##ent to the petition as the public !espondent 9ud$e is #e!el) a no#inal pa!t) andp!ivate !espondent is !ep!esented b) counsel.

The IssuesT0o uestions a!e p!esented fo! !esolution1 @&B 0hethe! petitione! fo!feited his standin$ tosee/ !elief in S.".*. =8(< 0hen the MeT" o!de!ed his a!!est follo0in$ his non-appea!ance atthe a!!ai$n#ent in "!i#inal "ase No. 8=<''G and @=B if in the ne$ative, 0hethe! petitione!Qsconstitutional !i$ht unde! the Double Ceopa!d) "lause ba!s fu!the! p!oceedin$s in "!i#inal"ase No. 8=<''.

The Rulin$ of the "ou!te hold that @&B petitione!Qs non-appea!ance at the a!!ai$n#ent in "!i#inal "ase No. 8=<''did not divest hi# of pe!sonalit) to #aintain the petition in S.".*. =8(<G and @=B the p!otection

affo!ded b) the "onstitution shieldin$ petitione! f!o# p!osecutions placin$ hi# in 9eopa!d) ofsecond punish#ent fo! the sa#e offense ba!s fu!the! p!oceedin$s in "!i#inal "ase No.8=<''.Petitione!Qs Non-appea!ance at the *!!ai$n#ent in"!i#inal "ase No. 8=<'' did not Divest hi# of Standin$to Maintain the Petition in S.".*. =8(<Dis#issals of appeals $!ounded on the appellantQs escape f!o# custod) o! violation of thete!#s of his bail bond a !e $ove!ned b) the second pa!a$!aph of Section 8, Rule &=7,8 in!elation to Section &, Rule &=:, of the Revised Rules on "!i#inal P!ocedu!e autho!iin$ this"ou!t o! the "ou!t of *ppeals to also, upon #otion of the appellee o! #otu p!op!io, dis#issthe appeal if the appellant escapes f!o# p!ison o! confine#ent, 9u#ps bail o! flees to a fo!ei$ncount!) du!in$ the pendenc) of the appeal. The appeal conte#plated in Section 8 of Rule

&=7 is a suit to !evie0 9ud$#ents of convictions.

The RT"Qs dis#issal of petitione!Qs special civil action fo! ce!tio!a!i to !evie0 a p!e-a!!ai$n#ent ancilla!) uestion on the applicabilit) of the Due P!ocess "lause to ba!p!oceedin$s in "!i#inal "ase No. 8=<'' finds no basis unde! p!ocedu!al !ules and

9u!isp!udence. The RT"Qs !eliance on People v. 'sparas? unde!cuts the co$enc) of its !ulin$because 'sparas stands fo! a p!oposition cont!a!) to the RT"Qs !ulin$. The!e, the "ou!t$!anted !evie0 to an appeal b) an accused 0ho 0as sentenced to death fo! i#po!tin$p!ohibited d!u$s even thou$h she 9u#ped bail pendin$ t!ial and 0as thus t!ied and convictedin absentia. The "ou!t in 3spa!as t!eated the #andato!) !evie0 of death sentences unde!Republic *ct No. >':? as an e;ception to Section 8 of Rule &=7. &(

The #ischief in the RT"Qs t!eat#ent of petitione!Qs non-appea!ance at his a!!ai$n#ent in"!i#inal "ase No. 8=<'' as p!oof of his loss of standin$ beco#es #o!e evident 0hen oneconside!s the Rules of "ou!tQs t!eat#ent of a defendant 0ho absents hi#self f!o# post-a!!ai$n#ent hea!in$s. 5nde! Section =&, Rule &&7&& of the Revised Rules of "!i#inalP!ocedu!e, the defendantQs absence #e!el) !ende!s his bonds#an potentiall) liable on itsbond @sub9ect to cancellation should the bonds#an fail to p!oduce the accused 0ithin <(da)sBG the defendant !etains his standin$ and, should he fail to su!!ende!, 0ill be t!ied inabsentia and could be convicted o! acuitted. Indeed, the <(-da) pe!iod $!anted to thebonds#an to p!oduce the accused unde!sco!es the fact that #e!e non-appea!ance does notipso facto conve!t the accusedQs status to that of a fu$itive 0ithout standin$.Fu!the!, the RT"Qs obse!vation that petitione! p!ovided no e;planation 0h) he failed to attendthe scheduled p!oceedin$&= at the MeT" is belied b) the !eco!ds. Da)s befo!e the

a!!ai$n#ent, petitione! sou$ht the suspension of the MeT"Qs p!oceedin$s in "!i#inal "aseNo. 8=<'' in li$ht of his petition 0ith the RT" in S.".*. No. =8(<. Follo0in$ the MeT"Qs!efusal to defe! a!!ai$n#ent @the o!de! fo! 0hich 0as !eleased da)s afte! the MeT" o!de!edpetitione!Qs a!!estB, petitione! sou$ht !econside!ation. 2is #otion !e#ained un!esolved as ofthe filin$ of this petition.Petitione!Qs "onviction in "!i#inal "ase No. 8=<'>%a!s his P!osecution in "!i#inal "ase No. 8=<''The accusedQs ne$ative constitutional !i$ht not to be t0ice put in 9eopa!d) of punish#ent fo!the sa#e offense&< p!otects hi# f!o#, a#on$ othe!s, post-convic tion p!osecution fo! thesa#e offense, 0ith the p!io! ve!dict !ende!ed b) a cou!t of co#petent 9u!isdiction upon a validinfo!#ation.&7 It is not disputed that petitione!Qs conviction in "!i#inal "ase No. 8=<'> 0as!ende!ed b) a cou!t of co#petent 9u!isdiction upon a valid cha!$e. Thus, the case tu!ns on the

uestion 0hethe! "!i#inal "ase No. 8=<'' and "!i#inal "ase No. 8=<'> involve the sa#eoffense. Petitione! adopts the affi!#ative vie0, sub#ittin$ that the t0o cases conce!n thesa#e offense of !ec/less i#p!udence. The MeT" !uled othe!0ise, findin$ that Rec/lessI#p!udence Resultin$ in Sli$ht Ph)sical In9u!ies is an enti!el) sepa!ate offense f!o# Rec/lessI#p!udence Resultin$ in 2o#icide and Da#a$e to P!ope!t) as the latte! !eui!es p!oof ofan additional fact 0hich the othe! does not.&:

e find fo! petitione!.Rec/less I#p!udence is a Sin$le "!i#e,its "onseuences on Pe!sons andP!ope!t) a!e Mate!ial Onl) to Dete!#inethe Penalt)

The t0o cha!$es a$ainst petitione!, a!isin$ f!o# the sa#e facts, 0e!e p!osecuted unde! thesa#e p!ovision of the Revised Penal "ode, as a#ended, na#el), *!ticle <': definin$ andpenaliin$ uasi-offenses. The te;t of the p!ovision !eads1I#p!udence and ne$li$ence. E *n) pe!son 0ho, b) !ec/less i#p!udence, shall co##it an)act 0hich, had it been intentional, 0ould constitute a $!ave felon), shall suffe! the penalt) ofa!!esto #a)o! in its #a;i#u# pe!iod to p!ision co!!eccional in its #ediu# pe!iodG if it 0ouldhave constituted a less $!ave felon), the penalt) of a!!esto #a)o! in its #ini#u# and #ediu#pe!iods shall be i#posedG if it 0ould have constituted a l i$ht felon), the penalt) of a!!esto#eno! in its #a;i#u# pe!iod shall be i#posed.

*n) pe!son 0ho, b) si#ple i#p!udence o! ne$li$ence, shall co##it an act 0hich 0ouldothe!0ise constitute a $!ave felon), shall suffe! the penalt) of a!!esto #a)o! in its #ediu# and#a;i#u# pe!iodsG if it 0ould have constituted a less se!ious felon), the penalt) of a!!esto#a)o! in its #ini#u# pe!iod shall be i#posed.hen the e;ecution of the act cove!ed b) this a!ticle shall have onl) !esulted in da#a$e to thep!ope!t) of anothe!, the offende! shall be punished b) a fine !an$in$ f!o# an a#ount eual tothe value of said da#a$es to th!ee ti#es such value, but 0hich shall in no case be less thant0ent)-five pesos.* fine not e;ceedin$ t0o hund!ed pesos and censu!e shall be i#posed upon an) pe!son 0ho,b) si#ple i#p!udence o! ne$li$ence, shall cause so#e 0!on$ 0hich, if done #aliciousl),

0ould have constituted a li$ht felon).In the i#position of these penalties, the cou!t shall e;e!cise thei! sound disc!etion, 0ithout

!e$a!d to the !ules p!esc!ibed in *!ticle si;t)-fou!.The p!ovisions contained in this a!ticle shall not be applicable1&. hen the penalt) p!ovided fo! the o ffense is eual to o! lo0e! than those p!ovided in thefi!st t0o pa!a$!aphs of this a!ticle, in 0hich case the cou!t shall i#pose the penalt) ne;t lo0e!in de$!ee than that 0hich should be i#posed in the pe!iod 0hich the) #a) dee# p!ope! toappl).=. hen, b) i#p!udence o! ne$li$ence and 0ith violation of the *uto#obile +a0, to death of ape!son shall be caused, in 0hich case the defendant shall be punished b) p!ision co!!eccionalin its #ediu# and #a;i#u# pe!iods.Rec/less i#p!udence consists in volunta!), but 0ithout #alice, doin$ o! failin$ to do an actf!o# 0hich #ate!ial da#a$e !esults b) !eason of ine;cusable lac/ of p!ecaution on the pa!t ofthe pe!son pe!fo!#in$ o! failin$ to pe!fo!# such act, ta/in$ into conside!ation his e#plo)#ent

o! occupation, de$!ee of intelli$ence, ph)sical condition and othe! ci!cu#stances !e$a!din$pe!sons, ti#e and place.Si#ple i#p!udence consists in the lac/ of p!ecaution displa)ed in those cases in 0hich theda#a$e i#pendin$ to be caused is not i##ediate no! the dan$e! clea!l) #anifest.The penalt) ne;t hi$he! in de$!ee to those p!ovided fo! in this a!ticle shall be i#posed uponthe offende! 0ho fails to lend on the spot to the in9u!ed pa!ties such help as #a) be in thishand to $ive.St!uctu!all), these nine pa!a$!aphs a!e collapsible into fou! sub-$!oupin$s !elatin$ to @&B thepenalties attached to the uasi-offenses of i#p!udence and ne$li$ence @pa!a$!aphs &-=BG@=B a #odified penalt) sche#e fo! eithe! o ! both uasi-offenses @pa!a$!aphs <-7, ' and ?BG @<Ba $ene!ic !ule fo! t!ial cou!ts in i#posin$ penalties @pa!a$!aph :BG and @7B the definition of!ec/less i#p!udence and si#ple i#p!udence @pa!a$!aphs >-8B. "onceptuall), uasi-

offenses penalie the #ental attitude o! condition behind the act, the dan$e!ous

!ec/lessness, lac/ of ca!e o! fo!esi$ht, the i#p!udencia punible,&' unli/e 0illful offenses 0hichpunish the intentional c!i#inal act. These st!uctu!al and conceptual featu!es of uasi-offensesset the# apa!t f!o# the #ass of intentional c!i#es unde! the fi!st &< Titles of %oo/ II of theRevised Penal "ode, as a#ended.Indeed, the notion that uasi-offenses, 0hethe! !ec/less o! si#ple, a!e distinct species ofc!i#e, sepa!atel) defined and penalied unde! the f!a#e0o!/ of ou! penal la0s, is nothin$ne0. *s ea!l) as the #iddle of the last centu!), 0e al!ead) sou$ht to b!in$ cla!it) to this fieldb) !e9ectin$ in Juion v. Custice of the Peace of Pa#pan$a the p!oposition that !ec/lessi#p!udence is not a c!i#e in itself but si#pl) a 0a) of co##ittin$ it ; ; ; &> on th!ee points of

anal)sis1 @&B the ob9ect of punish#ent in uasi-c!i#es @as opposed to intentional c!i#esBG @=Bthe le$islative intent to t!eat uasi-c!i#es as distinct offenses @as opposed to subsu#in$ the#unde! the #iti$atin$ ci!cu#stance of #ini#al intentB andG @<B the diffe!ent penalt) st!uctu!es fo!uasi-c!i#es and intentional c!i#es1The p!oposition @infe!!ed f!o# *!t. < of the Revised Penal "odeB that !ec/less i#p!udence isnot a c!i#e in itself but si#pl) a 0a) of co##ittin$ it and #e!el) dete!#ines a lo0e! de$!ee ofc!i#inal liabilit) is too b!oad to dese!ve unualified assent. The!e a!e c!i#es that b) thei!st!uctu!e cannot be co##itted th!ou$h i#p!udence1 #u!de!, t!eason, !obbe!), #alicious#ischief, etc. In t!uth, c!i#inal ne$li$ence in ou! Revised Penal "ode is t!eated as a #e!euasi offense, and dealt 0ith sepa!atel) f!o# 0illful offenses. It is not a #e!e uestion ofclassification o! te!#inolo$). In intentional c!i#es, the act itself is punishedG in ne$li$ence o!i#p!udence, 0hat is p!incipall) penalied is the #ental attitude o! condition behind the act, the

dan$e!ous !ec/lessness, lac/ of ca!e o! fo!esi$ht, the i#p!udencia punible. ; ; ; ;e!e c!i#inal ne$li$ence but a #odalit) in the co##ission of felonies, ope!atin$ onl) to!educe the penalt) the!efo!, then it 0ould be abso!bed in the #iti$atin$ ci!cu#stances of *!t.&<, speciall) the lac/ of intent to co##it so $!ave a 0!on$ as the one actuall) co##itted.Fu!the!#o!e, the theo!) 0ould !eui!e that the co!!espondin$ penalt) should be fi;ed inp!opo!tion to the penalt) p!esc!ibed fo! each c!i#e 0hen co##itted 0illfull). Fo! each penalt)fo! the 0illful offense, the!e 0ould then be a co!!espondin$ penalt) fo! the ne$li$ent va!iet).%ut instead, ou! Revised Penal "ode @*!t. <':B fi;es the penalt) fo! !ec/less i#p!udence ata!!esto #a)o! #a;i#u#, to p!ision co!!eccional #ediu#, if the 0illful act 0ould constitute a$!ave felon), not0ithstandin$ that the penalt) fo! the latte! could !an$e all the 0a) f!o# p!ision#a)o! to death, acco!din$ to the case. It can be seen that the actual penalt) fo! c!i#inalne$li$ence bea!s no !elation to the individual 0illful c!i#e, but is set in !elation to a 0hole

class, o! se!ies, of c!i#es.&8

@3#phasis suppliedBThis e;plains 0h) the technicall) co!!ect 0a) to alle$e uasi-c!i#es is to state that thei!co##ission !esults in da#a$e, eithe! to pe!son o! p!ope!t).&?

*cco!din$l), 0e found the Custice of the Peace in Juion 0ithout 9u!isdiction to hea! a case fo!Da#a$e to P!ope!t) th!ou$h Rec/less I#p!udence, its 9u!isdiction bein$ li#ited to t!)in$cha!$es fo! Malicious Mischief, an intentional c!i#e conceptuall) inco#patible 0ith theele#ent of i#p!udence obtainin$ in uasi-c!i#es.Juion, !ooted in Spanish la0=( @the no!#ative ancest!) of ou! p!esent da) penal codeB andsince !epeatedl) !eite!ated,=& stands on solid conceptual foundation. The cont!a!) doct!inalp!onounce#ent in People v. Falle!== that !ec/less i#pudence is not a c!i#e in itself ; ; ;but si#pl) a 0a) of co##ittin$ it ; ; ;,=< has lon$ been abandoned 0hen the "ou!t en bancp!o#ul$ated Juion in &?:: nea!l) t0o decades afte! the "ou!t decided Falle! in &?<?.

Juion !e9ected Falle!Qs conceptualiation of uasi-c!i#es b) holdin$ that uasi-c!i#es unde!

*!ticle <': a!e distinct species of c!i#es and not #e!el) #ethods of co##ittin$ c!i#es. Falle!found e;p!ession in post-Juion 9u!isp!udence=7 onl) b) dint of lin$e!in$ doct!inal confusiona!isin$ f!o# an indisc!i#inate fusion of c!i#inal la0 !ules definin$ *!ticle <': c!i#es and theco#ple;in$ of intentional c!i#es unde! *!ticle 78 of the Revised Penal "ode 0hich, as 0ill besho0n sho!tl), !ests on e!!oneous conception of uasi-c!i#es. Indeed, the Juionianconception of uasi-c!i#es unde!$i!ded a !elated b!anch of 9u!isp!udence appl)in$ the DoubleCeopa!d) "lause to uasi-offenses, ba!!in$ second p!osecutions fo! a uasi-offense alle$in$one !esultin$ act afte! a p!io! conviction o! acuittal of a uasi-offense alle$in$ anothe!!esultin$ act but a!isin$ f!o# the sa#e !ec/less act o! o#ission upon 0hich the second

p!osecution 0as based.P!io! "onviction o! *cuittal ofRec/less I#p!udence %a!sSubseuent P!osecution fo! the Sa#eJuasi-OffenseThe doct!ine that !ec/less i#p!udence unde! *!ticle <': is a sin$le uasi-offense b) itself andnot #e!el) a #eans to co##it othe! c!i#es such that conviction o! acuittal of such uasi-offense ba!s subseuent p!osecution fo! the sa#e uasi-offense, !e$a!dless of its va!ious!esultin$ acts, unde!$i!ded this "ou!tQs unb!o/en chain of 9u!isp!udence on double 9eopa!d) asapplied to *!ticle <': sta!tin$ 0ith People v. Dia, =: decided in &?:7. The!e, a full "ou!t,spea/in$ th!ou$h M!. Custice Monte#a)o!, o!de!ed the dis#issal of a case fo! da#a$e top!ope!t) th!u !ec/less i#p!udence because a p!io! case a$ainst the sa#e accused fo!

!ec/less d!ivin$, a!isin$ f!o# the sa#e act upon 0hich the fi!st p!osecution 0as based, hadbeen dis#issed ea!lie!. Since then, 0heneve! the sa#e le$al uestion 0as b!ou$ht befo!e the"ou!t, that is, 0hethe! p!io! conviction o! acuittal of !ec/less i#p!udence ba!s subseuentp!osecution fo! the sa#e uasi-offense, !e$a!dless of the conseuences alle$ed fo! bothcha!$es, the "ou!t unfailin$l) and consis tentl) ans0e!ed in the affi!#ative in People v. %el$a='

@p!o#ul$ated in &?:> b) the "ou!t en banc, pe! Re)es, C.B, 6ap v. +ute!o=> @p!o#ul$ated in&?:?, un!epo!ted, pe! "oncepcion, C.B, People v. Na!vas=8 @p!o#ul$ated in &?'( b) the "ou!ten banc, pe! %en$on C.B, People v. Silva =? @p!o#ul$ated in &?'= b) the "ou!t en banc, pe!Pa!edes, C.B, People v. Macabuha)<( @p!o#ul$ated in &?'' b) the "ou!t en banc, pe!Ma/alintal, C.B, People v. %uan<& @p!o#ul$ated in &?'8 b) the "ou!t en banc, pe! Re)es,C.%.+., actin$ ". C.B, %ue!ano v. "ou!t of *ppeals<= @p!o#ul$ated in &?8= b) the "ou!t en banc,pe! Relova, C.B, and People v. "it) "ou!t of Manila << @p!o#ul$ated in &?8< b) the Fi!st

Division, pe! Relova, C.B. These cases unifo!#l) ba!!ed the second p!osecutions asconstitutionall) i#pe!#issible unde! the Double Ceopa!d) "lause.The !eason fo! this consistent stance of e;tendin$ the constitutional p!otection unde! theDouble Ceopa!d) "lause to uasi-offenses 0as best a!ticulated b) M!. Custice C.%.+. Re)es in%uan, 0he!e, in ba!!in$ a subseuent p!osecution fo! se!ious ph)sical in9u!ies and da#a$e top!ope!t) th!u !ec/less i#p!udence because of the accusedQs p!io! acuittal of sli$ht ph)sicalin9u!ies th!u !ec/less i#p!udence, 0ith both cha!$es $!ounded on the sa#e act, the "ou!te;plained1<7

Reason and p!ecedent both coincide in that once convicted o! acuitted of a specific act of!ec/less i#p!udence, the accused #a) not be p!osecuted a$ain fo! that sa#e act. Fo! theessence of the uasi offense of c!i#inal ne$li$ence unde! a!ticle <': of the Revised Penal"ode lies in the e;ecution of an i#p!udent o! ne$li$ent act that, if intentionall) done, 0ould be

punishable as a felon). The la0 penalies thus the ne$li$ent o! ca!eless act, not the !esult

the!eof. The $!avit) of the conseuence is onl) ta/en into account to dete!#ine the penalt), itdoes not ualif) the substance of the offense. *nd, as the ca!eless act is sin$le, 0hethe! thein9u!ious !esult should affect one pe!son o! seve!al pe!sons, the offense @c!i#inal ne$li$enceB!e#ains one and the sa#e, and can not be split into diffe!ent c!i#es and p!osecutions.<: ; ; ;@3#phasis suppliedB3videntl), the Dia line of 9u!isp!udence on double 9eopa!d) #e!el) e;tended to its lo$icalconclusion the !easonin$ of Juion.The!e is in ou! 9u!isp!udence onl) one !ulin$ $oin$ a$ainst this unb!o/en line of autho!it).P!ecedin$ Dia b) #o!e than a decade, 3l Pueblo de Filipinas v. 3stipona, <' decided b) the

p!e-0a! colonial "ou!t in Nove#be! &?7(, allo0ed the subseuent p!osecution of an accusedfo! !ec/less i#p!udence !esultin$ in da#a$e to p!ope!t) despite his p!evious conviction fo!#ultiple ph)sical in9u!ies a!isin$ f!o# the sa#e !ec/less ope!ation of a #oto! vehicle upon

0hich the second p!osecution 0as based. 3stiponaQs inconsistenc) 0ith the post-0a! Diachain of 9u!isp!udence suffices to i#pliedl) ove!!ule it. *t an) !ate, all doubts on this #atte!

0e!e laid to !est in &?8= in %ue!ano.<> The!e, 0e !evie0ed the "ou!t of *ppealsQ conviction ofan accused fo! da#a$e to p!ope!t) fo! !ec/less i#p!udence despite his p!io! conviction fo!sli$ht and less se!ious ph)sical in9u!ies th!u !ec/less i#p!udence, a!isin$ f!o# the sa#e actupon 0hich the second cha!$e 0as based. The "ou!t of *ppeals had !elied on 3stipona. e!eve!sed on the st!en$th of %uan1 <8

The vie0 of the "ou!t of *ppeals 0as inspi!ed b) the !ulin$ of this "ou!t in the p!e-0a! caseof People vs. 3stipona decided on Nove#be! &7, &?7(. 2o0eve!, in the case of People vs.

%uan, == S"R* &<8< @Ma!ch =?, &?'8B, this "ou!t, spea/in$ th!u Custice C. %. +. Re)es, heldthat XReason and p!ecedent both coincide in that once convicted o! acuitted of a specific act of!ec/less i#p!udence, the accused #a) not be p!osecuted a$ain fo! that sa#e act. Fo! theessence of the uasi offense of c!i#inal ne$li$ence unde! *!ticle <': of the Revised Penal"ode lies in the e;ecution of an i#p!udent o! ne$li$ent act that, if intentionall) done, 0ould bepunishable as a felon). The la0 penalies thus the ne$li$ent o! ca!eless act, not the !esultthe!eof. The $!avit) of the conseuence is onl) ta/en into account to dete!#ine the penalt), itdoes not ualif) the substance of the offense. *nd, as the ca!eless act is sin$le, 0hethe! thein9u!ious !esult should affect one pe!son o! seve!al pe!sons, the offense @c!i#inal ne$li$enceB!e#ains one and the sa#e, and can not be split into diffe!ent c!i#es and p!osecutions.; ; ; ;

. . . the e;one!ation of this appellant, Cose %uan, b) the Custice of the Peace @no0 MunicipalB"ou!t of 4ui$uinto, %ulacan, of the cha!$e of sli$ht ph)sical in9u!ies th!ou$h !ec/lessi#p!udence, p!events his bein$ p!osecuted fo! se!ious ph)sical in9u!ies th!ou$h !ec/lessi#p!udence in the "ou!t of Fi!st Instance of the p!ovince, 0he!e both cha!$es a!e de!ivedf!o# the conseuences of one and the sa#e vehicula! accident, because the secondaccusation places the appellant in second 9eopa!d) fo! the sa#e offense.<? @3#phasissuppliedBThus, fo! all intents and pu!poses, %ue!ano had effectivel) ove!!uled 3stipona.It is note0o!th) that the Solicito! 4ene!al in %ue!ano, in a !eve!sal of his ea!lie! stance inSilva, 9oined causes 0ith the accused, a fact 0hich did not escape the "ou!tQs attention1Then Solicito! 4ene!al, no0 Custice Feli; V. Ma/asia!, in his M*NIF3ST*TION datedDece#be! &=, &?'? @pa$e 8= of the RolloB ad#its that the "ou!t of *ppeals e!!ed in not

sustainin$ petitione!Qs plea of double 9eopa!d) and sub#its that its affi!#ato!) decision dated

Canua!) =8, &?'?, in "!i#inal "ase No. (:&=<-"R findin$ petitione! $uilt) of da#a$e top!ope!t) th!ou$h !ec/less i#p!udence should be set aside, 0ithout costs. 2e st!essed that ifdouble 9eopa!d) e;ists 0he!e the !ec/less act !esulted into ho#icide and ph)sical in9u!ies.then the sa#e conseuence #ust pe!fo!ce follo0 0he!e the sa#e !ec/less act caused #e!el)da#a$e to p!ope!t)-not death-and ph)sical in9u!ies. Ve!il), the value of a hu#an life lost as a!esult of a vehicula! collision cannot be euated 0ith an) a#ount of da#a$es caused to a#oto!s vehicle a!isin$ f!o# the sa#e #ishap.7( @3#phasis suppliedB2ence, 0e find #e!it in petitione!Qs sub#ission that the lo0e! cou!ts e!!ed in !efusin$ toe;tend in his favo! the #antle of p!otection affo!ded b) the Double Ceopa!d) "lause. * #o!e

fittin$ 9u!isp!udence could not be tailo!ed to petitione!Qs case than People v. Silva,7&

a Diap!o$en). The!e, the accused, 0ho 0as also involved in a vehicula! collision, 0as cha!$ed int0o sepa!ate Info!#ations 0ith Sli$ht Ph)sical In9u!ies th!u Rec/less I#p!udence and2o#icide 0ith Se!ious Ph)sical In9u!ies th!u Rec/less I#p!udence. Follo0in$ his acuittal ofthe fo!#e!, the accused sou$ht the uashal of the latte!, invo/in$ the Double Ceopa!d)"lause. The t!ial cou!t initiall) denied !elief, but, on !econside!ation, found #e!it in theaccusedQs clai# and dis#issed the second case. In affi!#in$ the t!ial cou!t, 0e uoted 0ithapp!oval its anal)sis of the issue follo0in$ Dia and its p!o$en) People v. %el$a17=

On Cune =', &?:?, the lo0e! cou!t !econside!ed its O!de! of Ma) =, &?:? and dis#issed thecase, holdin$1 EThe "ou!t believes that the case falls sua!el) 0ithin the doct!ine of double 9eopa!d)enunciated in People v. %el$a, ; ; ; In the case cited, "i!iaco %el$a and Cose %el$a 0e!e

cha!$ed in the Custice of the Peace "ou!t of Malilipot, *lba), 0ith the c!i#e of ph)sical in9u!iesth!ou$h !ec/less i#p!udence a!isin$ f!o# a collision bet0een the t0o auto#obiles d!iven b)the# @"!i#. "ase No. 88B. ithout the afo!esaid co#plaint havin$ been dis#issed o!othe!0ise disposed of, t0o othe! c!i#inal co#plaints 0e!e filed in the sa#e 9ustice of thepeace cou!t, in connection 0ith the sa#e collision one fo! da#a$e to p!ope!t) th!ou$h!ec/less i#p!udence @"!i#. "ase No. ?:B si$ned b) the o0ne! of one of the vehicles involvedin the collision, and anothe! fo! #ultiple ph)sical in9u!ies th!ou$h !ec/less i#p!udence @"!i#."ase No. ?'B si$ned b) the passen$e!s in9u!ed in the accident. %oth of these t0o co#plaints

0e!e filed a$ainst Cose %el$a onl). *fte! t!ial, both defendants 0e!e acuitted of the cha!$ea$ainst the# in "!i#. "ase No. 88. Follo0in$ his acuittal, Cose %el$a #oved to uash theco#plaint fo! #ultiple ph)sical in9u!ies th!ou$h !ec/less i#p!udence filed a$ainst hi# b) thein9u!ed passen$e!s, contendin$ that the case 0as 9ust a duplication of the one filed b) the

"hief of Police 0he!ein he had 9ust been acuitted. The #otion to uash 0as denied and afte!t!ial Cose %el$a 0as convicted, 0he!eupon he appealed to the "ou!t of Fi!st Instance of *lba).In the #eanti#e, the case fo! da#a$e to p!ope!t) th!ou$h !ec/less i#p!udence filed b) one ofthe o0ne!s of the vehicles involved in the collision had been !e#anded to the "ou!t of Fi!stInstance of *lba) afte! Cose %el$a had 0aived the second sta$e of the p!eli#ina!)investi$ation. *fte! such !e#and, the P!ovincial Fiscal filed in the "ou!t of Fi!st Instance t0oinfo!#ations a$ainst Cose %el$a, one fo! ph)sical in9u!ies th!ou$h !ec/less i#p!udence, andanothe! fo! da#a$e to p!ope!t) th!ou$h !ec/less i#p!udence. %oth cases 0e!e dis#issed b)the "ou!t of Fi!st Instance, upon #otion of the defendant Cose %el$a 0ho alle$ed double

9eopa!d) in a #otion to uash. On appeal b) the P!ov. Fiscal, the o!de! of dis#issal 0asaffi!#ed b) the Sup!e#e "ou!t in the follo0in$ lan$ua$e1 .

The uestion fo! dete!#ination is 0hethe! the acuittal of Cose %el$a in the case filed b) thechief of police constitutes a ba! to his subseuent p!osecution fo! #ultiple ph)sical in9u!iesand da#a$e to p!ope!t) th!ou$h !ec/less i#p!udence.In the case of People v. F. Dia, 4. R. No. +-':&8, p!o#. Ma!ch <(, &?:7, the accused 0ascha!$ed in the #unicipal cou!t of Pasa) "it) 0ith !ec/less d!ivin$ unde! sec. := of theRevised Moto! Vehicle +a0, fo! havin$ d!iven an auto#obile in a ῾fast and !ec/less #anne! ...the!eb) causin$ an accident.Q *fte! the accused had pleaded not $uilt) the case 0asdis#issed in that cou!t ῾fo! failu!e of the 4ove!n#ent to p!osecuteQ. %ut so#e ti#e the!eafte!the cit) atto!ne) filed an info!#ation in the "ou!t of Fi!st Instance of Rial, cha!$in$ the sa#e

accused 0ith da#a$e to p!ope!t) th!u !ec/less i#p!udence. The a#ount of the da#a$e 0asalle$ed to be P=7?.:(. Pleadin$ double 9eopa!d), the accused filed a #otion, and on appealb) the 4ove!n#ent 0e affi!#ed the !ulin$. *#on$ othe! thin$s 0e the!e said th!ou$h M!.Custice Monte#a)o! EThe ne;t uestion to dete!#ine is the !elation bet0een the fi!st offense of violation of theMoto! Vehicle +a0 p!osecuted befo!e the Pasa) "it) Municipa l "ou!t and the offense ofda#a$e to p!ope!t) th!u !ec/less i#p!udence cha!$ed in the Rial "ou!t of Fi!st Instance.One of the tests of double 9eopa!d) is 0hethe! o! not the second offense cha!$ed necessa!il)includes o! is necessa!il) included in the offense cha!$ed in the fo!#e! co#plaint o!info!#ation @Rule &&<, Sec. ?B. *nothe! test is 0hethe! the evidence 0hich p!oves one 0ouldp!ove the othe! that is to sa) 0hethe! the facts alle$ed in the fi!st cha!$e if p!oven, 0ould havebeen sufficient to suppo!t the second cha!$e and vice ve!saG o! 0hethe! one c!i#e is an

in$!edient of the othe!. ; ; ;; ; ; ;The fo!e$oin$ lan$ua$e of the Sup!e#e "ou!t also disposes of the contention of thep!osecutin$ atto!ne) that the cha!$e fo! sli$ht ph)sical in9u!ies th!ou$h !ec/less i#p!udencecould not have been 9oined 0ith the cha!$e fo! ho#icide 0ith se!ious ph)sical in9u!ies th!ou$h!ec/less i#p!udence in this case, in vie0 of the p!ovisions of *!t. 78 of the Revised Penal"ode, as a#ended. The p!osecutionQs contention #i$ht be t!ue. %ut neithe! 0as thep!osecution obli$ed to fi!st p!osecute the accused fo! sli$ht ph)sical in9u!ies th!ou$h !ec/lessi#p!udence befo!e p!essin$ the #o!e se!ious cha!$e of ho#icide 0ith se!ious ph)sicalin9u!ies th!ou$h !ec/less i#p!udence. 2avin$ fi!st p!osecuted the defendant fo! the lesse!offense in the Custice of the Peace "ou!t of Me)caua)an, %ulacan, 0hich acuitted thedefendant, the p!osecutin$ atto!ne) is not no0 in a position to p!ess in this case the #o!e

se!ious cha!$e of ho#icide 0ith se!ious ph)sical in9u!ies th!ou$h !ec/less i#p!udence 0hicha!ose out of the sa#e alle$ed !ec/less i#p!udence of 0hich the defendant have beenp!eviousl) clea!ed b) the infe!io! cou!t.7<

Si$nificantl), the Solicito! 4ene!al had u!$ed us in Silva to !ee;a#ine %el$a @and hence, DiaBfo! the pu!pose of deli#itin$ o! cla!if)in$ its application.77 e declined the invitation, thus1The State in its appeal clai#s that the lo0e! cou!t e!!ed in dis#issin$ the case, on the $!oundof double 9eopa!d), upon the basis of the acuittal of the accused in the CP cou!t fo! Sli$htPh)sical In9u!ies, th!u Rec/less I#p!udence. In the sa#e b!eath said State, th!u the Solicito!4ene!al, ad#its that the facts of the case at ba!, fall sua!el) on the !ulin$ of the %el$a case ;; ;, upon 0hich the o!de! of dis#issal of the lo0e! cou!t 0as ancho!ed. The Solicito! 4ene!al,ho0eve!, u!$es a !e-e;a#ination of said !ulin$, upon ce!tain conside!ations fo! the pu!pose ofdeli#itin$ o! cla!if)in$ its application. e find, neve!theless, that fu!the! elucidation o!

disuisition on the !ulin$ in the %el$a case, the facts of 0hich a!e analo$ous o! si#ila! to

those in the p!esent case, 0ill )ield no p!actical advanta$e to the $ove!n#ent. On one hand,the!e is nothin$ 0hich 0ould 0a!!ant a deli#itation o! cla!ification of the applicabilit) of the%el$a case. It 0as clea!. On the othe!, this "ou!t has !eite!ated the vie0s e;p!essed in the%el$a case, in the identical case of 6ap v. 2on. +ute!o, etc., +-&=''?, *p!il <(, &?:?. 7: @3#phasis suppliedB*!ticle 78 Does not *ppl) to *cts Penalied5nde! *!ticle <': of the Revised Penal "odeThe confusion bedevilin$ the uestion posed in this petition, to 0hich the MeT" succu#bed,ste#s f!o# pe!sistent but a0/0a!d atte#pts to ha!#onie conceptuall) inco#patible

substantive and p!ocedu!al !ules in c!i#inal la0, na#el), *!ticle <': definin$ and penaliin$uasi-offenses and *!ticle 78 on co#ple;in$ of c!i#es, both unde! the Revised Penal "ode.*!ticle 78 is a p!ocedu!al device allo0in$ sin$le p!osecution of #ultiple felonies fallin$ unde!eithe! of t0o cate$o!ies1 @&B 0hen a sin$le act constitutes t0o o! #o!e $!ave o! less $!avefelonies @thus e;cludin$ f!o# its ope!ation li$ht felonies7'BG and @=B 0hen an offense is anecessa!) #eans fo! co##ittin$ the othe!. The le$islatu!e c!afted this p!ocedu!al tool tobenefit the accused 0ho, in lieu of se!vin$ #ultiple penalties, 0ill onl) se!ve the #a;i#u# ofthe penalt) fo! the #ost se!ious c!i#e.In cont!ast, *!ticle <': is a substantive !ule penaliin$ not an act defined as a felon) but the#ental attitude ; ; ; behind the act, the dan$e!ous !ec/lessness, lac/ of ca!e o! fo!esi$ht ; ;;,7> a sin$le #ental attitude !e$a!dless of the !esultin$ conseuences. Thus, *!ticle <': 0asc!afted as one uasi-c!i#e !esultin$ in one o! #o!e conseuences.

O!dina!il), these t0o p!ovisions 0ill ope!ate s#oothl). *!ticle 78 0o!/s to co#bine in a sin$lep!osecution #ultiple intentional c!i#es fallin$ unde! Titles &-&<, %oo/ II of the Revised Penal"ode, 0hen p!ope!G *!ticle <': $ove!ns the p!osecution of i#p!udent acts and thei!conseuences. 2o0eve!, the co#ple;ities of hu#an inte!action can p!oduce a h)b!id uasi-offense not fallin$ unde! eithe! #odels X that of a sin$le c!i#inal ne$li$ence !esultin$ in#ultiple non-c!i#e da#a$es to pe!sons and p!ope!t) 0ith va!)in$ penalties co!!espondin$ toli$ht, less $!ave o! $!ave offenses. The ensuin$ p!osecuto!ial dile##a is obvious1 ho0 shouldsuch a uasi-c!i#e be p!osecutedK Should *!ticle 78Qs f!a#e0o!/ appl) to co#ple; thesin$le uasi-offense 0ith its #ultiple @non-c!i#inalB conseuences @e;cludin$ those a#ountin$to li$ht offenses 0hich 0ill be t!ied sepa!atel)BK O! should the p!osecution p!oceed unde! asin$le cha!$e, collectivel) alle$in$ all the conseuences of the sin$le uasi-c!i#e, to bepenalied sepa!atel) follo0in$ the sche#e of penalties unde! *!ticle <':K

Cu!isp!udence adopts both app!oaches. Thus, one line of !ulin$s @none of 0hich involved theissue of double 9eopa!d)B applied *!ticle 78 b) co#ple;in$ one uasi-c!i#e 0ith its #ultipleconseuences78 unless one conseuence a#ounts to a li$ht felon), in 0hich case cha!$es

0e!e split b) $!oupin$, on the one hand, !esultin$ acts a#ountin$ to $!ave o! less $!avefelonies and filin$ the cha!$e 0ith the second level cou!ts and, on the othe! hand, !esultin$acts a#ountin$ to li$ht felonies and filin$ the cha!$e 0ith the fi!st level cou!ts.7? 3;pectedl),this is the app!oach the MeT" i#pliedl) sanctioned @and !espondent Ponce invo/esB, eventhou$h unde! Republic *ct No. >'?&,:( the MeT" has no0 e;clusive o!i$inal 9u!isdiction toi#pose the #ost se!ious penalt) unde! *!ticle <': 0hich is p!ision co!!eccional in its #ediu#pe!iod.5nde! this app!oach, the issue of double 9eopa!d) 0ill not a!ise if the co#ple;in$ of actspenalied unde! *!ticle <': involves onl) !esultin$ acts penalied as $!ave o! less $!ave

felonies because the!e 0ill be a sin$le p!osecution of all the !esultin$ acts. The issue of

double 9eopa!d) a!ises if one of the !esultin$ acts is penalied as a li$ht offense and the othe!acts a!e penalied as $!ave o ! less $!ave offenses, in 0hich case *!ticle 78 is not dee#ed toappl) and the act penalied as a li$ht offense is t!ied sepa!atel) f!o# the !esultin$ actspenalied as $!ave o! less $!ave offenses.The second 9u!isp!udential path ni;es *!ticle 78 and sanctions a sin$le p!osecution of all theeffects of the uasi-c!i#e collectivel) alle$ed in one cha!$e, !e$a!dless of thei! nu#be! o!seve!it),:& penaliin$ each conseuence sepa!atel). Thus, in *n$eles v. Cose,:= 0e inte!p!etedpa!a$!aph th!ee of *!ticle <':, in !elation to a cha!$e alle$in$ !ec/less i#p!udence !esultin$in da#a$e to p!ope!t) and less se!ious ph)sical in9u!ies, as follo0s1

The thi!d pa!a$!aph of said a!ticle, ; ; ; !eads as follo0s1hen the e;ecution of the act cove!ed b) this a!ticle shall have onl) !esulted in da#a$e to thep!ope!t) of anothe!, the offende! shall be punished b) a fine !an$in$ f!o# an a#ount eual tothe value of said da#a$e to th!ee ti#es such value, but 0hich shall in no case be less than =:pesos.The above-uoted p!ovision si#pl) #eans that if the!e is onl) da#a$e to p!ope!t) the a#ountfi;ed the!ein shall be i#posed, but if the!e a!e also ph)sical in9u!ies the!e should be anadditional penalt) fo! the latte!. The info!#ation cannot be split into t0oG one fo! the ph)sicalin9u!ies, and anothe! fo! the da#a$e to p!ope!t), ; ; ;. :< @3#phasis suppliedB%) additional penalt), the "ou!t #eant, lo$icall), the penalt) sche#e unde! *!ticle <':.3videntl), these app!oaches, 0hile pa!allel, a!e i!!econcilable. "ohe!ence in this fieldde#ands choosin$ one f!a#e0o!/ ove! the othe!. 3ithe! @&B 0e allo0 the co#ple;in$ of a

sin$le uasi-c!i#e b) b!ea/in$ its !esultin$ acts into sepa!ate offenses @e;cept fo! li$htfeloniesB, thus !e-conceptualie a uasi-c!i#e, abandon its p!esent f!a#in$ unde! *!ticle <':,disca!d its conception unde! the Juion and Dia lines of cases, and t!eat the #ultipleconseuences of a uasi-c!i#e as sepa!ate intentional felonies defined unde! Titles &-&<,%oo/ II unde! the penal codeG o! @=B 0e fo!bid the application of *!ticle 78 in the p!osecutionand sentencin$ of uasi-c!i#es, !eui!e sin$le p!osecution of all the !esultin$ acts !e$a!dlessof thei! nu#be! and seve!it), sepa!atel) penalie each as p!ovided in *!ticle <':, and thus#aintain the distinct concept of uasi-c!i#es as c!afted unde! *!ticle <':, a!ticulated inJuion and applied to double 9eopa!d) ad9udication in the Dia line of cases.1avvphi1* beco#in$ !e$a!d of this "ou!tQs place in ou! sche#e of $ove!n#ent den)in$ it the po0e! to#a/e la0s const!ains us to /eep inviolate the conceptual distinction bet0een uasi-c!i#esand intentional felonies unde! ou! penal code. *!ticle 78 is incon$!uent to the notion of uasi-

c!i#es unde! *!ticle <':. It is conceptuall) i#possible fo! a Guasi"o&&ense to stand fo! @&B asin$le act constitutin$ t0o o! #o!e $!ave o! less $!ave &eloniesG o! @=B an o&&ense 0hich is anecessa!) #eans fo! co##ittin$ anothe!. This is 0h), 0a) bac/ in &?'8 in %uan, 0e !e9ectedthe Solicito! 4ene!alQs a!$u#ent that double 9eopa!d) does not ba! a second p!osecution fo!sli$ht ph)sical in9u!ies th!ou$h !ec/less i#p!udence alle$edl) because the cha!$e fo! thatoffense could not be 9oined 0ith the othe! cha!$e fo! se!ious ph)sical in9u!ies th!ou$h !ec/lessi#p!udence follo0in$ *!ticle 78 of the Revised Penal "ode1The Solicito! 4ene!al st!esses in his b!ief that the cha!$e fo! sli$ht ph)sical in9u!ies th!ou$h!ec/less i#p!udence could not be 9oined 0ith the accusation fo! se!ious ph)sical in9u!iesth!ou$h !ec/less i#p!udence, because *!ticle 78 of the Revised Penal "ode allo0s onl) theco#ple;in$ of $!ave o! less $!ave felonies. This sa#e a!$u#ent 0as conside!ed and !e9ectedb) this "ou!t in the case of People vs. Silva ; ; ;1

The p!osecutionQs contention #i$ht be t!ue. %ut neithe! 0as the p!osecution obli$ed to fi !stp!osecute the accused fo! sli$ht ph)sical in9u!ies th!ou$h !ec/less i#p!udence befo!ep!essin$ the #o!e se!ious cha!$e of ho#icide 0ith se!ious ph)sical in9u!ies th!ou$h !ec/lessi#p!udence. 2avin$ fi!st p!osecuted the defendant fo! the lesse! offense in the Custice of thePeace "ou!t of Me)caua)an, %ulacan, 0hich acuitted the defendant, the p!osecutin$atto!ne) is not no0 in a position to p!ess in this case the #o!e se!ious cha!$e of ho#icide 0ithse!ious ph)sical in9u!ies th!ou$h !ec/less i#p!udence 0hich a!ose out of the sa#e alle$ed!ec/less i#p!udence of 0hich the defendant has been p!eviousl) clea!ed b) the infe!io! cou!t.e #ust pe!fo!ce !ule that the e;one!ation of this appellant ; ; ; b) the Custice of the Peace

; ; ; of the cha!$e of sli$ht ph)sical in9u!ies th!ou$h !ec/less i#p!udence, p!events his bein$p!osecuted fo! se!ious ph)sical in9u!ies th!ou$h !ec/less i#p!udence in the "ou!t of Fi!stInstance of the p!ovince, 0he!e both cha!$es a!e de!ived f!o# the conseuences of one andthe sa#e vehicula! accident, because the second accusation places the appellant in second

9eopa!d) fo! the sa#e offense.:7 @3#phasis suppliedBIndeed, this is a constitutionall) co#pelled choice. %) p!ohibitin$ the splittin$ of cha!$es unde!*!ticle <':, i!!espective of the nu#be! and seve!it) of the !esultin$ acts, !a#pant occasions ofconstitutionall) i#pe!#issible second p!osecutions a!e avoided, not to #ention that sca!cestate !esou!ces a!e conse!ved and dive!ted to p!ope! use.2ence, 0e hold that p!osecutions unde! *!ticle <': should p!oceed f!o# a sin$le cha!$e!e$a!dless of the nu#be! o! seve!it) of the conseuences. In i#posin$ penalties, the 9ud$e

0ill do no #o!e than appl) the penalties unde! *!ticle <': fo! each conseuence alle$ed and

p!oven. In sho!t, the!e shall be no splittin$ of cha!$es unde! *!ticle <':, and onl) oneinfo!#ation shall be filed in the sa#e fi!st level cou!t.::

Ou! !ulin$ toda) secu!es fo! the accused facin$ an *!ticle <': cha!$e a st!on$e! and si#ple!p!otection of thei! constitutional !i$ht unde! the Double Ceopa!d) "lause. T!ue, the) a!ethe!eb) denied the beneficent effect of the favo!able sentencin$ fo!#ula unde! *!ticle 78, butan) disadvanta$e thus caused is #o!e than co#pensated b) the ce!taint) of non-p!osecutionfo! uasi-c!i#e effects ualif)in$ as li$ht offenses @o!, as he!e, fo! the #o!e se!iousconseuence p!osecuted belatedl)B. If it i s so #inded, "on$!ess can !e-c!aft *!ticle <': b)e;tendin$ to uasi-c!i#es the sentencin$ fo!#ula of *!ticle 78 so that onl) the #ost seve!epenalt) shall be i#posed unde! a sin$le p!osecution of all !esultin$ acts, 0hethe! penalied as$!ave, less $!ave o! li$ht offenses. This 0ill still /eep intact the distinct concept of uasi-offenses. Mean0hile, the lenient schedule of penalties unde! *!ticle <':, befittin$ c!i#es

occup)in$ a lo0e! !un$ of culpabilit), should cushion the effect of this !ulin$.HEREFORE, 0e GRANT the petition. e REERSE the O!de!s dated = Feb!ua!) =(('and = Ma) =((' of the Re$ional T!ial "ou!t of Pasi$ "it), %!anch &:>. e !ISMISS theInfo!#ation in "!i#inal "ase No. 8=<'' a$ainst petitione! Cason Ivle! ) *$uila! pendin$ 0iththe Met!opolitan T!ial "ou!t of Pasi$ "it), %!anch >& on the $!ound of double 9eopa!d).+et a cop) of this !ulin$ be se!ved on the P!esident of the Senate and the Spea/e! of the2ouse of Rep!esentatives.SO ORD3R3D.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO*ssociate Custice

3 "ON"5R1CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES

*ssociate Custice!IOS!A!O M. PERALTA*ssociate Custice

RO0ERTO A. A0A!*ssociate Custice

OSE C. MEN!OZA*ssociate Custice

* T T 3 S T * T I O NI attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been !eached in consultation befo!e

the case 0as assi$ned to the 0!ite! of the opinion of the "ou!tQs Divis ion.ANTONIO T. CARPIO

*ssociate Custice"hai!pe!son

" 3 R T I F I " * T I O NPu!suant to Section &<, *!ticle VIII of the "onstitution, and the Division "hai!pe!sonQs*ttestation, I ce!tif) that the conclusions in the above Decision had been !eached in

consultation befo!e the case 0as assi$ned to the 0!ite! of the opinion of the "ou!tQs Division.RENATO C. CORONA

"hief Custice

Foot$ot&sW Desi$nated additional #e#be! pe! Raffle dated == Septe#be! =(&(.& 5nde! Rule 7: of the &??> Rules of "ivil P!ocedu!e.= Dated = Feb!ua!) =((' and = Ma) =(('.<

In a Resolution dated 7 Octobe! =((7.7 In an O!de! dated &> Ma) =((: @Reco!ds, p. &7=B.: In a Resolution dated =7 Ma) =((:.' Denied in an O!de! dated = Ma) =(('.> Rollo, pp. <(-<<.8 The p!ovision states1 Dis#issal of appeal fo! abandon#ent o! failu!e to p!osecute. X ; ; ; ;The "ou!t of *ppeals #a) also, upon #otion of the appellee o! #otu p!op!io, dis#iss theappeal if the appellant escapes f!o# p!ison o! confine#ent, 9u#ps bail o! flees to a fo!ei$ncount!) du!in$ the pendenc) of the appeal.? <=? Phil. <<? @&??'B.&( Id. at <:(.&& The p!ovision states1 Fo!feitu!e of bail. X hen the p!esence of the accused is !eui!ed b)

the cou!t o! these Rules, his bonds#en shall be notified to p!oduce hi# befo!e the cou!t on a$iven date and ti#e. If the accused fails to appea! in pe!son as !eui!ed, his bail shall bedecla!ed fo!feited and the bonds#en $iven thi!t) @<(B da)s 0ithin 0hich to p!oduce thei!p!incipal and to sho0 0h) no 9ud$#ent should be !ende!ed a$ainst the# fo! the a#ount ofthei! bail. ithin the said pe!iod, the bonds#en #ust1@aB p!oduce the bod) of thei! p!incipal o! $ive the !eason fo! his non-p!oductionG and@bB e;plain 0h) the accused did not appea! befo!e the cou!t 0hen fi!st !eui!ed to do so.Failin$ in these t0o !euisites, a 9ud$#ent shall be !ende!ed a$ainst the bonds#en, 9ointl)and seve!all), fo! the a#ount of the bail. The cou!t shall not !educe o! othe!0ise #iti$ate theliabilit) of the bonds#en, unless the accused has been su!!ende!ed o! is acuitted.&= Rollo, p. 7(.&< Section =&, *!ticle III, &?8> "onstitution.

&7 Section >, Rule &&> Revised Rules of "!i#inal P!ocedu!e. The !i$ht has, of cou!se, b!oade!scope to cove! not onl) p!io! $uilt) pleas but also acuittals and unconsented dis#issals toba! p!osecutions fo! the sa#e, lesse! o! $!ave! offenses cove!ed in the initial p!oceedin$s @id.B&: Rollo, p. ?>.&' Juion v. Custice of the Peace of Pa#pan$a, ?> Phil. <7=, <7: @&?::B @e#phasis in theo!i$inalB.&> Id.&8 Id. at <7:-<7'.&? e obse!ved in Juion1 Much o f the confusion has a!isen f!o# the co##on use of such

desc!iptive ph!ases as ho#icide th!ou$h !ec/less i#p!udence,Q and the li/eG 0hen the st!icttechnical offense is, #o!e accu!atel), !ec/less i#p!udence !esultin$ in ho#icideQG o! si#plei#p!udence causin$ da#a$es to p!ope!t).QQQ @Id. at <7:G e#phasis suppliedB=( In People v. %uan, &<& Phil. 7?8, :((-:(= @&?'8B, 0hich applied JuionQs lo$ic, the "ou!tcanvassed !elevant 9u!isp!udence, local and Spanish1The uasi-offense of c!i#inal ne$li$ence unde! a!ticle <': of the Revised Penal "ode lies inthe e;ecution of an i#p!udent o! ne$li$ent act that, if intentionall) done, 0ould be punishableas a felon). The la0 penalies thus the ne$li$ent o! ca!eless act, not the !esult the!eof. The$!avit) of the conseuence is onl) ta/en into account to dete!#ine the penalt), it does notualif) the substance of the offense. *nd, as the ca!eless act is sin$le, 0hethe! the in9u!ious!esult should affect one pe!son o! seve!al pe!sons, the offense @c!i#inal ne$li$enceB !e#ainsone and the sa#e, and cannot be split into diffe!ent c!i#es and p!osecutions. This has been

the constant !ulin$ of the Spanish Sup!e#e "ou!t, and is also that of this "ou!t in its #ost!ecent decisions on the #atte!.Thus, in People vs. Sil va, +-&:?>7, Canua!) <(, &?'=, 0he!e as a !esult of the sa#e vehicula!accident one #an died, t0o pe!sons 0e!e se!iousl) in9u!ed 0hile anothe! th!ee suffe!ed onl)sli$ht ph)sical in9u!ies, 0e !uled that the acuittal on a cha!$e of sli$ht ph)sical in9u!iesth!ou$h !ec/less i#p!udence, 0as a ba! to anothe! p!osecution fo! ho#icide th!ou$h !ec/lessi#p!udence. In People vs. Dia, + -':&8, Ma!ch <(, &?:7, the !ulin$ 0as that the dis#issal b)the Municipal "ou!t of a cha!$e of !ec/less d!ivin$ ba!!ed a second info!#ation of da#a$e top!ope!t) th!ou$h !ec/less i#p!udence based on the sa#e ne$li$ent act of the accused. InPeople vs, %el$a, &(( Phil. ??', dis#issal of an info!#ation fo! ph)sical in9u!ies th!ou$hneedless i#p!udence as a !esult of a collision bet0een t0o auto#obiles 0as decla!ed, tobloc/ t0o othe! p!osecutions, one fo! da#a$e to p!ope!t) th!ou$h !ec/less i#p!udence and

anothe! fo! #ultiple ph)sical in9u!ies a!isin$ f!o# the sa#e collision. The sa#e doct!ine 0as!easse!ted in 6ap vs. +ute!o, et al., +-&=''?, *p!il <(, &?:?. In none of the cases cited did theSup!e#e "ou!t !e$a!d as #ate!ial that the va!ious offenses cha!$ed fo! the sa#e occu!!ence

0e!e t!iable in "ou!ts of diffe!in$ cate$o!), o! that the co#plainants 0e!e not the individuals.*s fo! the Spanish 9u!isp!udence, "uello "alon, in his De!echo Penal @&=th 3d.B, Vol. I, p. 7<?,has this to sa)1*un cuando de un solo hecho i#p!udente se o!i$inen #ales dive!sos, co#o el hecho culposoes uno solo, e;iste un solo delito de i#p!udencia. 3sta es 9u!isp!udencia constante delT!ibunal Sup!e#o. De acue!do con esta doct!ina el auto#ovilista i#p!udente ue at!opella )causa lesiones a dos pe!sonas ) ade#as daos, no !esponde!a de dos delitos de lesiones )uno de daos po! i#p!udencia, sino de un solo delito culposo.The said autho! cites in suppo!t of the te;t the follo0in$ decisions of the Sup!e#e "ou!t of

Spain @footnotes = and <B.

; ; ; ;Si con el hecho i#p!udente se causa la #ue!te de una pe!sona ) ade#as se ocasionandaos, e;iste un solo hecho punible, pues uno solo fue el acto, aun cuando deben ap!ecia!sedos eno!den a la !esponsabilidad civil, &7 dicie#b!e &?<& si a consecuencia de un solo actoi#p!udente se p!odu9e!on t!es delitos, dos de ho#icidio ) uno de daos, co#o todos sonconsecuencia de un solo acto culposo, no cabe pena!los po! sepa!ado, = ab!il &?<=.@3#phasis suppliedB=& 3.$. Sa#son v. "ou!t of *ppeals, &(< Phil. =>> @&?:8BG People v. "ano, &=< Phil. &(8'@&?''BG Pabula!io v. Pala!ca, &=? Phil. & @&?'>BG "o!pus v. Pa9e, &<? Phil. 7=? @&?'?B.==

'> Phil. :=? @&?<?B @affi!#in$ a conviction fo! #alicious #ischief upon a cha!$e fo! da#a$eto p!ope!t) th!ou$h !ec/less i#p!udenceB. * lo$ical conseuence of a Falle!ianconceptualiation of uasi-c!i#es is the sanctionin$ of the split p!osecution of theconseuences of a sin$le uasi offense such as those allo0ed in 3l Pueblo de Filipinas v.3stipona, >( Phil. :&< @&?7(B @findin$ the sepa!ate p!osecutions of da#a$e to p!ope!t) and#ultiple ph)sical in9u!ies a!isin$ f!o# the sa#e !ec/lessness in the accusedQs ope!ation of a#oto! vehicle not violative of the Double Ceopa!d) "lauseB.=< '> Phil. :=? @&?<?B.=7 3.$. +onto/ v. 4o!$onio, &>8 Phil. :=:, :=8 @&?>?B @holdin$ that the less $!ave offense ofda#a$e to p!ope!t) th!ou$h !ec/less i#p!udence @fo! P=,<7(B cannot be co#ple;ed unde!*!ticle 78 of the penal code 0ith a p!esc!ibed sli$ht offense of lesiones leves th!ou$h!ec/less i#p!udence, citin$ Falle!BG *!ca)a v. Tele!on, &:' Phil. <:7, <'= @&?>7B @notin$, b)

0a) of dicta in a !ulin$ den)in$ !elief to an appeal a$ainst the splittin$ of t0o cha!$es fo! lessse!ious ph)sical in9u!ies and da#a$e to p!ope!t) a#ountin$ to P&(,((( thou$h !ec/lessi#p!udence and sli$ht ph)sical in9u!ies thou$h !ec/less i#p!udence, that the Juiondoct!ine, as cited in "o!pus v. Pa9e, &<? Phil. 7=? @&?'?B and People v. %uan, &<& Phil. 7?8@&?'8B, #a) not )et be settled in vie0 of the cont!a!) dictu# in Falle!B.=: ?7 Phil. >&: @&?:7B.=' &(( Phil. ??' @&?:>B @ba!!in$ subseuent p!osecutions fo! ph)sical in9u!ies th!u !ec/lessi#p!udence and da#a$e to p!ope!t) th!u !ec/less i#p!udence follo0in$ an acuittal fo!!ec/less i#p!udence 0ith ph)sical in9u!)B.=> &(: Phil. &<(> @&?:?B @5n!ep.B @ba!!in$ subseuent p!osecution fo! se!ious ph)sicalin9u!ies follo0in$ an acuittal fo! !ec/less d!ivin$B.=8 &(> Phil. ><> @&?'(B @ba!!in$ subseuent p!osecution fo! da#a$e to p!ope!t) th!u !ec/less

i#p!udence follo0in$ a conviction fo! #ultiple sli$ht and se!ious ph)sical in9u!ies th!u!ec/less i#p!udence.B=? No. +-&:?>7, <( Canua!) &?'=, 7 S"R* ?: @ba!!in$ subseuent p!osecution fo! ho#icideth!u !ec/less i#p!udence follo0in$ an acuittal fo! sli$ht ph)sical in9u!ies th!u !ec/lessi#p!udenceB.<( &=< Phil. 78 @&?''B @ba!!in$ subseuent p!osecution fo! da#a$e to p!ope!t) th!u !ec/lessi#p!udence follo0in$ an acuittal fo! t0o counts of sli$ht ph)sical in9u!ies th!u !ec/lessi#p!udence.B<& &<& Phil. 7?8 @&?'8B @ba!!in$ subseuent p!osecution fo! se!ious ph)sical in9u!ies andda#a$e to p!ope!t) th!u !ec/less i#p!udence follo0in$ an acuittal fo! sli$ht ph)sicalin9u!ies th!u !ec/less i#p!udenceB.

<= =(( Phil. 78' @&?8=B @!eve!sin$ a subseuent conviction fo! da#a$e to p!ope!t) th!u!ec/less i#p!udence follo0in$ a conviction fo! sli$ht and se!ious ph)sical in9u!ies th!u!ec/less i#p!udenceB.<< =(' Phil. ::: @&?8( Phil. :&< @&?7(B, also cited in othe! sou!ces as People v. 3stipona.<> Sup!a note <=.<8

Sup!a note <&.<? uerano v. Court o& 2ppeals, =(( Phil. 78', 7?& @&?8=B.7( Id. at 7?&-7?=.7& No. +-&:?>7, <( Canua!) &?'=, 7 S"R* ?:.7= Sup!a note ='.7< No. +-&:?>7, <( Canua!) &?'=, 7 S"R* ?:, ?>-&(( @inte!nal citations o#ittedB.77 Id. at &((.7: Id.7' Defined unde! *!ticle ?, pa!a$!aph < of the Revised Penal "ode, as a#ended, thus1 +i$htfelonies a!e those inf!actions of la0 fo! the co##ission of 0hich a penalt) of a!!esto #eno! o!a fine not e;ceedin$ =(( pesos o! both is p!ovided.7> Juion v. Custice of the Peace of Pa#pan$a, ?> Phil. <7=, <7: @&?::B.78

'.g. People v. )ara, >: Phil. >8' @&?7'B @involvin$ ho#icidio po! i#p!udencia te#e!a!ia 0ith seve!al victi#s o!, !ou$hl), #ultiple ho#icide th!u !ec/less i#p!udenceBG People v. 2gito, &(< Phil. :=' @&?:8B @involvin$ t!iple ho#icide and se!ious ph)sical in9u!ies th!ou$h!ec/less i#p!udenceB.7? '.g. People v. Tu!la, :( Phil. &((& @&?=>B @sustainin$ a dis#issal on de#u!!e! of a c!i#inalcase fo! the p!osecuto!Qs failu!e to a#end a cha!$e fo! da#a$e to p!ope!t) and of lesionsleves sli$ht ph)sical in9u!ies th!ou$h ne$li$ence and i#p!udence to !e#ove the cha!$e fo!the sli$ht offense, unde! *!ticle 8? of the penal code, the p!ecu!so! of *!ticle 78BG *!ca)a v.Tele!on, &:' Phil. <:7 @&?>7B @findin$ no $ !ave abuse of disc!etion in the filin$ of sepa!atecha!$es fo! less se!ious ph)sical in9u!ies and da#a$e to p!ope!t) a#ountin$ to P&(,(((thou$h !ec/less i#p!udence and sli$ht ph)sical in9u!ies thou$h !ec/less i#p!udence a!isin$f!o# the sa#e factsBG )ontoF v. /orgonio, &>8 Phil. :=: @&?>?B @$!antin$ a petition to split a

sin$le cha!$e fo! !ec/less i#p!udence !esultin$ in da#a$e to p!ope!t) and #ultiple sli$htph)sical in9u!ies b) li#itin$ the petitione!Qs t!ial to !ec/less i#p!udence !esultin$ in da#a$eto p!ope!t)B. See also $eodica v. Court o& 2ppeals, <:7 Phil. ?( @&??8B @holdin$ that the less$!ave felon) of !ec/less i#p!udence !esultin$ in da#a$e to p!ope!t) @fo! P8,:7=B cannot beco#ple;ed unde! *!ticle 78 of the Revised Penal "ode 0ith the li$ht felon) of !ec/lessi#p!udence !esultin$ in ph)sical in9u!ies, citin$ +onto/BG People v. De )os #antos, 7(> Phil.>=7 @=((&B @appl)in$ *!ticle 78 of the penal code to hold the accused liable fo! the co#ple;c!i#e of !ec/less i#p!udence !esultin$ in #ultiple ho#icide 0ith se!ious ph)sical in9u!ies andless se!ious ph)sical in9u!ies @upon an info!#ation cha!$in$ #ultiple #u!de!, #ultiplef!ust!ated #u!de! and #ultiple atte#pted #u!de!.B In a dicta, the decision stated thatsepa!ate info!#ations should have been filed fo! the sli$ht ph)sical in9u!ies the victi#ssustained 0hich cannot be co#ple;ed 0ith the #o!e se!ious c!i#es unde! *!ticle 78.B

:(

:( Section = of R* >'?& p!ovides1 Section = . Section <= of %atas Pa#bansa %l$. &=? ishe!eb) a#ended to !ead as follo0s1Sec. <=. Cu!isdiction of Met!opolitan T!ial "ou!ts, Municipal T!ial "ou!ts and Municipal "i!cuitT!ial "ou!ts in "!i#inal "ases. E 3;cept in cases fallin$ 0ithin the e;clusive o!i$inal

9u!isdiction of Re$ional T!ial "ou!ts and of the Sandi$anba)an, the Met!opolitan T!ial "ou!ts,Municipal T!ial "ou!ts, and Municipal "i!cuit T!ial "ou!ts shall e;e!cise1; ; ; ;@=B 3;clusive o!i$inal 9u!isdiction ove! all offenses punishable 0ith i#p!ison#ent not e;ceedin$si; @'B )ea!s i!!espective of the a#ount of fine, and !e$a!dless of othe! i#posable accesso!)

o! othe! penalties, includin$ the civil liabilit) a!isin$ f!o# such offenses o! p!edicated the!eon,i!!espective of /ind, natu!e, value o! a#ount the!eof1 P!ovided, ho0eve!, That in offensesinvolvin$ da#a$e to p!ope!t) th!ou$h c!i#inal ne$li$ence, the) shall have e;clusive o!i$inal

9u!isdiction the!eof.Q @5nde!linin$ suppliedB:& '.g. *n$eles v. Jose, ?' Phil. &:& @&?:7B @!eve!sin$ the !ulin$ of the then "ou!t of Fi!stInstance of Manila 0hich dis#issed fo! lac/ of 9u!isdiction a co#plaint fo! da#a$e to p!ope!t)in the su# of P':7.==, and 0ith less se!ious ph)sical in9u!ies th!ou$h !ec/less ne$li$ence,holdin$ i#p!ope! the splittin$ of the cha!$eB. e !elied on *n$eles fo! ou! !ulin$ in People v.Villanueva, &&& Phil. 8?> @&?'=B !esolvin$ s i#ila! 9u!isdictional issue and People v. Cano, &=<Phil. &(8', &(?( @&?''B @!eve!sin$ a dis#issal o!de! 0hich found the co#ple;in$ of da#a$eto p!ope!t) 0ith #ultiple sli$ht ph)sical in9u!ies th!ou$h !ec/less i#p!udence i#p!ope!,holdin$ that the Info!#ation did not and could not have co#ple;ed the effect of a sin$le uasi-

offense pe! Juion. The "ou!t noted that it is #e!el) alle$ed in the info!#ation that, th!u!ec/less ne$li$ence of the defendant, the bus d!iven b) hi# hit anothe! bus causin$ uponso#e of its passen$e!s se!ious ph)sical in9u!ies, upon othe!s less se!ious ph)sical in9u!iesand upon still othe!s sli$ht ph)sical in9u!ies, in addition to da#a$e to p!ope!t)B.:= *n$eles v. Jose, ?' Phil. &:&, &:= @&?:7B.:< Thus, 0e 0e!e ca!eful to label the c!i#e in uestion as 0hat #a) be called a co#ple;c!i#e of ph)sical in9u!ies and da#a$e to p!ope!t) @id., e#phasis suppliedB, because ou!p!esc!iption to i#pose additional penalt) fo! the second conseuence of less se!iousph)sical in9u!ies, defies the sentencin$ fo!#ula unde! *!ticle 78 !eui!in$ i#position of thepenalt) fo! the #ost se!ious c!i#e ; ; ; the sa#e to be applied in its #a;i#u# pe!iod.:7 Sup!a note <& at :(= @inte!nal citation o#ittedB. This also e;plains 0h) in People v. "ano 0edesc!ibed as not alto$ethe! accu!ate a t!ial cou!t and a liti$antQs assu#ption that a cha!$e fo!

da#a$e to p!ope!t) 0ith #ultiple sli$ht ph)sical in9u!ies th!ou$h !ec/less i#p!udenceinvolved t0o c!i#es co!!espondin$ to the t0o effects of the sin$le uasi-c!i#e albeitco#ple;ed as a sin$le cha!$e1*ppellee and the lo0e! cou!t have see#in$l) assu#ed that said info!#ation the!eb) cha!$est0o offenses, na#el) @&B sli$ht ph)sical in9u!ies th!u !ec/less i#p!udenceG and @=B da#a$e top!ope!t), and se!ious and less se!ious ph)sical in9u!ies, th!u !ec/less ne$li$ence E 0hich a!esou$ht to be co#ple;ed. This assu#ption is, in tu!n, appa!entl) p!e#ised upon the p!edicatethat the effect o! conseuence of defendants ne$li$ence, not the ne$li$ence itself, is thep!incipal o! vital facto! in said offenses. Such p!edicate is not alto$ethe! accu!ate.*s ea!l) as Cul) =8, &?:: this "ou!t, spea/in$ th!u M!. Custice C.%.+. Re)es, had the occasionto state, in Juion vs. Custice of the Peace of %acolo!, Pa#pan$a ; ; ;, that1The p!oposition @infe!!ed f!o# *!t. < of the Revised Penal "odeB that !ec/less i#p!udence isnot a c!i#e in itself but si#pl) a 0a) of co##ittin$ it and #e!el) dete!#ines a lo0e! de$!ee of

c!i#inal liabilit) is too b!oad to dese!ve unualified assent. The!e a!e c!i#es that b) thei!st!uctu!e can not be co##itted th!ou$h i#p!udence1 #u!de!, t!eason, !obbe!), #alicious#ischief, etc. In t!uth, c!i#inal ne$li$ence in ou! Revised Penal "ode is t!eated as a #e!euasi-offense, and dealt sepa!atel) f!o# 0illful offenses. It is not a #e!e uestion ofclassification o! te!#inolo$). In intentional c!i#es, the act itself is punishedG in ne$li$ence o!i#p!udence, 0hat is p!incipall) penalied is the #ental attitude o! condition behind the act, thedan$e!ous !ec/lessness, lac/ of ca!e o! fo!esi$ht, the i#p!udencia punible. Much of theconfusion has a!isen f!o# the co##on use of such desc!iptive ph!ases as ho#icide th!ou$h!ec/less i#p!udence, and the li/eG 0hen the st!ict technical offense is #o!e accu!atel),

!ec/less i#p!udence !esultin$ in ho#icide, o! si#ple i#p!udence causin$ da#a$es top!ope!t). @People v. "ano, &=< Phil. &(8',&(?( @&?''B, @3#phasis suppliedB, !eite!ated inPabula!io v. Pala!ca, &=? Phil. & @&?'>B @!eve!sin$ a lo0e! cou!t 0hich uashed a cha!$ealle$in$ !ec/less i#p!udence !esultin$ in da#a$e to p!ope!t) and #ultiple sli$ht ph)sicalin9u!iesB.:: See Section <=@=B, %atas Pa#bansa %l$. &=?, as a#ended b) Republic *ct No. >'?&.

d i h b h b hi h did b f i d d f h ill f

3N %*N"

G.R. No. 127663. M#-* 11, 19995

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff(appellee,vs.

ROLAN!O AL!EZ, accused(appellant.

! E C I S I O NMELO, J .B

*ccused-appellant Rolando Valde see/s !eve!sal of the 9ud$#ent of conviction p!o#ul$atedb) %!anch 7: of the Re$ional T!ial "ou!t of the Fi!st Cudicial Re$ion stationed in 5!daneta,Pan$asinan, on Octobe! =7, &??' sentencin$ hi# to death fo! the co#ple; c!i#e of MultipleMu!de! 0ith double F!ust!ated Mu!de!, and li/e0ise sepa!atel) sentencin$ hi# to suffe! thep!ison te!# of reclusion perpetua fo! the c!i#e of Ille$al Possession of Fi!ea!#s and*##unitions @P!esidential Dec!ee No. &8''B.The info!#ation a$ainst accused-appellant, %e!na!d "ast!o, and one Cohn Doe fo! the

co#ple; c!i#e of Multiple Mu!de! 0ith Double F!ust!ated Mu!de! cha!$ed1That on o! about 81<( ocloc/ in the evenin$ of Septe#be! &>, &??:, at Sitio "abaoan$an,ba!an$a) Nalsian, #unicipalit) of Manaoa$, p!ovince of Pan$asinan, and 0ithin and

9u!isdiction of this 2ono!able "ou!t, the said accused conspi!in$, confede!atin$ and #utuall)helpin$ one anothe! 0ith intent to /ill, and each a!#ed 0ith calibe! .<( ca!bines did then andthe!e 0ilfull), unla0full) and feloniousl), 0ith evident p!e#editation, abuse of supe!io! st!en$thand t!eache!), si#ultaneousl) attac/ed and fi!ed thei! calibe! .<( ca!bines at Ra#on 4a!cia,C!., Cean Ma!ie 4a!cia, ill) *costa, Sand!a Montano, illia# Montano and Rand) Tibule

0hile the) 0e!e on boa!d a t!ic)cle, on thei! 0a) to a dance pa!t), hittin$ the# in the diffe!entpa!ts of thei! bodies 0hich caused the instantaneous death of Ra#on 4a!cia, C!., Cean Ma!ie4a!cia, ill) *costa and Sand!a Montano, to the da#a$e and p!e9udice of thei! !espectivehei!s, and inflictin$ fatal in9u!ies to illia# Montano and Rand) Tibule, in the diffe!ent pa!ts ofthei! bodies, havin$ thus pe!fo!#ed all the acts 0hich 0ould have p!oduced the c!i#e of

#u!de! 0ith !espect to both but 0hich did not b) !eason of causes independent of the 0ill ofthe accused, na#el), the able and ti#el) #edical assistance $iven the said victi#s illia#Montano and Rand) Tibule, 0hich p!evented thei! death."ont!a!) to *!ticle =78 in Relation to *!ticle 78 and *!ticle ' of the RP".@pp. &-=, Reco!d of "!i#. "ase No. 5-8>7>BThe Info!#ation fo! Ille$al Possession of Fi!ea!#s and *##unitions pe!tinentl) ave!!ed1That on o! about 81<( ocloc/ in the evenin$ of Septe#be! &>, &??: at Sitio "abaoan$an,%a!an$a) Nalsian, Municipalit) of Manaoa$, p!ovince of Pan$asinan and 0ithin and

9u!isdiction of this 2ono!able "ou!t, the said accused, did then and the!e 0ilfull), unla0full)

and feloniousl), have in his possession, custod) and cont!ol, a fi!ea!#, to 0it1 "alibe! .<(ca!bine 0ithout fi!st havin$ secu!ed the p!ope! license the!eof f!o# the autho!ities and 0hichhe used in co##ittin$ the offense of #ultiple #u!de! and double f!ust!ated #u!de!."ont!a!) to P!esidential Dec!ee &8''.@p. &, Reco!d of "!i#. "ase No. 5-8>7?BThe inculpato!) facts adduced b) the p!osecution du!in$ t!ial a!e succinctl) su##a!ied in thePeoples b!ief as follo0s1On Septe#be! &>, &??:, at a!ound 81(( in the evenin$, illia# Montano @&' )ea!s oldB,Rand) Tibule @&> )ea!s oldB, Cean Ma!ie 4a!cia, illie *costa, Sand!a Montano and Ra#on4a!cia, C!., 0e!e at the house of Rand) Tibule in Manaoa$, Pan$asinan. The) 0e!ediscussin$ ho0 to $o to the 0eddin$ pa!t) of Cean Ma!ies cousin in Sitio "abaoan$an @TSNCune &&, &??', pp. >-8G Cune &8, &??', pp. =<-=7B.

*fte! discussion, the) !ode in the t!ic)cle d!iven b) Ra#on 4a!cia $oin$ to "abaoan$an.%ehind 4a!cia 0e!e Tibule and illie. Cean 0as seated inside the side ca! 0ith Sand!a andillia# Montano @TSN Cune &&, &??', pp. >-&&G TSN Cune &8,&??', pp. =<-=:B.*fte! #a/in$ a tu!n alon$ the ba!an$a) !oad leadin$ to Sitio "abaoan$an, the) #et appellantRolando Valde and his co#panions 0ho 0e!e a!#ed 0ith $uns. The t!ic)c les headli$htflashed on thei! faces. ithout 0a!nin$, the) pointed thei! $uns and fi!ed at Montanos $!oup.The!eafte!, afte! utte!in$ the 0o!ds, nata)dan, #apan ta)on @The) a!e al!ead) dead. +et us$oB, Valde and co#panions left @TSN Cune &&,&??', pp. &&-&7B.The shootin$ incident left Ra#on 4a!cia, Cean Ma!ie 4a!cia, Sand!a Montano and illie*costa dead @TSN Cune &&, &??', pp. &7-&'B. The) sustained the follo0in$ in9u!ies1Cean Ma!ie 4a!cia1- $unshot 0ound .: c#. in dia#ete!, & inch late!al of the nipple !i$ht th!ou$h and th!ou$h

t!a9ectin$ the #iddle lobe of the lun$s, !t vent!icle of the hea!t, #iddle lobe of the lun$, left 0ithpoint of e;it & inch in dia#ete! & inch late!al of the nipple, left.@3;hibit %BRa#on 4a!cia1- $unshot 0ound, .: c#. dia#ete! point of ent!ance ea! canal th!u and th!u t!a9ectin$ the s/ullb!ain substance 0ith point of e;it te#po!al a!ea !i$ht.- *nothe! $unshot 0ound .: c#. in dia#ete! point of ent!ance ante!io! a;illia!) line left at thelable nipple t!a9ectin$ the lun$ @leftB hea!t vent!icle and lun$ @!i$htB 0ith point of e;it & c#. india#ete!, & inch late!al the nipple !i$ht.@3;hibit "BSand!a Montano1- $unshot 0ound .' c#. in dia#ete!, point of ent!ance at the te#po!al a!ea left, penet!atin$ thes/in, s/ull #ini$as, b!ain substance @!i$htB @te#p!al !e$isB 0he!e the slu$ lod$e.

@3 hibit DB d t th t

@3;hibit DBillie *costa1- $unshot 0ound, .: c#. in dia#ete! belo0 coastal a!ch point of ent!ance t!a9ectin$ the uppe!<!d of the sto#ach th!u and th!u t!a9ectin$ the uppe! thi!d of the sto#ach of tho!acic vein 0iththe point of e;it & c#. in dia#ete! at the level of the >th tho!asic ve!teb!ae.@3;hibit 3BOn the othe! hand, illia# Montano and Rand) Tibule su!vived the attac/. The) suffe!edse!ious $unshot in9u!ies that could have caused thei! death 0e!e it not fo! the ti#el) #edicalattention $iven the# @TSN Cul) <, &??', p. 'B. Montano sustained seve!al $unshot 0ounds on

the left a!#, t0o on the left uppe! bac/, anothe! on the left shoulde! and #iddle !i$ht fin$e!@TSN Cune =:, &??', p. '(8B. Tibule sustained t0o $unshot 0ounds, one at the fifth uppe!uad!ant @sto#achB and the othe! at the left pe!iu#belical @TSN Cul) <, &??', pp. >-8B.@pp. =&:-=&?, Rollo.BIn its decision dated Octobe! =7, &??', the t!ial cou!t !ende!ed a 9ud$#ent of conviction in thet0o cases, findin$ and disposin$1IN "RIMIN*+ "*S3 NO. 5-8>7>1 --the accused RO+*NDO V*+D3H ) +IP5RD*, 45I+T6 be)ond !easonable doubt of the c!i#eof M5+TIP+3 M5RD3R IT2 DO5%+3 FR5STR*T3D M5RD3R defined and penaliedunde! Republic *ct No. >':? othe!0ise /no0n as the 2einous "!i#e +a0, the offense havin$been a co#ple; c!i#e the penalt) of 0hich is in the #a;i#u#, and 0ith the attendanta$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stances of evident p!e#editation and abuse of supe!io! st!en$th, he!eb)

sentences hi# the ulti#u# supplicu# of D3*T2 to be e;ecuted pu!suant to Republic *ct No.8&>> /no0n as the +ethal In9ection +a0, to pa) the hei!s of the deceased R*MON 4*R"I*,CR., I++I3 *"OST*, C3M*RI3 4*R"I* and S*NDR* MONT*NO and R*ND6 TI%5+3, asfollo0s1&B. To the hei!s of the deceased Ra#on 4a!cia, 9 !.1aB P :(,((( as inde#nit)bB P :=,&&'.(( as actual da#a$escB P :((,(((.(( as #o!al da#a$es=B. To the hei!s of the deceased I++I3 *"OST*aB P :(,((( as inde#nit)bB P =',<:8.(( as actual da#a$escB P :((,(((.(( as #o!al da#a$es

<B To the hei!s of the deceased C3M*RI3 4*R"I*1aB P :(,((( as inde#nit)bB P :((,(((.(( as #o!al da#a$es7B To the hei!s of the deceased Sand!a Montano1aB P :(,((( as inde#nit)bB P 78,='?.8( as actual da#a$escB P :((,(((.(( as #o!al da#a$es:B To the victi# I++I*M MONT*NO1aB P <?,&<<.?= as actual da#a$esbB P &((,(((.(( as #o!al da#a$es'B To the victi# R*ND6 TI%5+31aB P <',=<<.': as actual da#a$esbB P &((,(((.(( as #o!al da#a$es

and to pa) the costs.IT2 R3SP3"T TO "RIMIN*+ "*S3 NO. 5-8>7?1 --the accused RO+*NDO V*+D3H ) +IP5RD* 45I+T6 be)ond !easonable doubt of the c!i#eof I++34*+ POSS3SSION OF FIR3*RM *ND *MM5NITIONS @P!esidential Dec!ee No.&8''B and he!eb) sentences hi# to suffe! i#p!ison#ent o f R3"+5SION P3RP3T5* and topa) the costs.Finall), it is said1 Du!a le;, sed le;, t!anslated as1 The la0 is ha!sh, but that is the la0YSO ORD3R3D.@pp. &8(-&8&, Rollo.B

2ence, the instant !evie0, 0ith accused-appellant ancho!in$ his plea fo! !eve!sal on thefollo0in$ assi$ned e!!o!s1I. T23 TRI*+ "O5RT 3RR3D F*I+IN4 TO "ONSID3R T23 M*T3RI*+, S5%ST*NTI*+,IMPORT*NT *ND SI4NIFI"*NT, DIS"R3P*N"I3S IN T23 *FFID*VITS OFPROS3"5TION ITN3SS3S *ND T23IR T3STIMONI3S IN "O5RTGII. T23 TRI*+ "O5RT 3RR3D IN 5P2O+DIN4 T23 R3"*NT*TIONS OF PROS3"5TIONITN3SS3SGIII. T23 TRI*+ "O5RT 3RR3D IN F*I+IN4 TO "ONSID3R T23 S3RIO5S DO5%TS ONT23 ID3NTIT6 OF *""5S3D, RO+*NDO V*+D3H *S T23 45NM*NGIV. T23 TRI*+ "O5RT 3RR3D IN F*I+IN4 TO "ONSID3R MOTIV3 ON T23 P*RT OF%3RN*RDO "*STRO TO FIR3 *T, *S 23 *"T5*++6 FIR3D *T T23 O""5P*NTS OFMOTORIH3D TRI"6"+3G

V. T23 TRI*+ "O5RT 3RR3D IN F*I+IN4 TO *PPR3"I*T3 *4*INST T23 PROS3"5TIONITS D3+I%3R*T3 F*I+5R3 TO PR3S3NT T23 PO+I"3 INV3STI4*TORS 2OINV3STI4*T3D T23 IN"ID3NT *ND IT *S T23 D3F3NS3 2I"2 PR3S3NT3D S*IDPO+I"3 INV3STI4*TORSGVI. T23 TRI*+ "O5RT 3RR3D IN D3"+*RIN4 T2*T *""5S3D RO+*NDO V*+D3H DIDNOT D3N6 T23 *""5S*TION *4*INST 2IM FOR VIO+*TION OF P.D. &8'' %3"*5S3 23DID NOT *++343D+6 TO5"23D IT IN 2IS M3MOR*ND5M.@pp. &('-&(>, RolloB*fte! a painsta/in$ !evie0 of the !eco!d and a delibe!ate conside!ation of the a!$u#ents ofaccused-appellant, the "ou!t does not find enou$h basis to !eve!se.*ccused-appellant clai#s that the t!ial cou!t e!!ed in failin$ to conside! 0hat he sa)s a!e#ate!ial, substantial, i#po!tant and si$nificant disc!epancies bet0een the affidavits of

p!osecution 0itnesses and thei! testi#onies in cou!t. *ccused-appellant points to theState#ent of illia# Montano, ta/en b) SPO& Ma!io Su!atos on Septe#be! =(, &??: @3;hibit&1 p. =<8, Reco!dB, and the State#ent ta/en on Septe#be! =7, &??: @3;hibit 71 p. =?&,Reco!dB, both in Villaflo! 2ospital, Da$upan "it) 0he!e illia# Montano specificall) na#ed%e!na!d "ast!o as the pe!son 0ho fla$$ed do0n the #oto!ied t!ic)cle he and the othe!victi#s 0e!e !idin$. This, he clai#s, is inconsistent 0ith his testi#on) du!in$ the t!ial 0he!e hestated1*TT6. R*N"23H1J. No0, 0e!e )ou able to !each Sitio "abauan$an, Nalsia#, Manaoa$, Pan$asinanK*. No, si!.J. h)K*. hen 0e 0e!e ente!in$ the !oad at Sitio "abauan$an at a!ound ten to fifteen #ete!s,so#ebod) plu$$ed @sicB do0n the t!ic)cle, si!.

J *nd 0hat happened ne;t afte! so#ebod) plu$$ed @sicB do0n )ou! t!ic)cleK *ccused appellant li/e0ise see/s shelte! in the #)ste!ious 0ithd!a0al of the victi#s cha!$es

J. *nd 0hat happened ne;t afte! so#ebod) plu$$ed @sicB do0n )ou! t!ic)cleK*. So#ebod) standin$ 0as li$hted b) the headli$ht of ou! #oto!c)cle, si!.J. No0, 0hat happened ne;t, if an)K*. The one 0ho 0as standin$ and 0as li$hted 0ith the headli$ht 0as i##ediatel) !eco$niedb) #e, si!.J ho 0as that pe!son 0ho# )ou sa0 and )ou i##ediatel) !eco$niedK*. That one, si!.*"T4. INT3RPR3T3R1itness pointin$ to a pe!son 0ea!in$ 0hite t-shi!t seated at the bench fo! the accused, and

0hen as/ed his na#e, he $ave his na#e as Rolando Valde.@pp. &&-&=, tsn, Cune &&, &??'Be a!e not pe!suaded.In his State#ents dated Septe#be! =(, &??: @3;hibit &B and Septe#be! =7, &??: @3;hibit 7B,illia# Montano pointed to %e!na!d "ast!o as the pe!son 0ho fla$$ed do0n the #oto!iedt!ic)cle !idden b) the victi#s. On Nove#be! 8, &??:, illia# and his co-victi#Asu!vivo! Rand)Tibule e;ecuted a Pina$sa#an$ Sala)sa) sa Pa$-uu!on$ n$ De#anda 0he!e the) disclai#edhavin$ seen %e!na!d "ast!o at the scene of the c!i#e. The) decla!ed that afte! a #o!etho!ou$h conside!ation of 0hat t!anspi!ed, the) have !ealied that the filin$ of the co#plainta$ainst %e!na!d "ast!o 0as a #ista/e and the !esult of #isunde!standin$ o! #isapp!ehensionof 0hat actuall) happened. In his testi#on) in cou!t, illia#, ho0eve!, identified accused-appellant as the pe!son illu#inated b) the headli$ht of the t!ic)cle, fo! 0hich !eason illia#

!eadil) !eco$nied hi#. e, the!efo!e, find nothin$ inconsistent bet0een his decla!ationsdu!in$ the investi$ation and his testi#on) in cou!t. The lac/ of p!ecision 0ith 0hich hedistin$uished bet0een the pe!son 0ho fla$$ed do0n the t!ic)cle and the othe! pe!son 0ho he!eco$nied because of the headli$ht of the t!ic)cle cannot be conside!ed as inconsistenc) atall. The sa#e holds t!ue 0ith clai#ed disc!epancies bet0een the state#ents of Rand) Tibuledu!in$ the investi$ation and his testi#on) in cou!t.*ccused-appellant stubbo!nl) insists that follo0in$ the 0ithd!a0al o! !et!action of theaccusation of seve!al 0itnesses a$ainst %e!na!d "ast!o, these sa#e 0itnesses accusationa$ainst accused-appellant beco#es doubtful.e a!e not convinced.In all the !efe!ences b) accused-appellant in pa$es &(-&= of his b!ief to the s0o!n decla!ationsof p!osecution 0itnesses #ade du!in$ the investi$ation of the case, %e!na!d "ast!o #a) have

indeed been identified and na#ed as one of the $un#en. It #a) !eadil) be noted in these ve!)sa#e !efe!ences, ho0eve!, that all these p!osecution 0itnesses !efe!!ed to t0o othe!co#panions, then unidentified, of %e!na!d "ast!o. 3ven in the Coint *ffidavit @3;hibit >B!efe!!ed to in pa$e && of the b!ief, the police investi$ato!s cate$o!icall) !efe!!ed to %e!na!d"ast!o ) Naa!eno, alias Toti as one of the suspects o! assai lants involved in the shootin$incident @p. &&=, RolloB. The lo$ical conclusion that #a) be d!a0n the!ef!o# is that the!e is atleast one othe! assailant in addition to %e!na!d "ast!o, and as it developed, accused-appellant 0as subseuentl) and positivel) na#ed as such. ithal, 0e cannot subsc!ibe toaccused-appellants !atiocination that if the 0itnesses pointed to %e!na!d "ast!o as one of thepe!pet!ato!s of the c!i#e, then it follo0s that accused-appellant cannot be one othe! andadditional pe!pet!ato! an)#o!e. *ccused-appellants !easonin$ on this point is absolutel)fla0ed. It is totall) unacceptable.

*ccused-appellant li/e0ise see/s shelte! in the #)ste!ious 0ithd!a0al of the victi#s cha!$esa$ainst %e!na!d "ast!o. 2e insinuates that such !ecantation should not have been $iven an)conside!ation. %ut, this is 0ate! unde! the b!id$e. *n)0a), even in the !e#otest possibilit) thatthe !et!action of the accusation a$ainst %e!na!d "ast!o #a) be !eve!sed, it does not $etaccused-appellant off the hoo/. "onside!in$ that accused-appellant had hi#self beenpositivel) identified, to$ethe! 0ith %e!na!d "ast!o, as one of the othe! pe!pet!ato!s of thec!i#e, his conviction #a) still stand independentl) and !e$a!dless of 0hethe! o! not "ast!o isindicted o! !e#ains unp!osecuted.*ccused-appellant fu!the! a!$ues that it is not he but "ast!o 0ho had the #otive to shoot and

fi!e at the occupants of the #oto!ied t!ic)cle, #ista/in$ one of the occupants the!eof fo!Isid!o "apist!ano, "ast!os fo!#e! class#ate and 0ith 0ho# he ea!lie! had an alte!cation. It isve!) clea! in his b!ief, ho0eve!, that accused-appellant p!edicates this a!$u#ent on the#ista/en p!e#ise that he 0as not positivel) identified in the case at ba! althou$h he ad#itsthat it is established that he 0as at the scene of the c!i#e @p. &&7, RolloB. This a!$u#ent 0illnot hold si#pl) because it is settled that accused-appellant had been positivel) identified b)e)e0itnesses and victi#s illia# Montano and Rand) Tibule. It is basic and funda#ental !ulethat p!oof of #otive is necessa!) fo! conviction onl) 0hen the!e is doubt as to the identit) ofthe accused, not 0hen accused has been positivel) identified as in the p!esent case @Peoplevs. Caggaunan, ?7 Phil. &&8 &?:<G People vs. $ealon, ?? S"R* 7== &?8(G People vs.Pano, =:> S"R* =>7 &??'B. %esides, it is also to be noted that lac/ of #otive fo! co##ittin$the c!i#e does not p!eclude conviction, conside!in$ that, no0ada)s, it is a #atte! of 9udicial

/no0led$e that pe!sons have /illed o! co##itted se!ious offense fo! no !eason at all @ Peoplevs. Cabodoc, ='< S"R* &8> &??'B.*ccused-appellant fu!the! contends that the p!osecutions delibe!ate and intentional failu!e top!esent the investi$atin$ police office!s and thei! Coint *ffidavit @3;hibit >B constitutes culpablesupp!ession of evidence 0hich, if dul) ta/en into account, 0ill #e!it his acuittal.The a!$u#ent is pue!ile, si#pl) because the defense itself 0as able to p!esent the policeoffice!s, and e;hibit > @p. &&', RolloB. It is to be fu!the! noted that as ea!lie! pointed out, thedecla!ation of SPO& Su!atos and SPO& "a!bonel did not cate$o!icall) !ule out the possibilit)of convictin$ othe! pe!sons as co-p!incipals of "ast!o. On the cont!a!), it is clea! f!o# suchaffidavit that the!e 0as #o!e than 9ust one pe!pet!ato! of the c!i#e. It even confi!#s andco!!obo!ates the e)e0itness accounts of illia# Montano and Rand) Tibule pointin$ toaccused-appellant as one of the othe! co#panions of "ast!o.

*fte! #eticulousl) and ca!efull) $oin$ th!ou$h each and eve!) piece of evidence on !eco!d,the "ou!t finds no !eason to depa!t f!o# the t!ial cou!ts acco!d of c!edence to the e)e0itnessaccounts of illia# Montano and Rand) Tibule 0ho positivel) identified accused-appellant asone of the pe!sons 0ho shot and fi !ed at the# and thei! co#panions that fateful ni$ht. ea$!ee 0ith the t!ial cou!t that the evidence points be)ond !easonable doubt that accused-appellant 0as one of those p!incipall) !esponsible fo! the deaths of the fou! victi#s in thiscase and the 0oundin$ of t0o othe!s. The!e is also sufficient evidence that the a$$!avatin$ci!cu#stance of t!eache!) attended the /illin$s, thus, ualif)in$ the sa#e to #u!de!.5nde! pa!a$!aph &', *!ticle &7 of the Revised Penal "ode, the ualif)in$ ci!cu#stance oft!eache!) is p!esent 0hen the offende! e#plo)s #eans, #ethods, o! fo!#s in the e;ecution ofthe c!i#e 0hich tend di!ectl) and especiall) to ensu!e its e;ecution 0ithout !is/ to hi#selfa!isin$ f!o# an) defensive o! !etaliato!) act 0hich the victi# #i$ht #a/e @People vs. #antos,=>( S"R* ':( &??>B. The settled !ule is that t!eache!) can e;is t even if the attac/ i s f!ontal if

it is sudden and une;pected $ivin$ the victi# no oppo!tunit) to !epel it o! depend hi#self (obe 8& Phil :8 &?78G People vs *ierra ?' S"R* & &?8(G People vs orre&iel =:'

it is sudden and une;pected, $ivin$ the victi# no oppo!tunit) to !epel it o! depend hi#selfa$ainst such attac/. hat is decisive is that the e;ecution of the attac/, 0ithout sli$htestp!ovocation f!o# the victi# 0ho is una!#ed, #ade it i#possible fo! the victi# to defendhi#self o! to !etaliate @People vs. Javier, ='? S"R* &8& &??>B.The t!ial cou!t !uled that evident p!e#editation is li/e0ise p!esent. *fte! !evie0in$ theevidence, ho0eve!, 0e do not find an) sho0in$ of evident p!e#editation on the pa!t ofaccused-appellant. hile the!e #a) be testi#onial evidence pointin$ to an alte!cationbet0een %e!na!d "ast!o and a ce!tain "apist!ano, it does sufficientl) p!ove the attendance ofthe a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stance of evident p!e#editation. It is not enou$h that evident

p!e#editation is suspected o! su!#ised, but c!i#inal intent #ust be evidenced b) noto!iousout0a!d acts evidencin$ dete!#ination to co##it the c!i#e. In o!de! to be conside!ed ana$$!avation of the offense, the ci!cu#stance #ust not #e!el) be p!e#editationG it #ust beevident p!e#editation @People vs. oreHas, 7< S"R* &:8 &?>=B.To establish the e;istence of evident p!e#editation, the follo0in$ have to be p!ove1 @&B theti#e 0hen the offende! dete!#ined to co##it the c!i#eG @=B an act #anifestl) indicatin$ thatthe offende! had clun$ to his dete!#inationG and @8 &??'B.3stablishin$ a basis o! #otive fo! the co##ission of the c!i#e does not constitute sufficient$!ound to conside! the e;istence of evident p!e#editation. *t best, it #a) indicate the ti#e

0hen the offende!s dete!#ined to co##it the c!i#e @the fi!st ele#entB. Thei! act of a!#in$

the#selves 0ith calibe! .<( ca!bines and the!eafte! 0aitin$ fo! thei! supposed victi#s ata#bush positions #a) have also indicated that the) clun$ to thei! dete!#ination to co##it thec!i#e @the second ele#entB. Mo!e i#po!tant that these t0o ele#ents is the p!oof that asufficient pe!iod of ti#e had lapsed bet0een the out0a!d act evidencin$ intent and actualco##ission of the offense @the thi!d ele#entB. The!e #ust have been enou$h oppo!tunit) fo!the initial i#pulse to subside. This ele#ent is indispensable fo! ci!cu#stance of evidentp!e#editation to a$$!avate the c!i#e. In People vs. Canial, 7' S"R* &<7 &?>=, this "ou!t!eite!ates1In othe! 0o!ds, this ci!cu#stance can be ta/en into account onl) 0hen the!e had been a coldand deep #editation, and a tenacious pe!sistence in the acco#plish#ent of the c!i#inal act.The!e #ust be an oppo!tunit) to cooll) and se!enel) thin/ and delibe!ate on the #eanin$ andthe conseuences of 0hat the) had planned to do, an inte!val lon$ enou$h fo! the conscience

and bette! 9ud$#ent to ove!co#e the evil desi!e and sche#e.@p. '7?B*s ea!l) as in People vs. Durante, :< Phil. <'< &?=?, the "ou!t had st!essed the i#po!tanceof sufficient ti#e bet0een the c!i#inal act and the !esolution to ca!!) out the c!i#inal intent,affo!din$ such oppo!tunit) fo! cool thou$ht and !eflection to a!!ive at a cal# 9ud$#ent.Obviousl), this ele#ent is 0antin$ in the case at ba!. Ri$ht afte! the supposed heateda!$u#ent bet0een %e!na!d "ast!o and "apist!ano, "ast!o and co#pan) 0ent ho#e to $etthe fi!ea!#s and not lon$ the!eafte! #ounted the assault. The!e 0as no chance fo! the an$e!to subside. The culp!its in the case at ba! had no oppo!tunit) fo! cool thou$ht and !eflection toa!!ive at a cal# 9ud$#ent.The othe! a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stance conside!ed b) the t!ial cou!t is that of abuse of supe!io!st!en$th. This cont!avenes the ve!) basic and ele#enta!) doct!ine in ou! 9u!isdiction that thea$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stance of abuse of supe!io! st!en$th is abso!bed in t!eache!) @ People vs.

(obe, 8& Phil. :8 &?78G People vs. *ierra, ?' S"R* & &?8(G People vs. orre&iel, =:'S"R* <'? &??'B.Not0ithstandin$ the absence of an) a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stances, if 0e 0e!e to uphold the t!ialcou!ts p!e#ises on the co#ple; natu!e of the c!i#e co##itted, the death sentence, bein$ the#a;i#u# penalt) fo! #u!de!, 0ould still have been the i#posable penalt) unde! *!ticle 78 ofthe Revised Penal "ode. The "ou!t ho0eve!, finds co#pellin$ !easons to !educe thesentence f!o# one death penalt) @fo! the co#ple; c!i#e of #ultiple #u!de! 0ith doublef!ust!ated #u!de!B and one reclusion perpetua @fo! the co#ple; c!i#e of ille$al possession offi!ea!#s and a##unitionsB to fou! counts of reclusion perpetua @fo! 7 #u!de!sB and t0o

indete!#inate sentences of prision ma3or to reclusion temporal @fo! the = f!ust!ated #u!de!sB.The !eco##endation of the Solicito! 4ene!al in the Peoples b!ief that accused-appellantshould instead be convicted o f fou! counts of #u!de! and t0o counts of f!ust!ated #u!de! is

0ell ta/en.The t!ial cou!t e!!ed 0hen it allo0ed itself to be ca!!ied a0a) b) the e!!oneous Info!#ationfiled b) the Office of the P!ovincial P!osecuto! of Pan$asinan cha!$in$ the co#ple; c!i#e of#ultiple #u!de! and double f!ust!ated #u!de! @p. &, Reco!d1 "!i#. "ase No. 5-8>7>B. It #a)be noted that in his Resolution dated Septe#be! =', &??:, the investi$atin$ #unicipal t!ialcou!t 9ud$e of Manaoa$, Pan$asinan, found a prima &acie case fo! fou! sepa!ate counts of#u!de! @pp. &(&- &(=, Ibid.B Too, the sa#e investi$atin$ 9ud$e in his Resolution dated Octobe!<&, &??: found a prima &acie case fo! t0o counts of f!ust!ated #u!de! @pp. 7<-77, Ibid.B. It 0asupon !einvesti$ation b) the Office of the P!ovincial P!osecuto! of Pan$asinan that a case fo!

the co#ple; c!i#e of #u!de! 0ith double f!ust!ated #u!de! 0as instead filed pe! its CointResolution dated Nove#be! &>, &??: @pp. 7-', Ibid.B.The concept of a co#ple; c!i#e is defined in *!ticle 78 of the Revised Penal "ode, to 0it1*RT. 78. Penalt3 &or compleE crimes hen a sin$le act constitutes t0o o! #o!e $!ave o! less$!ave felonies o! 0hen an offense is a necessa!) #eans fo! co##ittin$ the othe!, the penalt)fo! the #ost se!ious c!i#e shall be i#posed, the sa#e to be applied in its #a;i#u# pe!iod.@*s a#ended b) *ct No. 7(((.BThe case at ba! does not fall unde! an) of the t0o instances defined above. The Office of theP!ovincial P!osecuto! of Pan$asinan e!!oneousl) conside!ed the case as fallin$ unde! thefi!st. It is clea! f!o# the evidence on !eco!d, ho0eve!, that the fou! c!i#es of #u!de! !esultednot f!o# a sin$le act but f!o# seve!al individual and distinct acts. Fo! one thin$, the evidenceindicates that the!e 0as #o!e than one $un#an involved, and the act of each $un#an is

distinct f!o# that of the othe!. It cannot be said the!efo!e, that the!e is but a sin$le act of fi!in$a sin$le fi!ea!#. The!e 0e!e also seve!al e#pt) bullet shells !ecove!ed f!o# the scene of thec!i#e. This confi!#s the fact that seve!al shots 0e!e fi!ed. Fu!the!#o!e, conside!in$ the!elative positions of the $un#en and thei! victi#s, so#e of 0ho# 0e!e !idin$ the #oto!iedt!ic)cle itself 0hile the othe!s 0e!e seated inside the sideca! the!eof, it 0as absolutel)i#possible fo! the fou! victi#s to have been hit and /illed b) a sin$le bullet. 3ach act b) each$un#an pullin$ the t!i$$e! of thei! !espective fi!ea!#s, ai#in$ each pa!ticula! #o#ent atdiffe!ent pe!sons constitute distinct and individual acts 0hich cannot $ive !ise to the co#ple;c!i#e of #ultiple #u!de!. e the!efo!e !ule that accused-appellant is $uilt ), not of a co#ple;c!i#e of #ultiple #u!de!, but of fou! counts of #u!de! fo! the death of the fou! victi#s in thiscase. In the sa#e #anne!, accused-appellant is li/e0ise held $uilt) fo! t0o counts off!ust!ated #u!de!.

*!ticle =78 of the Revised Penal "ode as a#ended p!ovides the penalt) of reclusion as #a;i#u# The appealed 9ud$#ent !elatin$ to the civil liabilities of accused appellant

*!ticle =78 of the Revised Penal "ode, as a#ended, p!ovides the penalt) of reclusion perpetua to death fo! the c!i#e of #u!de!. ithout an) #iti$atin$ o! a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stanceattendant in the co##ission of the c!i#e, the #ediu# penalt) is the lo0e! indivisible penalt)o! reclusion perpetua. In the case at ba!, accused-appellant, bein$ $uilt) of fou! sepa!atecounts of #u!de!, the p!ope! penalt) should be fou! sentences of !eclusion pe!petua. Inaddition, he bein$ $uilt) of t0o counts of f!ust!ated #u!de!, accused-appellant #ust be #etedout an indete!#inate sentence !an$in$ f!o# a #ini#u# of ' )ea!s and & da) of prision ma3orto a #a;i#u# of &= )ea!s and & da) of reclusion temporal fo! each offense.No0, to the #atte! of accused-appellants conviction fo! ille$al possession of unlicensed

fi!ea!# unde! P!esidential Dec!ee No. &8''. It 0as !ecentl) held in the case entitled Peoplevs. (olina @4.R.No. &&:8<:-<', Cul) ==, &??8B, and !eite!ated in People vs. eloteo @4.R. No.&=7=&=, Septe#be! &>, &??8B, that the!e can be no sepa!ate conviction of the c!i#e of ille$alpossession of fi!ea!#s unde! P!esidential Dec!ee No. &8'' in vie0 of the a#end#entsint!oduced b) Republic *ct No. 8=?7.Instead, ille$al possession of fi!ea!#s is #e!el) to be ta/en as an a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stancepe! Section & of Republic *ct No. 8=?7, 0hich in pa!t, p!ovides1If ho#icide o! #u!de! is co##itted 0ith the use of unlicensed fi!ea!#, such use of anunlicensed fi!ea!# shall be conside!ed as an a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stance.Republic *ct No. 8=?7 too/ effect on Cul) ', &??>, fifteen da)s afte! its publication on Cune =&,&??>. The c!i#es involved in the case at ba! 0e!e co##itted on Septe#be! &>, &??:. *s inthe case of an) penal la0, the p!ovisions of Republic *ct No. 8=?7 0ill $ene!all) have

p!ospective application. In cases, ho0eve!, 0he!e the ne0 la0 0ill be advanta$eous to theaccused, the la0 #a) be $iven !et!oactive application @*!ticle ==, Revised Penal "odeB.Insofa! as it 0ill spa!e accused-appellant in the case at ba! f!o# a sepa!ate conviction fo! thec!i#e of ille$al possession of fi!ea!#s, Republic *ct No. 8=?7 #a) be $iven !et!oactiveapplication in "!i#inal "ase No. 5-8>7? @fo! Ille$al Possession of Fi!ea!#B sub9ect of thisp!esent !evie0.*s a 0o!d of caution, ho0eve!, the dis#issal of the p!esent case fo! ille$al possession offi!ea!# should not be #isinte!p!eted as #eanin$ that the!e can no lon$e! be an) p!osecutionfo! the c!i#e of ille$al possession of fi!ea!#. In $ene!al, all pendin$ cases involvin$ ille$alpossession of fi!ea!# should continue to be p!osecuted and t!ied if no othe! c!i#es e;p!essl)indicated in Republic *ct No. 8=?7 a!e involved @#u!de! o! ho#icide unde! Section &, and!ebellion, insu!!ection, sedition o! atte#pted coup detat unde! Section <B.

2o0eve!, the use of an unlicensed fi!ea!# in the case at ba! cannot be conside!ed as aspecial a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stance in "!i#inal "ase No. 5-8>7> @fo! "o#ple; "!i#e of MultipleMu!de!B, also unde! !evie0 he!ein, because it 0ill undul) !aise the penalt) fo! the fou! countsof #u!de! f!o# fou! reclusion perpetua to that of fou!-fold death. Insofa! as this pa!ticula!p!ovision of Republic *ct No. 8=?7 is not beneficial to accused-appellant because it undul)a$$!avates the c!i#e, this ne0 la0 0ill not be $iven !et!oactive application, lest it #i$htacui!e the cha!acte! of an eE"post &acto la0.HEREFORE, p!e#ises conside!ed, the decision 0ith !espect to "!i#inal "ase No. 5-8>7>is he!eb) MODIFI3D. *ccused-appellant is found $uilt) be)ond !easonable doubt of fou!counts of #u!de! and he!eb) sentenced to suffe! the penalt) of fou! sentences of reclusion perpetua. 2e is also found $uilt) be)ond !easonable doubt of t0o counts of f!ust!ated #u!de!and he!eb) #eted t0o indete!#inate sentences, each, !an$in$ f!o# si; @'B )ea!s and one @&Bda) of prision ma3or , as #ini#u#, to t0elve @&=B )ea!s and one @&B da) of reclusion temporal ,

as #a;i#u#. The appealed 9ud$#ent !elatin$ to the civil liabilities of accused-appellantto0a!ds the si; victi#s is *FFIRM3D."!i#inal "ase No. 5-8>7? involvin$ P!esidential Dec!ee No. &8'' is he!eb) dis#issed.No special p!onounce#ent is #ade as to costs.

SO OR!ERE!.

Davide, Jr., C.J., $omero, ellosillo, Puno, Vitug, apunan, 8uisumbing, Purisima, Pardo,uena, and /on0aga"$e3es, JJ., concu!.

(endo0a and Panganiban, JJ., in the !esult.

*s p!a)ed fo! the cou!t o!de!s the a!!est of the defendant F!ed M 2a!den as 0ell as his

Manila3N %*N"

G.R. No. L'239 O*to&- 22, 19)

FRE! M. HAR!EN, petitione!,vs.THE !IRECTOR OF PRISONS, !espondent.Vicente J. rancisco &or petitioner.irst 2ssistant #olicitor /eneral $oberto 2. /ian0on and#olicitor eliE V. (aFasiar &or respondent.Claro (. $ecto &or the intervenor. TUASON, J.:

The petitione!, F!ed M. 2a!den, is bein$ confined in p!ison fo! conte#pt of cou!t b) vi!tue ofan o!de! of the follo0in$ teno!1It appea!in$ that the defendant F!ed M. 2a!den has not up to this date co#plied 0ith theo!de!s of this cou!t of Octobe! >, &?7> and Ma!ch =>, &?78G

*s p!a)ed fo!, the cou!t o!de!s the a!!est of the defendant F!ed M. 2a!den as 0ell as hisconfine#ent at the Ne0 %ilibid P!isons, Muntinlupa, Rial, until he co#plies 0ith theafo!e#entioned o!de!s.The p!oceedin$s fo! conte#pt a!ose in a c ivil case bet0een M!s. 2a!den as plaintiff and thepetitione! and anothe! pe!son as defendants, co##enced on Cul) &=, &?7&, and involvin$ thead#inist!ation of a con9u$al pa!tne!ship, pa)#ent of ali#on), and accountin$. In that case, a!eceive! 0as appointed and a p!eli#ina!) in9unction 0as issued !est!ainin$ F!ed M. 2a!denand his codefendant, Cose Salu#bides, f!o# t!ansfe!!in$ o! alienatin$, e;cept fo! a valuableconside!ation and 0ith the consent of the cou!t fi!st had and obtained, #one)s, sha!es of

stoc/, and othe! p!ope!ties and assets, !eal o! pe!sonal, belon$in$ to the afo!esaidpa!tne!ship, and 0hich #i$ht be found in the na#es of said defendants o! eithe! of the#.On va!ious dates in &?7', F!ed M. 2a!den t!ansfe!!ed to the 2on$/on$ Shan$hai %an/in$"o!po!ation and the "ha!te!ed %an/ of India, *ust!alia "hina, both in 2on$/on$, ove!P&,(((,((( in d!afts o! cashG to Vi!$inia Rec!eation "ente!, +on$ %each, "alifo!nia,P=(,&?'.8(, and to an un/no0n pe!son, P:(,(((.On Septe#be! ?, &?7>, M!s. 2a!den #oved the cou!t to o!de! 2a!den to !etu!n all thesea#ounts and to !edeposit the# 0ith the Manila b!anch of the "ha!te!ed %an/ of India,*ust!alia "hina. On Octobe! >, &?7>, Cud$e Pea $!anted the #otion in an o!de! 0o!ded asfollo0s1he!efo!e, findin$ the #otion of the plaintiff of Septe#be! ?, &?7>, to be 0ell founded, fo! thepu!pose of p!ese!vin$ the status Guo and in o!de! that the a#ounts above !efe!!ed to #a)

stand !ead) to ans0e! fo! an) le$iti#ate clai#s of the 4ove!n#ent in the fo!# of ta;es, theafo!e#entioned #otion is he!eb) o!de!ed to !etu!n, 0ithin a pe!iod of &: da)s f!o# the !eceiptof a cop) he!eof, the a#ount of P&,(((,'(8.'' to the Philippines and to !edeposit the sa#e

0ith the accounts of the Plaa +unch at the Manila %!anch of the "ha!te!ed %an/ of India,*ust!alia and "hina, 0ith the unde!standin$ that upon failu!e to co#pl) 0ith this o!de! he 0illbe decla!ed in conte#pt of cou!t.*fte! a petition fo! certiorari 0as instituted b) 2a!den in the Sup!e#e "ou!t and decided, andafte! va!ious #otions 0e!e filed and hea!d, Cud$e Pea, on Ma!ch =>, &?78, ente!ed an o!de!,

0hich 0as a #odification of that of Octobe! >, &?7>, di!ectin$ 2a!den to deposit 0ith theManila %!anch of the "ha!te!ed %an/ of India, *ust!alia "hina 0ithin five da)s f!o# !eceiptof a cop) of this o!de! the #one) and d!afts that he has actuall) in 2on$/on$, 0ithoutp!e9udice to passin$ upon late! on the diffe!ent a#ounts that the defendant has spentacco!din$ to his atto!ne), afte! he has sub#itted to the cou!t an ite#ied account of thosee;penses.In the sa#e o!de! the!e 0as this dec!ee1ith !espect to the plaintiffs #otion filed on Ma!ch &', &?78 p!a)in$ that F!ed M. 2a!den beo!de!ed to delive! the ce!tificate cove!in$ the <'8,::< %alatoc Minin$ "o#pan) sha!es eithe!to the "le!/ of this "ou!t o! to the !eceive! in this case fo! safe/eepin$ afte! his co#pliance

0ith the o!de! of Canua!) &>, &?78, the "ou!t, afte! conside!in$ the diffe!ent pleadin$s filed,denies defendants #otion fo! e;tension of ti#e to !e$iste! the said ce!tificate of stoc/, the!eb)#aintainin$ its o!de! of Canua!) &>, &?78. The said defendant is fu!the! o!de!ed, afte! the!e$ist!ation of the said ce!tificate, to deposit the sa#e 0ith the Manila %!anch of the "ha!te!ed%an/ of India, *ust!alia and "hina.The last pa!t of the o!de! 0as the cul#ination of anothe! se!ies of #otions 0ith thei!co!!espondin$ hea!in$s. The facts ta/en f!o# the pleadin$ 0e!e in b!ief as follo0s1

In a #otion dated Ma) =8 &?7> the !eceive! appointed in the #ain case p!a)ed that the !each appellant 0ho sou$ht to p!event its !eceive! f!o# $ettin$ possession of the $oods It

In a #otion dated Ma) =8, &?7>, the !eceive! appointed in the #ain case p!a)ed that thece!tificates of stoc/ of the con9u$al pa!tne!ship, a#on$ the# <'8,::< sha!es of the %alatocMinin$ "o., alle$ed to be in the possession of defendant 2a!den, be o!de!ed tu!ned ove! tohi# @!eceive!B so that he #i$ht have the# !e$iste!ed in pu!suance of the p!ovisions ofRepublic *ct No. '=. On Cune >, &?7>, the cou!t autho!ied 2a!den to !e$iste! not late! thanCune <(, &?7> the stoc/ ce!tificates in his possession, notif)in$ the cou!t afte!0a!ds of suchaction.On Cul) =8, &?7>, M!s. 2a!den co#plained that he! husband failed to co#pl) 0ith the aboveo!de! and p!a)ed that he be o!de!ed to sho0 cause 0h) he should not be decla!ed in

conte#pt. On *u$ust &, &?7>, 2a!den filed a pe!functo!) co#pliance, and in o!de! dated*u$ust =, &?7>, he 0as !eui!ed to #a/e a detailed !epo!t of the stoc/ ce!tificates 0hichhave been dul) !e$iste!ed in acco!dance 0ith Republic *ct No. '=. In his co#pliance dated*u$ust >, &?7>, 2a!den stated that he had been $!anted an e;tension until Dece#be! <&,&?7>, 0ithin 0hich to !e$iste! the %alatoc Minin$ "o. sha!es unde! Republic *ct No. '=.In a #otion dated Canua!) >, &?78, the !eceive! info!#ed the cou!t that, not0ithstandin$ thee;pi!ation on Dece#be! <&, &?7>, of 2a!dens e;tended ti#e to co#pl) 0ith Republic *ct No.'=, the !eco!ds of the %alatoc Minin$ "o. sho0ed that the ce!tificate had not been !e$iste!edas of Canua!) >, &?78G and upon his !euest, an o!de! dated Canua!) &>, &?78, 0as issued$ivin$ 2a!den an e;tension until Ma!ch <&, &?78 0ithin 0hich to co#pl) 0ith the O!de! datedCune >, &?7>.In a #otion dated Ma!ch &:, &?78, M!s. 2a!den p!a)ed fo! the !easons the!ein stated, that

defendant 2a!den be o!de!ed to delive! the ce!tificates cove!in$ the <'8,::< %alatoc Minin$"o. sha!es eithe! to the "le!/ of this "ou!t o! to the Receive! he!ein fo! safe/eepin$,i##ediatel) afte! !e$iste!in$ the# pu!suant to Republic *ct No. '=. On Ma!ch =7, &?78,2a!den filed a #otion statin$ that the !e$ist!ation of sha!es of stoc/ unde! Republic *ct No. '=had been e;tended until Cune <(, &?78, and p!a)ed that he be allo0ed to !e$iste! the stoc/ce!tificates in uestion 0ithin such pe!iod as b) la0 o! !e$ulations is o! #a) be p!ovided.It 0as at this sta$e of the case that the p!esent petitione! 0as co##itted to 9ail.%!oadl) spea/in$, the $!ounds fo! !elief b) habeas co!pus a!e onl) @&B dep!ivation of an)funda#ental o! constitutional !i$hts, @=B lac/ of 9u!isdiction of the cou!t to i#pose the sentence,o! @, 77 Off.4a., &=<&.BThe fact that the p!ope!t) is in a fo!ei$n count!) is said to dep!ive the cou!t of 9u!isdiction, the!e#ed) in such case bein$, it is contended, ancilla!) !eceive!ship. e can not a$!ee 0ith thisvie0.hile a cou!t can not $ive its !eceive! autho!it) to act in anothe! state 0ithout the assistanceof the cou!ts the!eof @:< ". C., <?(-<?&B, )et it #a) act di!ectl) upon the pa!ties befo!e it 0ith!espect to p!ope!t) be)ond the te!!ito!ial li#its of its 9u!isdiction, and hold the# in conte#pt ifthe) !esist the cou!ts o!de!s 0ith !efe!ence to its custod) o! disposition @%d . &&8Bhethe! the p!ope!t) 0as !e#oved befo!e o! afte! the appoint#ent of the !eceive! is li/e0isei##ate!ial.In #ercomb vs. Catlin, =& N. 3., '('-'(8, the Sup!e#e "ou!t of Il linois said1It is t!ue that the p!ope!t) attached is be)ond the 9u!isdiction of the cou!ts of this state, but theappellant, 0ho caused it to be attached, is in this state, and 0ithin the 9u!isdiction of its cou!ts.If the supe!io! cou!t had no po0e! to !each the $oods in Ne0tons hands, it had the po0e! to

!each appellant, 0ho sou$ht to p!event its !eceive! f!o# $ettin$ possession of the $oods. It#a/es no diffe!ence that the p!ope!t) 0as in a fo!ei$n 9u!isdiction.The facts of that case as stated in the decision 0e!e as follo0s1On *p!il &7, &88>, in the case of *da S. 2avens et al. vs. "aleb "lapp et al. then pendin$ insaid supe!io! cou!t, the appellee 0as appointed !eceive! of all the p!ope!t) and effects, !ealand pe!sonal, of the defendants the!ein, "aleb "lapp and Tho#as Davies. P!io! to that date"lapp and Davies had fo!0a!ded, on consi$n#ent, to 3li9ah 3. Ne0ton, an auctionee! andco##ission #e!chant in ashin$ton cit), in the Dist!ict of "olu#bia, a lot of 9e0el!), 0atchesand silve!0a!e, to be b) hi# disposed of fo! thei! benefit. So fa! as appea!s to the cont!a!),

the $oods so consi$ned 0e!e stil l in the possession of Ne0ton at ashin$ton 0hen the o!de! 0as ente!ed on *p!il >, &88>, fo! the co##it#ent of appellant fo! conte#pt. ithin a 0ee/ o!&( da)s afte! his appoint#ent as !eceive!, appellee $ave notice of such appoint#ent toNe0ton, and de#anded a !etu!n of the $oods. On Ma) &8, &88>, the Me!iden %!itannia"o#pan), a co!po!ation o!$anied unde! the la0s of the state of "onnecticut, bein$ a c!edito!of "lapp and Davies, co##enced an attach#ent suit a$ainst the# fo! the a#ount of its clai#in the Sup!e#e "ou!t of the Dist!ict of "olu#bia, and attached the $oods in the hands ofNe0ton.The penalt) co#plained of is neithe! c!uel, un9ust no! e;cessive. In 'E"parte e##le!, &<' 5.S., 7<', the 5nited States Sup!e#e "ou!t said that punish#ents a!e c!uel 0hen the) involveto!tu!e o! a lin$e!in$ death, but the punish#ent of death is not c!uel, 0ithin the #eanin$ ofthat 0o!d as used in the constitution. It i#plies the!e so#ethin$ inhu#an and ba!ba!ous,

so#ethin$ #o!e than the #e!e e;tin$uish#ent of life.The punish#ent #eted out to the petitione! is not e;cessive. It is suitable and adapted to itsob9ectiveG and it acco!ds 0ith section >, Rule '7, of the Rules of "ou!t 0hich p!ovides that0hen the conte#pt consists in the o#ission to do an act 0hich is )et in the po0e! of theaccused to pe!fo!#, he #a) be i#p!isoned b) o!de! of a supe!io! cou!t until he pe!fo!#s it.If the te!# of i#p!ison#ent in this case is indefinite and #i$ht last th!ou$h the natu!al life ofthe petitione!, )et b) the te!#s of the sentence the 0a) is left open fo! hi# to avoid se!vin$an) pa!t of it b) co#pl)in$ 0ith the o!de!s of the cou!t, and in this #anne! put an end to hisinca!ce!ation. In these ci!cu#stances, the 9ud$#ent can not be said to be e;cessive o! un9ust.@Davis vs. Mu!ph) &?7> &88 P., =nd, ==?-=<&.B *s stated in a #o!e !ecent case @De ees&?78, =&( S.., =d, &7:-&7>B, to o!de! that one be i#p!isoned fo! an indefinite pe!iod in civilconte#pt is pu!el) a !e#edial #easu!e. It s pu!pose is to coe!ce the contende! to do an act

0ithin his o! he! po0e! to pe!fo!#. 2e #ust have the #eans b) 0hich he #a) pu!$e hi#self ofthe conte#pt. The latte! decision cites Stanle) vs. South Ce!se) Realt) "o., 8< N.C. 3. <((,?( *., &(7=, &(7<, in 0hich the theo!) is e;p!essed in this lan$ua$e1In a civil conte#pt the p!oceedin$ is !e#edial, it is a step in the case the ob9ect of 0hich is tocoe!ce one pa!t) fo! the benefit of the othe! pa!t) to do o! to !ef!ain f!o# doin$ so#e actspecified in the o!de! of the cou!t. 2ence, if i#p!ison#ent be o!de!ed, it is !e#edial in pu!poseand coe!cive in cha!acte!, and to that end #ust !elate to so#ethin$ to be done b) thedefendant b) the doin$ of 0hich he #an) discha!$e hi#self. *s uaintl) e;p!essed, thei#p!isoned #an ca!!ies the /e)s to his p!ison in his o0n poc/et.The failu!e of the o!de! of co##it#ent to s tate that the acts 0hich the conte#ne! fails to doa!e still in his po0e! to pe!fo!#, does not void the o!de! of i#p!ison#ent. Section > of Rule '7does not !eui!e such findin$ to appea! in the o!de!, unli/e section &=&? of the "ode of "ivilP!ocedu!e of "alifo!nia on 0hich the petitione!s contention is !ested. Petitione! is in e!!o! in

sa)in$ that section =<> of the fo!#e! Philippine "ode of "ivil P!ocedu!e f!o# 0hich section > *s p!a)ed fo! the cou!t o!de!s the a!!est of the defendant F!ed M 2a!den as 0ell as his

sa)in$ that section =<> of the fo!#e! Philippine "ode of "ivil P!ocedu!e, f!o# 0hich section >of Rule '7, supra, has been copied, 0as of "alifo!nia o!i$in. Fo!#e! Custice Fishe! is autho!it)fo! the state#ent that section =<> of *ct No. &?( 0as bo!!o0ed f!o# section &7:' of the Ohio"ode of "ivil P!ocedu!e. @Fishe!s "ode of "ivil P!ocedu!e, <!d ed., p. &<'.B The e;actsi#ila!it) in substance thou$h not in lan$ua$e bet0een the t0o p!ovisions is a confi!#ation ofthis state#ent.*t an) !ate, the o!de! of co##it#ent contains the alle$ed #issin$ ele#ent if it is ta/en, as itshould be ta/en, in connection 0ith the o!de!s of Octobe! >, &?7>, and Ma!ch =>, &?78, and

0ith the cha!$es fo! conte#pt. It e;p!essl) $ives non-co#pliance 0ith the t0o last #entioned

o!de!s as the $!ounds fo! the 0a!!ant of co##it#ent, and thus b) !efe!ence #a/es the# pa!tof it. The o!de!s of Octobe! >, &?7>, and Ma!ch =>, &?78, in tu!n clea!l) specif) the acts 0iththe petitione! 0as co##anded to fulfill. It is euall) clea! f!o# these o!de!s that in the opinionof the cou!t the petitione! is in a position to b!in$ bac/ to the Philippines f!o# 2on$/on$ pa!tof the cash and the %alatoc sha!es he had !e#itted to that colon).hethe! o! not in t!uth the cou!ts findin$s a!e suppo!ted b) sufficient evidence is a diffe!ent#atte!G it is a #atte! of fact 0hich can not be !evie0ed b) habeas co!pus.In a lon$ line of decisions, this "ou!t has steadfastl) held that habeas co!pus does not lie toco!!ect e!!o!s of fact o! la0. @Slade Pe!/ins vs. Di!ecto! of P!isons, :8 Phil., =>&G Juintos vs.Di!ecto! of P!isons, :: Phil., <(7G To!onto Felipe vs. Di!ecto! of P!isons, =7 Phil., &=&G4utie!!e Repide vs. Pete!son, < Phil., =>'G Santia$o vs. Di!ecto! of P!isons, +-&(8<, & 77 Off.4a., &=<&G McMic/in$ vs. Schields, =<8 5.S. ??. 7& Phil., ?>&G Tinsle) vs. *nde!son, 7< +a0.

ed., ?&.B hen a cou!t has 9u!isdiction of the offense cha!$ed and of the pa !t) 0ho is socha!$ed, its 9ud$#ent, o!de! o! dec!ee is not sub9ect to collate!al attac/ b) habeas co!pus. the 0!it of habeas co!pus can not be #ade to pe!fo!# the function of a 0!it of e!!o!G and this holdst!ue even if the 9ud$#ent, o!de!s o! dec!ee 0as e!!oneous, p!ovided it is 0ithin the 9u!isdictionof the cou!t 0hich !ende!ed such 9ud$#ent o! issued such an o!de! o! dec!ee. @Slade Pe!/insvs. Di!ecto! of P!isons, supraG Santia$o vs. Di!ecto! of P!isons, supra.B So 0hethe! the actcha!$ed has been co##itted o! can still be pe!fo!#ed is conclusivel) dete!#ined b) the o!de!o! 9ud$#ent of the t!ial cou!t in the p!oceedin$ 0he!ein the petitione! fo! habeas corpus isad9ud$ed in conte#pt. @'E"parte Fishe!, =(' S.. =d. &(((.B.The petition is denied 0ith costs.Mo!an, ".C., Oaeta, Pa!as, Fe!ia, Pablo, %en$on, % !iones and Monte#a)o!, CC., concu!.

S&:#-#t& O:$o$s PERFECTO, J., dissentin$1Since Ma) 7, &?78, F!ed M. 2a!den has been placed unde! a!!est and confined at the %ilibidP!isons, Muntin$lupa, unde! the cha!$e of the Di!ecto! of P!isons.Respondents autho!it) fo! confinin$ petitione! is based on the o!de! of Cud$e 3#ilio Pena, ofthe "ou!t of Fi!st Instance of Manila, issued on *p!il =8, &?78, 0hich !eads as follo0s1It appea!in$ that the defendant F!ed M. 2a!den of the defendant to this date co#plied 0ith theo!de!s of this cou!t of Octobe! >, &?7>, and Ma!ch =>, &?78G

*s p!a)ed fo!, the cou!t o!de!s the a!!est of the defendant F!ed M. 2a!den as 0ell as hisconfine#ent at the Ne0 %ilibid P!isons, Muntinlupa, Rial, until he co#plies 0ith theafo!e#entioned o!de!s.The o!de! of Octobe! >, &?7>, !eui!es 2a!den to !etu!n f!o# ab!oad 0ithin a pe!iod of &:da)s, the a#ount of P&,(((,'(8.'' to the Phi lippines and to !edeposit the sa#e 0ith theaccounts of the Plaa +unch of the Manila b!anch of the "ha!te!ed %an/ of India, *ust!aliaand "hina.The o!de! of Ma!ch =>, &?78, !eui!es 2a!den to deposit 0ith the sa#e ban/ the #one) andd!afts that he has actuall) in 2on$/on$ and the ce!tificate cove!in$ <'8,::< %alatoc Minin$

"o#pan) sha!es, afte! !e$iste!in$ the#, as !eui!ed in the o!de! of Canua!) &8, &?78.The t!ial cou!t o!de!ed petitione!s confine#ent of an indefinite pe!iod of ti#e 0hich #eansthat it #a) last until his death, in vi!tue of the p!ovisions of section > of Rule '7 0hich !eads asfollo0s1S3". >. %mprisonment until ordered obe3ed . E hen the conte#pt consists in the o#ission todo an act 0hich is )et in the po0e! of the accused to pe!fo!#, he #a) be i#p!isoned b) o!de!of a supe!io! cou!t until he pe!fo!#s it.The !e$le#enta!) p!ovision is null and void pe! se and, the!efo!e, should be deniedco#pliance. Pe!haps, the!e is no othe! p!ovision in ou! statute boo/s #o!e !evoltin$ toconscience, #o!e shoc/in$ to the #ost ele#ental sense of 9ustice, and #ost un!easonabl)D!aconian.The p!ovision is cha!acte!ied b) such an e;t!e#e of a!bit!a!iness that is co#p!ehensible onl)

unde! a dictato!ial s)ste# of $ove!n#ent.Petitione! has been and is clai#in$ that he has no #eans of co#pl)in$ 0ith the o!de!s fo!non-co#pliance of 0hich he is co##itted to i#p!ison#ent fo! an indefinite pe!iod of ti#e. Thet!ial cou!t does not believe hi#, and 0e p!esu#e that said cou!t 0as 9ustified b) evidence.%ut ou! p!esu#ption cannot ta/e the place of absolute infallibilit). hen the!e a!e conflictin$clai#s as to facts, cou!ts decide the issue so#eti#es on a #e!e p!eponde!ance of evidenceand so#eti#es, as in c!i#inal cases, on evidence ca!!)in$ conviction be)ond all !easonabledoubt.* decision based on a p!eponde!ance of evidence does not ca!!) absolute ce!taint). *decision based on a conclusion of fact be)ond all !easonable doubt is st!on$e!, )et no one istoo c!a) to believe that it ca!!ies absolute ce!tainl) o! the #a!/ of infallibilit). Cudicial histo!) isfull of blood) pa$es about #an) individuals 0ho have been bu!ned, decapitated b) $uillotine,han$ed o! shot, /illed b) $a!!ote o! elect!ocuted, because t!ibunals found the# $uilt) be)ondall !easonable doubt, but late! on found to be absolutel) innocent. So#e of the# have beenand a!e loved and ensh!ined as #a!t)!s, he!oes, and a#on$ the# a!e counted the $!eatest#o!al fi$u!es hu#anit) has eve! p!oduced.%ecause in petitione!s case the lo0e! cou!t had to act onl) and #ust have acted on a #e!ep!eponde!ance of evidence, the possibilit) of e!!o! is $!eate! in c!i#inal cases 0he!econviction be)ond all !easonable doubt is !eui!ed. The!efo!e, althou$h the p!eponde!ance ofevidence #a) #ilitate a$ainst petitione!, such le$al situation does not p!eclude the possibilit)that t!uth, as an absolute, #a) afte! all suppo!t petitione!s clai#. In such case, unless a#i!acle should supe!vene to !escue hi# f!o# his pli$ht, he 0ill !e#ain confined fo! the !est ofhis da)s, an i#p!ison#ent #o!e pe!petual than reclusion perpetua, the lon$est i#p!ison#entallo0ed b) la0 fo! the 0o!st c!i#inals, /idnape!s, !obbe!s, pa!!icide!s, t!aito!s.

Should petitione! have e#beled o! stolen the #one) and ce!tificate of sha!es !eui!ed of "onside!in$ that petitione! has al!ead) unde!$one the #a;i#u# of si; #onths i#p!ison#ent,

Should petitione! have e#beled o! stolen the #one) and ce!tificate of sha!es !eui!ed ofhi# to be deposited in a ban/ he can be punished 0ith )ea!s of i#p!ison#ent but not nea!in$even reclusion perpetua. The!e is no offense o! c!i#e fo! #e!e disobedience that is punishedb) reclusion perpetua o! b) #an) )ea!s of i#p!ison#ent.%ut petitione!, fo! a #e!e disobedience, 0hich ulti#atel) #a) not be disobedience at all, ise;posed to suffe! i#p!ison#ent fo! life. This, ce!tainl), is a fla$!ant violation of theconstitutional inhibition that no c!uel and unusual punish#ent shall be inflicted. @Section & &?,*!ticle III of the "onstitution.B This is also a denial to petitione! of the eual p!otection of thela0s 0hich is the fi!st $ua!antee in ou! %ill of Ri$hts. @Section & &, *!ticle III of the

"onstitution.BThe autho!s of the !ules could not have conceived o! i#a$ined an) conte#pt of cou!t of suchpe!ve!sit) that 0ould !eui!e a heavie! punish#ent than a fine of P&,((( and si; #onthsi#p!ison#ent, the #a;i#u# penalt) p!ovided b) section ' of Rule '7. In the p!esent case,petitione! has al!ead) suffe!ed the #a;i#u# i#p!ison#ent of si; #onths , and is e;posed to!e#ain in p!ison fo! #an) #o!e )ea!s. Is the!e a conscience too callous to fail to see theunbea!able disc!i#ination of the la0 a$ainst petitione!K Punish#ents a!e c!uel 0hen the)involve to!tu!e o! a lin$e!in$ death o! 0hen the) e#plo) so#ethin$ inhu#an o! ba!ba!ous, asstated in the e##le! case @&<' 5. S. 7<'B, an autho!it) invo/ed in the #a9o!it) decision. %utthe!e is an)thin$ #o!e inhu#an, ba!ba!ous, #o!e to!tu!in$, $ivin$ the feelin$ of lin$e!in$death, than to co#pel a pe!son to un9ustl) endu!e an indefinite nu#be! of )ea!s ofi#p!ison#ent, 0hen the onl) offense that he has co##itted is that of conte#pt and the #ost

se!ious case of conte#pt cannot be punished 0ith i#p!ison#ent lon$e! than si; #onthsK ehave to be blind to fail to see this.The a!$u#ent that the inca!ce!ation is not c!uel because the sentence left the doo!s open fo!petitione! to avoid se!vin$ an) pa!t of it b) co#pl)in$ 0ith the o!de!s of the cou!t hasabsolutel) no #e!it, because the!e is absolutel) no !easonable $!ound in the philosoph) ofla0 that 0ould leave to the offende!s disc!etion the len$th of his i#p!ison#ent o! the#easu!es of his punish#ent. *side f!o# the unscientific vie0 !evealed b) the a!$u#ent, it hasthe sho!t-si$htedness of failin$ to see the possibilities of e!!o! of 9ud$#ent on the uestion asto 0hethe! the accused is )et in a position to actuall) pe!fo!# the acts o!de!ed.The alle$ation that the i#p!ison#ent o! an indefinite pe!iod is pu!el) a !e#edial #easu!e

0hich assu#es that the offende! #ust have the #eans b) 0hich he #a) pu!$e hi#self 0iththe conte#pt is pu!e !heto!ic that has no $!ound in fact as can be seen b) an) !easonable#an. It fails to unde!stand the t!ue situation of a si#ple disobedience punished 0ithi#p!ison#ent that has no possible end e;cept death.e held that the lo0e! cou!t e!!ed in issuin$ the o!de! of *p!il =8, &?78, in so fa! as it o!de!sthat petitione! be confined fo! an indefinite pe!iod of ti#e.e disa$!ee 0ith the p!onounce#ent in the #a9o!it) opinion, li#itin$ the scope o f the 0!it ofhabeas corpus and issuin$ in favo! of the lo0e! cou!t in patent of infallibilit) on the factualuestion of 0hethe! o! not the act o!de!ed to be pe!fo!#ed is still in the hands of petitione! tope!fo!#. Such p!onounce#ent a!e not suppo!ted b) la0 no! b) an) p!inciple of substantial

9ustice. Re$a!dless of the len$th of the chain of e!!oneous decisions suppo!tin$ suchp!onounce#ents, the e!!o!s shall continue to be e!!o!s. The len$th of the chain #a) onl)e#phasie the a#ount of in9ustices pe!pet!ated unde! such p!onounce#ents.*ssu#in$ that the lo0e! cou!t found petitione! $uilt) of conte#pt, it could have punishedpetitione! up to the #a;i#u# penalties p!ovided b) section ' of Rule '7 but neve! #o!e.

"onside!in$ that petitione! has al!ead) unde!$one the #a;i#u# of si; #onths i#p!ison#ent,even on the assu#ption that he is $uilt), he is entitled to be !eleased f!o# confine#ent.e vote to $!ant the petition and to i##ediatel) !elease F!ed M. 2a!den f!o# confine#entand f!o# the custod) of !espondent Di!ecto! of P!isons. Foot$ot&s& >> Phil., ?=>.

CONRA!O LUCAS > 0RIONES, accused-appellant.

G.R. Nos. 1/)172'73 M#4 2(, 199

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.

, pphe #olicitor /eneral &or plainti&&"appellee.Public 2ttorne3Is +&&ice &or accused"appellant. !AI!E, R., J.:In a s0o!n state#ent 1 ta/en on &' Feb!ua!) &??&, "handa +ucas ) *ust!ia, then seventeen)ea!s old, cha!$ed he! natu!al fathe!, accused Cose "on!ado +ucas, of atte#pted !apeco##itted a$ainst he! on &= Feb!ua!) &??&. She !evealed the!ein that she 0as fi!st !aped b)hi# 0hen she 0as onl) nine )ea!s old, o!, as disclosed in a hand0!itten note at the left-hand

#a!$in of he! s0o!n state#ent, noong *ov . 4;, 1:?4 . . . at naulit ng maraming beses .On &? Feb!ua!) &??&, "handa, assisted b) he! #othe!, Ofelia *ust!ia-+ucas, filed t0osepa!ate s0o!n c!i#inal co#plaints fo! !ape 2 and fo! atte#pted !ape 3 a$ainst he! fathe! 0iththe Re$ional T!ial "ou!t of Jueon "it). The co#plaints, doc/eted as "!i#inal "ases Nos. J-?&-&87': and J-?&-&87'', 0e!e subseuentl) assi$ned to %!anch &(7 of the said cou!t.The accusato!) po!tion of the co#plaint fo ! !ape in "!i#inal "aseNo. J-?&-&87': !eads1That on o! about the ='th da) of Nove#be! &?8= and so#eti#e the!eafte! in Jueon "it),Philippines and 0ithin the 9u!isdiction of this 2ono!able "ou!t, the above-na#ed accused, 0ithle0d desi$ns and b) #eans of violence and inti#idation did then and the!e, 0ilfull), unla0full)and feloniousl) have se;ual inte!cou!se 0ith the unde!si$ned "2*ND* +5"*S 6 *5STRI*,

0ho 0as then nine @?B )ea!s old, no0 &> )!s. of a$e, a$ainst he! 0ill, to he! da#a$e and

p!e9udice in such a#ount as #a) be a0a!ded to he! unde! the p!ovisions of the Ne0 "ivil "ode. 0hile that fo! atte#pted !ape in "!i#inal "ase No. J-?&-&87'' !eads1That on o! about the &=th da) of Feb!ua!) &??&, in Jueon "it), Philippines and 0ithin the

9u!isdiction of this 2ono!able "ou!t, the above na#ed accused, did then and the!e 0ilfull),unla0full) and feloniousl) 0ith le0d desi$n and b) #eans of fo!ce and inti#idation,co##ence the co##ission of the c!i#e of !ape di!ectl) b) ove!t acts b) then and the!e ta/in$ advanta$e of co#plainants tende! a$e and innocence, b) then and the!e puttin$ his handinside the pant) of the unde!si$ned and #ashin$ he! va$ina 0hile his othe! hand 0asp!essin$ he! nipples and at the sa#e ti#e /issin$ he! on the lips, face and nec/, the!eafte!accused placed hi#self on top of he! but said accused did not pe!fo!# all the acts ofe;ecution 0hich should p!oduce the said offense of !ape b) !eason of the fact that the b!othe!and siste! of the unde!si$ned 0as a0a/ened and shouted upon the accused, a cause othe!than the spontaneous desistance of the said accused, that the afo!esaid act of the saidaccused 0as done a$ainst the 0ill of the unde!si$ned, to he! da#a$e and p!e9udice in sucha#ount as #a) be a0a!ded to he! unde! the p!ovisions of the Ne0 "ivil "ode.The cases 0e!e 9ointl) t!ied afte! the accused had pleaded not $uilt) upon his a!!ai$n#ent. The p!osecution p!esented as 0itnesses the co#plainant he!selfG he! siste!, ")nthiaG and D!.3##anuel *!anas. The defense p!esented onl) the accused."o#plainant "handa +ucas, 0ho 0as bo!n on = Cune &?><, ( testified that thei!( house at =<-L Da!opa Road, %aesa, Jueon "it), has onl) one bed!oo#. On =' Nove#be! &?8<, she 0assleepin$ in the bed!oo# 0ith he! b!othe! and s iste!s. Thei! #othe! did not sleep in thei! houseat that ti#e. *t about =1(( to <1(( a.#., she a0o/e and !ealied that he! fathe! 0as !e#ovin$he! pant) and sho!ts. 2e cautioned he! to /eep uiet. Then, he! fathe!, 0ho 0as al!ead)na/ed, 0ent on top of he! and placed his se;ual o!$an inside he! va$ina. She 0as hu!t but did

not !esist because he! fathe! th!eatened to /ill he!. Onl) he! olde! siste! ")nthia 0itnessed the On =8 Octobe! &??=, the t!ial cou!t p!o#ul$ated its decision 16 in the t0o cases findin$ the

) )incident. "handa !epo!ted the incident to he! #othe! and he! aunt but the fo!#e! did nothin$.hen he! aunt said that he! fathe! should be 9ailed, he! #othe! did not a$!ee. 6

The =' Nove#be! &?8< incident 0as onl) the fi!st of #an) at!ocities. Since then, he! fathe!had been !epeatedl) #olestin$ he!, especiall) 0hen he! #othe! 0as not a!ound. The lastassault on he! 0o#anhood occu!!ed on &= Feb!ua!) &??& 0hen she 0as al!ead) seventeen)ea!s old. %efo!e he had se; 0ith he! at <1(( a.#. on &= Feb!ua!) &??&, he fi!st #oved he!b!othe!s and siste!s, 0ho 0e!e sleepin$ in the sa#e !oo# 0ith he!, to anothe! place. She didnot !esist because he had a balisong 0ith hi# and told he! that he can ta/e he! life an)ti#e.

*fte! the se;ual assault, he stood up holdin$ his balisong

7

and a$ain said that she has onl)one life and that he can ta/e it an)ti#e.On the #o!nin$ of &' Feb!ua!) &??=, in the co#pan) of he! #othe! and uncle, she !epo!tedthe incident to the police in thei! a!ea. The police investi$ato! uestioned he! and he! s0o!nstate#ent @3;hibit DB 0as ta/en. In the afte!noon of that da), she sub#itted to a #edicale;a#ination at "a#p "!a#e and a #edical ce!tificate 0as issued. )

")nthia +ucas Viado, the elde! siste! of "handa, testified that she 0itnessed the incident of ='Nove#be! &?8<. She 0as then thi!teen )ea!s old 0hile "handa 0as onl) nine )ea!s old. Shesa0 his fathe! on top of "handa, then she closed he! e)es and cove!ed he! face 0ith ablan/et. She !epo!ted the incident and the fact that she sa0 blood on the unde!0ea! of"handa to he! aunt Nenen$ and he! #othe!G the fo!#e! 0as ve!) an$!) upon lea!nin$ of theincident but the latte! did not believe he!G at that ti#e, he! #othe! loved he! fathe!

dea!l).

9

On c!oss- e;a#ination, ")nthia decla!ed that he! fathe! intended to se;uall) abusehe! on =' Nove#be! &?8< but because she !esisted, he! fathe! instead !aped "handa. She 0as not able to help "handa because she 0as af!aid of he! fathe!. Thei! b!othe! and anothe!siste! 0e!e not a0a!e of the incident and the) did not 0a/e the# up because the) 0e!easha#ed of thei! nei$hbo!s. 1/

D!. 3##anuel *!anas testified that he e;a#ined the co#plainant on &' Feb!ua!) &??& at the"!i#e +abo!ato!) Se!vices at "a#p "!a#e pu!suant to a lette!-!euest 11 f!o# "apt. Cai#e J.Pe!alta of the "ent!al Police dist!ict, Jueon "it). 2is e;a#ination of he! $enitalia disclosedhealed lace!ations, but he could not dete!#ine 0hen the lace!ations 0e!e inflicted o!sustained. 2e concluded that the co#plainant has had seve!al se;ual e;pe!iences and 0asno lon$e! a vi!$in. 12 2e issued a 0!itten !epo!t of his findin$s. 13 On c!oss-e;a#ination, hedecla!ed that he found no spe!# on the o!$an of the co#plainant and that the!e 0e!e no si$nsof !ecent t!au#a o! ph)sical in9u!ies on he!. 1

On the 0itness stand, the accused testified that he and "handas #othe!, Ofelia *ust!ia, a!enot #a!!iedG ho0eve!, since &?'?, the) had been livin$ to$ethe! as husband and 0ife until&?>=, 0hen he 0as detained fo! alle$ed $un!unnin$ and 0hen Ofelia and the child!en #ovedto "otabato. The) 0e!e !eunited in &?>>. 2e denied havin$ !aped his second dau$hte!,"handa, and alle$ed that the b!othe!s and siste!s of Ofelia, pa!ticula!l) +eona!do *ust!ia,

0e!e all an$!) at hi# and insti$ated the filin$ of the fab!icated cha!$es a$ainst hi#. 2e fu!the!decla!ed that Ofelia 0as an$!) at hi# because he inte!vened in $uidin$ the life of "handa. 2ecould not !ecall an)#o!e 0he!e he 0as on =' Nove#be! &?8<. 2o0eve!, on &= Feb!ua!)&??&, he and Ofelia ua!!eled about "handas f!euent late a!!ivals f!o# school and, becauseof the ua!!el, he ph)sicall) ha!#ed both of the#. 1(

, p $ $accused $uilt) be)ond !easonable doubt of t0o c!i#es of !ape. The dispositive po!tion of thedecision !eads123R3FOR3, 9ud$#ent is !ende!ed as follo0s1In "!i#. "ase No. J-?&-&87':, the p!osecution 0as able to establish the $uilt of the accusedbe)ond !easonable doubt of the c!i#e of !ape as cha!$ed in the info!#ation, he is he!eb)sentenced to suffe! the penalt) of $'C)-#%+* P'$P'-2 plus all the accesso!) penaltiesp!ovided b) la0.In "!i#. "ase No. J-?&-&87'', the p!osecution 0as able to establish the $uilt of the accused

be)ond !easonable doubt of the c!i#e of !ape as cha!$ed in the info!#ation, he is he!eb)sentenced to suffe! the penalt) of $'C)-#%+* P'$P'-2, plus all the accesso!) penaltiesp!ovided b) la0.*ccused is o!de!ed to pa) the victi# the su# of P<(,(((.(( as actual and #o!al da#a$es

0ithout subsidia!) i#p!ison#ent in case of insolvenc). 17

On 7 Nove#be! &??=, the accused filed a notice of appeal. 1) In his b!ief sub#itted to this"ou!t, he alle$es that the t!ial cou!t e!!ed1I. . . IN 4IVIN4 5NM3RIT3D V3R*"IT6 TO T23 IN"R3DI%+3, 5NP3RS5*SIV3 *ND5NR3+I*%+3 T3STIMONI3S OF T23 PROS3"5TION ITN3SS3S *ND INDISR34*RDIN4 T23 3VID3N"3 *DD5"3D %6 T23 D3F3NS3.II

. . . IN "ONVI"TIN4 2IM OF T23 "RIM3 OF R*P3 IN "RIMIN*+ "*S3 NO. J-?&-&87''IN*SM5"2 *S T23 S*M3 IS MOR3 S3RIO5S T2*N T23 OFF3NS3 "2*R43D.III. . . IN "ONVI"TIN4 *""5S3D-*PP3++*NT OF T23 "RIM3 OF R*P3 IN "RIMIN*+"*S3 NO J-?&-&87': D3SPIT3 T23 F*"T T2*T 2IS 45I+T *S NOT PROV3D %36ONDR3*SON*%+3 DO5%T. 19

*s to the fi!st assi$ned e!!o!, the accused asse!ts that the conduct of his dau$hte!s, "handaand ")nthia, afte! the alle$ed fi!st se;ual abuse casts doubt on thei! c!edibilit). It is ha!d tobelieve that if "handa 0e!e indeed !aped b) hi# 0hen she 0as onl) nine )ea!s old and!epeatedl) the!eafte!, she 0ould !epo!t the abuses onl) 0hen she 0as seventeen )ea!s old.Seve!al !e#edies 0e!e available to he! and she had !elatives 0ho could e;tend thei! help. 2/

2e also contends that the testi#on) of ")nthia is not convincin$G it 0as cont!a!) to hu#ane;pe!ience and conduct fo! he! to si#pl) close he! e)es and cove! he! face 0ith a blan/etupon 0itnessin$ the !ape of he! )oun$e! siste! b) thei! o0n fathe! instead of helpin$ "handa.If she 0as af!aid of he! fathe! at that ti#e, she could have conv inced "handa to te#po!a!il)leave thei! house and see/ shelte! 0ith he! !elatives. It 0as also unnatu!al fo! he! to abandon"handa 0hen, as she clai#s, she full) /ne0 the bestial tendencies of he! fathe!. 21 *s to his

0ife, Ofelia, he att!ibutes to he! an ulte!io! #otive 0hen she consented to the filin$ of thecha!$es a$ainst hi#. 3;cept fo! the sou!in$ of thei! !elationship 0hich ended in thei!sepa!ation, he finds no possible e;planation 0h) Ofelia believed "handas !epo!t on the &=Feb!ua!) &??& incident 0hen she, Ofelia, !efused to heed "handa and ")nthias !epo!tconce!nin$ the =' Nove#be! &?8< incident.*nent the second assi$ned e!!o!, he contends that he could not be validl) convicted of !ape in"!i#inal "ase No. J-?&-&87'' unde! a co#plaint fo! atte#pted !ape onl). 2e cites the !ule

that 0hen the offense p!oved is #o!e se!ious than that cha!$ed, the accused can onl) be co#plaint o! info!#ation 0ithin the pe!iod of the statute of li#itations, and at a place 0ithin the

p $ )convicted of the offense cha!$ed.The appellee, th!ou$h the Office of the Solicito! 4ene!al, p!a)s that the 9ud$#ent of convictionin "!i#inal "ase No. J-?&-&87': be affi!#ed in toto. 2o0eve!, it sub#its that the accusedcan be convicted onl) of atte#pted !ape in "!i#inal "ase No. J-?&-&87''. The appelleea!$ues that the t!ial cou!t co!!ectl) $ave c!edence to the testi#on) of "handa as it is positive,st!ai$htfo!0a!d and clea!l) !evelato!) onl) of the t!uth of the facts she e;pe!ienced, 0ithoutan) dubious #otive sho0n 0h) she 0ould bea! false 0itness a$ainst appellant. 22 The!eaction 0hich the accused e;pected of "handa afte! the fi!st !ape and 0hich she did not so

#anifest does not necessa!il) lead to a conclusion that she fab!icated he! sto!). *s "handasfathe!, he e;e!cised absolute autho!it) and #o!al influence ove! he!. Mo!eove!, at the tende!a$e of nine, she 0as totall) helpless and defenseless. *nd !e$a!din$ the i#puted #otive o f"handas #othe!, the sa#e is too t!ivial to p!o#pt he! to falsel) cha!$ed hi# 0ith a $!avec!i#e.The fi!st and thi!d assi$ned e!!o!s !aise a uestion of fact 0hich hin$es on the c!edibilit) of thep!osecution 0itnesses. The second involves a uestion of la0.In !ape cases, this "ou!t has been $uided b) th!ee 0ell-ent!enched p!inciples1 @&B anaccusation fo! !ape can be #ade 0ith facilit)G it is difficult to p!ove but #o!e difficult fo! thepe!son accused, thou$h innocent, to disp!oveG @=B in vie0 of the int!insic natu!e of the c!i#e of!ape 0he!e onl) t0o pe!sons a!e usuall) involved, the testi#on) of the co#plainant #ust besc!utinied 0ith e;t!e#e cautionG and @<B the evidence fo! the p!osecution #ust stand o! fallon its o0n #e!its and cannot be allo0ed to d!a0 st!en$th f!o# the 0ea/ness of the evidencefo! the defense. 23

"onclusions as to the c!edibilit) of 0itnesses in !ape cases lie heavil) on the sound 9ud$#entof the t!ial cou!t. *cco!din$l), in the app!eciation of the evidence, the appellate cou!t acco!dsdue defe!ence to the t!ial cou!ts vie0s on 0ho should be $iven c!edence since the latte! is ina bette! position to decide the uestion of the c!edibilit) of 0itnesses, havin$ seen and hea!dthese 0itnesses and obse!ved thei! depo!t#ent and #anne! of testif)in$ du!in$ the t!ial. Thet!ial cou!ts findin$s conce!nin$ the c!edibilit) of 0itnesses ca!!) $!eat 0ei$ht and !espect and

0ill be sustained b) the appellate cou!t unless the t!ial cou!t ove!loo/ed, #isunde!stood o!#isapplied so#e facts o! ci!cu#stances of 0ei$ht and substance 0hich 0ould have affectedthe !esult of the case. 2

*fte! a ca!eful e;a#ination of the !eco!ds and the evidence, 0e a!e unable to find an) co$ent!eason to distu!b the findin$ of the t!ial cou!t that the accused !aped his dau$hte!, "handa, on=' Nove#be! &?8< and &= Feb!ua!) &??&.*s !e$a!ds the fi!st cha!$e, the!e is, ho0eve!, a va!iance bet0een the evidence p!esented andthe alle$ations of the co#plaint. The co#plaint in "!i#inal "ase No. J-?&-&87': cha!$es theaccused 0ith the c!i#e of !ape co##itted on =' Nove#be! &?8=. %oth "handa and ")nthia,ho0eve!, testified that the incident too/ place on 4; *ovember 1:?7. 2( The accused offe!edno ob9ection to such evidence. "onseuentl), the va!iance 0as not fatal to the p!osecution.In -nited #tates vs. 2rcos, 26 this "ou!t !uled1he!e ti#e o! place o! an) othe! fact alle$ed is not an essential ele#ent of the c!i#echa!$ed, conviction #a) be had on p!oof of the co##ission of the c!i#e, even if it appea! thatthe c!i#e 0as not co##itted at the p!ecise ti#e o! placed alle$ed, o! if the p!oof fails tosustain the e;istence of so#e i##ate!ial fact set out in the co#plaint, p!ovidin$ it appea!sthat the specific c!i#e cha!$ed 0as in fact co##itted p!io! to the date of the filin$ of the

p p p 9u!isdiction of the cou!t. @5.S. vs. S#ith, and cases cited, = Phil. Rep., =(B.The unob9ected testi#on) of anothe! date of the co##ission of the c!i#e cha!$ed in "!i#inal"ase No. J-?&-&87': could even be the basis fo! an a#end#ent of the co#plaint to #a/e itconfo!# to the evidence. 27

Section &7, Rule &&( of the Rules of "ou!t also p!ovides1Sec. &7. 2mendment . E The info!#ation o! co#plaint #a) be a#ended, in substance andfo!#, 0ithout leave of cou!t, at an) ti#e befo!e the accused pleadsG and the!eafte! and du!in$the t!ial as to all #atte!s of fo!#, b) leave and at the disc!etion of the cou!t, 0hen the sa#e

can be done 0ithout p!e9udice to the !i$hts of the accused.;;; ;;; ;;;"handa 0as less than t0elve )ea!s old 0hen she 0as !aped b) the accused on =' Nove#be!&?8<. Since she 0as bo!n on = Cune &?><, she 0as then e;actl) ten )ea!s, five #onths, andt0ent)-fou! da)s old.*!ticle <<: of the Revised Penal "ode !eads1*!t. <<:. Nhen and how rape is committed . E Rape is co##itted b) havin$ ca!nal /no0led$eof a 0o#an unde! an) of the follo0in$ ci!cu#stances1&. %) usin$ fo!ce o! inti#idationG=. hen the 0o#an is dep!ived of !eason o! othe!0ise unconsciousG and<. hen the 0o#an is unde! t0elve @&=B )ea!s of a$e, even thou$h neithe! of theci!cu#stances #entioned in the t0o ne;t p!ecedin$ pa!a$!aphs shall be p!esent.;;; ;;; ;;;The thi!d pa!a$!aph is /no0n as statuto!) !ape o! the unla0ful ca!nal /no0led$e of a 0o#anbelo0 &= )ea!s of a$e. 2) Othe!0ise stated, ca!nal /no0led$e alone is sufficient fo! convictionas the p!esence of an) of the ci!cu#stances #entioned in pa!a$!aphs & and = of *!ticle <<: isnot !eui!ed. 29

*s found b) the t!ial cou!t and full) suppo!ted b) the evidence, the accused had ca!nal/no0led$e of his dau$hte! "handa E then belo0 t0elve )ea!s old E on =' Nove#be! &?8<.e a!e not pe!suaded b) the a!$u#ents of the accused that if indeed she 0e!e !aped on thatdate and seve!al ti#es the!eafte!, she should not have /ept he! silence until she 0asseventeen )ea!s old since she had all the available !e#edies fo! !ed!ess as 0ell as !elatives

0ho could help he!. The euani#it) o! the 0isdo# of #o!e #atu!e pe!sons cannot bee;pected f!o# a )oun$ and i##atu!e $i!l li/e "handa. e have said befo!e that the 0o!/in$sof a hu#an #ind 0hen placed unde! e#otional st!ess a!e unp!edictable and that people !eactdiffe!entl) to va!ious situations. 3/

In addition to he! tende! a$e and i##atu!it), "handa 0as, to sa) the least, a victi# ofunfavo!able ci!cu#stances not of he! o0n #a/in$. These p!evented he! f!o# e;posin$ ea!lie!the evil deeds of he! fathe!. *ll that she could p!oudl) clai# 0as a beautiful na#e E "handa.She had no decent ho#e. 2e! fathe! and he! #othe! 0e!e not #a!!ied and 0e!e unt!a##eledb) the bonds of la0ful 0edloc/. hen she 0as bo!n, he! fathe! 0as unde! detention fo!$un!unnin$ and it 0as onl) 0hen she 0as fou! )ea!s old @&?>>B 0hen he !e9oined his fa#il).Since then, all the #e#be!s of the fa#il) slept in one !oo#. "handa had no choice of anothe!ho#e, fo! it does not appea! that anothe! 0as available to the fa#il) o! that she 0as p!epa!edto leave it because she had the #eans to face life alone o! that a /ind soul had offe!ed he!shelte!. She 0as a victi# of pove!t) and a vi!tual captive in the onl) ho#e he! natu!alpa!ents could p!ovide, fo! she 0as enti!el) dependent upon the#.

Ve!il), she 0as co#pletel) unde! the #o!al ascendanc) and cont!ol of he! fathe! and the fea! sa#e "ode fo! the pu!pose of conve!tin$ reclusion perpetua into a divisible penalt) 0ith th!ee

alone of a ha!she! life outside such a ho#e and of 0hat he! fathe! 0ould do if she 0oulde;pose his evil deeds, #ade he! suffe! in silence fo! a lon$ ti#e the e;c!uciatin$ pains hisassaults inflicted upon he!. Then too, althou$h she told he! #othe! about the abuse co##ittedb) he! fathe! on =' Nove#be! &?8<, 31 he! #othe! onl) $ot an$!) but did not do an)thin$."handa #ust have felt despai! at such indiffe!ence.2e! dela) in !epo!tin$ the se;ual assaults to the autho!ities is thus unde!standable and doesnot affect he! c!edibilit). e do not believe that she 0ould fab!icate a sto!) of deflo!ationa$ainst he! o0n fathe!, #a/e public he! painful and hu#iliatin$ e;pe!iences 0hich a!e bette!

/ept in sec!et o! fo!$otten, allo0 he! p!ivate pa!ts to be e;a#ined, and eventuall) b!in$ tosha#e he! o0n fa#il) and 9eopa!die he! chances of #a!!ia$e unless she 0as not tellin$ thet!uth and 0as #otivated b) nothin$ but the desi!e to obtain 9ustice fo! the $!ievous 0!on$sco##itted a$ainst he!. 32

The!e 0as a consu##ated !ape on &= Feb!ua!) &??&. *cco!din$ to "handas testi#on), at<1(( a.#. that da), the accused, 0ho had a balisong 0ith hi#, laid do0n beside he!,th!eatened he! that she had onl) one life 0hich he can ta/e a0a) an) ti#eG !e#oved he!sho!ts and pant) and then #oved on top of he! and inse!ted his o!$an to he! o!$an.The!eafte!, he stood up holdin$ his balisong and !eite!ated his ea!lie! th!eat. 33

"onside!in$, ho0eve!, that the co#plaint fo! this incident sub9ect of "!i#inal "ase No. J-?&-&87'' cha!$es the accused 0ith the c!i#e of attempted rape, then, as co!!ectl) pointed out b)the accused in his second assi$ned e!!o! and concu!!ed in b) the Office of the Solicito!4ene!al, he cannot be convicted of consu##ated !ape.Section 7, Rule &=( of the Rules of "ou!t p!ovides that 0hen the!e is va!iance bet0een theoffense cha!$ed in the co#plaint o! info!#ation, and that p!oved o! established b) theevidence, and the offense as cha!$ed is included in o! necessa!il) includes the offensep!oved, the accused shall be convicted ofthe offense p!oved included in that 0hich is cha!$ed, o! of the offense cha!$ed inc luded in that

0hich is p!oved. The offense cha!$ed in "!i#inal "aseNo. J-?&-&87'' @atte#pted !apeB is necessa!il) included in the offense that 0as p!oved@consu##ated !apeB. *cco!din$l), the accused should be convicted of attempted rape onl3 .The penalt) fo! atte#pted !ape is prision ma3or , 0hich is t0o de$!ees lo0e! than thatp!ovided b) la0 fo! !ape. 3 The accused is entitled to the benefits of the Indete!#inateSentence +a0, and fo! atte#pted !ape he #a) be sentenced to a penalt) 0hose #ini#u#should be 0ithin the !an$e of prision correccional and 0hose #a;i#u# should be 0ithin the!an$e !an$e of prision ma3or , ta/in$ into account the #odif)in$ ci!cu#stances. The alte!nativeci!cu#stance of !elationship p!ovided fo! in *!ticle &: of the Revised Penal "ode should beapp!eciated a$ainst the accused conside!in$ that the offended pa!t), "handa, is hisdescendant. In c!i#es a$ainst chastit), such as !ape, !elationship is a$$!avatin$. 3(

P!io! to R.*. No. >':?, 36 the p!esence of #odif)in$ ci!cu#stances 0ould not affect thepenalt) of reclusion perpetua p!esc!ibed fo! the c!i#e of !ape because such a penalt) 0asthen indivisible and unde! *!ticle '< of the Revised Penal "ode, 0hen the la0 p!esc!ibes asin$le indivisible penalt), it shall be applied b) the cou!ts !e$a!dless of an) #iti$atin$ o!a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stances that #a) have attended the co##ission of the deed. 2o0eve!,pu!suant to Section =& of R.*. No. >':?, 0hich a#ended *!ticle => of the Revised Penal"ode, reclusion perpetua has no0 a defined du!ation, i .e., f!o# twent3 94= 3ears and one 91=da3 to &ort3 9@= 3ears. The!e is, ho0eve!, no co!!espondin$ a#end#ent to *!ticle >' of the

specificpe!iod E #ini#u#, #ediu#, and #a;i#u# E and includin$ it in the table p!ovided the!einsho0in$ the du!ation and the ti#e included in each of the pe!iods.It #a) thus be said that althou$h the la0 has no0 fi;ed the du!ation of reclusion perpetua, itdid not #a/e e;plicit i ts intention to conve!t it i nto a divisible penalt). In an) event, *!ticle ': ofthe "ode 0hich p!ovides1*!t. ':. $ules in cases in which the penalt3 is not composed o& three periods. E In cases in

0hich the penalt) p!esc!ibed b) la0 is not co#posed of th!ee pe!iods, the cou!ts shall appl)

the !ules contained in the fo!e$oin$ a!ticles, dividin$ into th!ee eual po!tions of ti#e includedin the penalt) p!esc!ibed, and fo!#in$ one pe!iod of each of the th!ee po!tions.#a) be applied. *cco!din$l), the ti#e included in the penalt) of reclusion perpetua @t0ent)=( )ea!s and one & da)s to fo!t) 7( )ea!sB can be divided into th!ee eual po!tions, 0itheach co#posin$ a pe!iod. The pe!iods of reclusion perpetua 0ould then be as follo0s1#ini#u# E =( )ea!s and & da) to =' )ea!s and 8 #onths#ediu# E =' )ea!s, 8 #onths and & da) to << )ea!s and 7 #onths#a;i#u# E <7 )ea!s, 7 #onths and & da) to 7( )ea!sTa/in$ into account the p!esence of the a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stance of !elationship in "!i#inal"ase No. J-?&-&87':, the accused #a) finall) be sentenced to thi!t)-fou! @<7B )ea!s, fou! @7B#onths and one @&B da) of reclusion perpetua."onside!in$ a$ain such a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stance, the accused #a) be sentenced in "!i#inal"ase No. J-?&-&87'' to an indete!#inate penalt) !an$in$ f!o# fou! @7B )ea!s, t0o @=B #onthsand one @&B da) of prision correccional #a;i#u# as minimum to ten @&(B )ea!s and one @&Bda) of prision ma3or #a;i#u# as maEimum.The!e should also be a0a!ds fo! da#a$es in each of the t0o cases.23R3FOR3, the challen$ed Decision of =8 Octobe! &??= of %!anch &(7 of the Re$ionalT!ial "ou!t of Jueon "it) in "!i#inal "aseNo. J-?&-&87': and "!i#inal "ase No. J-?&-&87'' is he!eb) *FFIRM3D, sub9ect to the#odifications indicated above. *s #odified1@&B In "!i#inal "ase No. J-?&-&87':, accused COS3 "ONR*DO +5"*S ) %RION3S ishe!eb) sentenced to suffe! the penalt) of Thi!t)-fou! @<7B )ea!s, Fou! @7B #onths and One @&Bda) of reclusion perpetua and to pa) the offended pa!t) the su# of P:(,(((.(( as civilinde#nit)G and@=B In "!i#inal "ase No. J-?&-&87'', said accused is he!eb) found 45I+T6 be)ond !easonable doubt of the c!i#e of *TT3MPT3D R*P3 onl) and is he!eb) sentenced to suffe!an indete!#inate penalt) !an$in$ f!o# Fou! @7B )ea!s, TO @=B #onths and One @&B da) of prision correccional #a;i#u# as minimum to Ten @&(B )ea!s and one @&B da) of prision ma3or#a;i#u# as maEimum and to pa) the offended pa!t) the su# of P<(,(((.(( as civilinde#nit)."osts a$ainst the accused-appellant.SO ORD3R3Dellosillo and 8uiason, JJ., concur.Cru0 and apunan, JJ., are on leave. Foot$ot&s& 3;hibit D.

= O!i$inal Reco!ds @ORB, "!i#inal "ase No. J-?&-&87':, &G $ollo, =. SUPREME COURT

< %d., "!i#inal "ase No. J-?&-&87'', &G %d ., 7.7 OR, "!i#inal "ase No. J-?&-&87':, &'G "!i#inal "ase No. J-?&-&87'', ?.: TSN, 7 Ma) &??=, 8.' TSN, => *p!il &??=, '-&<.> %d ., &'-&?.8 TSN, => *p!il &??=, =&-='.? TSN, 7 Ma) &??=, &?-==.&( %d ., =:-=8.

&& 3;hibit *.&= TSN, &> Ma!ch &??=, '-&&.&< Medico-+e$al Repo!t No. M-(=&8-?& @3;hibit %B.&7 TSN, &> Ma!ch &??=, op. cit ., &=-&7.&: TSN, < Cune &??=, =->.&' OR, >'-8<G $ollo, &&-&8. Pe! Cud$e Ma;i#iano ". *suncion.&> OR, 8<G $ollo, &8.&8 OR, "!i#inal "ase No. J-?&-&87':, 8:.&? $ollo, <&.=( *ppellants %!ief, >-8G $ollo, <>-<8.=& %d ., ?G %d ., <?.== $ollo, >7G citin$ People vs. Santito, =(& S"R* 8> &??&.=< People vs. De los Re)es, =(< S"R* >(> &??&G People vs. Tis#o, =(7 S"R* :<: &??&GPeople vs. "asinillo, =&< S"R* >>> &??=G People vs. Mat!i#onio, =&: S"R* '&< &??=.=7 People vs. Mat!i#onio, supra.=: TSN, => *p!il &??=, '->G =8G TSN, 7 Ma) &??=, <, &8-&?, =:-='.=' && Phil. :::, :'&-:'= &?(8. See also People vs. Puedan, &?' S"R* <88 &??&.=> People vs. Rive!a, << S"R* >7', >:& &?>(.=8 People vs. Ville$as, &=> S"R* &?: &?87G People vs. Puedan, supra.=? People vs. +a$!osa, 4.R. Nos. &(:?:'-:>, =< Feb!ua!) &??7.<( People vs. "ab!adilla, &<< S"R* 7&< &?87G People vs. 4!efiel, =&: S"R* :?' &??=.<& TSN, => *p!il &??=, &=-&<.<= People vs. Mat!i#onio, supra.<< TSN, => *p!il &??=, &'-&?.<7 *!ticle :&, in !elation to *!ticle <<:, Revised Penal "ode.<: People vs. Po!!as, :8 Phil. :>8 &??<G People vs. +ucas, &8& S"R* <&' &??(G Peoplevs. Mat!i#onio, supra.<' *n *ct To I#pose the Death Penalt) on "e!tain 2einous "!i#es, *#endin$ fo! thatPu!pose The Revised Penal "ode, *s *#ended, Othe! Special Penal +a0s, and fo! Othe!Pu!poses. It too/ effect fifteen da)s afte! i ts publication in t0o ne0spape!s of $ene!alci!culation. It 0as published in the &' Dece#be! &??< issues of the Manila %ulletin and ThePhilippines Ti#es Cou!nal.

Republic of the Philippines

Manila3N %*N"

G.R. Nos. 1/)172'73 #$u#-4 9, 199(PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.CONRA!O LUCAS > 0RIONES, accused-appellant.R 3 S O + 5 T I O N

!AI!E, R., J.:In the decision in this case, p!o#ul$ated on =: Ma) &??7, the Fi!st Division touched on thenatu!e of the penalt) of reclusion perpetua in the li$ht of Sec tion =& of R.*. No. >':? 1 0hicha#ended *!ticle => of the Revised Penal "ode b) specificall) fi;in$ the du!ation of reclusion perpetua at t0ent) @=(B )ea!s and one @&B da) to fo!t) @7(B )ea!s. It opined that since noco!!espondin$ a#end#ent to *!ticle >' of the Revised Penal "ode 0as #ade, the said la0shas not #ade e;plicit an intention to conve!t reclusion perpetua into a divisible penalt).Neve!theless, it applied *!ticle ': of the Revised Penal "ode 2 and stated1*cco!din$l), the ti#e included in the penalt) of reclusion perpetua @t0ent) =( )ea!s and one& da) to fo!t) 7( )ea!sB can be divided into th!ee eual po!tions 0ith each co#posin$ ape!iod. The pe!iods of reclusion perpetua 0ould then be as follo0s1

#ini#u# E =( )ea!s and & da) to =' )ea!s and 8 #onths

#ediu# E =' )ea!s, 8 #onths and & da) to << )ea!s and 7 #onths

#a;i#u# E <7 )ea!s, 7 #onths and & da) to 7( )ea!s

Ta/in$ into account the p!esence of the a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stance of !elationship in "!i#inal"ase No. J-?&-&87':, the accused #a) finall) be sentenced to thi!t)-fou! @<7B )ea!s, fou! @7B#onths and one @&B da) of reclusion perpetua.It then #odified the challen$ed decision of the t!ial cou!t b) chan$in$ the penalt) in "!i#inal"ase No. J-?&-&87': f!o# reclusion perpetua, as i#posed b) the t!ial cou!t, to i#p!ison#entof <7 )ea!s, 7 #onths and & da) of reclusion perpetua.In a #otion fo! cla!ification seasonabl) filed b) the appellee on =8 Cune &??7 0hich 0as notopposed b) the accused-appellant in his co##ent, the appellee as/s the "ou!t to co!!ect thedu!ation of the #a;i#u# pe!iod of reclusion perpetua f!o# thi!t)-fou! @<7B )ea!s, fou! @7B#onths and one @&B da) to fo!t) @7(B )ea!s, as stated in the decision, to thi!t)-th!ee @< of the Revised Penal "ode b) Section=& of R.*. No. >':? has #ade reclusion perpetua a divisible penalt) is one of fi!st i#p!essionand of sufficient i#po!tance, the Fi!st Divis ion !efe!!ed the #otion fo! cla!ification to the "ou!ten banc. The latte! accepted the !efe!!al.*fte! delibe!atin$ on the #otion and !e-e;a#inin$ the le$islative histo!) of R.*. No. >':?, the"ou!t concludes that althou$h Section &> of R.*. No. >':? has fi;ed the du!ation of reclusion perpetua f!o# t0ent) @=(B )ea!s and one @&B da) to fo!t) @7(B )ea!s, the!e 0as no clea!

le$islative intent to alte! its o!i$inal classification as an indivisible penalt). It shall then !e#aini di i ibl l

this "ha#be!, the!e 0e!e so#e doubts as to the c!eation of th is ne0 penalt) of lifei i b hi h i i h i d l d d i d i

as an indivisible penalt).R.*. No. >':? is a consolidation of Senate %ill @S%B No. 8?& 3 and 2ouse %ill @2%B No. '=. S%No. 8?& see/s to a#end *!ticle => of the Revised Penal "ode b) inse!tin$ the!ein 0hat a!e tobe conside!ed heinous c!i#es and to penalie these not 0ith the death penalt), but 0hichreclusion perpetua onl), 0ith the ualification that an) pe!son sentenced to reclusion perpetua fo! . . . such heinous c!i#es unde! this "ode shall be !eui!ed to se!ve thi!t) @<(B)ea!s, 0ithout entitle#ent to $ood conduct ti#e allo0ance and shall be conside!ed fo!e;ecutive cle#enc) onl) afte! se!vice of said thi!t) @<(B )ea!s. 2% No. '= defines and

enu#e!ates the heinous c!i#es and see/s to penalie the# 0ith the death penalt).*n a#end#ent b) substitution to S% No. 8?& 0as int!oduced b) the Senate Special"o##ittee on Death Penalt). The a#end#ent 0as entitled 2n 2ct to %mpose the DeathPenalt3 on Certain einous Crime, 2mending &or that Purpose some 2rticles o& 2ct *o . 7?1A,as 2mended, and &or other Purposes. The substitute a#end#ent sou$ht to a#end @aB *!ticle=: of the Revised Penal "ode b) p!ovidin$ in the scale of penalties the follo0in$1"*PIT*+ P5NIS2M3NT1 D3*T2*fflictive Penalties1 +IF3 IMPRISONM3NT$eclusion Perpetua$eclusion emporal and @bB *!ticle => of the sa#e "ode b) inse!tin$ the!ein the penalt) of li&e imprisonment andp!ovidin$ a specific du!ation the!efo! as 0ell as fo! reclusion perpetua. The p!oposeda#ended *!ticle => pe!tinentl) !eads as follo0s1*!t. =>. )%' %(P$%#+*('* . E T23 P3N*+T6 OF +IF3 IMPRISONM3NT S2*++ %3FROM T2IRT6 63*RS *ND ON3 D*6 TO FORT6 63*RS.$'C)-#%+* P'$P'-2 E T23 P3N*+T6 OF $'C)-#%+* P'$P'-2 S2*++ %3 FROMT3NT6 63*RS *ND ON3 D*6 TO T2IRT6 63*RS.Thus, life i#p!ison#ent, the!efo!e a penalt) i#posed b) special penal statutes, 0as sou$ht tobe inco!po!ated as penalt) in the !evised Penal "ode 0ith a specific du!ation.In his sponso!ship of this substitute bill, Senato! *!tu!o M. Tolentino e;plained theinco!po!ation of life i#p!ison#ent as follo0s1%ut a ve!) basic a#end#ent 0as #ade, and that is, an a#end#ent that 0i ll c!eate a ne0penalt), /no0n in this bill as life i#p!ison#ent. The ne0 penalt) 0as c!eated in o!de! toenable the co##ittee to p!ovide, in so#e c!i#es, a th!ee-$!ade penalt) that 0ould beco#posed of reclusion perpetua, as no0 p!ovided b) the Revised Penal "ode, as the lo0est$!adeG on top of that, 0ould be life i#p!ison#entG and the thi!d hi$hest $!ade 0ould be deathpenalt). ith this ne0 $!ade of penalt), it beca#e possible fo! this bill no0 unde!conside!ation to i#pose a penalt) !an$in$ f!o# reclusion perpetua to death, co#posed ofactuall) th!ee pe!iods o!$!ades. (

2o0eve! the %ica#e!al "onfe!ence "o##ittee eli#inated f!o# the p!oposed a#end#ent of*!ticle => the penalt) of life i#p!ison#ent but e;tended the du!ation of reclusion perpetua f!o# t0ent) @=B )ea!s and one @&B da) to fo!t) @7(B )ea!s. Thus, in his sponso!ship of the"onfe!ence "o##ittee !epo!t on both the substitute S% No. 8?& and 2% No. '=, Senato!Tolentino stated1%) this, M!. P!esident, 0e have this ne0 consolidated session that is befo!e the Me#be!s ofthis "ha#be!. The!e is one pa!t o! one po!tion of the Senate ve!sion that 0e have a$!eed tobe eli#inated and that is the c!eation of the ne0 penalt) /no0n as life i#p!ison#ent. 3ven in

i#p!ison#ent because reclusion perpetua, 0hich is in the Revised Penal "ode and !etained inthis bill, also #eans the sa#e thin$. It is a pe!petual i#p!ison#ent.So in o!de! to still acco##odate the inc!ease of i#p!ison#ent b) #eans of life i#p!ison#entE 0hile 0e eli#inated the ne0 penalt) of life i#p!ison#ent 0hich 0ould last f!o# <( )ea!sand one da) to fo!t) )ea!s E 0hat 0e did 0as si#pl) to e;tend the pe!iod of reclusion perpetua b) addin$ <( to 7( )ea!s i#p!ison#ent to the o!i$inal =( to <( )ea!s, #a/in$ thereclusion perpetua in this ne0 bill !an$e f!o# =( )ea!s to one da) to 7( )ea!s. This 0ould be

0hat 0e had called one da) befo!e a fle;ible o! divisible penalt). 6

*lthou$h Senato! Tolentino desc!ibed reclusion perpetua as a fle;ible o! divisible penalt), )etin the po!tion of his sponso!ship speech i##ediatel) succeedin$ the fo!e$oin$ desc!iption, hee;plicitl) stated that the said penalt) is one o& the two indivisible penalties in the RevisedPenal "ode. Thus1Instead of havin$ th!ee penalties in the divisible sic penalt), 0e 0ould have onl) t0oindivisible penalties E reclusion perpetua to deathG and the p!inciples on a$$!avatin$ and#iti$atin$ ci!cu#stances in the $evised Penal Code 0ill be applicable to this penalt) ofreclusion perpetua to death. 7

*t fi!st $lance, b) statin$ that reclusion perpetua 0as fle;ible and divisible and then late!!efe!!in$ to it as one of t0o indivisible penalties, Senato! Tolentino #i$ht have fallen into aninconsistenc). If 0e !ecall, ho0eve!, 0hat he stated in his sponso!ship speech to substitute bill

0he!e, as above adve!ted to, he #entioned the p!oposed th!ee-$!ade penalt) !an$in$ f!o#reclusion perpetua to death, then indeed he could also be co!!ect in the sense that such th!ee-$!ade concept 0ould in fact be a co#ple; penalt) 0hich 0ould be divisible, 0ith each $!adeco#posin$ a pe!iod and 0hich could then be $ove!ned b) *!ticle >> ) of the Revised Penal"ode. That Senato! Tolentino had this th!ee-$!ade penalt) in #ind 0hen he spo/e of &leEibilit3 and divisibilit) and that he stood b) his subseuent state#ent that reclusion perpetua is one oft0o indivisible penalties is fu!the! bo!ne out b) his e;planations in !elation to the !ule in *!ticle'< of the Revised Penal "ode on the application of #iti$atin$ ci!cu#stance. Thus1Senato! Tolentino.In $ene!al, M!. P!esident, in all of these heinous c!i#es, the penalt) reclusion perpetua todeath. 5nless othe!0ise p!ovided in the bill itself, this #eans that the p!ovisions ona$$!avatin$ and #iti$atin$ ci!cu#stances 0ill appl) to the#. The!efo!e that #eans, if the!e isno #iti$atin$ and no a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stances, the penalt) of death 0ill not be appliedbecause unde! the p!ovisions of the !evised Penal "ode, 0hen the!e a!e t0o indivisible penalties such as reclusion perpetua to death, if the!e is no a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stance, thenthe penalt) 0ill be of lesse! de$!ee, 0hich #eans1 life i#p!ison#ent. %ut even if the!e is ana$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stance, still death penalt) 0ill not be applied because it 0ill still be thelesse! penalt). This is ho0 it is $oin$ to ope!ate.%ut if the!e is an a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stance, 0ithout an) #iti$atin$ ci!cu#stance, the RevisedPenal "ode p!ovisions fo! the application of the hi$he! penalt) o! the death penalt). That isho0 it is $oin$ to ope!ate. . . .. . .Senato! Taada.M!. P!esident, pe!#it #e to cla!if) the #atte! fu!the!. The 4entle#an is sa)in$ that thep!inciple of #iti$atin$ and a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stances is applicable in $ene!al to all thesec!i#es listed in this consolidated ve!sion. That #eans that, fi!st, if the!e is no a$$!avatin$

ci!cu#stance and the!e is no the!e is no #iti$atin$ ci!cu#stance, then the c!i#e, althou$hli t d h i th ill t b i h d b d th b t b th l lt f l i

hat then #a) be the !eason fo! the a#end#ent fi;in$ the du!ation of reclusion perpetuaKTh d lib ti i th %i l " f " itt d i b th "h b f "

listed he!e in the #easu!e, 0ill not be punished b) death but b) the lesse! penalt) of reclusion perpetua.Senato! Tolentino.6es, M!. P!esident.Senato! Taada.Second, if the!e is an a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stance, but the!e is also a #iti$atin$ ci!cu#stance,then $ene!all) spea/in$, that a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stance is offset b) the #iti$atin$ci!cu#stance in 0hich case the lesse! penalt) 0hich is reclusion perpetua 0ill be the one

i#posed.Senato! Tolentino.That is !i$ht, M!. P!esident. 9

*!ticle '< of the Revised Penal "ode p!ovides that in all cases in 0hich the la0 p!esc!ibes asin$le indivisible penalt), it shall be applied !e$a!dless of an) #iti$atin$ o! a$$!avatin$ci!cu#stance that #a) have attended the co##ission of the deed, and if the la0 p!esc!ibes apenalt) co#posed of t0o indivisible penalties, then the $!eate! penalt) shall be applied if the!eis p!esent onl) one a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stance, and the lesse! penalt) shall be applied 0henthe co##ission of the act 0as attended b) so#e #iti$atin$ ci!cu#stance but 0ithout ana$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stance o! 0hen the!e 0as neithe! #iti$atin$ no! a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stance,and if both #iti$atin$ and a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stances 0e!e p!esent, the cou!t shall !easonabl)allo0 the# to offset one anothe! ta/in$ into account thei! nu#be! and i#po!tance and then toappl) p!ecedin$ !ules acco!din$ to the !esult of such co#pensation.Ve!il), if reclusion perpetua 0as !eclassified as a divisible penalt), then *!ticle '< of theRevised Penal "ode 0ould lose its !eason and basis fo! e;istence. To illust!ate, the fi!stpa!a$!aph of Section =( of the a#ended R.*. No. '7=: p!ovides fo! the penalt) of reclusion perpetua to death 0heneve! the dan$e!ous d!u$s involved a!e of an) of the uantities statedthe!ein. If *!ticle '< of the "ode 0e!e no lon$e! applicable because reclusion perpetua issupposed to be a divisible penalt), then the!e 0ould be no statuto!) !ules fo! dete!#inin$

0hen eithe! reclusion perpetua o! death should be the i#posable penalt). In fine, the!e 0ouldbe no occasion fo! i#posin$ reclusion perpetua as the penalt) in d!u$ cases, !e$a!dless of theattendant #odif)in$ ci!cu#stances.This p!oble# !evolvin$ a!ound the non-applicabilit) of the !ules in *!ticle '< assu#es se!iousp!opo!tions since it does not involve onl) d!u$ cases, as afo!esaid. 5nde! the a#endato!)sections of R.*. No. >':?, the penalt) of reclusion perpetua to death is also i#posed ont!eason b) a Filipino @section =B, ualified pi!ac) @Section <B, pa!!icide @Section :B, #u!de!@Section 'B, /idnappin$ and se!ious ille$al detention @Section 8B, !obbe!) 0ith ho#icide@Section ?B, dest!uctive a!son @Section &(B, !ape co##itted unde! ce!tain ci!cu#stances@Section &&B, and plunde! @Section &=B.No0 then, if "on$!ess had intended to !eclassif) reclusion perpetua as a divisible penalt),then it should have a#ended *!ticle '< and *!ticle >' of the Revised Penal "ode. The latte! ifthe la0 on 0hat a!e conside!ed divis ible penalties unde! the "ode and 0hat should be thedu!ation of the pe!iod the!eof. The!e a!e, as 0ell, othe! p!ovisions of the Revised Penal "odeinvolvin$ reclusion perpetua , such as *!ticle 7& on the accesso!) penalties the!eof andpa!a$!aphs = and < of *!ticle '&, 0hich have not been touched b) a co!!espondin$a#end#ent.

The delibe!ations in the %ica#e!al "onfe!ence "o##ittee and in both "ha#be!s of "on$!essdo not enli$hten us on this, e;cept the c!)ptic state#ent of Senio! Tolentino adve!ted to aboveon the eli#ination of the ne0 penalt) of li&e imprisonment b) the %ica#e!al "onfe!ence"o##ittee. It #a), ho0eve!, be pointed out that althou$h the Revised Penal "ode did notspecif) the #a;i#u# of reclusion perpetua , it is appa!ent that the #a;i#u# pe!iod fo! these!vice of this penalt) shall not e;ceed fo!t) @7(B )ea!s. In People vs.$e3es, 1/ this "ou!t,spea/in$ th!ou$h M!. Custice Flo!en D. Re$alado, stated1e hold that the!e is le$al basis, both in la0 and lo$ic , fo! P!esidential Dec!ee No. 8&8 to

decla!e that an) penalt) e;ceedin$ t0ent) @=(B )ea!s, o! the #a;i#u# du!ation of reclusiontemporal , is 0ithin the !an$e of reclusion perpetua.It 0ill be obse!ved that *!ticle => of the "ode p!ovides fo! the #ini#u# and #a;i#u# !an$esof all the penalties in the "ode @e;cept bond to /eep the peace 0hich shall be fo! such pe!iodof ti#e as the cou!t #a) dete!#ineB f!o# arresto menor to reclusion temporal , the latte! bein$specificall) f!o# t0elve )ea!s and one da) to t0ent) )ea!s. Fo! reclusion perpetua, ho0eve!,the!e is no specification as to its #ini#u# and #a;i#u# !an$e, as the afo!esaid a!ticle#e!el) p!ovides that @aBn) pe!son sentenced to an) of the pe!petual penalties shall bepa!doned afte! unde!$oin$ the penalt) fo! thi!t) )ea!s, unless such pe!son b) !eason of hisconduct o! so#e othe! se!ious cause shall be conside!ed b) the "hief 3;ecutive as un0o!th)of pa!don.The othe! applicable !efe!ence to reclusion perpetua is found in *!ticle >( of the "ode 0hich,in la)in$ do0n the !ule on successive se!vice of sentences 0he!e the culp!it has to se!ve#o!e than th!ee penalties, p!ovides that the #a;i#u# du!ation of the convicts sentence shallnot be #o!e than th!ee-fold the len$th of ti#e co!!espondin$ to the #ost seve!e of thepenalties i#posed upon hi#, and @iBn appl)in$ the p!ovisions of this !ule the du!ation ofpe!petual penalties @ pena perpetuaB shall be co#puted at thi!t) )ea!s.The i#puted du!ation of thi!t) @<(B )ea!s fo! reclusion perpetua, the!efo!e, is onl) to se!ve asthe basis fo! dete!#inin$ the convicts eli$ibilit) fo! pa!don o! fo! the application of the th!ee-fold !ule in the se!vice of #ultiple penalties. Since, ho0eve!, in all the $!aduated scales ofpenalties in the "ode, as set out in *!ticle =:, >( and >&, reclusion perpetua is the penalt)i##ediatel) ne;t hi$he! to reclusion temporal , it follo0s b) necessa!) i#plication that the#ini#u# of reclusion perpetua is t0ent) @=(B )ea!s and one @&B da) 0ith du!ation the!eafte! tolast fo! the !est of the convicts natu!al life althou$h, pu!suant to *!ticle >(, it appea!s that the#a;i#u# pe!iod fo! the se!vice of penalties shall not e;ceed fo!t) @7(B )ea!s. It 0ould bele$all) absu!d and violative of the scales of penalties in the "ode to !ec/on the #ini#u# ofreclusion perpetua at thi!t) @<(B )ea!s since the!e 0ould the!eb) be a !esultant lacuna

0heneve! the penalt) e;ceeds the #a;i#u# t0ent) @=(B )ea!s of reclusion temporal but isless than thi!t) @<(B )ea!s. 11

*t #ost then in fi;in$ a specific du!ation fo! reclusion perpetua , Section =& of R.*. No. >':?#e!el) !estated the e;istin$ 9u!isp!udence.23R3FOR3, the "ou!t !esolved to MODIF6 the decision of =: Ma) &??7 in this case b)D3+3TIN4 the!ef!o# the disuisitions on 0hethe! reclusion perpetua is a divisible penalt)and S3TTIN4 *SID3 its division into th!ee pe!iods and, finall), *M3NDIN4 the dispositivepo!tion the!eof to !ead as follo0s1

23R3FOR3, the challen$ed decision of =8 Octobe! &??= of %!anch &(7 of the Re$ionalT i l " t f J "it i " i i l " N J ?& &87': d " i i l " N J ?&

fo!# a pe!iodG the li$htest of the# shall be the #ini#u#, the ne;t the #ediu#, and the #ostth i i d

T!ial "ou!t of Jueon "it) in "!i#inal "ase No. J-?&-&87': and "!i#inal "ase No. J-?&-&87'' is he!eb) *FFIRM3D, sub9ect ot the #odifications above indicated. *s #odified1@&B In "!i#inal "ase No. J-?&-&87':, in addition to the penalt) of reclusion perpetua i#posedb) the t!ial cou!t, accused COS3 "ONR*DO +5"*S 6 %RION3S is fu!the! o!de!ed toinde#nif) the offended pa!t), "handa +ucas ) *ust!ia, in the su# of Fift) Thousand Pesos@P:,(((.((BG and@=B In "!i#inal "ase No. J-?&-&87'', accused COS3 "ONR*DO +5"*S 6 %RION3S ishe!eb) found 45I+T6 be)ond !easonable doubt of the lesse! offense of atte#pted !ape and is

he!eb) sentenced to suffe! an indete!#inate penalt) !an$in$ f!o# Fou! @7B 6ea!s, T0o @=BMonths and One @&B Da) of prision correccional as #ini#u# to Ten @&(B 6ea!s and One @&BDa) of prision ma3or #a;i#u#, and to inde#nif) the offended pa!t), "handa +ucas ) *ust!ia,in the su# of Thi!t) Thousand Pesos @P<(,(((.((B."osts a$ainst the accused-appellant.SO ORD3R3D.*arvasa, C.J., Padilla, idin, $egalado, $omero, ellosillo, (elo, 8uiason, Puno, Vitug,apunan and (endo0a, JJ., concur.eliciano, J., is on leave. Foot$ot&s& 3ntitled, 2n act to %mpose the Death Penalt3 on Certain einous Crimes, 2mending &or that Purpose the $evised Penal Code, as 2mended, +ther #pecial Penal )aws, and &or +therPurposes.= It !eads1*!t. ':. Rule in cases in 0hich the penalt) is not co#posed of th!ee pe!iods. E In cases in

0hich the penalt) p!esc!ibed b) la0 is not co#posed of th!ee pe!iods, the cou!ts shall appl)the !ules contained in the fo!e$oin$ a!ticles, dividin$ into th!ee eual po!tions the ti#eincluded in the penalt) p!esc!ibed, and fo!#in$ one pe!iod of each of the th!ee po!tions.< Sub#itted b) the Senate "o##ittee on "onstitutional *#end#ents, Revision of "odes and+a0s, and Custice and 2u#an Ri$hts on <( Octobe! &??= as a consolidation of va!iousindividual Senate %ills. It is entitled 2n 2ct De&ining einous Crimes, %mposing the Penalt3here&or, 2mending &or that Purpose 2rticle 4< and 2dding a *ew 2rticle <4"2 in 2ct *o . 7?1A,as 2mended, he $evised Penal Code, and &or other Purposes.7 Int!oduced b) "on$!ess#an Pablo P. 4a!cia. It is entitled 2n 2ct to Declare, &or Compellingreasons o& Public Polic3 and in the %nterest o& national #ecurit3, Public order and #a&et3,Certain Crimes as einous crimes within the (eaning o& #ection *ineteen, Paragraph +ne o& 2rticle %%% o& the Constitution, and to Provide Penalties here&or .: Vol. II, "P-Senate, TSP, &(( @ednesda), &> Ma!ch &??&, &(.' Vol. II, "P-Senate, TSP ?7 @Thu!sda), = Dece#be! &?? %d .8 It p!ovides1*!t. >>. hen the penalt) is a co#ple; one co#posed of th!ee distinct penalties. E In casesin 0hich the la0 p!esc!ibes a penalt) co#posed of th!ee distinct penalties, each one shall

seve!e the #a;i#u# pe!iod.? Vol. II, "P-Senate, TSP, ?7 ?th "RP, Re$ula! Session, No. <?G 77-7:.&( =&= S"R* 7(= &??=.&& %d . at 7(>-7(8 @footnote o#ittedB.



G.R. Nos. 112(3'(6 u$& 2), 2//1

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.GERAR!O LATUPAN > SI0AL, ##s ERR>, accused-appellant.

PAR!O, J .BThe case is an appeal f!o# the decision& of the Re$ional T!ial "ou!t, Tuao, "a$a)an, %!anch&& convictin$ 4e!a!do +atupan ) Sibal, alias Ce!!) of the co#ple; c!i#e of double #u!de! andsentencin$ hi# to life i#p!ison#ent and to inde#nif) the hei!s of the t0o victi#s in thea#ount of fift) thousand @P:(,(((.((B pesos each. The cou!t also convicted accused 4e!a!do+atupan of inflictin$ ph)sical in9u!ies to Cai#e *suncion, and sentenced hi# to ten da)si#p!ison#ent and to pa) t0o hund!ed @P=((.((B pesos as inde#nit).On *p!il &<, &??=, P!ovincial P!osecuto! *le9and!o *. Pulido of "a$a)an filed 0ith theRe$ional T!ial "ou!t, Tuao, "a$a)an fou! sepa!ate info!#ations cha!$in$ 4e!a!do +atupan )Sibal alias Ce!!) 0ith t0o counts of f!ust!ated #u!de! and t0o counts of #u!de!, co##itted asfollo0s1Criminal Case *o. 7<:" That on o! about *p!il =?, &??&, in the Municipalit) of Tuao, P!ovince of "a$a)an, and 0ithinthe 9u!isdiction of this 2ono!able "ou!t, the said accused, 4e!a!do +atupan alias Ce!!), a!#ed

0ith a pointed /nife, 0ith intent to /ill, 0ith evident p!e#editation and 0ith t!eache!) did thenand the!e 0illfull), unla0full) and feloniousl) attac/, assault, bo;, #aul, /ic/ and hit 0ith hisafo!esaid a!# one +eo *suncion, inflictin$ upon hi# in9u!ies on the diffe!ent pa!ts of his bod).That the accused had pe!fo!#ed all the acts of e;ecution 0hich 0ould have p!oduced thec!i#e of Mu!de! as a conseuence but 0hich, neve!theless, did not p!oduce it b) !eason ofcauses independent of his o0n 0ill."ont!a!) to la0.=

Criminal Case *o. 7?" That on o! about *p!il =?, &??&, in the Municipalit) of Tuao, P!ovince of "a$a)an, and 0ithinthe 9u!isdiction of this 2ono!able "ou!t, the said accused, 4e!a!do +atupan alias Ce!!), a!#ed

0ith a pointed /nife, 0ith intent to /ill, 0ith evident p!e#editation and 0ith t!eache!) did thenand the!e 0illfull), unla0full) and feloniousl) attac/, assault, bo;, #aul and /ic/ one, Cai#e*suncion inflictin$ upon hi# in9u!ies on the diffe!ent pa!ts of his bod).

That the accused had pe!fo!#ed all the acts of e;ecution 0hich 0ould have p!oduced thec!i#e of Mu!de! as a conseuence but 0hich neve!theless did not p!oduce it b) !eason of

0as 0ounded. 2e as/ed Cose 0ho stabbed hi#. Cose !eplied, 5ncle Ce!!), Tatan$. Seein$that Cose needed i##ediate #edical t!eat#ent 3#) b!ou$ht hi# to the house of "efe!ino

c!i#e of Mu!de! as a conseuence but 0hich, neve!theless, did not p!oduce it b) !eason ofcauses independent of his o0n 0ill."ont!a!) to la0.<

Criminal Case *o. 7?1" That on o! about *p!il =?, &??&, in the Municipalit) of Tuao, P!ovince of "a$a)an, and 0ithinthe 9u!isdiction of this 2ono!able "ou!t, the said accused, 4e!a!do +atupan alias Ce!!), a!#ed

0ith a pointed /nife, 0ith intent to /ill, 0ith evident p!e#editation and 0ith t!eache!) did thenand the!e 0illfull), unla0full) and feloniousl) attac/, assault and stab one, Cose *suncioninflictin$ upon hi# stab 0ound on his bod) 0hich caused his death."ont!a!) to la0.7

Criminal Case *o. 7?4" That on o! about *p!il =?, &??&, in the Municipalit) of Tuao, P!ovince of "a$a)an, and 0ithinthe 9u!isdiction of this 2ono!able "ou!t, the said accused, 4e!a!do +atupan alias Ce!!), a!#ed

0ith a pointed /nife, 0ith intent to /ill, 0ith evident p!e#editation and 0ith t!eache!) did thenand the!e 0illfull), unla0full) and feloniousl) attac/, assault and stab one, +ilia *suncioninflictin$ upon he! stab 0ounds on he! bod) 0hich caused he! death."ont!a!) to la0.:

*t the a!!ai$n#ent on Ma) =:, &??<, accused pleaded not $uilt) to the cha!$e of f!ust!ated#u!de!.' Du!in$ the p!e-t!ial confe!ence of the fou! cases, accused offe!ed to chan$e his pleaof not $uilt) to $uilt) of the co#ple; c!i#e of double #u!de! and f!ust!ated #u!de!. Thep!osecution did not inte!pose an) ob9ection. Thus, on Cul) =(, &??<, the t!ial cou!t !e-a!!ai$nedthe accused. 2e 0ithd!e0 his plea of not $uilt) and instead pleaded $uilt) to the sin$le offenseof #ultiple #u!de! 0ith #ultiple f!ust!ated #u!de!.>

The!eafte!, the t!ial cou!t o!de!ed the p!osecution to p!esent evidence to establish theculpabilit) of the accused.The facts a!e as follo0s1On *p!il =?, &??&, at a!ound 71(( in the afte!noon, "efe!ino Da$ulo @he!eafte! "efe!inoB 0aschoppin$ fi!e0ood outside his house in *n$an$, Tuao, "a$a)an. Suddenl), he hea!d theshouts of a 0o#an and a child co#in$ f!o# the no!th.Mo#ents late!, "efe!ino sa0 accused 4e!a!do +atupan ) Sibal 0al/in$ in his di!ection,ca!!)in$ a thin, bloodied /nife. *ccused +atupan ente!ed the house of "efe!ino and sta!tedchasin$ "efe!inos 0ife, 0ho 0as able to !un to anothe! house nea!b). 5nable to catch"efe!inos 0ife, accused +atupan tu!ned to "efe!ino and said, I 0ill /ill )ou all. *t that ti#e,accused +atupans clothes, chest, hands and le$s 0e!e full of blood. *ccused +atupanatte#pted to th!ust the /nife into "efe!ino, 0ho 0as able to pa!!) it. +ate! on, accused+atupan told "efe!ino to b!in$ hi# to the autho!ities and t!ied to $ive the /nife to "efe!ino."efe!ino !efused to touch the /nife and told accused to $o to the autho!ities b) hi#self.2ea!in$ this advice, accused !an a0a).The house of 3#ilio *suncion @he!eafte! 3#)B 0as &(( #ete!s f!o# "efe!inos house. *ta!ound 71(( in the afte!noon of the sa#e da), 3#) *suncion 0as !etu!nin$ to his house f!o#a sto!e. 2e !eached his house and found his 0ife, +ilia, dead on the $!ound 0ith seve!al stab

0ounds on he! bod). 2is one-)ea! old son, +eo, 0as l)in$ on top of +ilia *suncion. 3#)pic/ed up +eo and sa0 that the left side of +eos face 0as lace!ated. 2e sa0 Cai#e, his th!ee-)ea! old son and as/ed 0he!e Cose, his eldest son, 0as. *t that #o#ent, 3#) hea!d the voiceof Cose f!o# upstai!s of the house, as/in$ fo! #edicine. 2e !an upstai!s and sa0 that Cose

that Cose needed i##ediate #edical t!eat#ent, 3#) b!ou$ht hi# to the house of "efe!inoand then !etu!ned to his house to $et his t0o othe! child!en, +eo and Cai#e. The) left theco!pse of +ilia *suncion inside 3#)s house.+ilia *suncion 0as the siste! of "efe!inos 0ife.Mean0hile, "efe!ino t!ied to as/ a ba!an$a) council#an fo! assistance. Failin$ to obtainassistance, "efe!ino 0ent bac/ to his house and found 3#) *suncion and his child!en the!e.Then, "efe!ino 0ent to a #ilita!) ca#p to bo!!o0 a vehicle to b!in$ the child!en to the hospital.The #ilita!) #en p!ovided the# 0ith a 9eep. Thus, the th!ee child!en 0e!e ta/en to theNuest!a Seo!a de Piat 2ospital in "abalansan. Ridin$ in the 9eep 0e!e five soldie!s, theaccused +atupan, 3#) *suncion, "efe!ino Da$ulo, "efe!inos 0ife, and the th!ee child!en,+eo, Cai#e and Cose *suncion.Du!in$ the t!ip to the hospital, 3#)s son, Cose, sa0 accused +atupan inside the 9eep. Cosepointed to accused +atupan as the one 0ho stabbed hi#.*t the hospital, the docto!s t!eated the in9u!ies of +eo and Cai#e. 2o0eve!, the docto!sadvised 3#) and "efe!ino to b!in$ Cose to anothe! hospital due to the se!iousness of his

0ounds. So, the) p!oceeded to "a$a)an Valle) Re$ional 2ospital. Sadl), Cose 0as dead ona!!ival.8 2e 0as onl) nine )ea!s old.Cai#e, : )ea!-old son of 3#) *suncion, testi fied that he 0as th!ee )ea!s old 0hen the incidentoccu!!ed. 2e stated that accused +atupan stabbed his #othe!, stepped on hi#, th!e0 hisb!othe!, +eo, outside the 0indo0 and stabbed his othe! b!othe!, Cose.?*fte! p!esentin$testi#onial and docu#enta!) evidence, the p!osecution !ested its case. The defense did notp!esent an) testi#onial o! docu#enta!) evidence, #e!el) !el)in$ on accuseds plea of $uilt).Thus, the case 0as conside!ed sub#itted fo! decision.On *u$ust =:, &??<, the t!ial cou!t !ende!ed a decision, the dispositive po!tion of 0hich !eads123R3FOR3, findin$ the accused 43R*RDO +*T5P*N alias C3RR6 45I+T6 be)ond!easonable doubt of the co#ple; offense of Double Mu!de!, the "ou!t he!eb) sentences hi#to suffe! life i#p!ison#ent and to inde#nif) the hei!s of the t0o victi#s in the a#ount ofP:(,(((.(( each o! a total of P&((,(((.((.Fo! the ph)sical in9u!ies suffe!ed b) Cai#e *suncion, the accused is sentenced to suffe! ten@&(B da)s i#p!ison#ent. +i/e0ise, fo! the ph)sical in9u!ies suffe!ed b) +eon *suncion, theaccused is also sentenced to suffe! ten @&(B da)s i#p!ison#ent, both to be suffe!edsi#ultaneousl) 0ith the #o!e $!ievous sentence of life i#p!ison#ent, plus P=((.(( inde#nit)to each of the t0o victi#s.SO ORD3R3D.4iven in cha#be!s this =:th da) of *u$ust, &??<, at Tuao, "a$a)an, Philippines.

@s$d.B OR+*NDO D. %3+TR*NCud$e&(

2ence, this appeal.&&

*ccused-appellant pleaded $uilt) to the sin$le offense of #ultiple #u!de! 0ith #ultiplef!ust!ated #u!de!.*lthou$h this "ou!t has set aside convictions based on plea of $uilt) in capital offensesbecause of i#p!ovidence the!eof and 0hen such plea is the sole basis of the conde#nato!)

9ud$#ent, the ci!cu#stances of this case #e!it a diffe!ent !esult. he!e the t!ial cou!t!eceives evidence to dete!#ine p!ecisel) 0hethe! o! not the accused e!!ed in ad#ittin$ his

$uilt, the #anne! in 0hich the plea of $uilt) is #ade @i#p!ovidentl) o! notB loses le$al

si$nificance, fo! the si#ple !eason that the conviction is based on the evidence p!ovin$ theco##ission b) the accused of the offense cha!$ed &=

2o0eve!, the penalt) of life i#p!ison#ent is not the sa#e as reclusion perpetua. The) a!edistinct in natu!e in du!ation and in accesso!) penalties &8 Fi!st life i#p!ison#ent is i#posed

co##ission b) the accused of the offense cha!$ed. &=

"!ucial to the p!osecution is the testi#on) of the e)e0itness, Cai#e *suncion, 0ho 0itnessedthe incident and even suffe!ed in9u!ies f!o# the unp!ovo/ed attac/ of accused-appellant. 2e

0as fa#ilia! 0ith accused-appellant and cate$o!icall) !elated to the cou!t the events thatoccu!!ed on the afte!noon of *p!il =?, &??&. Cai#e na!!ated ho0 accused-appellant stabbedhis #othe!, th!e0 his b!othe! out of the 0indo0, stepped on hi#, and stabbed his othe!b!othe!.Mo!eove!, accused-appellant 0as seen not fa! f!o# the scene of the c!i#e 0ith a bloodied/nife and clothes, and #u#blin$ th!eats at onloo/e!s, includin$ "efe!ino Da$ulo and his 0ife.Thus, accused-appellant is liable fo! the deaths of +ilia and Cose *suncion, and the ph)sicalin9u!ies of Cai#e and +eo *suncion. F!o# the #anne! accused attac/ed the fa#il), he leftthe# 0ith no #eans of defense o! escape. "onside!in$ the t!eache!ous #anne! b) 0hich thevicti#s 0e!e /illed, the accused-appellant is liable fo! #u!de! and ph)sical in9u!ies.The t!ial cou!t, ho0eve!, e!!ed in convictin$ accused-appellant of the co#ple; c!i#e of double#u!de! and sepa!ate offenses of se!ious ph)sical in9u!ies. *!ticle 78 of the Revised Penal"ode p!ovides1 hen a sin$le act constitutes t0o o! #o!e $!ave o! less $!ave felonies o!

0hen an offense is a necessa!) #eans fo! co##ittin$ the othe!, the penalt) fo! the #ostse!ious c!i#e shall be i#posed, the sa#e to be applied in its #a;i#u# pe!iod. The instantcase does not fall unde! an) of the t0o #entioned instances 0hen a co#ple; c!i#e isco##itted.&< The /illin$ of +ilia *suncion and Cose *suncion and the 0oundin$ of Cai#e and+eo *suncion !esulted not f!o# a sin$le act but f!o# seve!al and distinct acts of stabbin$.he!e the death of t0o pe!sons does not !esul t f!o# a sin$le act but f!o# t0o diffe!ent shots,t0o sepa!ate #u!de!s, and not a co#ple; c!i#e, a!e co##itted. &7

Thus, accused-appellant is liable, not fo! a co#ple; c!i#e of double #u!de!, but fo! t0osepa!ate counts of #u!de!, and sepa!ate counts of ph)sical in9u!ies.Fu!the!, the t!ial cou!t inco!!ectl) assu#ed that the a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stance of evidentp!e#editation 0as included in the plea of $uilt). Jualif)in$ and a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stances,

0hich a!e ta/en into conside!ation fo! the pu!pose of inc!easin$ the de$!ee of penalt) to bei#posed, #ust be p!oven 0ith eual ce!taint) as the co##ission of the act cha!$ed asc!i#inal offense.&:

Thus, evident p!e#editation cannot be p!esu#ed a$ainst accused-appellant. To 0a!!ant afindin$ of evident p!e#editation, it #ust appea! not onl) that the accused decided to co##itthe c!i#e p!io! to the #o#ent of its e;ecution but also that this decision 0as the !esult of#editation, calculation, !eflection, o! pe!sistent atte#pt.&' In this case, the!e 0as no p!oof,di!ect o! ci!cu#stantial, offe!ed b) the p!osecution to sho0 0hen accused-appellant #editatedand !eflected upon his decision to /ill the victi# and the inte!venin$ ti#e that elapsed befo!ethis plan 0as ca!!ied out. hen it is not sho0n as to ho0 and 0hen the plan to /ill 0ashatched o! 0hat ti#e had elapsed befo!e it 0as ca!!ied out, evident p!e#editation cannot beconside!ed.&>

5nde! *!ticle =78 of the Revised Penal "ode, the penalt) fo! #u!de! at the ti#e of theco##ission of the c!i#e in *p!il &??& 0as reclusion temporal #a;i#u# to death. The t!ialcou!t convicted accused-appellant of #u!de! and sentenced hi# to life i#p!ison#ent. Thep!ope! i#posable penalt) is reclusion perpetua, not life i#p!ison#ent. Obviousl), the t!ial cou!tintended to i#pose reclusion perpetua.

distinct in natu!e, in du!ation and in accesso!) penalties.&8 Fi!st, life i#p!ison#ent is i#posedfo! se!ious offenses penalied b) special la0s, 0hile reclusion perpetua is p!esc!ibed unde!the Revised Penal "ode. Second, life i#p!ison#ent does not ca!!) 0ith it an) accesso!)penalt). $eclusion perpetua has accesso!) penalties. Thi!d, life i#p!ison#ent does notappea! to have an) definite e;tent o! du!ation, 0hile reclusion perpetua entails i#p!ison#entfo! at least thi!t) @<(B )ea!s afte! 0hich the convict beco#es eli$ible fo! pa!don, althou$h the#a;i#u# pe!iod the!eof shall in no case e;ceed fo!t) @7(B )ea!s. &?

e li/e0ise note that the t!ial cou!t sentenced accused to ten da)s of i#p!ison#ent fo! eachcount of sli$ht ph)sical in9u!ies. e !eite!ate the !ule that it is necessa!) fo! the cou!ts toe#plo) the p!ope! le$al te!#inolo$) in the i#position of penalties because of the substantialdiffe!ence in thei! co!!espondin$ le$al effects and accesso!) penalties.=( The app!op!iatena#e of the penalt) #ust be specified inas#uch as unde! the sche#e of penalties in theRevised Penal "ode, the p!incipal penalt) fo! a felon) has its o0n specific du!ation andco!!espondin$ accesso!) penalties.=& Thus, the cou!ts #ust e#plo) the p!ope! no#enclatu!especified in the Revised Penal "ode, such as reclusion perpetua, not life i#p!ison#ent o!ten da3s o& arresto menor , not ten da)s of i#p!ison#ent.2ence, the p!ope! penalt) fo! each #u!de! co##itted in *p!il &??&, conside!in$ the absenceof a$$!avatin$ and #iti$atin$ ci!cu#stances, is reclusion perpetua, 0ith its accesso!)penalties. Fu!the!, accused-appellant is liable fo! t0o counts of sli$ht ph)sical in9u!ies and#ust be sentenced to t0ent) @=(B da)s of arresto menor , each, li/e0ise 0ith its accesso!)penalties unde! the Revised Penal "ode.==

e sustain the t!ial cou!ts a0a!d of fift) thousand @P:(,(((.((B pesos as death inde#nit) fo!each of the victi#s. No fu!the! p!oof is necessa!) othe! than the fact of death of the victi# andthe accuseds !esponsibilit) the!efo!.=< In addition, 0e a0a!d #o!al da#a$es in the a#ount ofP:(,(((.(( pesos fo! each victi#, 0ithout need of p!oof of conseuent ph)sical suffe!in$ and#ental an$uish of the hei!s of the victi#s, in line 0ith !ecent !ulin$s.=7

23R3FOR3, the "ou!t *FFIRMS the decision of the Re$ional T!ial "ou!t, Tuao, "a$a)an,%!anch && in "!i#inal "ase Nos. &&=7:<-:' 0ith MODIFI"*TION. The accused-appellant4e!a!do +atupan ) Sibal is convicted of t0o counts of #u!de!, fo! the death of +ilia *suncionand Cose *suncion, and is sentenced to reclusion perpetua in each case, and to inde#nif) thehei!s of +ilia and Cose *suncion in the a#ount of P:(,(((.(( pesos, each case, and inaddition the!eto, the a#ount of P:(,(((.(( pesos, each case, as #o!al da#a$es. *ccused-appellant is fu!the! convicted of t0o counts of sli$ht ph)sical in9u!ies and is sentenced tot0ent) @=(B da)s of arresto menor , in each case, plus P=,(((.(( pesos as inde#nit) to eachof the t0o victi#s, Cai#e and +eo *suncion."osts a$ainst accused-appellant.SO ORD3R3D.Davide, Jr., C.J.,9Chairman=, Puno, and apunan, JJ., concu!.!nares"#antiago, J., on official business ab!oad.

Foot$ot&s& In "!i#inal "ase Nos. <>?-T, <8(-T, <8&-T, <8=-T, Cud$e O!lando D. %elt!an, p!esidin$.= Re$ional T!ial "ou!t Reco!d, %oo/ I, p. <&.< Re$ional T!ial "ou!t Reco!d, %oo/ II, p. 7.7 Re$ional T!ial "ou!t Reco!d, %oo/ III, p. 7.

: Re$ional T!ial "ou!t Reco!d, %oo/ IV, p. 7.' "e!tificate of *!!ai$n#ent Re$ional T!ial "ou!t Reco!d %oo/ I p 7<

"e!tificate of *!!ai$n#ent, Re$ional T!ial "ou!t Reco!d, %oo/ I, p. 7<.> "e!tificate of *!!ai$n#ent, Re$ional T!ial "ou!t Reco!d, %oo/ I, p. :(.8 TSN, *u$ust ?, &??<, pp. <-&(.? TSN, *u$ust ?, &??<, pp. &=-&<.&( Decision, Re$ional T!ial "ou!t Reco!d, %oo/ I, pp. :?-':, at p. ':.&& Notice of *ppeal, Re$ional T!ial "ou!t Reco!d, %oo/ I, p. ''.&= People v. De!ilo, =>& S"R* '<<, ':8-':? &??>.&< People v. *bubu, <== S"R* 7(>, 7&7 =(((.&7 People v. Tabaco, =>( S"R* <=, '= &??>.&: People v. Pia#onte, <(< S"R* :>>, :88 &???.&' People v. %asao, <&( S"R* >7<, >8( &???.&> People v. 3nolva, <=< S"R* =?:, <&(-<&& =(((.&8 People v. Ricaf!anca, <=< S"R* ':=, '': =(((.&? People v. Fue!tes, <=' S"R* <8=, 7&7 =(((.=( People v. +ite!ado, =(? S"R* <&?, <=8 &??=, citin$ People v. Mobe, 8& Phil. :8 &?78GPeople v. %a$uio, &?' S"R* 7:? &??&.=& *ust!ia v. "ou!t of *ppeals, <<? Phil . 78', 7?:-7?' &??>G People v. Se!dan, =&< S"R*<=?, <77 &??=G People v. *uino, &8' S"R* 8:&, 8'< &??(.== *!ticle 77, Revised Penal "ode.=< People v. Pa!aiso, <&? S"R* 7==, 77( &???G People v. "a)a$o, <&= S"R* '=<, '<?&???.=7 People v. Sullano, <<& S"R* '7?, ''= =(((, citin$ People v. *t!e9enio, <&( S"R* ==?&???G People v. Salcedo, <7( Phil. &=, <: &??>.



G.R. No. 1))(62 August 17, 2/11

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-*ppellee,vs.RO!EL LANUZA 4 0AGAOISAN, *ccused-*ppellant.

D 3 " I S I O N

LEONAR!O'!E CASTRO, J.:

On appeal is the Decision& dated *p!il =>, =((? of the "ou!t of *ppeals in "*-4.R. "R. No.<&7(', 0hich affi!#ed the Cud$#ent= dated Canua!) <(, =((8 of %!anch &7 of the Re$ionalT!ial "ou!t @RT"B of +aoa$ "it) in "!i#inal "ase No. &<<88-&7, findin$ accused-appellantRodel %a$aoisan +anua $uilt) be)ond !easonable doubt of the c!i#e of f!ust!ated ho#icide.The RT", ta/in$ into conside!ation the #iti$atin$ ci!cu#stance of volunta!) su!!ende! and

appl)in$ the indete!#inate sentence la0, sentenced accused-appellant to i#p!ison#ent f!o#fou! @7B )ea!s of p!ision co!!eccional, as #ini#u#, to seven @>B )ea!s of p!ision #a)o!, as#a;i#u#.The c!i#inal info!#ation, cha!$in$ accused-appellant 0ith the c!i#e of f!ust!ated ho#icide, asdefined and penalied unde! *!ticle =7? in !elation to *!ticle ' of the Revised Penal "ode,!eads1That on o! about the &st da) of *p!il =((> in the "it) of +aoa$, Philippines , and 0ithin the

9u!isdiction of this 2ono!able "ou!t, the said accused, 0ith intent to /ill, did then and the!e 0illfull), unla0full) and feloniousl) attac/, assault and shoot b) the use of a &= $au$e shot$un,Coel 4. %uta), pe!fo!#in$ all the acts of e;ecution 0hich 0ould p!oduce the c!i#e of ho#icideas a conseuence, but 0hich neve!theless did not p!oduce it b) !eason of causes

independent of the 0ill of the accused and that is the ti#el) #edical attention e;tended to saidCoel 4 %uta) <

his buttoc/s. The accused 0ent nea! the p!ivate co#plainant and pulled the t!i$$e! a secondti#e but the shot$un did not fi!e and the p!ivate co#plainant hea!d onl) a clic/ The accused

Coel 4. %uta).On Cul) &&, =((>, accused-appellant 0as a!!ai$ned and he pleaded not $uilt) to the c!i#inalcha!$e.7

Du!in$ the p!eli#ina!) confe!ence, the pa!ties ad#itted, a#on$ othe! facts, that accused-appellant shot p!ivate co#plainant Coel 4. %uta)G that as a !esult of the shootin$, p!ivateco#plainant sustained a $unshot 0ound 0hich caused his confine#ent at the p!ovincialhospital fo! &= da)sG that accused-appellant volunta!il) su!!ende!ed to the Philippine NationalPolice @PNPB, +aoa$ "it), su!!ende!in$ a shot$un, five live bu llets, and one e#pt) shellG andthat p!ivate co#plainant suffe!ed actual da#a$es a#ountin$ to P>(,(((.((. *ccused-appellant, ho0eve!, asse!ted that the shootin$ 0as accidental, as conte#plated unde! *!ticle&=@7B of the Revised Penal "ode, 0hich e;e#pts f!o# c!i#inal liabilit) an) pe!son 0ho, 0hilepe!fo!#in$ a la0ful act 0ith due ca!e, causes in9u!) b) #e!e accident 0ithout fault o! intentionof causin$ it. P!ivate co#plainant, ho0eve!, insisted that accused-appellant pulled the t!i$$e!of the $un 0ith the intention of /illin$ hi#.In vie0 of accused-appellantQs asse!tion of an e;e#ptin$ ci!cu#stance in his favo!, the RT",in its P!e-T!ial O!de!: dated Cul) =', =((>, o!de!ed a !eve!se t!ial of the case.The!eafte!, t!ial ensued.*ccused-appellant testified on Nove#be! =&, =((>,' 0hile p!ivate co#plainant testified onNove#be! =?, =((>.> The RT" su##a!ied the evidence p!esented b) the pa!ties as follo0s1F!o# the defense evidence, it appea!s that the incident sub9ect of this case too/ place at thebase#ent of the %IR office in +aoa$ "it) in the #o!nin$ of *p!il &, =((>, 0hile the p!ivateco#plainant as out$oin$ secu!it) $ua!d 0as handin$ his shot$un to the accused, the inco#in$secu!it) $ua!d. %ecause the accused did not !epo!t fo! dut) on the scheduled ti#e, the p!ivateco#plainant !ep!i#anded hi#. *fte! the accused had affi;ed his si$natu!e on the pe!tinentpo!tion of the lo$boo/ enu#e!atin$ the ite#s tu!ned-ove! to hi# b) the out$oin$ secu!it)$ua!d, the p!ivate co#plainant handed to hi# thei! se!vice fi!ea!#, a shot$un. *lle$edl), thep!ivate co#plainant held it 0ith both hands, 0ith the #ule pointed at hi# and the buttto0a!ds the accused. *t that #o#ent, the accused $!ipped the fi!ea!# 0ith one hand, 0ith hispointe! fin$e! inside the t!i$$e! $ua!d and on top of the t!i$$e! itself. In his affidavit 0hich 0asadopted as pa!t of his di!ect testi#on), the accused stated that I i##ediatel) held oppositethe #ule of the $un 0he!e the t!i$$e! is, I al#ost slip 0ith it 0hile in the act of $!ippin$ andthen i##ediatel) the $un 0ent offG the incident happened so fast that I 0as stunned then!ealied that I accidentall) shot #) fello0 $ua!d. The p!ivate co#plainant 0as hit on the left

side of his 0aist. ith the p!ivate co#plainant bleedin$ and unconscious, the accused 0ent tothe telephone upstai!s to call fo! an a#bulance. The!e, ho0eve!, the accused hea!d the soundof a #oto!c)cle leavin$ the %IR p!e#ises. 2e 0ent do0n and discove!ed that the p!ivateco#plainant 0as no lon$e! at the place 0he!e he had left hi#. The accused, the!eafte!,p!oceeded to the +aoa$ "it) police station and su!!ende!ed.The p!osecution p!esented a diffe!ent scena!io. *cco!din$ to the p!ivate co#plainant, he didnot actuall) hand the shot$un to the accused. Instead, he #e!el) placed it, to$ethe! 0ith onebullet, on top of the secu!it) $ua!dQs table. *lthou$h he 0as tu!nin$ ove! si; bullets to theaccused, the p!ivate co#plainant asse!ted that the five othe!s 0e!e inside a d!a0e! on thesecu!it) $ua!dQs table at thei! office upstai!s. hile the p!ivate co#plainant 0ho 0as about to$o ho#e 0as as/in$ 0h) the accused did not !epo!t on his scheduled shift, the latte! $ot theshot$un, placed the a##unition inside it, and shot hi#. The p!ivate co#plainant fell do0n on

ti#e, but the shot$un did not fi!e and the p!ivate co#plainant hea!d onl) a clic/. The accused!an upstai!s, and the p!ivate co#plainant c!a0led to his #oto!c)cle and d!ove it hi#self to thep!ovincial hospital. The #edical ce!tificate issued b) his attendin$ ph)sician, D!. F!an/ie Pete*lbano, sho0s that the p!ivate co#plainant sustained the follo0in$1- 4unshot 0ound <c#. in dia#ete! left lu#ba! a!ea th!u and th!u left pa!ave!teb!al a!ea- F!actu!ed spleen A 2e#ope!itoneu# &(( cc th!u and th!u left /idne) @= pointsB.The #edical ce!tificate also indicated that e;plo!ato!) lapa!oto#) 0as conducted on thep!ivate co#plainant, his spleen 0as !epai!ed, and a d!ain 0as placed on his left pe!i!enala!ea.8

*t the end of the t!ial, the RT" p!o#ul$ated its Cud$#ent dated Canua!) <(, =((8, findin$accused-appellant $uilt) be)ond !easonable doubt of the c!i#e cha!$ed. The dispositivepo!tion of the said Cud$#ent !eads123R3FOR3, the accused ROD3+ +*N5H* ) %*4*OIS*N is he!eb) found 45I+T6 be)ond!easonable doubt of f!ust!ated ho#icide unde! *!ticle =7? in !elation to *!ticle ' of the RevisedPenal "ode and, 0ith the #iti$atin$ ci!cu#stance of volunta!) su!!ende!, is he!eb) sentencedto an indete!#inate penalt) !an$in$ f!o# fou! )ea!s of p!ision co!!eccional as #ini#u# toseven )ea!s of p!ision #a)o! as #a;i#u#. 2e is fu!the! o!de!ed to pa) the p!ivateco#plainant P>(,(((.(( as actual da#a$es and P=:,(((.(( as #o!al da#a$es. "ostsa$ainst the accused.?

*ccused-appellant filed his *ppellantQs %!ief&( befo!e the "ou!t of *ppeals on Cul) =<, =((8 toassail the fo!e$oin$ 9ud$#ent of conviction !ende!ed a$ainst hi# b) the RT".In his %!ief, accused-appellant #aintained that he shot p!ivate co#plainant b) #e!e accident.In the event the "ou!t of *ppeals is not convinced that accused-appellant acted 0ith due ca!e,one of the ele#ents fo! the e;e#ptin$ ci!cu#stance of accident unde! *!ticle &=@7B of theRevised Penal "ode, accused-appellant u!$ed the appellate cou!t to i#pose upon hi# asentence in acco!d 0ith *!ticle '> of the sa#e "ode, 0hich specificall) p!ovided fo! thepenalt) to be i#posed 0hen not all the !euisites of e;e#ption of the fou!th ci!cu#stance of*!ticle &= a!e p!esent.In the alte!native, accused-appellant contended in his %!ief that, at the #ost, he could onl) beheld accountable fo! the c!i#e of ph)sical in9u!ies in the absence of p!oof of his intent to /illp!ivate co#plainant.*ccused-appellant a!$ued that if he !eall) had the intent to /ill, he could have shot p!ivateco#plainant 0ith p!ecision. *ccused-appellant clai#ed that p!ivate co#plainantQs ve!sion of

events i##ediatel) afte! the latte! 0as shot 0as inc!edible. %) p!ivate co#plainantQs o0nad#ission, accused-appellant did not sa) an)thin$ to hi#, did not hit hi# 0ith the $un, and didnot /ic/ hi# 0hile he sat on the floo! afte! bein$ shot. P!ivate co#plainant even pleaded fo!help f!o# accused-appellant afte! sustainin$ the $unshot 0ound.*ccused-appellant fu!the! !aised doubts as to the c!edibilit) of p!ivate co#plainant $iven theinconsistencies in the latte!Qs testi#on). The p!ivate co#plainant alle$edl) testified that heplaced the shot$un and one bullet on top of the secu!it) $ua!dQs table fo! tu!n-ove! to accused-appellant. The five othe! bullets fo! the shot$un 0e!e in a d!a0e! in anothe! secu!it) $ua!dQstable on the uppe! floo!. P!ivate co#plaint clai#ed to have seen accused-appellant load onebullet in the shot$un. 2o0eve!, du!in$ c!oss-e;a#ination, p!ivate co#plainant said that all si;bullets fo! the shot$un could not be seen du!in$ the tu!n-ove!. Thus, p!ivate co#plainant couldnot have seen accused-appellant load an) bullet into the shot$un. P!ivate co#plainant also

initiall) na!!ated that he 0as about to boa!d his #oto!c)cle 0hen he 0as shot b) accused-appellantG )et 0hen c!oss-e;a#ined p!ivate co#plainant stated that he had al!ead) boa!ded

*s a !esult, the attendin$ ph)sician had to ope!ate on hi#, !epai! his spleen and place a d!ainin the vicinit) of the /idne) Mo!eove! the p!ivate co#plainant had to be confined at the

appellantG )et, 0hen c!oss e;a#ined, p!ivate co#plainant stated that he had al!ead) boa!dedhis #oto!c)cle at the ti#e he 0as shot.In its %!ief&& filed on Nove#be! =>, =((8, plaintiff-appellee People of the Philippines counte!ed

0ith the follo0in$ a!$u#ents1I.*""5S3D-*PP3++*NT F*I+3D TO PROV3 T2*T 23 IS 3NTIT+3D TO T23 3L3MPTIN4"IR"5MST*N"3 OF *""ID3NT.II.T23 PROS3"5TION PROV3D %36OND R3*SON*%+3 DO5%T T2*T T23 OFF3NS3"OMMITT3D *S * R3S5+T OF * D3+I%3R*T3 *ND IN3L"5S*%+3 *"T.III.*""5S3D-*PP3++*NT *S "ORR3"T+6 FO5ND %6 T23 TRI*+ "O5RT 45I+T6 OFT23 "RIM3 OF FR5STR*T3D 2OMI"ID3.&=

5pon !evie0 of the evidence p!esented, the "ou!t of *ppeals !ende!ed its assailed Decisionon *p!il =>, =((?, dis#issin$ accused-appellantQs appeal and affi!#in$ his conviction fo! thec!i#e of f!ust!ated ho#icide, as 0ell as the p!ison sentence handed do0n a$ainst hi# b) theRT". The dispositive po!tion of said Decision !eads123R3FOR3, the appeal is he!eb) DISMISS3D and the Canua!) <(, =((8 Cud$#ent of theRe$ional T!ial "ou!t of +aoa$ "it), %!anch &7, in "!i#inal "ase No. &<<88-&7 findin$ Rodel+anua ) %a$aoisan $uilt) be)ond !easonable doubt of the c!i#e of f!ust!ated ho#icide is*FFIRM3D.&<

Instead of see/in$ !econside!ation of the afo!e#entioned "ou!t of *ppeals decision, accused-appellant filed a Notice of *ppeal. &7 The "ou!t then issued a Resolution &: dated *u$ust &?,=((? !eui!in$ the pa!ties to sub#it thei! !espective supple#ental b!iefs, if the) so desi!e. In!esponse to said Resolution, plaintiff-appellee filed a Manifestation&' statin$ that it 0asadoptin$ its %!ief befo!e the "ou!t of *ppeals since the!e 0as no ne0 issue !aised in accused-appellantQs appeal befo!e this "ou!tG 0hile accused-appellant did not file an) pleadin$ at all.The "ou!t sustains the ve!dict of $uilt a$ainst accused-appellant.The ele#ents of f!ust!ated ho#icide a!e1 @&B the accused intended to /ill his victi#, as#anifested b) his use of a deadl) 0eapon in his assaultG @=B the victi# sustained fatal o!#o!tal 0oundAs but did not die because of ti#el) #edical assistanceG and @ 3vidence to p!ove intent to /ill in c!i#es a$ainst pe!sons #a) consist, inte! alia, of

the #eans used b) the #alefacto!sG the natu!e, location and nu#be! of 0ounds sustained b)the victi#G the conduct of the #alefacto!s befo!e, at the ti#e of, o! i##ediatel) afte! the /illin$of the victi#G the ci!cu#stances unde! 0hich the c!i#e 0as co##ittedG and the #otive of theaccused.&8 These ele#ents a!e e;tant in the case at ba!.The p!osecution has satisfacto!il) p!oven that accused-appellant intended to /ill p!ivateco#plainant based on the #ethod of attac/, the 0eapon used, and the location of the $unshot

0ound. *ccused-appellant shot p!ivate co#plainant 0ith a shot$un at close !an$e hittin$ thelatte!Qs abdo#en. Resultantl), p!ivate co#plainant sustained a 0ound that could have causedhis death if not fo! the ti#el) #edical attention $iven to hi#. *s aptl) elabo!ated b) the RT"1The #edical ce!tificate sho0s that the $unshot hit the bod) of the p!ivate co#plainant,causin$ in9u!ies to his spleen and left /idne). In fact, the he#opentoneu#Q !efe!!ed to the!ein#eans that the!e 0as bleedin$ inside his abdo#en and that &(( cc of blood 0as ta/en f!o# it.

in the vicinit) of the /idne). Mo!eove!, the p!ivate co#plainant had to be confined at thep!ovincial hospital fo! t0elve da)s, a fact unde!sco!in$ the $!avit) of his condition. "lea!l), onedoes not have to be a ph)sician to !ealie that a pe!son 0ould die if the said in9u!ies 0ould!e#ain unt!eated. *cco!din$l), the accused #ust be dee#ed to have pe!fo!#ed the last actnecessa!) to /ill the p!ivate co#plainant.&?

*s both the RT" and the "ou!t of *ppeals obse!ved, the ve!sion of events as !ecounted b)the p!ivate co#plainant 0as hi$hl) c!edible, 0hile that na!!ated b) accused-appellant st!ainshu#an c!edulit).The RT" did not $ive p!obative 0ei$ht to accused-appellantQs testi#on) that his shootin$ ofp!ivate co#plainant 0as co#pletel) accidental, fo! the follo0in$ !easons1It is a;io#atic that a pe!son 0ho invo/es accident #ust p!ove that he acted 0ith due ca!e.This 0as belied b) the conduct of the accused 0hen he alle$edl) !eceived the shot$un f!o#the p!ivate co#plainant. *s he hi#self ad#itted, he !eceived the shot$un b) placin$ hispointe! fin$e!, also /no0n as the t!i$$e! fin$e! because it is used to sueee the t!i$$e!, insidethe t!i$$e! $ua!d and ove! the t!i$$e! itself. o!se, he did so 0hile the ba!!el of the $un 0aspointed at the p!ivate co#plainant. o!st, he had been a secu!it) $ua!d fo! th!ee )ea!s p!io!to the incident and had unde!$one lessons on $un safet). *cco!din$ to hi#, he /ne0 that it

0as not p!ope! fo! a pe!son to !eceive a fi!ea!# f!o# anothe! b) i##ediatel) inse!tin$ a fin$e!inside the t!i$$e! $ua!d. +i/e0ise, he /ne0 that the hand-ove! of a fi!ea!# 0ith its ba!!elpointed to0a!ds the $ive! o! an) othe! pe!son 0as not p!ope!. That he did these i#p!ope! actsdespite his t!ainin$ and e;pe!ience as a secu!it) $ua!d unde!#ines an) notion that he hadacted 0ith due ca!e du!in$ the sub9ect incident.In an) case, the ve!sion of events na!!ated b) the accused is un0o!th) of c!edence. To !epeat,that the accused did the above#entioned acts despite his e;pe!ience and t!ainin$ as asecu!it) $ua!d is difficult to believe. No one can be a secu!it) $ua!d and !eceive a fi!ea!# b)i##ediatel) inse!tin$ the t!i$$e! fin$e! inside the t!i$$e! $ua!d. In the sa#e vein, no pe!soncan be a secu!it) $ua!d and still point a fi!ea!# at hi#self o! he!self o! an) othe! pe!son 0hilehandin$ it to anothe!. "lea!l), no one 0ho has unde!$one lessons in $un safet), #uch lessone 0ho ea!ns a livin$ b) p!ovidin$ secu!it), can be capable of the acts ad#itted b) theaccused. Si#pl) put, his clai# that he pe!fo!#ed those acts is unbelievable.The!e a!e othe! !easons fo! 0ithholdin$ c!edence f!o# the clai# of the accused. *cco!din$ tohi#, afte! the p!ivate co#plainant 0as shot and !ende!ed unconscious, he did not $o nea!hi#. Fo! ten seconds befo!e he finall) decided to $o upstai!s, he did nothin$. Mo!eove!, he

#ade no atte#pt to chec/ if he 0as still alive o! if he could help hi# in an) 0a). That heoffe!ed no help to the 0ounded p!ivate co#plainant unde!#ines his clai# of accident. *sobse!ved in People v. Re)es, had the shootin$ !eall) been accidental, then the natu!altendenc) of the accused 0ould have been to i##ediatel) $ive help to his unfo!tunate victi#and even to plead and e;p!ess his !e$!et to the #othe! of the deceased. =(

In cont!ast, p!ivate co#plainantQs testi#on) passed #uste! 0ith the RT", to 0it1Indeed, the ve!sion of the p!ivate co#plainant dese!ves #o!e c!edence. "ont!a!) to thest!ained and unbelievable scena!io posited b) the defense, the p!ivate co#plainantQs account

0as st!ai$htfo!0a!d and c!edibleG alle$edl), he !ep!i#anded the accused that #o!nin$ fo! not!epo!tin$ on his scheduled shift, but the latte! $ot #ad and shot hi#. It #ust be st!essed thatthe accused hi#self ad#itted that the p!ivate co#plainant had !ep!i#anded hi# that #o!nin$.

"lea!l), the!e 0as !eason X no #atte! ho0 fli#s) X fo! the accused to $et an$!) and to shootthe p!ivate co#plainant delibe!atel).

#oto!c)cle 0hen he 0as shot b) accused-appellant, 0ould have no bea!in$ on the fact thatp!ivate co#plainant 0as shot b) accused-appellant 0ith the se!vice shot$un tu!ned-ove! b)

the p!ivate co#plainant delibe!atel).In an) event, the "ou!t has ca!efull) e;a#ined the testi#on) of the p!ivate co#plainant as

0ell as his de#eano! at the 0itness stand, and has found no !eason to 0ithhold c!edencef!o# hi#. *t the outset, the accused failed to sho0 an) #otive X and the !eco!ds sho0 none Xfo! the p!ivate co#plainant to concoct a sto!) and to testif) falsel) a$ainst hi#. Mo!eove!, the!eco!ds sho0 the p!ivate co#plainantQs positive and fo!th!i$ht testi#on) to be consistent evenunde! able c!oss-e;a#ination. It has been held that the best test of c!edibilit) is itsco#patibilit) 0ith the co##on e;pe!ience of #an. * testi#on) dese!ves c!edence if it doesnot !un counte! to hu#an /no0led$e, obse!vation and e;pe!ienceG 0hateve! is !epu$nant tothese standa!ds beco#es inc!edible and lies outside of 9udicial co$niance. *ppl)in$ thatstanda!d, the "ou!t finds no sufficient !eason to 0ithhold c!edence f!o# the p!ivateco#plainantQs testi#on).=&

2ence, the RT" ulti#atel) concluded1In that li$ht, c!edibilit) leans heavil) in favo! of the p!ivate co#plainant. The cont!a!) testi#on)of the accused does not dese!ve c!edence, and his clai# of accident #ust conseuentl) be!e9ected. Fo! this !eason, his alte!native X albeit i#plicit X clai# that he should be held liableonl) fo! c!i#inal ne$li$ence !esultin$ in ph)sical in9u!ies #ust also be !e9ected. Thus, the"ou!t holds that the shootin$ of the victi# too/ place not because of accident o! c!i#inalne$li$enceG !athe!, it 0as the !esult of a delibe!ate and ine;cusable act, fo! 0hich the accused#ust be held c!i#inall) liable.==

The "ou!t of *ppeals affi!#ed in toto the findin$s of the RT". The appellate cou!t !easonedthat p!ivate co#plainant si#pl) lac/ed the #otive to concoct a sto!) o! falsel) testif) a$ainstaccused-appellant.The!e is no co$ent !eason fo! the "ou!t to distu!b the fo!e$oin$ findin$s and conclusions ofboth the RT" and the "ou!t of *ppeals. *ccused-appellantQs i#plausible alibi of accidentcannot ove!co#e p!ivate co#plainantQs positive and fo!th!i$ht testi#on) that accused-appellant shot p!ivate co#plainant 0ith intent to /ill.It #ust be e#phasied that 0hen the c!edibilit) of a 0itness is in issue, the findin$s of fact ofthe t!ial cou!t, its calib!ation of the testi#onies of the 0itnesses and its assess#ent of thep!obative 0ei$ht the!eof, as 0ell as its conclusions ancho!ed on said findin$s a!e acco!dedhi$h !espect if not conclusive effect. This is #o!e t!ue if such findin$s 0e!e affi!#ed b) theappellate cou!t, since it is settled that 0hen the t!ial cou!tQs findin$s have been affi!#ed b) theappellate cou!t, said findin$s a!e $ene!all) bindin$ upon this "ou!t.=<

The inconsistencies in p!ivate co#plainantQs testi#on) a!e not as se!ious o! da#a$in$ asaccused-appellant 0ants this "ou!t to believe. The "ou!t a$!ees 0ith the "ou!t of *ppealsthat the pu!po!ted inconsistencies in p!ivate co#plainantQs testi#on) pe!tain to details 0hicha!e inconseuential to the c!edibilit) of his ove!all testi#on), thus1hile the!e #a) be so#e inconsistencies in p!ivate co#plainantQs testi#on), theseinco#patible decla!ations do not pe!tain to the essential ele#ents of the c!i#e of 0hich theaccused-appellant 0as convicted. The) !efe! onl) to #ino! #atte!s and a!e inconseuential asthe) do not i#pai! the c!edibilit) of the p!osecution 0itness. In fact, inaccu!acies #a) su$$estthat the 0itness is tellin$ the t!uth and has not been !ehea!sed. This is because a 0itness isnot e;pected to !e#e#be! eve!) sin$le detail of an incident 0ith pe!fect o! total !ecall. =7

Juestions on 0hethe! o! not p!ivate co#plainant had actuall) seen accused-appellant loadthe shot$un 0ith a bullet, o! 0hethe! o ! not p!ivate co#plainant 0as al!ead) on boa!d his

p!ivate co#plainant 0as shot b) accused appellant 0ith the se!vice shot$un tu!ned ove! b)the fo!#e! to the latte!. The "ou!t st!esses that accused-appellant hi#self ad#itted the fact ofshootin$, and onl) disputed an) intent to /ill p!ivate co#plainant. The conclusion of the RT",as affi!#ed b) the "ou!t of *ppeals and this "ou!t, that accused-appellant intended to /illp!ivate co#plainant 0as not based enti!el) on accused-appellant delibe!atel) loadin$ theshot$un, but also on the e;istence of #otive on accused-appellantQs pa!t, the location andseve!it) of p!ivate co#plainantQs in9u!), and accused-appellantQs behavio! i##ediatel) afte!the shootin$.Finall), the "ou!t li/e0ise sustains the penalt) and da#a$es i#posed a$ainst accused-appellant.The penalt) p!esc!ibed b) la0 fo! the c!i#e of f!ust!ated ho#icide is one de$!ee lo0e! thanthat p!esc!ibed b) la0 fo! the c!i#e of ho#icide. =: 5nde! the indete!#inate sentence la0, the#a;i#u# of the sentence shall be that 0hich could be p!ope!l) i#posed in vie0 of theattendin$ ci!cu#stances, and the #ini#u# shall be 0ithin the !an$e of the penalt) ne;t lo0e!to that p!esc!ibed b) the Revised Penal "ode."onside!in$ that the penalt) p!esc!ibed b) la0 fo! the c!i#e of ho#icide is !eclusion te#po!al,the penalt) fo! the c!i#e of f!ust!ated ho#icide 0ould be p!ision #a)o!. *ppl)in$ theindete!#inate sentence la0, the!e bein$ the #iti$atin$ ci!cu#stance of volunta!) su!!ende!and no a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stance, the #a;i#u# of the sentence should be 0ithin the !an$e ofp!ision #a)o! in its #ini#u# te!# 0hich has a du!ation of si; @'B )ea!s and one @&B da) toei$ht @8B )ea!s, and that, on the othe! hand, the #ini#u# should be 0ithin the !an$e of p!isionco!!eccional 0hich has a du!ation of si; @'B #onths and one @&B da) to si; @'B )ea!s. Thus, thei#position of i#p!ison#ent f!o# fou! @7B )ea!s of p!ision co!!eccional, as #ini#u#, to seven@>B )ea!s of p!ision #a)o!, as #a;i#u#, is in o!de!.1avvphi1The!e is si#ila!l) no !eason fo! the "ou!t to distu!b the a0a!d of da#a$es #ade b) the cou!ta uo. *ccused-appellant shall co#pensate p!ivate co#plainant fo! actual da#a$es in thea#ount of P>(,(((.(( as the pa!ties volunta!il) stipulated du!in$ the p!e-t!ial confe!ence thatp!ivate co#plainant incu!!ed actual e;penses in said a#ount because of his in9u!ies. *ccused-appellant shall also be liable fo! #o!al da#a$es suffe!ed b) p!ivate co#plainant in the a#ountof P=:,(((.((, in acco!dance 0ith 9u!isp!udence. ='

23R3FOR3, the instant appeal of accused-appellant is D3NI3D fo! lac/ of #e!it and theDecision dated *p!il =>, =((? of the "ou!t of *ppeals in "*-4.R. "R. No. <&7(' is*FFIRM3D.

SO ORD3R3D.TERESITA . LEONAR!O'!E CASTRO

*ssociate Custice3 "ON"5R1

RENATO C. CORONA"hief Custice"hai!pe!son

MARTIN S. ILLARAMA, R.*ssociate Custice

" 3 R T I F I " * T I O N

ARTURO !. 0RIONW

* i t C tiLUCAS P. 0ERSAMIN

* i t C ti

Pu!suant to Section &<, *!ticle VIII of the "onstitution, I ce!tif) that the conclusions in theabove Decision had been !eached in consultation befo!e the case 0as assi$ned to the 0!ite!

of the opinion of the "ou!tQs Division.RENATO C. CORONA

"hief Custice

Foot$ot&s

W Pe! Raffle dated *u$ust &>, =(&&.& Rollo, pp. <-&<G penned b) *ssociate Custice Ma!iano ". del "astillo @no0 a #e#be! of this"ou!tB 0ith *ssociate Custices Pa#pio *. *ba!intos and Ma!lene 4onales-Sison, concu!!in$.= "* !ollo, pp. 78-::G penned b) Cud$e F!ancisco R.D. Juilala.< Reco!ds, p. &.7 Id. at 7<.: Id. at >=->7.' TSN, Nove#be! =&, =((>.> TSN, Nove#be! =?, =((>.8 "* !ollo, pp. 78-:(.? Id. at ::.&( Id. at <7-7>.&&

Id. at ''-88.&= Id. at ><->7.&< Rollo, p. &=.&7 "* !ollo, p. &(>.&: Rollo, p. &8.&' Id. at &?-==.&> Se!!ano v. People, 4.R. No. &>:(=<, Cul) :, =(&(, '=< S"R* <==, <<?.&8 Maha0an v. People, 4.R. No. &>''(?, Dece#be! &8, =((8, :>7 S"R* ><>, >:=->:<.&? "* !ollo, p. :<.=( Id. at :&.=& Id. at :&-:=.== Id. at :=.=<

Decasa v. "ou!t of *ppeals, 4.R. No. &>=&87, Cul) &(, =((>, :=> S"R* ='>, =8>.=7 Rollo, p. &(.=: Revised Penal "ode, *!ticle :(.=' People v. Do#in$o, 4.R. No. &87<7<, Ma!ch =, =((?, :8( S"R* 7<', 7:8G Ru$as v.People, 7'7 Phil. 7?<, :(> @=((7B.



G.R. No. 1)/219 No&+&- 23, 2/11

IRGILIO TALAMPAS 4 MATIC, Petitione!,vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

! E C I S I O N0ERSAMIN, J.:%) petition fo! !evie0 on ce!tio!a!i, Vi!$ilio Tala#pas ) Matic @Tala#pasB see/s the !evie0 ofthe affi!#ance of his conviction fo! ho#icide @fo! the /illin$ of the late 3!nesto Matic )MasinlocB b) the "ou!t of *ppeals @"*B th!ou$h its decision p!o#ul$ated on *u$ust &', =((>. &

The Re$ional T!ial "ou!t, %!anch =:, in %ian, +a$una @RT"B had !e9ected his pleas of self-defense and accident and had decla!ed hi# $uilt) of the felon) unde! the 9ud$#ent !ende!edon Cune ==, =((7.=

*ntecedentsThe info!#ation filed on Nove#be! &>, &??:, to 0hich Tala#pas pleaded not $uilt), ave!!ed asfollo0s1<

*ssociate Custice *ssociate Custice

That on o! about Cul) :, &??:, in the Municipalit) of %ian, P!ovince of +a$una, Philippinesand 0ithin the 9u!isdiction of this 2ono!able "ou!t, accused VIR4I+IO T*+*MP*S, 0ith intent

du!in$ thei! st!u$$lin$ 0ith each othe!G that the !evolve! had a$ain fi!ed, hittin$ 3dua!do in thethi$hG that he had then seied the !evolve! and shot 3dua!do in the headG and that he had

9 , ,to /ill, 0hile convenientl) a!#ed 0ith a sho!t fi!ea!# and 0ithout an) 9ustifiable cause, did thenand the!e 0illfull), unla0full) and feloniousl) attac/, assault and shoot one 3!nesto Matic )Masinloc 0ith the said fi!ea!#, the!eb) inflictin$ upon hi# $unshot 0ound at the bac/ of hisbod) 0hich di!ectl) caused his instantaneous death, to the da#a$e and p!e9udice of hissu!vivin$ hei!s."ONTR*R6 TO +*.The State p!esented as 0itnesses Cose Sevillo, F!ancisco Matic, Ce!ico Matic, D!. Valentin%e!nales, and Cosephine Matic. The "* su##a!ied thei! testi#onies thus0ise17

P!osecution 0itness Cose Sevillo @CoseB 0ho alle$edl) 0itnessed the incident in uestion,testified that on Cul) :, &??: at about >1(( oQcloc/ in the evenin$, he to$ethe! 0ith 3dua!doMatic @3dua!doB and 3!nesto Matic @3!nestoB 0e!e inf!ont of his house, alon$ the !oad in HonaSiete @>B, a0a, Malaban, %ian, +a$una, !epai!in$ his t!ic)cle 0hen he noticed the appellant

0ho 0as !idin$ on a bic)cle passed b) and stopped. The latte! ali$hted at about th!ee @<B#ete!s a0a) f!o# hi#, 0al/ed a fe0 steps and b!ou$ht out a sho!t $un, a !evolve!, and po/edthe sa#e to 3dua!do and fi!ed it hittin$ 3dua!do 0ho too/ !efu$e behind 3!nesto. Theappellant a$ain fi!ed his $un th!ee @<B ti#es, one shot hittin$ 3!nesto at the !i$ht po!tion of hisbac/ causin$ hi# @3!nestoB to fal l on the $!ound 0ith his face do0n. *nothe! shot hit 3dua!doon his nape and fell do0n on his bac/ @patiha)aB. The!eafte!, the appellant !an a0a), 0hile he@CoseB and his nei$hbo!s b!ou$ht the victi#s to the hospital. On Cune ', &??:, Cose e;ecuteda S0o!n State#ent at the %ian Police Station.*nothe! 0itness, F!ancisco Matic, testified that p!io! to the death of his b!othe! 3!nesto 0ho

0as then 77 )ea!s old, he @3!nestoB 0as d!ivin$ a t!ic)cle on a bounda!) s)ste# and ea!nedP&((.(( dail), althou$h not on a !e$ula! basis because so#eti#es 3!nesto pla)ed in a bandfo! P&((.(( pe! ni$ht.Ce!ico Matic, eldest son of 3!nesto, alle$ed that he loves his fathe! and his death 0as sopainful to hi# that he could not uantif) his feelin$s in te!#s of #one). The death of his fathe!

0as a $!eat loss to the# as the) 0ould not be able to pu!sue thei! studies and that nobod) 0ould suppo!t the# financiall) conside!in$ that the #one) bein$ sent b) thei! #othe! in thea#ount of P=,(((.(( to P=,:((.(( eve!) th!ee @<B #onths, 0ould not be enou$h.D!. Valentin %e!nales li/e0ise, testified that he 0as the one 0ho conducted the autops) on thebod) of 3!nesto and found one $unshot in the bod) located at the bac/ of the costal a!ea,!i$ht side, si;teen @&'B centi#ete!s f!o# the spinal colu#n. This shot 0as fatal as it involved

the #a9o! o!$ans such as the lun$s, live! and the spinal colu#n 0hich caused 3!nestoQsdeath.The last 0itness, Cosephine Matic, 0ife of 3!nesto, testified that he! husband 0as laid to !eston Cul) &8, &??: and that his unti#el) death 0as so painful and that she could not p!ovide he!child!en 0ith sustenance. She as/ed fo! the a#ount of P=((,(((.(( fo! he! to be able to sendhe! child!en to school.On his pa!t, Tala#pas inte!posed self-defense and accident. 2e insisted that his ene#) hadbeen 3dua!do Matic @3dua!doB, not victi# 3!nesto Matic @3!nestoBG that 3dua!do, 0ho 0asthen 0ith 3!nesto at the ti#e of the incident, had had hit hi# 0ith a #on/e) 0!ench, but hehad pa!!ied the blo0G that he and 3dua!do had then $!appled fo! the #on/e) 0!enchG that

0hile the) had $!appled, he had notice that 3dua!do had held a !evolve!G that he had thusst!u$$led 0ith 3dua!do fo! cont!ol of the !evolve!, 0hich had acc identall) fi!ed and hit 3!nesto

$ G Gthen fled the scene 0hen people had sta!ted s0a!#in$ a!ound.Rulin$ of the RT"On Cune ==, =((7, the RT", $ivin$ c!edence to the testi#on) of e)e0itness Cose Sevilla,found Tala#pas $uilt) be)ond !easonable doubt of ho#icide,: and disposed123R3FOR3, p!e#ises conside!ed, the cou!t finds the accused $uilt) be)ond !easonabledoubt of the c!i#e of 2o#icide, 0ith one #iti$atin$ ci!cu#stance of volunta!) su!!ende!, andhe!eb) sentences hi# to suffe! an indete!#inate penalt) of IMPRISONM3NT !an$in$ f!o#T3N @&(B )ea!s and One @&B da) of p!ision #a)o!, as #ini#u#, to FO5RT33N @&7B )ea!s and3I42T @8B #onths of !eclusion te#po!al, as #a;i#u#. 2e is li/e0ise o!de!ed to pa) the hei!sof 3!nesto Matic ) Masinloc the follo0in$ su#s, to 0it1&. P:(,(((.(( X as and fo! death inde#nit)G=. P:(,(((.(( X as and fo! #o!al da#a$esG<. P=:,(((.(( X as and fo! actual da#a$esG and7. P<(,(((.(( X as and fo! te#pe!ate da#a$es.Fu!nish Public P!osecuto! Nofuente, *tt). Nava!!oa, the p!ivate co#plainant and accused

0ith a cop) of this decision.SO ORD3R3D.'

Rulin$ of the "*Tala#pas appealed to the "*, contendin$ that1IT23 "O5RT * J5O 4R*V3+6 3RR3D IN FINDIN4 T2*T T23 45I+T OF T23 *""5S3D-*PP3++*NT FOR T23 "RIM3 "2*R43D 2*S %33N PROV3N %36OND R3*SON*%+3DO5%T.IIT23 "O5RT * J5O 4R*V3+6 3RR3D IN NOT FINDIN4 T2*T T23 D3*T2 OF 3RN3STOM*TI" *S M3R3+6 *""ID3NT*+.IIIT23 "O5RT * J5O 4R*V3+6 3RR3D IN NOT FINDIN4 T2*T T23 *""5S3D-*PP3++*NT *"T3D IN D3F3NS3 OF 2IMS3+F 23N 23 4R*PP+3D IT2 3D5*RDOM*TI".Still, the "* affi!#ed the conviction based on the RT"Qs factual and le$al conclusions, and!uled that Tala#pas, havin$ invo/ed self-defense, had in effect ad#itted /illin$ 3!nesto and

had the!eb) assu#ed the bu!den of p!ovin$ the ele#ents of self-defense b) c!edible, clea!and convincin$ evidence, but had #ise!abl) failed to discha!$e his bu!den.>

The "* deleted the a0a!d of te#pe!ate da#a$es in vie0 of the a0a!din$ of actual da#a$es,pointin$ out that the t0o /inds of da#a$es 0e!e #utuall) e;clusive.8

Issue2ence, Tala#pas is no0 befo!e the "ou!t, continuin$ to insist that his $uilt 0as not p!ovenbe)ond !easonable doubt, and that the lo0e! cou!ts both e!!ed in !e9ectin$ his clai# of self-defense and accidental death.Rulin$The petition fo! !evie0 is denied fo! lac/ of #e!it.Fi!stl), the ele#ents of the plea of self-defense a!e1 @aB unla0ful a$$!ession on the pa!t of thevicti#G @bB !easonable necessit) of the #eans e#plo)ed to p!event o! !epel the unla0ful

a$$!essionG and @cB lac/ of sufficient p!ovocation on the pa!t of the accused in defendin$hi#self.?

#a;i#u# te!# of the indete!#inate sentence should be !ec/oned f!o#. 2ence, li#itin$ the#a;i#u# te!# of the indete!#inate sentence at onl) &7 )ea!s and ei$ht #onths cont!avened

In the natu!e of self-defense, the p!ota$onists should be the accused and the victi#. Theestablished ci!cu#stances indicated that such did not happen he!e, fo! it 0as Tala#pas 0hohad initiated the attac/ onl) a$ainst 3dua!doG and that 3!nesto had not been at an) ti#e ata!$et of Tala#pasQ attac/, he havin$ onl) happened to be p!esent at the scene of the attac/.In !ealit), neithe! 3dua!do no! 3!nesto had co##itted an) unla0ful a$$!ession a$ainstTala#pas. Thus, Tala#pas 0as not !epellin$ an) unla0ful a$$!ession f!o# the victi#@3!nestoB, the!eb) !ende!in$ his plea of self-defense un0a!!anted.Secondl), Tala#pas could not !elieve hi#self of c!i#inal liabilit) b) invo/in$ accident as adefense. *!ticle &=@7B of the Revised Penal "ode, &( the le$al p!ovision pe!tinent to accident,conte#plates a situation 0he!e a pe!son is in fact in the act of doin$ so#ethin$ le$al,e;e!cisin$ due ca!e, dili$ence and p!udence, but in the p!ocess p!oduces ha!# o! in9u!) toso#eone o! to so#ethin$ not in the least in the #ind of the acto! X an accidental !esult flo0in$out of a le$al act.&& Indeed, accident is an event that happens outside the s0a) of ou! 0ill, andalthou$h it co#es about th!ou$h so#e act of ou! 0ill, it lies be)ond the bounds of hu#anl)fo!eseeable conseuences.&= In sho!t, accident p!esupposes the lac/ of intention to co##itthe 0!on$ done.The !eco!ds eli#inate the inte!vention of accident. Tala#pas b!andished and po/ed his!evolve! at 3dua!do and fi!ed it, hittin$ 3dua!do, 0ho uic/l) !ushed to see/ !efu$e behind3!nesto. *t that point, Tala#pas fi!ed his !evolve! th!ice. One shot hit 3!nesto at the !i$htpo!tion of his bac/ and caused 3!nesto to fall face do0n to the $!ound. *nothe! shot hit

3dua!do on the nape, causin$ 3dua!do to fall on his bac/. "e!tainl), Tala#pasQ acts 0e!e b)no #eans la0ful, bein$ a c!i#inal assault 0ith his!evolve! a$ainst both 3dua!do and 3!nesto.*nd, thi!dl), the fact that the ta!$et of Tala#pasQassault 0as 3dua!do, not 3!nesto, did not e;cuse hishittin$ and /illin$ of 3!nesto. The fatal hittin$ of 3!nesto 0as the natu!al and di!ectconseuence of Tala#pasQ felonious deadl) assault a$ainst 3dua!do. Tala#pasQ poo! ai#a#ounted to abe!!atio ictus, o! #ista/e in the blo0, a ci!cu#stance that neithe! e;e#pted hi#f!o# c!i#inal !esponsibilit) no! #iti$ated his c!i#inal liabilit). +o ue es causa de la causa, escausa del #al causado @0hat is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil causedB. &< 5nde! *!ticle 7 of the Revised Penal "ode, &7 c!i#inal liabilit) is incu!!ed b) an) pe!sonco##ittin$ a felon) althou$h the 0!on$ful act done be diffe!ent f!o# that 0hich he intended.

Nonetheless, the "ou!t finds the indete!#inate sentence of &( )ea!s and one da) of p!ision#a)o!, as #ini#u#, to &7 )ea!s and ei$ht #onths, as #a;i#u#, le$all) e!!oneous.The penalt) fo! ho#icide unde! *!ticle =7' of the Revised Penal "ode is !eclusionte#po!al.1avvphi1 5nde! Section & of the Indete!#inate Sentence +a0,&: the cou!t, ini#posin$ a p!ison sentence fo! an offense punished b) the Revised Penal "ode, o! itsa#end#ents, is #andated to p!esc!ibe an indete!#inate sentence the #a;i#u# te!# of

0hich shall be that 0hich, in vie0 of the attendin$ ci!cu#stances, could be p!ope!l) i#posedunde! the !ules of the Revised Penal "ode, and the #ini#u# te!# shall be 0ithin the !an$e ofthe penalt) ne;t lo0e! to that p !esc!ibed b) the Revised Penal "ode fo! the offense. ith theabsence of a$$!avatin$ o! #iti$atin$ ci!cu#stances, the i#posable penalt) is !eclusionte#po!al in its #ediu# pe!iod, o! &7 )ea!s, ei$ht #onths, and one da) to &> )ea!s and fou!#onths. This is pu!suant to *!ticle '7 of the Revised Penal "ode.&' It is such pe!iod that the

) ) $the e;p!ess p!ovision of the Indete!#inate Sentence +a0, fo! such penalt) 0as 0ithin the#ini#u# pe!iod of !eclusion te#po!al. *cco!din$l), the "ou!t #ust add one da) to the#a;i#u# te!# fi;ed b) the lo0e! cou!ts.The "ou!t finds to be unnecessa!) the inc!e#ent of one da) as pa!t of the #ini#u# te!# ofthe indete!#inate sentence. It #a) be t!ue that the inc!e#ent did not constitute an e!!o!,because the #ini#u# te!# thus fi;ed 0as enti!el) 0ithin the pa!a#ete!s of the Indete!#inateSentence +a0. 6et, the addition of one da) to the &( )ea!s as the #ini#u# te!# of theindete!#inate sentence of Tala#pas #a) occasion a de$!ee of inconvenience 0hen it 0ill beti#e fo! the penal ad#inist!ato!s conce!ned to conside! and dete!#ine 0hethe! Tala#pas isal!ead) ualified to en9o) the benefits of the Indete!#inate Sentence +a0. 2ence, in o!de! tosi#plif) the co#putation of the #ini#u# penalt) of the indete!#inate sentence, the "ou!tdeletes the one-da) inc!e#ent f!o# the #ini#u# te!# of the indete!#inate sentence.23R3FOR3, the "ou!t *FFIRMS the decision p!o#ul$ated on *u$ust &', =((> findin$VIR4I+IO T*+*MP*S ) M*TI" $uilt) be)ond !easonable doubt of the c!i#e of ho#icide, andIMPOS3S the indete!#inate sentence of &( )ea!s of p!ision #a)o!, as #ini#u#, to &7 )ea!s,ei$ht #onths, and one da) of !eclusion te#po!al, as #a;i#u#.The petitione! shall pa) the costs of suit.SO ORD3R3D.

LUCAS P. 0ERSAMIN*ssociate Custice

3 "ON"5R1RENATO C. CORONA

"hief Custice"hai!pe!son

MARTIN S. ILLARAMA, R.*ssociate Custice

" 3 R T I F I " * T I O NPu!suant to Section &<, *!ticle VIII of the "onstitution, I ce!tif) that the conclusions in the

above Decision had been !eached in consultation befo!e the case 0as assi$ned to the 0!ite!of the opinion of the "ou!tQs Division.

RENATO C. CORONA"hief Custice

Foot$ot&s& Rollo, pp. '>->:G penned b) *ssociate Custice *u!o!a Santia$o-+a$#an @!eti!edB, 0ith*ssociate Custice %ienvenido +. Re)es @no0 a Me#be! of the "ou!tB and *ssociate Custice*polina!io D. %!uselas, C!. concu!!in$.= Id., pp. =:-<&.< Id., p. =7.7 Id., pp. '8-'?.: Sup!a, note =.' Rollo, pp. <(-<&.> Sup!a, note &.8 Id.

TERESITA . LEONAR!O'!E CASTRO*ssociate Custice

MARIANO C. !EL CASTILLO*ssociate Custice

? People v. "oncepcion, 4.R. No. &'?('(, Feb!ua!) ', =((> :&7 S"R* ''(, ''8.&( *!ticle &=. "i!cu#stances 0hich e;e#pt f!o# c!i#inal liabilit). E The follo0in$ a!e e;e#pt

f!o# c!i#inal liabilit)1;;;7. *n) pe!son 0ho, 0hile pe!fo!#in$ a la0ful act 0ith due ca!e, causes an in9u!) b) #e!eaccident 0ithout fault o! intention of causin$ it.;;;&& Re)es, The Revised Penal "ode @"!i#inal +a0B, %oo/ &, &:th 3dition @=((&B, p. ==<.&= Id.&< Juotation is ta/en f!o# Fe!ia and 4!e$o!io, "o##ents on the Revised Penal "ode, Volu#eI, &?:8 Fi!st 3dition, "ent!al %oo/ Suppl), Inc., p. 7?.&7 *!ticle 7. "!i#inal liabilit). E "!i#inal liabilit) shall be incu!!ed1&. %) an) pe!son co##ittin$ a felon) @delitoB althou$h the 0!on$ful act done be diffe!ent f!o#that 0hich he intended.=. %) an) pe!son pe!fo!#in$ an act 0hich 0ould be an offense a$ainst pe!sons o! p!ope!t),

0e!e it not fo! the inhe!ent i#possibilit) of its acco#plish#ent o! an account of thee#plo)#ent of inadeuate o! ineffectual #eans.&: Section &. 2e!eafte!, in i#posin$ a p!ison sentence fo! an offense punished b) the RevisedPenal "ode, o! its a#end#ents, the cou!t shall sentence the accused to an indete!#inatesentence the #a;i#u# te!# of 0hich shall be that 0hich, in vie0 of the attendin$ci!cu#stances, could be p!ope!l) i#posed unde! the !ules of the said "ode, and the #ini#u#

0hich shall be 0ithin the !an$e of the penalt) ne;t lo0e! to that p!esc!ibed b) the "ode fo! the

offenseG and if the offense is punished b) an) othe! la0, the cou!t shall sentence the accusedto an indete!#inate sentence, the #a;i#u# te!# of 0hich shall not e;ceed the #a;i#u#fi;ed b) said la0 and the #ini#u# shall not be less than the #ini#u# te!# p!esc!ibed b) thesa#e. 92s amended b3 2ct *o. @44A=&' *!ticle '7. Rules fo! the application of penalties 0hich contain th!ee pe!iods. E In cases in

0hich the penalties p!esc!ibed b) la0 contain th!ee pe!iods, 0hethe! it be a sin$le divisiblepenalt) o! co#posed of th!ee diffe!ent penalties, each one of 0hich fo!#s a pe!iod inacco!dance 0ith the p!ovisions of *!ticles >' and >>, the cou!t shall obse!ve fo! theapplication of the penalt) the follo0in$ !ules, acco!din$ to 0hethe! the!e a!e o! a!e not#iti$atin$ o! a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stances1&. hen the!e a!e neithe! a$$!avatin$ no! #iti$atin$ ci!cu#stances, the) shall i#pose thepenalt) p!esc!ibed b) la0 in its #ediu# pe!iod.

L;;


ManilaEN 0ANC

G.R. No. 17373 !&*&+&- 17, 2//)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,vs.0ETH TEMPORA!A, appellant.

! E C I S I O N>NARES'SANTIAGO, J .B%efo!e us fo! !evie0 is the Feb!ua!) =7, =((' Decision& of the "ou!t of *ppeals @"*B, affi!#in$

0ith #odification the Ma) &7, =((7 Decision= of the Re$ional T!ial "ou!t @RT"B of Manila,%!anch <<, convictin$ accused-appellant %eth Te#po!ada of the c!i#e of la!$e scale ille$al!ec!uit#ent, o! violation of *!ticle <8 of the +abo! "ode, as a#ended, and five @:B counts ofesta&a unde! *!ticle <&:, pa!. @=B@aB of the Revised Penal "ode @RP"B.The antecedents, as found b) the appellate cou!t, a!e as follo0s1

F!o# Septe#be! =((& to Canua!) =((=, accused Rose#a!ie %ab) Robles, %e!nadetteMi!anda, Nenita "atacotan and Co9o Resco and appellant %eth Te#po!ada, all e#plo)ees of

accused, b) #eans of false #anifestations and f!audulent !ep!esentations 0hich the) #ade tosaid RO43+IO *. +34*SPI, CR., p!io! to and even si#ultaneous 0ith the co##ission of the

the *lte!native T!avel and Tou!s "o!po!ation @*TT"B, !ec!uited and p!o#ised ove!sease#plo)#ent, fo! a fee, to co#plainants Ro$elio +e$aspi, C!. as technician in Sin$apo!e, andSoledad *tle, +u Min/a), 3vel)n 3stacio and Dennis Di#aano as facto!) 0o!/e!s in2on$/on$. The accused and appellant 0e!e then holdin$ office at Dela Rosa St!eet, Ma/ati"it) but eventuall) t!ansfe!!ed business to Discove!) Plaa, 3!#ita, Manila. *fte!co#plainants had sub#itted all the !eui!e#ents consistin$ of thei! !espective applicationfo!#s, passpo!ts, N%I clea!ances and #edical ce!tificates, the accused and appellant, ondiffe!ent dates, collected and !eceived f!o# the# place#ent fees in va!ious a#ounts, vi1 aBf!o# Ro$elio +e$aspi, C!. X :>,'((.((G bB f!o# Dennis Di#aano X P'',:=(.((G cB f!o# 3vel)n3stacio X P88,:=(.((G dB f!o# Soledad *tle X P'?,:=(.(( and eB f!o# +u Min/a) XP'?,:=(.((. *s none of the# 0as able to leave no! !ecove! the a#ounts the) had paid,co#plainant lod$ed sepa!ate c!i#inal co#plaints a$ainst accused and appellant befo!e the"it) P!osecuto! of Manila. On Nove#be! =?, =((=, *ssistant "it) P!osecuto! RestitutoMan$alindan, C!. filed si; @'B Info!#ations a$ainst the accused and appellant, one fo! Ille$alRec!uit#ent in +a!$e Scale unde! *!ticle <8 @aB of the +abo! "ode as a#ended, and the !estfo! five @:B counts of esta&a unde! *!ticle <&: pa!a$!aph = @aB of the Revised Penal "ode.The Info!#ation fo! la!$e scale ille$al !ec!uit#ent !eads1"!i#inal "ase No. (=-=(8<>&1The unde!si$ned accuses ROS3M*RI3 %*%6 RO%+3S, %3RN*D3TT3 M. MIR*ND*,%3T2 T3MPOR*D*, N3NIT* "*T*"OT*N and COCO R3S"O ; ; ;.

That in o! about and du!in$ the pe!iod co#p!ised bet0een the #onths of Septe#be! =((& andCanua!) =((=, inclusive, in the "it) of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, !ep!esentin$the#selves to have the po0e! and capacit) to cont!act, enlist and t!anspo!t Filipino 0o!/e!sfo! e#plo)#ent ab!oad, did then and the!e 0illfull), unla0full) fo! a fee, !ec!uit and p!o#isee#plo)#ent to R343+IO *. +34*SPI, CR., D3NNIS T. DIM**NO, 3V3+36N V. 3ST*"IO,SO+3D*D %. *TT3 and +5H MIN*6 0ithout fi!st havin$ secu!ed the !eui!ed license f!o#the Depa!t#ent of +abo! and 3#plo)#ent as !eui!ed b) la0, and cha!$e o! accept di!ectl) o!indi!ectl) f!o# said co#plainants the a#ount of P2:>,'((.((, P2'',:=(.((, P288,:=(.((,P2'?,:=(.((, P2'?,:=(.((, !espectivel), as place#ent fees in conside!ation fo! thei!ove!seas e#plo)#ent, 0hich a#ounts a!e in e;cess of o! $!eate! than that specified in thescheduled of allo0able fees p!esc!ibed of the PO3* and 0ithout !easons and 0ithout fault ofthe said co#plainants, failed to actuall) deplo) the# and failed to !ei#bu!se the# the

e;penses the) incu!!ed in connection 0ith the docu#entation and p!ocessin$ of thei! pape!sfo! pu!poses of thei! deplo)#ent."ont!a!) to la0.3;cept fo! the na#e of p!ivate co#plainant and the a#ount involved, the five @:B Info!#ationsfo! esta&a contain substantiall) identical ave!#ents as follo0s1"!i#inal "ase No. (=-=(8<>=1The unde!si$ned accuses ROS3M*RI3 %*%6 RO%+3S, %3RN*D3TT3 M. MIR*ND*,%3T2 T3MPOR*D*, N3NIT* "*T*"OT*N and COCO R3S"O ; ; ;.That in o! about and du!in$ the pe!iod co#p!ised bet0een Nove#be! =<, =((& and Canua!)&=, =((=, inclusive, in the "it) of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspi!in$ andconfede!atin$ to$ethe! and helpin$ one anothe!, did then and the!e 0illfull), unla0full) andfeloniousl) def!aud RO43+IO *. +34*SPI, CR., in the follo0in$ #anne!, to 0it1 the said

f!aud, to the effect that the) have the po0e! and capacit) to !ec!uit and e#plo) RO43+IO *.+34*SPI, CR., as technician in Sin$apo!e and could facilitate the p!ocessin$ of the pe!tinentpape!s if $iven the necessa!) a#ount to #eet the !eui!e#ents the!eof, induced andsucceeded in inducin$ said RO43+IO *. +34*SPI, CR., to $ive and deli ve!, as in fact he $aveand delive!ed to said accused the a#ount of P:>,'((.(( on the st!en$th of said#anifestations and !ep!esentations said accused 0ell /no0in$ that the sa#e 0e!e false andf!audulent and 0e!e #ade solel) fo! the pu!pose of obtainin$, as in fact the) did obtain thea#ount of P:>,'((.((, 0hich a#ount, once in thei! possession, 0ith intend to def!aud, the)

0illfull), unla0full) and feloniousl) #isapp!op!iated, #isapplied and conve!ted the sa#e tothei! o0n pe!sonal use and benefit, to the da#a$e and p!e9udice of said RO43+IO *.+34*SPI, CR. in the afo!esaid a#ount of P:>,(((.(( Philippine "u!!enc)."ont!a!) to la0.The othe! fou! @7B Info!#ations fo! esta&a involve the follo0in$ co#plainants and a#ounts1

&. D3NNIS T. DIM**NO P'',:=(.((

=. 3V3+6N V. 3ST*"IO P88,:=(.((

<. SO+3D*D %. *T+3 P'?,:=(.((

7. +5H T. MIN*6 P'?,:=(.((<

Onl) appellant 0as app!ehended and b!ou$ht to t!ial, the othe! accused !e#ained at la!$e.5pon a!!ai$n#ent, appellant pleaded not $uilt) and t!ial on the #e!its ensued. *fte! 9oint t!ial,on Ma) &7, =((7, the RT" !ende!ed 9ud$#ent convictin$ appellant of all the cha!$es123R3FOR3, the p!osecution havin$ established the 45I+T of accused %eth Te#po!ada%36OND R3*SON*%+3 DO5%T, 9ud$#ent is he!eb) !ende!ed "ONVI"TIN4 the saidaccused, as p!incipal of the offenses cha!$ed and she is sentenced to suffe! the penalt) of+IF3 IMPRISONM3NT and a fine of Five 2und!ed Thousand Pesos @P:((,(((.((B fo! il le$al!ec!uit#entG and the indete!#inate penalt) of fou! @7B )ea!s and t0o @=B #onths of p!isionco!!ectional as #ini#u#, to nine @?B )ea!s and one @&B da) of p!ision #a)o!, as #a;i#u# fo!the esta&a co##itted a$ainst co#plainant Ro$elio *. +e$aspi, C!.G the indete!#inate penalt) of

fou! @7B )ea!s and t0o @=B #onths of p!ision co!!ectional as #ini#u# to ten @&(B )ea!s and oneda) of p!ision #a)o! as #a;i#u# each fo! the esta&as co##itted a$ainst co#plainants,Dennis Di#aano, Soledad %. *tte and +u T. Min/a)G and the indete!#inate penalt) of fou! @7B)ea!s and t0o @=B #onths of p!ision co!!ectional as #ini#u#, to eleven @&&B )ea!s and one @&Bda) of p!ision #a)o! as #a;i#u# fo! the esta&a co##itted a$ainst 3vel)n 3stacio.The accused is also o!de!ed to pa) 9ointl) and seve!all) the co#plainants actual da#a$es asfollo0s1

&. Ro$elio *. +e$aspi C!. P:>,'((.((

=. Dennis T. Di#aano '',:=(.((

<. 3vel)n V. 3stacio 88,:=(.((*ppellant insists that she 0as #e!el) an e#plo)ee of *TT" and 0as 9ust echoin$ the!eui!e#ent of he! e#plo)e!. She fu!the! a!$ues that the p!osecution failed to p!ove that she

7. Soledad %. *tte '',:=(.((

:. +u T. Min/a) '?,:=(.((

SO ORD3R3D.7

In acco!dance 0ith the "ou!tQs !ulin$ in People v. (ateo,: this case 0as !efe!!ed to the "* fo!inte!#ediate !evie0. On Feb!ua!) =7, =((', the "* affi!#ed 0ith #odification the Decision of

the RT"123R3FOR3, 0ith MODIFI"*TION to the effect that in "!i#inal "ases Nos. (=-=(8<><, (=-=(8<>:, (=-=(8<>', appellant is sentenced to suffe! the indete!#inate penalt) of si; @'B)ea!s of prision correccional maEimum, as #ini#u#, to ten @&(B )ea!s and one @&B da) of prision ma3or maEimum, as #a;i#u#G and in "!i#inal "ase No. (=-=(8<>7, she is sentencedto suffe! the indete!#inate penalt) of ei$ht @8B )ea!s and one @&B da) of prision ma3or medium,as #ini#u#, to t0elve @&=B )ea!s and one @&B da) of reclusion temporal minimum, as#a;i#u#, the appealed decision is *FFIRM3D in all othe! !espects. '

%efo!e this "ou!t, appellant asc!ibes the lone e!!o! that the t!ial cou!t $!avel) e!!ed in findin$he! $uilt) of ille$al !ec!uit#ent and five @:B counts of esta&a despite the insufficienc) of theevidence fo! the p!osecution.e affi!# the Decision of the "*, e;cept as to the indete!#inate penalties i#posed fo! the five

@:B counts of esta&a.*!ticle &<@bB of the +abo! "ode defines !ec!uit#ent and place#ent thusl)1*RT. &<. De&initions. X ; ; ;@bB $ecruitment and placement !efe!s to an) act of canvassin$, enlistin$, cont!actin$,t!anspo!tin$, utiliin$, hi!in$ o! p!ocu!in$ 0o!/e!s, and includes !efe!!als, cont!act se!vices,p!o#isin$ o! adve!tisin$ fo! e#plo)#ent, locall) o! ab!oad, 0hethe! fo! p!ofit o! not1 P!ovided,That an) pe!son o! entit) 0hich, in an) #anne!, offe!s o! p!o#ises fo! a fee, e#plo)#ent tot0o o! #o!e pe!sons shall be dee#ed en$a$ed in !ec!uit#ent and place#ent.To constitute ille$al !ec!uit#ent in la!$e scale, th!ee @<B ele#ents #ust concu!1 @aB the offende!has no valid license o! autho!it) !eui!ed b) la0 to enable hi# to la0full) en$a$e in!ec!uit#ent and place#ent of 0o!/e!sG @bB the offende! unde!ta/es an) of the activities 0ithinthe #eanin$ of !ec!uit#ent and place#ent unde! *!ticle &<@bB of the +abo! "ode, o! an) of

the p!ohibited p!actices enu#e!ated unde! *!ticle <7 of the said "ode @no0 Section ' of R.*.No. 8(7=BG and, @cB the offende! co##itted the sa#e a$ainst th!ee @

In the case at ba!, the fo!e$oin$ ele#ents a!e p!esent. *ppellant, in conspi !ac) 0ith he! co-accused, #is!ep!esented to have the po0e!, influence, autho!it) and business to obtainove!seas e#plo)#ent upon pa)#ent of a place#ent fee 0hich 0as dul) collected f!o#co#plainants Ro$elio +e$aspi, Dennis Di#aano, 3vel)n 3stacio, Soledad *tle and +uMin/a). Fu!the!, the ce!tification8 issued b) the Philippine Ove!seas 3#plo)#ent*d#inist!ation @PO3*B and the testi#on) of *nn *bast!a *bas, a !ep!esentative of said$ove!n#ent a$enc), established that appellant and he! co-accused did not possess an)autho!it) o! license to !ec!uit 0o!/e!s fo! ove!seas e#plo)#ent. *nd, since the!e 0e!e five @:Bvicti#s, the t!ial cou!t co!!ectl) found appellant liable fo! ille$al !ec!uit#ent in la!$e scale.

0as a0a!e of the latte!Qs ille$al activities and that she activel) pa!ticipated the!ein. In essence,she cont!ove!ts the factual findin$s of the lo0e! cou!ts.The contention is untenable.*n e#plo)ee of a co#pan) o! co!po!ation en$a$ed in ille$al !ec!uit#ent #a) be held liable asp!incipal, to$ethe! 0ith his e#plo)e!, if it is sho0n that he activel) and consciousl) pa!ticipatedin ille$al !ec!uit#ent.? *ppellant activel) too/ pa!t in the ille$al !ec!uit#ent of p!ivateco#plainants. Ro$elio +e$aspi testified that afte! int!oducin$ he!self as the 4ene!al Mana$e!of *TT", appellant pe!suaded hi# to appl) as a technician in Sin$apo!e and assu!ed hi# thatthe!e 0as a 9ob #a!/et the!efo!. In addition to the place#ent fee of P<:,(((.(( 0hich he paidto accused %e!nadette Mi!anda, he also handed the a#ount of P&(,(((.(( to appellant 0ho,in tu!n, issued hi# a !eceipt fo! the total a#ount of P7:,(((.((. 5pon the othe! hand, Soledad*tle and +u Min/a), 0ho applied as facto!) 0o!/e!s in 2on$/on$ th!ou$h co-accused, 3#il)Sala$onos, decla!ed that it 0as appellant 0ho b!iefed the# on the !eui!e#ents fo! thep!ocessin$ of thei! application, and assu!ed the# and Dennis Di#aano of i##ediatedeplo)#ent fo! 9obs ab!oad. Fo! he! pa!t, 3vel)n 3stacio testified that aside f!o# theplace#ent fee of P7(,(((.(( that she paid to co-accused %ab) Robles in connection 0ithhe! pu!po!ted ove!seas e#plo)#ent, she also $ave appellant P&(,(((.(( fo! 0hich she 0asissued a !eceipt fo! the a#ount of P:,(((.((.The totalit) of the evidence, thus, established that appellant acted as an indispensablepa!ticipant and effective collabo!ato! of he! co-accused in the ille$al !ec!uit#ent of

co#plainants. *s aptl) found b) the "*1ithout doubt, all the acts of appellant, consistin$ of int!oducin$ he!self to co#plainants as$ene!al #ana$e! of *TT", inte!vie0in$ and ente!tainin$ the#, b!iefin$ the# on the!eui!e#ents fo! deplo)#ent and assu!in$ the# that the) could leave i##ediatel) if the) paidthe !eui!ed a#ounts, une!!in$l) sho0 unit) of pu !pose 0ith those of he! co-accused in thei!sche#e to def!aud p!ivate co#plainants th!ou$h false p!o#ises of 9obs ab!oad. The!e bein$conspi!ac), appellant shall be euall) liable fo! the acts of he! co-accused even if she he!selfdid not pe!sonall) !eap the f!uits of thei! e;ecution. e uote 0ith app!oval the t!ial cou!tQsfindin$s on the #atte!1;;; It is clea! that said accused conspi!ed 0ith he! co-accused Rose#a!ie %ab) Robles,%e!nadette M. Mi!anda, Nenita "atacotan, and Co9o Resco in convincin$ co#plainants ;;; toappl) fo! ove!seas 9obs and $ivin$ co#plainants Soledad *tle, +u Min/a) and Dennis

Di#aano $ua!antee that the) 0ould be hi!ed as facto!) 0o!/e!s in 2on$/on$, co#plainantRo$elio +e$aspi, as Technician in Sin$apo!e and 3vel)n 3stacio as ualit) cont!olle! in afacto!) in 2on$/on$, despite the fact that the accused 0as not licensed to do so.It should be noted that all the accused 0e!e connected 0ith the *lte!native T!avel and Tou!s"o!po!ation @*TT"B. *ccused %eth Te#po!ada int!oduced he!self as *TT"Qs 4ene!alMana$e!. Saod accused 0as also the one 0ho !eceived the P&(,(((.(( $iven b) co#plainantRo$elio +e$aspi, C!. and the P&(,(((.(( $iven b) co#plainant 3vel)n 3stacio as pa)#ent fo!thei! visa and plane tic/et, !espectivel). &(

"onseuentl), the defense of appellant that she 0as not a0a!e of the ille$al natu!e of theactivities of he! co-accused cannot be sustained. %esides, even assu#in$ arguendo thatappellant 0as indeed una0a!e of the ille$al natu!e of said activities, the sa#e is ha!dl) adefense in the p!osecution fo! ille$al !ec!uit#ent. 5nde! he (igrant NorFers and +verseas

ilipinos 2ct o& 1::A, a special la0, the c!i#e of ille$al !ec!uit#ent in la!$e scale is malum prohibitum and not malum in se.&& Thus, the c!i#inal intent of the accused is not necessa!)

d h f l h h d i l d h l h i i &=

assu#ed b) the RT". To co#pute the #a;i#u# pe!iod of the p!esc!ibed penalt), prisiOncorreccional #a;i#u# to prisiOn ma3or #ini#u# should be divided into th!ee eual po!tions

f i h f hi h i h ll b d d f i d i d i h i l

and the fact alone that the accused violated the la0 0a!!ants he! conviction.&=

In the instant case, 0e find no !eason to depa!t f!o# the !ule that findin$s of fact of the t!ialcou!t on the c!edibilit) of 0itnesses and thei! testi#onies a!e $ene!all) acco!ded $!eat !espectb) an appellate cou!t. The assess#ent of c!edibilit) of 0itnesses is a #atte! best left to thet!ial cou!t because it is in the position to obse!ve that elusive and inco##unicable evidence ofthe 0itnessesQ depo!t#ent on the stand 0hile testif)in$, 0hich oppo!tunit) is denied to theappellate cou!ts.&< Fu!the!, the!e is no sho0in$ of an) ill-#otive on the pa!t of the p!osecution

0itnesses in testif)in$ a$ainst appellant. *bsent such i#p!ope! #otive, the p!esu#ption is thatthe) 0e!e not so actuated and thei! testi#on) is entitled to full 0ei$ht and c!edit.Section >@bB of R.*. No. 8(7= p!esc!ibes the penalt) of life i#p!ison#ent and a fine of not lessthan P:((,(((.(( no! #o!e than P&,(((,(((.(( fo! the c!i#e of ille$al !ec!uit#ent in la!$escale o! b) a s)ndicate. The t!ial cou!t, the!efo!e, p!ope!l) #eted the penalt) of lifei#p!ison#ent and a fine of P:((,(((.(( on the appellant.*nent the conviction of appellant fo! five @:B counts of esta&a, 0e, li/e0ise, affi!# the sa#e.ell-settled is the !ule that a pe!son convicted fo! ille$al !ec!uit#ent unde! the +abo! "ode#a), fo! the sa#e acts, be sepa!atel) convicted fo! esta&a unde! *!ticle <&:, pa!. =@aB of theRP".&7 The ele#ents of esta&a a!e1 @&B the accused def!auded anothe! b) abuse of confidenceo! b) #eans of deceitG and @=B the offended pa!t) o! a thi!d pa!t) suffe!ed da#a$e o! p!e9udicecapable of pecunia!) esti#ation.&: The sa#e evidence p!ovin$ appellantQs c!i#inal liabilit) fo!ille$al !ec!uit#ent also established he! liabilit) fo! esta&a. *s p!eviousl) discussed, appellant

to$ethe! 0ith he! co-accused def!auded co#plainants into believin$ that the) had theautho!it) and capabilit) to send co#plainants fo! ove!seas e#plo)#ent. %ecause of theseassu!ances, co#plainants pa!ted 0ith thei! ha!d-ea!ned #one) in e;chan$e fo! the p!o#ise offutu!e 0o!/ ab!oad. 2o0eve!, the p!o#ised ove!seas e#plo)#ent neve! #ate!ialied andneithe! 0e!e the co#plainants able to !ecove! thei! #one).hile 0e affi!# the conviction fo! the five @:B counts of esta&a, 0e find, ho0eve!, that the "*e!!oneousl) co#puted the indete!#inate penalties the!efo!. The "* deviated f!o# the doct!inelaid do0n in People v. /abresG&' hence its decision should be !eve!sed 0ith !espect to theindete!#inate penalties it i#posed. The !eve!sal of the appellate cou!tQs Decision on this pointdoes not, ho0eve!, 0holl) !einstate the indete!#inate penalties i#posed b) the t!ial cou!tbecause the #a;i#u# te!#s, as dete!#ined b) the latte!, 0e!e e!!oneousl) co#puted and#ust necessa!il) be !ectified.

The p!esc!ibed penalt) fo! esta&a unde! *!ticle <&:, pa!. =@dB of the RP", 0hen the a#ountdef!auded e;ceeds P==,(((.((, is prisiOn correccional #a;i#u# to prisiOn ma3or #ini#u#.The #ini#u# te!# is ta/en f!o# the penalt) ne;t lo0e! o! an)0he!e 0ithin prisiOncorreccional #ini#u# and #ediu# @i.e., f!o# ' #onths and & da) to 7 )ea!s and = #onthsB."onseuentl), the RT" co!!ectl) fi;ed the #ini#u# te!# fo! the five esta&a cases at 7 )ea!sand = #onths of prisiOn correccional since this is 0ithin the !an$e of prisiOn correccional#ini#u# and #ediu#.On the othe! hand, the #a;i#u# te!# is ta/en f!o# the p!esc!ibed penalt) of prisiOncorreccional #a;i#u# to prisiOn ma3or #ini#u# in its #a;i#u# pe!iod, addin$ & )ea! ofi#p!ison#ent fo! eve!) P&(,(((.(( in e;cess of P==,(((.((, p!ovided that the total penalt)shall not e;ceed =( )ea!s. 2o0eve!, the #a;i#u# pe!iod of the p!esc!ibed penalt) of prisiOncorreccional #a;i#u# to prisiOn ma3or #ini#u# is not prisiOn ma3or #ini#u# as appa!entl)

of ti#e each of 0hich po!tion shall be dee#ed to fo!# one pe!iod in acco!dance 0ith *!ticle':&> of the RP". Follo0in$ this p!ocedu!e, the #a;i#u# pe!iod of prisiOn correccional#a;i#u# to prisiOn ma3or #ini#u# is f!o# ' )ea!s, 8 #onths and =& da)s to 8 )ea!s. &8 Theinc!e#ental penalt), 0hen p!ope!, shall thus be added to an)0he!e f!o# ' )ea!s, 8 #onthsand =& da)s to 8 )ea!s, at the disc!etion of the cou!t. &?

In co#putin$ the inc!e#ental penalt), the a#ount def!auded shall be subt!acted b)P==,(((.((, and the diffe!ence shall be divided b) P&(,(((.((. *n) f!action of a )ea! shall bedisca!ded as 0as done sta!tin$ 0ith the case of People v. Pabalan=( in consonance 0ith thesettled !ule that penal la0s shall be const!ued libe!all) in favo! of the accused. The doct!ineenunciated in People v. enemerito=& insofa! as the f!action of a )ea! 0as utilied inco#putin$ the total inc!e#ental penalt) should, thus, be #odified. In acco!dance 0ith theabove p!ocedu!e, the #a;i#u# te!# of the indete!#inate sentences i#posed b) the RT"should be as follo0s1In "!i#inal "ase No. (=-=(8<>=, 0he!e the a#ount def!auded 0as P:>,'((.((, the RT"sentenced the accused to an indete!#inate penalt) of 7 )ea!s and = #onths of prisiOncorreccional as #ini#u#, to ? )ea!s and & da) of prisiOn ma3or as #a;i#u#. Since thea#ount def!auded e;ceeds P==,(((.(( b) P<:,'((.((, < )ea!s shall be added to the#a;i#u# pe!iod of the p!esc!ibed penalt) @o! added to an)0he!e f!o# ' )ea!s, 8 #onths and=& da)s to 8 )ea!s, at the disc!etion of the cou!tB. The lo0est #a;i#u# te!#, the!efo!e, thatcan be validl) i#posed is ? )ea!s, 8 #onths and =& da)s of prisiOn ma3or , and not ? )ea!s

and & da) of prisiOn ma3or .In "!i#inal "ase Nos. (=-=(8<><, (=-=(8<>:, and (=-=(8<>', 0he!e the a#ounts def!auded

0e!e P'',:=(.((, P'?,:=(.((, and P'?,:=(.((, !espectivel), the accused 0as sentenced toan indete!#inate penalt) of 7 )ea!s and = #onths of prisiOn correccional as #ini#u#, to &()ea!s and & da) of prisiOn ma3or as #a;i#u# fo! each of the afo!esaid th!ee esta&a cases.Since the a#ounts def!auded e;ceed P==,(((.(( b) P77,:=(.((, P7>,:=(.((, andP7>,:=(.((, !espectivel), 7 )ea!s shall be added to the #a;i#u# pe!iod of the p!esc!ibedpenalt) @o! added to an)0he!e f!o# ' )ea!s, 8 #onths and =& da)s to 8 )ea!s, at thedisc!etion of the cou!tB. The lo0est #a;i#u# te!#, the!efo!e, that can be validl) i#posed is &()ea!s, 8 #onths and =& da)s of prisiOn ma3or , and not &( )ea!s and & da) of prisiOn ma3or .Finall), in "!i#inal "ase No. (=-=(8<>7, 0he!e the a#ount def!auded 0as P88,:=(.((, theaccused 0as sentenced to an indete!#inate penalt) of 7 )ea!s and = #onths of prisiOn

correccional as #ini#u#, to && )ea!s and & da) of prisiOn ma3or as #a;i#u#. Since thea#ount def!auded e;ceeds P==,(((.(( b) P'',:=(.((, ' )ea!s shall be added to the#a;i#u# pe!iod of the p!esc!ibed penalt) @o! added to an)0he!e f!o# ' )ea!s, 8 #onths and=& da)s to 8 )ea!s, at the disc!etion of the cou!tB. The lo0est #a;i#u# te!#, the!efo!e, thatcan be validl) i#posed is &= )ea!s, 8 #onths and =& da)s of reclusiOn temporal , and not &&)ea!s and & da) of prisiOn ma3or .$esponse to the dissent .In the co#putation of the indete!#inate sentence fo! esta&a unde! *!ticle <&:, pa!. =@aB of theRevised Penal "ode @RP"B, the "ou!t has *o$sst&$t4 follo0ed the doct!ine espoused in Pabalan and #o!e full) e;plained in /abres. The dissent a!$ues that 4ab!es should be!ee;a#ined and abandoned.e sustain 4ab!es.

I.The fo!#ula p!oposed in the Dissentin$ Opinion of M!. Custice Ruben T. Re)es, i.e., the

i t h ll fi t b t d b l i th i t l lt l d th ft

0ould be &> )ea!s, 7 #onths and & da) of reclusiOn temporal and the #ini#u# te!# could bean)0he!e 0ithin the !an$e of prisiOn ma3or @' )ea!s and & da) to &= )ea!sB 0hich is the

lt t l t l iO t l " tl i d t i t t f &(

#a;i#u# te!# shall fi!st be co#puted b) appl)in$ the inc!e#ental penalt) !ule, and the!eafte!the #ini#u# te!# shall be dete!#ined b) descendin$ one de$!ee do0n the scale of penaltiesf!o# the #a;i#u# te!#, is a novel but e!!oneous inte!p!etation of the IS+ in !elation to *!ticle<&:, pa!. =@aB of the RP". 5nde! this inte!p!etation, it is not clea! ho0 the #a;i#u# and#ini#u# te!#s shall be co#puted. Mo!eove!, the le$al 9ustification the!efo! is not clea!because the #eanin$ of the te!#s penalt), p!esc!ibed penalt), penalt) actuall) i#posed,#ini#u# te!#, #a;i#u# te!#, penalt) ne;t lo0e! in de$!ee, and one de$!ee do0n thescale of penalties a!e not p!ope!l) set out and a!e, at ti#es, used inte!chan$eabl), loosel)and e!!oneousl).Fo! pu!poses of this discussion, it is necessa!) to fi!st cla!if) the #eanin$ of ce!tain te!#s inthe sense that the) 0ill be used f!o# he!e on. +ate!, these te!#s shall be ali$ned to 0hat thedissent appea!s to be p!oposin$ in o!de! to clea!l) add!ess the points !aised b) the dissent.The RP" p!ovides fo! an initial penalt) as a $ene!al p!esc!iption fo! the felonies definedthe!ein 0hich consists of a !an$e of pe!iod of ti#e. This is 0hat is !efe!!ed to as the:-&s*-&% :&$#t4. Fo! instance, unde! *!ticle =7?== of the RP", the p!esc!ibed penalt) fo!ho#icide is reclusiOn temporal 0hich !an$es f!o# &= )ea!s and & da) to =( )ea!s ofi#p!ison#ent. Fu!the!, the "ode p!ovides fo! attendin$ o! #odif)in$ ci!cu#stances 0hich

0hen p!esent in the co##ission of a felon) affects the co#putation of the penalt) to bei#posed on a convict. This penalt), as thus #odified, is !efe!!ed to as the +:os#&:&$#t4. In the case of ho#icide 0hich is co##itted 0ith one o!dina!) a$$!avatin$

ci!cu#stance and no #iti$atin$ ci!cu#stances, the i#posable penalt) unde! the RP" shall bethe p!esc!ibed penalt) in its #a;i#u# pe!iod. F!o# this i#posable penalt), the cou!t choosesa sin$le fi;ed penalt) @also called a st!ai$ht penalt)B 0hich is the :&$#t4 #*tu#4 +:os&%on a convict, i.e., the p!ison te!# he has to se!ve."onc!etel), in -.#. v. #aadlucap,=< a :-&'ISL *#s&, the accused 0as found $uilt) of ho#icide

0ith a p!esc!ibed penalt) of reclusiOn temporal . Since the!e 0as one o!dina!) a$$!avatin$ci!cu#stance and no #iti$atin$ ci!cu#stances in this case, the i#posable penalt) is reclusiOntemporal in its #a;i#u# pe!iod, i.e., f!o# &> )ea!s, 7 #onths and & da) to =( )ea!s. Thecou!t then had the disc!etion to i#pose an) p!ison te!# p!ovided it is 0ithin said pe!iod, sothat the penalt) actuall) i#posed on the accused 0as set at &> )ea!s, 7 #onths and & da) ofreclusiOn temporal ,=7 0hich is a sin$le fi;ed penalt), 0ith no #ini#u# o! #a;i#u# te!#.ith the :#ss#g& o< t& ISL, the la0 c!eated a p!ison te!# 0hich consists of a #ini#u# and

#a;i#u# te!# called the indete!#inate sentence.=: Section & of the IS+ p!ovides XS3"TION &. 2e!eafte!, in i#posin$ a p!ison sentence fo! an offense punished b) the RevisedPenal "ode, o! its a#end#ents, the cou!t shall sentence the accused to an indete!#inatesentence the #a;i#u# te!# of 0hich shall be that 0hich, in vie0 of the attendin$ci!cu#stances, could be p!ope!l) i#posed unde! the !ules of said "ode, and the #ini#u#

0hich shall be 0ithin the !an$e of the penalt) ne;t lo0e! to that p!esc!ibed b) the "ode fo! theoffenseG ; ; ;.Thus, the #a;i#u# te!# is that 0hich, in vie0 of the attendin$ ci!cu#stances, could bep!ope!l) i#posed unde! the RP". In othe! 0o!ds, the penal t) actuall) i#posed unde! the p!e-IS+ !e$i#e beca#e the #a;i#u# te!# unde! the IS+ !e$i#e. 5pon the othe! hand, the#ini#u# te!# shall be 0ithin the !an$e of the penalt) ne;t lo0e! to the p!esc!ibed penalt). Toillust!ate, if the case of #aadlucap 0as decided unde! the IS+ !e$i#e, then the #a;i#u# te!#

penalt) ne;t lo0e! to reclusiOn temporal . "onseuentl), an indete!#inate sentence of &()ea!s of prisiOn ma3or as #ini#u# to &> )ea!s, 7 #onths and & da) of reclusiOn temporal as#a;i#u# could have possibl) been i#posed.If 0e use the fo!#ula as p!oposed b) the dissent, i.e., to co#pute the #ini#u# te!# based onthe #a;i#u# te!# afte! the attendin$ o! #odif)in$ ci!cu#stances a!e conside!ed, the basisfo! co#putin$ the #ini#u# te!#, unde! this inte!p!etation, is the i#posable penalt) =' ashe!einabove defined. This inte!p!etation is at odds 0ith Section & of the IS+ 0hich clea!l)states that the #ini#u# of the indete!#inate sentence shall be 0ithin the !an$e of thepenalt) ne;t lo0e! to that p!esc!ibed b) the "ode fo! the offense. "onseuentl), the basis fo!fi;in$ the #ini#u# te!# is the p!esc!ibed penalt), => and not the i#posable penalt).In People v. 4onales,=8 the "ou!t held that the #ini#u# te!# #ust be based on the penalt)p!esc!ibed b) the "ode fo! the offense 0ithout !e$a!d to c i!cu#stances #odif)in$ c!i#inalliabilit).=? The 4onalesQ !ulin$ that the #ini#u# te!# #ust be based on the p!esc!ibedpenalt) 0ithout !e$a!d to ci!cu#stances #odif)in$ c!i#inal liabilit) is onl) a -&st#t&+&$t ofSection & of the IS+ that the #ini#u# te!# shall be ta/en f!o# 0ithin the !an$e of the penalt)ne;t lo0e! to the p!esc!ibed penalt) @and f!o# no0he!e elseB.<(

Fu!the!, the dissent p!oceeds f!o# the e!!oneous p!e#ise that its so-called !e$ula! fo!#ulahas $ene!all) been follo0ed in appl)in$ the IS+. To !eite!ate, acco!din$ to the dissent, the!e$ula! fo!#ula is acco#plished b) fi!st dete!#inin$ the #a;i#u# te!# afte! conside!in$ allthe attendin$ ci!cu#stancesG the!eafte!, the #ini#u# te!# is a!!ived at b) $oin$ one de$!ee

do0n the scale f!o# the #a;i#u# te!#. *s p!eviousl) discussed, this essentiall) #eans,usin$ the te!#s as ea!lie! defined, that the #ini#u# te!# shall be ta/en f!o# the penalt) ne;tlo0e! to the i#posable penalt) @and not the p!esc!ibed penalt).B In #o!e conc!ete te!#s andusin$ the p!evious e;a#ple of ho#icide 0ith one o!dina!) a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stance, this

0ould #ean that the #ini#u# te!# fo! ho#icide 0ill no lon$e! be based on reclusiOntemporal @i.e., the p!esc!ibed penalt) fo! ho#icideB but reclusiOn temporal in its #a;i#u#pe!iod @i.e., the i#posable penalt) fo! ho#icide 0ith one o!dina!) a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stanceBso #uch so that the #ini#u# te!# shall be ta/en f!o# reclusiOn temporal in its #ediu#pe!iod @and no lon$e! f!o# prisiOn ma3or B because this is the penalt) ne;t lo0e! to reclusiOntemporal in its #a;i#u# pe!iod. The penalt) f!o# 0hich the #ini#u# te!# is ta/en is, thus,si$nificantl) inc!eased. F-o+ ts &D#+:&, t s $ot %<<*ut to %s*&-$ 4 ts$t&-:-&t#to$ -#%*#4 %&:#-ts <-o+ o t& ISL #s g&$&-#4 &&$ #::&% 4 ts

Cou-t. The dissentQs !e$ula! fo!#ula is, the!efo!e, an)thin$ but !e$ula!.In fine, the !e$ula! fo!#ula espoused b) the dissent deviates f!o# the IS+ and established

9u!isp!udence and is, thus, tanta#ount to 9udicial le$islation.II.The!e is no absu!dit) o! in9ustice in fi;in$ o! sta$natin$ the #ini#u# te!# 0ithin the !an$e of prisiOn correccional #ini#u# and #ediu# @ i.e., f!o# ' #onths and & da) to 7 )ea!s and =#onthsB. P!eli#ina!il), it #ust be e#phasied that the #ini#u# te!# ta/en f!o# theafo!e#entioned !an$e of penalt) need not be the sa#e fo! eve!) case of esta&a 0hen thea#ount def!auded e;ceeds P&=,(((.((. In People v. Ducosin,<& the "ou!t p!ovided so#e$uidelines in i#posin$ the #ini#u# te!# f!o# the !an$e of the penalt) ne;t lo0e! to thep!esc!ibed penalt)1

e co#e no0 to dete!#ine the #ini#u# i#p!ison#ent pe !iod !efe!!ed to in *ct No. 7&(<.Section & of said *ct p!ovides that this #ini#u# 0hich shall not be less than the #ini#u#i i t i d f th lt t l t th t ib d b id " d f th

P'?,:=(.((, P'?,:=(.(( and P88,:=(.((, !espectivel). 2o0eve!, the!e is no absu!dit) andin9ustice fo! t0o !easons.O hil it i ibl th t th i i t i d b t ld b th th

i#p!ison#ent pe!iod of the penalt) ne;t lo0e! to that p!esc!ibed b) said "ode fo! theoffense.<= e a!e he!e upon ne0 $!ound. It is in dete!#inin$ the #ini#u# penalt) that *ctNo. 7&(< confe!s upon the cou!ts in the fi;in$ of penalties the 0idest disc!etion that the cou!tshave eve! had. The dete!#ination of the #ini#u# penalt) p!esents t0o aspects1 fi!st, the#o!e o! less #echanical dete!#ination of the e;t!e#e li#its of the #ini#u# i#p!ison#entpe!iodG and second, the b!oad uestion of the facto!s and ci!cu#stances that should $uide thedisc!etion of the cou!t in fi;in$ the #ini#u# penalt) 0ithin the asce!tained li#its.; ; ; ;

e co#e no0 to the second aspect of the dete!#ination of the #ini#u# penalt), na#el), theconside!ations 0hich should $uide the cou!t in fi;in$ the te!# o! du!ation of the #ini#u#pe!iod of i#p!ison#ent. eepin$ in #ind the basic pu!pose of the Indete!#inate Sentence+a0 to uplift and !edee# valuable hu#an #ate!ial, and p!event unnecessa!) and e;cessivedep!ivation of pe!sonal libe!t) and econo#ic usefulness @Messa$e of the 4ove!no!-4ene!al,Official 4aette No. ?=, vol. LLLI, *u$ust <, &?<<B, it is necessa!) to conside! the c!i#inal,fi!st, as an individual and, second, as a #e#be! of societ). This opens up an al#ost li#itlessfield of investi$ation and stud) 0hich it is the dut) of the cou!t to e;plo!e in each case as fa!as is hu#anl) possible, 0ith the end in vie0 that penalties shall not be standa!died but fittedas fa! as is possible to the individual, 0ith due !e$a!d to the i#pe!ative necessit) of p!otectin$the social o !de!."onside!in$ the c!i#inal as an individual, so#e of the facto!s that should be conside!ed a!e1

@&B 2is a$e, especiall) 0ith !efe!ence to e;t!e#e )outh o! old a$eG @=B his $ene!al health andph)sical conditionG @<B his #entalit), he!edit) and pe!sonal habitsG @7B his p!evious conduct,envi!on#ent and #ode of life @and c!i#inal !eco!d if an)BG @:B his p!evious education, bothintellectual and #o!alG @'B his p!oclivities and aptitudes fo! usefulness o! in9u!) to societ)G @>Bhis de#eano! du!in$ t!ial and his attitude 0ith !e$a!d to the c!i#e co##ittedG @8B the #anne!and ci!cu#stances in 0hich the c!i#e 0as co##ittedG @?B the $!avit) of the offense @note thatsection = of *ct No. 7&(< e;cepts ce!tain $!ave c!i#es X this should be /ept in #ind inassessin$ the #ini#u# penalties fo! analo$ous c!i#esB.In conside!in$ the c!i#inal as a #e#be! of societ), his !elationship, fi!st, to0a!d hisdependents, fa#il) and associates and thei! !elationship 0ith hi#, and second, his!elationship to0a!ds societ) at la!$e and the State a!e i#po!tant facto!s. The State isconce!ned not onl) in the i#pe!ative necessit) of p!otectin$ the social o!$aniation a$ainst the

c!i#inal acts of dest!uctive individuals but also in !edee#in$ the individual fo! econo#icusefulness and othe! social ends. In a 0o!d, the Indete!#inate Sentence +a0 ai#s toindividualie the ad#inist!ation of ou! c!i#inal la0 to a de$!ee not he!etofo!e /no0n in theseIslands. ith the fo!e$oin$ p!inciples in #ind as $uides, the cou!ts can $ive full effect to thebeneficent intention of the +e$islatu!e.<<

*d#ittedl), it is possible that the cou!t, upon application of the $uidelines in Ducosin, 0illi#pose the sa#e #ini#u# te!# to one 0ho co##its an esta&a involvin$ P&<,(((.(( andanothe! involvin$ P&<( #illion. In fact, to a lesse! de$!ee, this is 0hat happened in the instantcase 0he!e the t!ial cou!t sentenced the accused to the sa#e #ini#u# te!# of 7 )ea!s and =#onths of prisiOn correccional in "!i#inal "ase Nos. (=-=(8<>=, (=-=(8<><, (=-=(8<>:, (=-=(8<>', and (=-=(8<>7 0he!e the a#ounts def!auded 0e!e P:>,'((.((, P'',:=(.((,

One, 0hile it is possible that the #ini#u# te!# i#posed b) a cou!t 0ould be the sa#e, the#a;i#u# te!# 0ould be $!eate! fo! the convict 0ho co##itted esta&a involvin$ P&<( #illion@0hich 0ould be =( )ea!s of reclusion temporal B than the convict 0ho s0indled P&<,(((.((@0hich could be an)0he!e f!o# prisiOn correccional #a;i#u# to prisiOn ma3or #ini#u# o!f!o# 7 )ea!s, = #onths and & da) to 8 )ea!sB.<7 *ssu#in$ that both convicts ualif) fo! pa!oleafte! se!vin$ the sa#e #ini#u# te!#, the convict sentenced to a hi$he! #a;i#u# te!# 0ouldca!!) a $!eate! bu!den 0ith !espect to the len$th of pa!ole su!veillance 0hich he ma3 beplaced unde!, and the p!ison te!# to be se!ved in case he violates his pa!ole as p!ovided fo!

in Sections '<: and 8<' of the IS+. 5nde! Section ', the convict shall be placed unde! a pe!iodof su!veillance euivalent to the !e#ainin$ po!tion of the #a;i#u# sentence i#posed uponhi# o! until final !elease and discha!$e b) the %oa!d of Pa!don and Pa!oles. Fu!the!, theconvict 0ith the hi$he! #a;i#u# te!# 0ould have to se!ve a lon$e! pe!iod upon his !e-co##it#ent in p!ison in case he violates his pa!ole because he 0ould have to se!ve the!e#ainin$ po!tion of the #a;i#u# te!#, unless the %oa!d of Pa!don and Pa!oles shall, in itsdisc!etion, $!ant a ne0 pa!ole to the said convict as p!ovided fo! in Section 8.*lthou$h the diffe!ences in t!eat#ent a!e in the natu!e of potential liabilities, to this li#itede;tent, the IS+ still p!ese!ves the $!eate! de$!ee of punish#ent in the RP" fo! a convict 0hoco##its esta&a involvin$ a $!eate! a#ount as co#pa!ed to one 0ho co##its esta&a involvin$a lesse! a#ount. &t&- t&s& %<<&-&$*&s $ t-&#t+&$t #-& su<<*&$t $ sust#$*& #$%g-#t4 $o&s # u&sto$ o< s%o+ #$% &D:&%&$*4 o< t& ISL t#t ts Cou-t *#$$ot

%&& $to.T0o, the !ule 0hich p!ovides that the #ini#u# te!# is ta/en f!o# the !an$e of the penalt)ne;t lo0e! to the p!esc!ibed penalt) is, li/e0ise, applicable to othe! offenses punishable unde!the RP". Fo! instance, the #ini#u# te!# fo! an accused $uilt) of ho#icide 0ith one $ene!ic#iti$atin$ ci!cu#stance vis-Z-vis an accused $uilt) of ho#icide 0ith th!ee o!dina!)a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stances 0ould both be ta/en f!o# prisiOn ma3or X the penalt) ne;t lo0e! toeclusion temporal . 3videntl), the convict $uilt) of ho#icide 0ith th!ee o!dina!) a$$!avatin$ci!cu#stances co##itted a #o!e pe!ve!se fo!# of the felon). 6et it is possible that the cou!t,afte! appl)in$ the $uidelines in Ducosin, 0ill i#pose upon the latte! the sa#e #ini#u# te!#as the accused $uilt) of ho#icide 0ith one $ene!ic #iti$atin$ ci!cu#stance. This !easonin$can be applied mutatis mutandis to #ost of the othe! offenses punishable unde! the RP".Should 0e then conclude that the IS+ c!eates absu!d !esults fo! these offenses as 0ellK

In fine, 0hat is pe!ceived as absu!d and un9ust is actuall) the $t&$t o< t& &gs#tu-& to bebeneficial to the convict in o!de! to uplift and !edee# valuable hu#an #ate!ial , and p!eventunnecessa!) and e;cessive dep!ivation of pe!sonal libe!t) and econo#ic usefulness. <> %) thele$islatu!eQs delibe!ate desi$n, the !an$e of penalt) f!o# 0hich the #ini#u# te!# is ta/en!e#ains fi;ed and onl) the !an$e of penalt) f!o# 0hich the #a;i#u# te!# is ta/en chan$esdependin$ on the nu#be! and natu!e of the attendin$ ci!cu#stances. *$ain, the !eason 0h)the le$islatu!e elected this #ode of beneficence to a convict !evolves on uestions of 0isdo#and e;pedienc) 0hich this "ou!t has no po0e! to !evie0. The balancin$ of the StateQsinte!ests in dete!!ence and !et!ibutive 9ustice vis-Z-vis !efo!#ation and !einte$!ation of convictsto societ) th!ou$h penal la0s belon$s to the e;clusive do#ain of the le$islatu!e.III.

People v. $omero,<8 De Carlos v. Court o& 2ppeals,<? #ala0ar v. People,7( People v.Dinglasan7& and, b) analo$), People v. Dela Cru07= do not suppo!t the fo!#ula bein$ p!oposedb) the dissent

to cove! his chec/ 0ithin th!ee @<B da)s f!o# !eceipt of notice f!o# the ban/ andAo! the pa)eeo! holde! that said chec/ has been dishono!ed fo! lac/ o! insufficienc) of funds shall be p!i#afacie evidence of deceit constitutin$ false p!etense o! f!audulent act

b) the dissent.The instant case involves a violation of *!ticle <&:, pa!. =@aB of the RP". 7< The penalt) fo! saidviolation isX*RTI"+3 <&:. S0indlin$ @'sta&aB. X *n) pe!son 0ho shall def!aud anothe! b) an) of the#eans #entioned he!einbelo0 shall be punished b)1&st. The penalt) of prisiOn correccional in its #a;i#u# pe!iod to prisiOn ma3or in its #ini#u#pe!iod, if the a#ount of the f!aud is ove! &=,((( pesos but does not e;ceed ==,((( pesos,and if such a#ount e;ceeds the latte! su#, the penalt) p!ovided in this pa!a$!aph shall be

i#posed in its #a;i#u# pe!iod, addin$ one )ea! fo! each additional &(,((( pesosG but thetotal penalt) 0hich #a) be i#posed shall not e;ceed t0ent) )ea!s. In such cases, and inconnection 0ith the accesso!) penalties 0hich #a) be i#posed and fo! the pu!pose of theothe! p!ovisions of this "ode, the penalt) shall be te!#ed prisiOn ma3or o! reclusiOn temporal ,as the case #a) be. ; ; ;In cont!ast, $omero, De Carlos, and #ala0ar involved violations of *!ticle <&: of the RP" asa#ended b) P!esidential Dec!ee @P.D.B No. &'8?77 because1 @&B the funds def!auded 0e!econt!ibuted b) stoc/holde!s o! solicited b) co!po!ationsAassociations f!o# the $ene!al public,@=B the a#ount def!auded 0as $!eate! than P&((,(((.((, and @<B the esta&a 0as notco##itted b) a s)ndicate. Section & of P.D. No. &'8? p!ovidesXSec. &. *n) pe!son o! pe!sons 0ho shall co##it esta&a o! othe! fo!#s of s0indlin$ as definedin *!ticle <&: and <&' of the Revised Penal "ode, as a#ended, shall be punished b) life

i#p!ison#ent to death if the s0indlin$ @esta&aB is co##itted b) a s)ndicate consistin$ of fiveo! #o!e pe!sons fo!#ed 0ith the intention of ca!!)in$ out the unla0ful o! ille$al act,t!ansaction, ente!p!ise o! sche#e, and the def!audation !esults in the #isapp!op!iation of#one) cont!ibuted b) stoc/holde!s, o! #e#be!s of !u!al ban/s, coope!ative, sa#ahan$na)on@sB, o! fa!#e!s association, o! of funds solicited b) co!po!ationsAassociations f!o# the$ene!al public.&$ $ot *o++tt&% 4 # s4$%*#t& #s #o& %&<$&%, t& :&$#t4 +:os#& s# &reclusi)n te*poral to reclusi)n perpetua < t& #+ou$t o< t& <-#u% &D*&&%s 1//,///:&sos. @3#phasis suppliedBSince the p!esc!ibed penalt) is reclusiOn temporal to reclusiOn perpetua, the #ini#u# te!#s

0e!e ta/en f!o# prisiOn ma3or , 0hich is the penalt) ne;t lo0e! to the p!esc!ibed penalt). 7: *scan be seen, these cases involved a diffe!ent penalt) st!uctu!e that does not #a/e use of the

inc!e#ental penalt) !ule due to the a#endato!) la0. Thus, the co#pa!ison of these cases 0ith4ab!es is i#p!ope!.Mean0hile, in Din$lasan, the felon) co##itted 0as esta&a th!ou$h bouncin$ chec/s 0hich ispunishable unde! *!ticle <&: pa!. =@dB of the RP" #s #+&$%&% 4 R&:u* A*t ;RA? No.))(7'XSec. &. Section T0o, Pa!a$!aph @dB, *!ticle Th!ee hund!ed fifteen of *ct Nu#be!ed Thi!t)-ei$hthund!ed and fifteen is he!eb) a#ended to !ead as follo0s1Sec. =. %) #eans of an) of the follo0in$ false p!etenses o! f!audulent acts e;ecuted p!io! too! si#ultaneousl) 0ith the co##ission of the f!aud1@dB %) postdatin$ a chec/, o! issuin$ a chec/ in pa)#ent of an obli$ation 0hen the offende!had no funds in the ban/, o! his funds deposited the!ein 0e!e not su fficient to cove! thea#ount of the chec/. The failu!e of the d!a0e! of the chec/ to deposit the a#ount necessa!)

facie evidence of deceit constitutin$ false p!etense o! f!audulent act.#$% P.!. No. )1)7>XSec. &. *n) pe!son 0ho shall def!aud anothe! b) #eans of false p!etenses o! f!audulent actsas defined in pa!a$!aph =@dB of *!ticle <&: of the Revised Penal "ode, as a#ended b)Republic *ct No. 788:, shall be punished b)1&st. The penalt) of reclusi)n te*poral if the a#ount of the f!aud is ove! &=,((( pesos but note;ceed ==,((( pesos, and if such a#ount e;ceeds the latte! su#, the penalt) p!ovided in thispa!a$!aph shall be i#posed in its #a;i#u# pe!iod, addin$ one )ea! fo! each additional

&(,((( pesos but the total penalt) 0hich #a) be i#posed shall in no case e;ceed thi!t) )ea!s.In such cases, and in connection 0ith the accesso!) penalties 0hich #a) be i#posed unde!the Revised Penal "ode, the penalt) shall be te!#ed reclusiOn perpetuaG ; ; ; @3#phasissuppliedB2e!e, the p!esc!ibed penalt) of prisiOn correccional #a;i#u# to prisiOn ma3or #ini#u# 0asinc!eased to reclusiOn temporal b) the a#endato!) la0. "onseuentl), the penalt) ne;t lo0e!to reclusiOn temporal is prisiOn ma3or f!o# 0hich the #ini#u# te!# 0as ta/en. This is the!eason fo! the hi$he! #ini#u# te!# in this case as co#pa!ed to 4ab!es. In fact, Din$lasan isconsistent 0ith 4ab!esXSince the face value of "hec/ No. (=?(=&, fo! 0hich appellant is c!i#inall) liable fo! esta&a,e;ceeds P==,(((, the penalt) abovecited #ust be i#posed in its #a;i#u# pe!iod, addin$ &)ea! fo! each additional P&(,(((. Pu!suant to People vs. 2e!nando, 4.R. No. &=:=&7, Oct.

=8, &???, an indete!#inate sentence shall be i#posed on the accused, co#puted favo!abl) tohi#. In this case, the indete!#inate sentence should be co#puted based on the #a;i#u#pe!iod of reclusiOn temporal as #a;i#u#, 0hich is f!o# &> )ea!s, 7 #onths, and & da) to =()ea!s. T& +$+u+ :&-o% o< t& s&$t&$*& sou% & t$ t& :&$#t4 $&Dt o&- $%&g-&& #s :-o%&% $ t& R&s&% P&$# Co%&, .&., prisi)n *ayor , * s <-o+ 64&#-s #$% 1 %#4 to 12 4&#-s +:-so$+&$t. "onside!in$ that the e;cess of the f!audco##itted, countin$ f!o# the base of P==,(((, is onl) P7,7((, 0hich is less than the P&(,(((stated in P.D. 8&8, the!e is no need to add one )ea! to the #a;i#u# penalt) abovecited. 78 @3#phasis suppliedB*s in 4ab!es, the penalt) ne;t lo0e! @i.e., prisiOn ma3or B 0as dete!#ined 0ithout conside!in$in the #eanti#e the effect of the a#ount def!auded in e;cess of P==,(((.(( on the p!esc!ibedpenalt) @i.e., reclusiOn temporal B.

Finall), Dela "!u involved a case fo! ualified theft. The p!esc!ibed penalt) fo! ualified theftis t0o de$!ees hi$he! than si#ple theft. Incidentall), the penalt) st!uctu!e fo! si#ple theft 7? andesta&a is si#ila! in that both felonies @&B !eui!es that the p!esc!ibed penalt) be i#posed in its#a;i#u# pe!iod 0hen the value of the thin$ stolen o! the a#ount def!auded, as the case #a)be, e;ceeds P==,(((.((, and @=B p!ovides fo! an inc!e#ental penalt) of & )ea! i#p!ison#entfo! eve!) P&(,(((.(( in e;cess of P==,(((.((. It should be pointed out, ho0eve!, that thep!esc!ibed penalt) fo! si#ple theft is prisiOn ma3or #ini#u# and #ediu# 0hile in esta&a it islo0e! at prisiOn correccional #a;i#u# to prisiOn ma3or #ini#u#.%ein$ t0o de$!ees hi$he!, the p!esc!ibed penalt) fo! ualified theft is, thus, reclusiOn temporal #ediu# and #a;i#u#, 0hile the #ini#u# te!# is ta/en f!o# the !an$e of prisiOn ma3or #a;i#u# to reclusiOn temporal #ini#u#, 0hich is the penalt) ne;t lo0e! to reclusiOntemporal #ediu# and #a;i#u#. The penalt) ne;t lo0e! to the p!esc!ibed penalt) is

dete!#ined 0ithout fi!st conside!in$ the a#ount stolen in e;cess of P==,(((.(( consistent 0ith 4ab!es. In fact, Dela "!u e;p!essl) cites 4ab!esX*ppl)in$ the Indete!#inate Sentence +a0 the #ini#u# of the indete!#inate penalt) shall be

0ithout !e$a!d to an) $ene!ic #iti$atin$ ci!cu#stances.:= Since uasi-!ecidivis# is conside!edas #e!el) a special a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stance, the penalt) ne;t lo0e! in de$!ee is co#putedbased on the p!esc!ibed penalt) 0ithout fi!st conside!in$ said special a$$!avatin$

*ppl)in$ the Indete!#inate Sentence +a0, the #ini#u# of the indete!#inate penalt) shall bean)0he!e 0ithin the !an$e of the penalt) ne;t lo0e! in de$!ee to that p!esc!ibed fo! theoffense, tout <-st *o$s%&-$g #$4 +o%<4$g *-*u+st#$*& #tt&$%#$t to t&*o++sso$ o< t& *-+&. Since the penalt) p!esc!ibed b) la0 is reclusiOn temporal #ediu#and #a;i#u#, the penalt) ne;t lo0e! 0ould be prisiOn ma3or in its #a;i#u# pe!iod toreclusiOn temporal in its #ini#u# pe!iod. Thus, the #ini#u# of the indete!#inate sentenceshall be an)0he!e 0ithin ten @&(B )ea!s and one @&B da) to fou!teen @&7B )ea!s and ei$ht @8B#onths.

The #a;i#u# of the indete!#inate penalt) is that 0hich, ta/in$ into conside!ation theattendin$ ci!cu#stances, could be p!ope!l) i#posed unde! the Revised Penal "ode. S$*&t& #+ou$t $o&% $ t& :-&s&$t *#s& &D*&&%s P22,///.//, ts sou% & t#&$ #s#$#ogous to +o%<4$g *-*u+st#$*&s $ t& +:osto$ o< t& +#D+u+ t&-+ o< t&<u $%&t&-+$#t& s&$t&$*&, $ot $ t& $t# %&t&-+$#to$ o< t& $%&t&-+$#t& :&$#t4.@citin$ 4ab!esB Thus, the #a;i#u# te!# of the indete!#inate penalt) in this case is the#a;i#u# pe!iod of reclusiOn temporal #ediu# and #a;i#u#, 0hich !an$es f!o# ei$hteen@&8B )ea!s, t0o @=B #onths, and t0ent) one @=&B da)s to t0ent) @=(B )ea!s, as co#putedpu!suant to *!ticle ':, in !elation to *!ticle '7 of the Revised Penal "ode. :( @3#phasissuppliedBC&#-4, $o$& o< t&s& *#s&s su::o-ts t& !ss&$t$g O:$o$s t&ss t#t t& +$+u+t&-+ sou% & *o+:ut&% #s&% o$ t& +#D+u+ t&-+. =ut& t& *o$t-#-4, Dinlasan

#$% Dela Cru+ #-& *o$sst&$t t abres.IV.The a!$u#ent that the inc!e#ental penalt) !ule should not be conside!ed as analo$ous to a#odif)in$ ci!cu#stance ste#s f!o# the e!!oneous inte!p!etation that the attendin$ci!cu#stances #entioned in Section & of the IS+ a!e li#ited to those #odif)in$ ci!cu#stancesfallin$ 0ithin the scope of *!ticles &< and &7 of the RP". Section & of the IS+ is a$ain uotedbelo0 XS3"TION &. 2e!eafte!, in i#posin$ a p!ison sentence fo! an offense punished b) the RevisedPenal "ode, o! its a#end#ents, the cou!t shall sentence the accused to an indete!#inatesentence the #a;i#u# te!# of 0hich shall be that 0hich, $ & o< t& #tt&$%$g*-*u+st#$*&s, *ou% & :-o:&-4 +:os&% u$%&- t& -u&s o< s#% Co%&, and the#ini#u# 0hich shall be 0ithin the !an$e of the penalt) ne;t lo0e! to that p!esc!ibed b) the

"ode fo! the offenseG ; ; ; @3#phasis suppliedBThe plain te!#s of the IS+ sho0 that the le$islatu!e did not intend to li#it attendin$ci!cu#stances as !efe!!in$ to *!ticles &< and &7 of the RP". If the le$islatu!e intended thatthe attendin$ ci!cu#stances unde! the IS+ be li#ited to *!ticles &< and &7, then it could havesi#pl) so stated. The 0o!din$ of the la0 clea!l) pe!#its othe! #odif)in$ ci!cu#stancesoutside of *!ticles &< and &7 of the RP" to be t!eated as attendin$ ci!cu#stances fo!pu!poses of the application of the IS+, such as uasi-!ecidivis# unde! *!ticle &'(:& of theRP". 5nde! this p!ovision, an) pe!son 0ho shall co##it a felon) afte! havin$ been convictedb) final 9ud$#ent, befo!e be$innin$ to se!ve such sentence, o! 0hile se!vin$ the sa#e, shallbe punished b) the #a;i#u# pe!iod of the penalt) p!esc!ibed b) la0 fo! the ne0 felon). Thisci!cu#stance has been inte!p!eted b) the "ou!t as a special a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stance 0he!ethe penalt) actuall) i#posed is ta/en f!o# the p!esc!ibed penalt) in its #a;i#u# pe!iod

based on the p!esc!ibed penalt) 0ithout fi!st conside!in$ said special a$$!avatin$ci!cu#stance as e;e#plified in People v. (analo:< and People v. alictar .:7

The uestion 0hethe! the inc!e#ental penalt) !ule is cove!ed 0ithin the lette! and spi!it ofattendin$ ci!cu#stances unde! the IS+ 0as ans0e!ed in the affi!#ative b) the "ou!t in/abres 0hen it !uled the!ein that the inc!e#ental penalt) !ule is analo$ous to a #odif)in$ci!cu#stance.*!ticle <&: of the RP" pe!tinentl) p!ovides X*RTI"+3 <&:. S0indlin$ @'sta&aB. X *n) pe!son 0ho shall def!aud anothe! b) an) of the

#eans #entioned he!einbelo0 shall be punished b)1&st. The penalt) of prisiOn correccional in its #a;i#u# pe!iod to prisiOn ma3or in its #ini#u#pe!iod, if the a#ount of the f!aud is ove! &=,((( pesos but does not e;ceed ==,((( pesos,and if such a#ount e;ceeds the latte! su#, the penalt) p!ovided in this pa!a$!aph shall bei#posed in its #a;i#u# pe!iod, addin$ one )ea! fo! each additional &(,((( pesosG but thetotal penalt) 0hich #a) be i#posed shall not e;ceed t0ent) )ea!s. In such cases, and inconnection 0ith the accesso!) penalties 0hich #a) be i#posed and fo! the pu!pose of theothe! p!ovisions of this "ode, the penalt) shall be te!#ed prisiOn ma3or o! reclusiOn temporal ,as the case #a) be. ; ; ;5nde! /abres, prisiOn correccional #a;i#u# to prisiOn ma3or #ini#u# is the p!esc!ibedpenalt):: fo! esta&a 0hen the a#ount def!auded e;ceeds P==,(((.((. *n a#ount def!auded ine;cess of P==,(((.(( is effectivel) conside!ed as a special a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stance in the

sense that the penalt) actuall) i#posed shall be ta/en f!o# the p!esc!ibed penalt) in its#a;i#u# pe!iod 0ithout !e$a!d to an) $ene!ic #iti$atin$ ci!cu#stances. "onseuentl), thepenalt) ne;t lo0e! in de$!ee is still based on the p!esc!ibed penalt) 0ithout in the #eanti#econside!in$ the effect of the a#ount def!auded in e;cess of P==,(((.((.hat is uniue, ho0eve!, 0ith the afo!e-uoted p!ovision is that 0hen the a#ount def!audedis P<=,(((.(( o! #o!e, the p!esc!ibed penalt) is not onl) i#posed in its #a;i#u# pe!iod butthe!e is i#posed an inc!e#ental penalt) of & )ea! i#p!ison#ent fo! eve!) P&(,(((.(( ine;cess of P==,(((.((, p!ovided that the total penalt) 0hich #a) be i#posed shall not e;ceed=( )ea!s. This inc!e#ental penalt) !ule is a special !ule applicable to esta&a and theft. In thecase of esta&a, the inc!e#ental penalt) is added to the #a;i#u# pe!iod of the p!esc!ibedpenalt) @o! to an)0he!e f!o# ' )ea!s, 8 #onths and =& da)s to 8 )ea!sB at the disc!etion ofthe cou!t, in o!de! to a!!ive at the penalt) actuall) i#posed @ i.e., the #a;i#u# te!#, 0ithin the

conte;t of the IS+B.This uniue cha!acte!istic of the inc!e#ental penalt) !ule does not pose an) obstacle tointe!p!etin$ it as analo$ous to a #odif)in$ ci!cu#stance, and, hence, fallin$ 0ithin the lette!and spi!it of attendin$ ci!cu#stances fo! pu!poses of the application of the IS+. 5nde! the

0o!din$ of the IS+, attendin$ ci!cu#stances #a) be !easonabl) inte!p!eted as !efe!!in$ tosuch ci!cu#stances that a!e applied in con9unction 0ith ce!tain !ules in the "ode in o!de! todete!#ine the penalt) to be actuall) i#posed based on the p!esc!ibed penalt) of the "ode fo!the offense. The inc!e#ental penalt) !ule substantiall) #eets this standa!d. The ci!cu#stanceis the a#ount def!auded in e;cess of P==,((((.(( and the inc!e#ental penalt) !ule is utiliedto fi; the penalt) actuall) i#posed. *t its co!e, the inc!e#ental penalt) !ule is #e!el) a#athe#atical fo!#ula fo! co#putin$ the penalt) to be actuall) i#posed usin$ the p!esc!ibedpenalt) as sta!tin$ point. Thus, it se!ves the sa#e function of dete!#inin$ the penalt) actuall)

i#posed as the #odif)in$ ci!cu#stances unde! *!ticles &<, &7, and &'( of the RP", althou$hthe #anne! b) 0hich the fo!#e! acco#plishes this function diffe!s 0ith the latte!. Fo! this!eason the inc!e#ental penalt) !ule #a) be conside!ed as #e!el) analo$ous to #odif)in$

not #a/e sense to a!$ue that the le$islatu!e cannot fo!#ulate attendin$ ci!cu#stances thatope!ate diffe!entl) than these $ene!ic #iti$atin$ and o!dina!) a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stances, andthat eEpectedl3 leads to a diffe!ent !esult f!o# the one de$!ee diffe!ence fo! it 0ould be to

!eason, the inc!e#ental penalt) !ule #a) be conside!ed as #e!el) analo$ous to #odif)in$ci!cu#stances. %esides, in case of doubt as to 0hethe! the inc!e#ental penalt) !ule falls

0ithin the scope of attendin$ ci!cu#stances unde! the IS+, t& %out sou% & -&so&%$ <#o- o< $*uso$ because this inte!p!etation is #o!e favo!able to the accused follo0in$the ti#e-hono!ed p!inciple that penal statutes a!e const!ued st!ictl) a$ainst the State andlibe!all) in favo! of the accused.:' Thus, even if the Dissentin$ OpinionQs inte!p!etation is$!atuitousl) conceded as plausible, as bet0een 4ab!es and the dissentQs inte!p!etation,4ab!es should be sustained since it is the inte!p!etation #o!e favo!able to the accused.

V.The clai# that the #a;i#u# te!# should onl) be one de$!ee a0a) f!o# the #ini#u# te!#%o&s $ot +#& s&$s& t$ t& +&#$$g o< "%&g-&&s" u$%&- t& RPC &*#us& t&+$+u+ #$% +#D+u+ t&-+s *o$sst o< s$g& <D&% :&$#t&s. *t an) !ate, the pointsee#s to be that the penalt) f!o# 0hich the #ini#u# te!# is ta/en should onl) be onede$!ee a0a) f!o# the penalt) f!o# 0hich the #a;i#u# te!# is ta/en.*s a $ene!al !ule, the application of #odif)in$ ci!cu#stances, the #a9o!it) bein$ $ene!ic#iti$atin$ and o!dina!) a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stances, does not !esult to a #a;i#u# te!# fi;edbe)ond the p!esc!ibed penalt). *t #ost, the #a;i#u# te!# is ta/en f!o# the p!esc!ibedpenalt) in its #a;i#u# pe!iod. Since the #a;i#u# te!# is ta/en f!o# the p!esc!ibed penalt)and the #ini#u# te!# is ta/en f!o# the ne;t lo0e! penalt), then, in this li#ited sense, thediffe!ence 0ould natu!all) be onl) one de$!ee. "onc!etel), in the case of ho#icide 0ith one

o!dina!) a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stance, the #a;i#u# te!# is ta/en f!o# reclusiOn temporal in its#a;i#u# pe!iod 0hich is 0ithin the p!esc!ibed penalt) of reclusiOn temporal , 0hile the#ini#u# te!# is ta/en f!o# prisiOn ma3or 0hich is the penalt) ne;t lo0e! to reclusiOntemporal G hence, the one-de$!ee diffe!ence obse!ved b) the dissent.In co#pa!ison, unde! the inc!e#ental penalt) !ule, the #a;i#u# te!# can e;ceed thep!esc!ibed penalt). Indeed, at its e;t!e#e, the #a;i#u# te!# can be as hi$h as =( )ea!s ofreclusiOn temporal 0hile the p!esc!ibed penalt) !e#ains at prisiOn correccional #a;i#u# to prisiOn ma3or #ini#u#, hence, the penalt) ne;t lo0e! to the p!esc!ibed penalt) f!o# 0hichthe #ini#u# te!# is ta/en !e#ains at an)0he!e 0ithin prisiOn correccional #ini#u# and#ediu#, o! f!o# ' #onths and & da) to 7 )ea!s and = #onths. In this sense, the inc!e#entalpenalt) !ule deviates f!o# the afo!e-stated $ene!al !ule. :>

2o0eve!, it is one thin$ to sa) that, $ene!all), the penalt) f!o# 0hich the #ini#u# te!# is

ta/en is onl) one de$!ee a0a) f!o# the penalt) f!o# 0hich the #a;i#u# te!# is ta/en, andco#pletel) anothe! thin$ to clai# that the penalt) f!o# 0hich the #ini#u# te!# is ta/ensou% onl) be one de$!ee a0a) f!o# the penalt) f!o# 0hich the #a;i#u# te!# is ta/en.The one-de$!ee diffe!ence is #e!el) the !esult of a general observation f!o# the application of$ene!ic #iti$atin$ and o!dina!) a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stances in the RP" in !elation to the IS+.No&-& does the IS+ !efe! to the one-de$!ee diffe!ence as an essential !euisite of anattendin$ ci!cu#stance. If the application of the inc!e#ental penalt) !ule deviates f!o# theone-de$!ee diffe!ence, this onl) #eans that the la0 itself has p!ovided fo! an e;ceptionthe!eto. Ve!il), the one-de$!ee diffe!ence is a mere conseGuence of the $ene!ic #iti$atin$ ando!dina!) a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stances c!eated b) the le$islatu!e. The difficult) of the dissent 0iththe deviation f!o# its so-called one-de$!ee diffe!ence !ule see#s to lie 0ith the inabilit) tovie0 these attendin$ ci!cu#stances as #e!e a!tifacts o! c!eations of the le$islatu!e. It does

that, eEpectedl3 , leads to a diffe!ent !esult f!o# the one-de$!ee diffe!enceXfo! it 0ould be tosa) that the c!eato! can onl) c!eate one specie of c!eatu!es. Fu!the!, it should be !easonabl)assu#ed that the le$islatu!e 0as a0a!e of these special ci!cu#stances, li/e the inc!e#entalpenalt) !ule o! p!ivile$ed #iti$atin$ ci!cu#stances, at the ti#e it enacted the IS+ as 0ell as theconseuent effects of such special ci!cu#stances on the application of said la0. Thus, fo! aslon$ as the inc!e#ental penalt) !ule is consistent 0ith the lette! and spi!it of attendin$ci!cu#stances unde! the IS+, the!e is no obstacle to its t!eat#ent as such.VI.

Much has been said about the lenienc), absu!dit) and un9ustness of the !esult unde! /abresGthe need to ad9ust the #ini#u# te!# of the indete!#inate penalt) to #a/e it co##ensu!ate tothe $!avit) of the esta&a co##ittedG the dete!!ence effect of a stiffe! i#position of penaltiesGand a host of othe! si#ila! !easons to 9ustif) the !eve!sal of /abres. 2o0eve!, all these !elateto polic) conside!ations be)ond the 0o!din$ of the IS+ in !elation to the RP"G conside!ationsthat if $iven effect essentiall) see/ to !e0!ite the la0 in o!de! to confo!# to one notion @out ofan infinite nu#be! of such notionsB of 0isdo# and efficac), and, ulti#atel), of 9ustice and#e!c).This "ou!t is not the p!ope! fo!u# fo! this so!t of debate. The "onstitution fo!bids it, and thep!inciple of sepa!ation of po0e!s abho!s it. The "ou!t applies the la0 as it finds it and not asho0 it thin/s the la0 should be. Not too lon$ a$o in the case of People v. Veneracion,:8 this"ou!t spo/e about the dan$e!s of allo0in$ oneQs pe!sonal beliefs to inte!fe!e 0ith the dut) to

uphold the Rule of +a0 0hich, ove! a decade late!, once a$ain assu#es #uch !elevance inthis case1Obedience to the !ule of la0 fo!#s the bed!oc/ of ou! s)ste# of 9ustice. If 9ud$es, unde! the$uise of !eli$ious o! political beliefs 0e!e allo0ed to !oa# un!est!icted be)ond bounda!ies

0ithin 0hich the) a!e !eui!ed b) la0 to e;e!cise the duties of thei! office, the la0 beco#es#eanin$less. * $ove!n#ent of la0s, not of #en e;cludes the e;e!cise of b!oad disc!etiona!)po0e!s b) those actin$ unde! its autho!it). 5nde! this s)ste#, 9ud$es a!e $uided b) the Ruleof +a0, and ou$ht to p!otect and enfo!ce it 0ithout fea! o! favo!, !esist enc!oach#ents b)$ove!n#ents, political pa!ties, o! even the inte!fe!ence of thei! o0n pe!sonal beliefs. :?

VII.M!. Custice *dolfo S. *cuna p!oposes an inte!p!etation of the inc!e#ental penalt) !ule basedon the ph!ases shall be te!#ed prisiOn ma3or o! reclusiOn temporal , as the case #a) be and

fo! the pu!pose of the othe! p!ovisions of this "ode found in the last sentence of said !ule,vi01*RTI"+3 <&:. S0indlin$ @'sta&aB. X *n) pe!son 0ho shall def!aud anothe! b) an) of the#eans #entioned he!einbelo0 shall be punished b)1&st. The penalt) of prisiOn correccional in its #a;i#u# pe!iod to prisiOn ma3or in its #ini#u#pe!iod, if the a#ount of the f!aud is ove! &=,((( pesos but does not e;ceed ==,((( pesos,and if such a#ount e;ceeds the latte! su#, the penalt) p!ovided in this pa!a$!aph shall bei#posed in its #a;i#u# pe!iod, addin$ one )ea! fo! each additional &(,((( pesosG but thetotal penalt) 0hich #a) be i#posed shall not e;ceed t0ent) )ea!s. I$ su* *#s&s, #$% $*o$$&*to$ t t& #**&sso-4 :&$#t&s * +#4 & +:os&% #$% <o- t& :u-:os& o<t& ot&- :-oso$s o< ts Co%&, t& :&$#t4 s# & t&-+&% prisi)n *ayor o-reclusi)n te*poral , #s t& *#s& +#4 &. ; ; ; @3#phasis suppliedB

hile this inte!p!etation is plausible, /abres should still be sustained because in const!uin$penal statutes, as bet0een t0o !easonable '( but cont!adicto!) const!uctions, the one #o!efavo!able to the accused should be upheld 0hich in this case is 4ab!es The !eason fo! this

than one inte!p!etation, it is st!ictl) const!ued a$ainst the state. "ou!ts fu!the! !ationalie thisapplication of the !ule of st!ict const!uction on the $!ound that it 0as not the defendant in thec!i#inal action 0ho caused a#bi$uit) in the statute *lon$ these sa#e lines cou!ts also

favo!able to the accused should be upheld, 0hich in this case is 4ab!es. The !eason fo! this!ule is elucidated in an e#inent t!eatise on statuto!) const!uction in this 0ise1It is an ancient !ule of statuto!) const!uction that penal statutes should be st!ictl) const!ueda$ainst the $ove!n#ent o! pa!ties see/in$ to enfo!ce statuto!) penalties and $ <#o- o< t&:&-so$s o$ o+ :&$#t&s #-& sougt to & +:os&% . This si#pl) #eans that 0o!ds a!e$iven thei! o!dina!) #eanin$ and that #$4 -&#so$#& %out #out t& +&#$$g s %&*%&%$ <#o- o< #$4o$& su&*t&% to # *-+$# st#tut&. This canon of inte!p!etation has beenacco!ded the status of a constitutional !ule unde! p!inciples of due p!ocess, not sub9ect to

ab!o$ation b) statute.The !ule that penal statutes should be st!ictl) const!ued has seve!al 9ustifications based on aconce!n fo! the !i$hts and f!eedo#s of accusedindividuals. St!ict const!uction can assu!e fai!ness

0hen cou!ts unde!stand it to #ean that penalstatutes #ust $ive a clea! and uneuivocal

0a!nin$, in lan$ua$e people $ene!all) unde!stand,about actions that 0ould !esult in liabilit) and thenatu!e of potential penalties. * nu#be! of cou!tshave said1[ the !ule that penal statutes a !e to be st!ictl)const!ued [ is a funda#ental p!inciple 0hich in

ou! 9ud$#ent 0ill neve! be alte!ed. h)K %ecausethe la0#a/in$ bod) o0es the dut) to citiens andsub9ects of #a/in$ un#ista/abl) clea! those actsfo! the co##ission of 0hich the citien #a) losehis life o! libe!t). The!efo!e, all the canons ofinte!p!etation 0hich appl) to civil statutes appl) toc!i#inal statutes, and in addition the!e e;ists thecanon of st!ict const!uction [. The bu!den lies onthe la0#a/e!s, and inas#uch as it is 0ithin thei!po0e!, it is thei! dut) to !elieve the situation of alldoubts.; ; ; ;

*dditionall), st!ict const!uction p!otects theindividual a$ainst a!bit!a!) disc!etion b) officialsand 9ud$es. *s one 9ud$e noted1 the cou!ts shouldbe pa!ticula!l) ca!eful that the bul0a!/s of libe!t)a!e not ove!th!o0n, in o!de! to !each an offende!

0ho is, but pe!haps ou$ht not to be, shelte!ed behind the#.0ut #so, <o- # *ou-t to &$<o-*& # :&$#t4 &-& t& &gs#tu-& #s $ot *&#-4 #$%u$&uo*#4 :-&s*-&% t *ou% -&sut $ u%*# usu-:#to$ o< t& &gs#t&<u$*to$. One cou!t has noted that the !eason fo! the !ule is to $ua!d a$ainst the c!eation, b)

9udicial const!uction, of c!i#inal offenses not 0ithin the conte#plation of the le$islatu!e. Thusthe !ule !eui!es that befo!e a pe!son can be punished his case #ust be plainl) andun#ista/abl) 0ithin the statute sou$ht to be applied. *nd, so, 0he!e a statute is open to #o!e

c!i#inal action 0ho caused a#bi$uit) in the statute. *lon$ these sa#e lines, cou!ts alsoasse!t that since the state #a/es the la0s, the) should be #ost st!on$l) const!ued a$ainst it. '&

@3#phasis suppliedG citations o#ittedBThus, in one case, 0he!e the statute 0as a#bi$uous and pe!#itted t0o !easonableinte!p!etations, the const!uction 0hich 0ould i#pose a less seve!e penalt) 0as adopted.'=

HEREFORE, the Decision of the "ou!t of *ppeals is MO!IFIE! 0ith !espect to theindete!#inate penalties i#posed on appellant fo! the five @:B counts of esta&a, to 0it1@&B In "!i#inal "ase No. (=-=(8<>=, the accused is sentenced to an indete!#inate penalt) of

7 )ea!s and = #onths of prisiOn correccional as #ini#u#, to ? )ea!s, 8 #onths and =& da)sof prisiOn ma3or as #a;i#u#.

@=B In "!i#inal "ase Nos. (=-=(8<><, (=-=(8<>:,and (=-=(8<>', the accused is sentenced to anindete!#inate penalt) of 7 )ea!s and = #onths of prisiOn correccional as #ini#u#, to &( )ea!s, 8#onths and =& da)s of prisiOn ma3or as#a;i#u# fo! each of the afo!esaid th!ee esta&a cases.@7, the accusedis sentenced to an indete!#inate penalt) of 7)ea!s and = #onths of prisiOn correccional as

#ini#u#, to &= )ea!s, 8 #onths and =& da)s ofreclusiOn temporal as #a;i#u#.In all othe! !espects, the Decision of the "ou!t of*ppeals is AFFIRME!.SO OR!ERE!.

CONSUELO >NARES'SANTIAGO*ssociate Custice

3 "ON"5R1

CERTIFICATIONPu!suant to Section &<, *!ticle VIII of the

"onstitution, it is he!eb) ce!tified that theconclusions in the above Decision 0e!e !eachedin consultation befo!e the case 0as assi$ned to

the 0!ite! of the opinion of the "ou!t.RE>NATO S. PUNO

"hief Custice

Foot$ot&s& "* !ollo, pp. &=&-&<'. Penned b) *ssociate Custice Rebecca de 4uia-Salvado!, 0ith*ssociate Custices *#elita 4. Tolentino and *u!o!a Santia$o-+a$#an, concu!!in$.= Penned b) 2on. Re)naldo 4. Ros.< "* !ollo, pp. &=&-&=7.

RE>NATO S. PUNO"hief Custice

LEONAR!O A. =UISUM0ING*ssociate Custice

*NTONIO T. "*RPIO*ssociate Custice

MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA'MARTINEZ*ssociate Custice

RENATO C. CORONA*ssociate Custice

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES*ssociate Custice

A!OLFO S. AZCUNA*ssociate Custice

!ANTE O. TINGA*ssociate Custice

MINITA . CHICO'NAZARIO*ssociate Custice

PRES0ITERO . ELASCO, R.*ssociate Custice

ANTONIO E!UAR!O 0. NACHURA*ssociate Custice

RU0EN T. RE>ES

*ssociate Custice

TERESITA . LEONAR!O'!E CASTRO

*ssociate Custice

ARTURO !. 0RION*ssociate Custice

7 Id. at &=:-='.: 4.R. Nos. &7>'>8-8>, Cul) >, =((7, 7<< S"R* '7(.' "* !ollo p &<:

=. People v. (iranda, 4.R. No. &'?(>8, Ma!ch &(, =((', 787 S"R* :::G /arces v. People, 4.R. No. &><8:8, Cul) &>, =((>, :=> S"R* 8=>Xbelon$s to the class of cases involvin$accesso!ies and acco#plices as 0ell as the f!ust!ated and atte#pted sta$es of a felon)

"* !ollo, p. &<:.> People v. 4a#boa, 4.R. No. &<:<8=, Septe#be! =?, =(((, <7& S"R* 7:&, 7:8.8 3;hibits *, +, and +-&.? People v. "abais, 4.R. No. &=?(>(, Ma!ch &', =((&, <:7 S"R* ::<, :'&.&( "* !ollo, pp. ?-&(.&& Sup!a note > at 7'=.&= Id.&< People v. 4ua#bo!, 4.R. No. &:=&8<, Canua!) ==, =((7, 7=( S"R* '>>, '8<.&7 People v. %alleste!os, 4.R. Nos. &&'?(:-?(8, *u$ust ', =((=, <8' S"R* &?<, =&=.&: Id. at =&<.&' <<: Phil. =7= @&??>B.&> *RTI"+3 ':. $ule in Cases in Nhich the Penalt3 is *ot Composed o& hree Periods . X Incases in 0hich the penalt) p!esc!ibed b) la0 is not co#posed of th!ee pe!iods, the cou!tsshall appl) the !ules contained in the fo!e$oin$ a!ticles, dividin$ into th!ee eual po!tions theti#e included in the penalt) p!esc!ibed, and fo!#in$ one pe!iod of each of the th!ee po!tions.&8 People v. #ale3 , 4.R. No. &=&&>?, Cul) =, &??8, =?& S"R* >&:, >:<->:7.&? %d. at >::.=( <<& Phil. '7 @&??'B.=& <<= Phil. >&(, ><(-><& @&??'B.== *RTI"+3 =7?. 2o#icide. X *n) pe!son 0ho, not fallin$ 0ithin the p!ovisions of a!ticle =7'

shall /ill anothe! 0ithout the attendance of an) of the ci!cu#stances enu#e!ated in the ne;tp!ecedin$ a!ticle, shall be dee#ed $uilt) of ho#icide and be punished b) !eclusi\n te#po!al.=< < Phil. 7<> @&?(7B.=7 %d. at 77(.=: The penalt) is conside!ed indete!#inate because afte! the convict se!ves the #ini#u#te!#, he o! she #a) beco#e eli$ible fo! pa!ole unde! the p!ovisions of *ct No. 7&(<, 0hichleaves the pe!iod bet0een the #ini#u# and #a;i#u# te!# indete!#inate in the sense thathe o! she #a), unde! the conditions set out in said *ct, be !eleased f!o# se!vin$ said pe!iod in

0hole o! in pa!t. @People v. Ducosin, :? Phil. &(?, &&7 &?<<B=' In the othe! po!tions of the dissent thou$h, the!e is also the i#p!ession that the basis is thepenalt) actuall) i#posed as he!einabove defined. hethe! it is the i#posable penalt) o!penalt) actuall) i#posed, the dissentQs inte!p!etation cont!avenes the IS+ because the

#ini#u# te!# should be fi;ed based on the p!esc!ibed penalt).=> #ee *uino and 4!io-*uino, he $evised Penal Code, Vol. &, &??> ed., pp. >>=->><GPadilla, Criminal )aw $evised Penal Code 2nnotated , &?88 ed., pp. =&&-=&7.=8 >< Phil. :7? @&?7&B.=? Id. at ::=.<( The dissent cites seve!al cases to establish that 4onales has not been follo0ed in casesoutside of estafa. *n e;a#ination of these cases !eveals that this asse!tion is inaccu!ate.&. #abang v. People, 4.R. No. &'88&8, Ma!ch ?, =((>, :&8 S"R* <:G People v. Canda0a,4.R. No. &>(7>7, Cune &', =((', 7?& S"R* =8(G People v. Concepcion, 4.R. No. &'?('(,Feb!ua!) ', =((>, :&7 S"R* ''(G People v. ermocilla, 4.R. No. &>:8<(, Cul) &(, =((>, :=>S"R* =?'G People v. 2bulon, 4.R. No. &>77><, *u$ust &>, =((>, :<( S"R* '>:.4onales 0as applied in these cases.

accesso!ies and acco#plices as 0ell as the f!ust!ated and atte#pted sta$es of a felon).St!ictl) spea/in$, these cases do not deviate f!o# 4onales. 2e!e, the p!esc!ibed penalt) fo!the p!incipal and consu##ated sta$e, !espectivel), should be #e!el) vie0ed as bein$lo0e!ed b) the p!ope! nu#be! of de$!ees in o!de! to a !!ive at the p!esc!ibed penalties fo!acco#plices and accesso!ies as 0ell as the f!ust!ated and atte#pted sta$es of a felon). Intu!n, f!o# these p!esc!ibed penalties, the #ini#u# te!# is dete!#ined 0ithout conside!in$ inthe #eanti#e the #odif)in$ ci!cu#stances, as in 4onales.<. /arces v. People, 4.R. No. &><8:8, Cul) &>, =((>, :=> S"R* 8=>Xbelon$s to the class of

cases involvin$ p!ivile$ed #iti$atin$ ci!cu#stances.These cases a!e, to a ce!tain e;tent, an e;ception to the !ule enunciated in 4onales. 2e!e,the p!esc!ibed penalt) is fi!st !educed b) the p!ope! nu#be! of de$!ees due to the e;istenceof a p!ivile$ed #iti$atin$ ci!cu#stance. *s thus !educed, the penalt) ne;t lo0e! in de$!ee isdete!#ined f!o# 0hich the #ini#u# te!# is ta/en. To the e;tent that the p!ivile$ed #iti$atin$ci!cu#stance, as a #odif)in$ ci!cu#stance, is fi!st applied to the p!esc!ibed penalt) befo!ethe penalt) ne;t lo0e! in de$!ee is dete!#ined, these cases deviate f!o# 4onales. 2o0eve!,this inte!p!etation is based on the special natu!e of a p!ivile$ed #iti$atin$ ci!cu#stance as

0ell as the libe!al const!uction of penal la0s in favo! of the accused. If the p!ivile$ed #iti$atin$ci!cu#stance is not fi!st applied to the p!esc!ibed penalt) befo!e dete!#inin$ the penalt) ne;tlo0e! in de$!ee f!o# 0hich the #ini#u# te!# is ta/en, it #a) happen that the #a; i#u# te!#of the indete!#inate sentence 0ould be lo0e! than the #ini#u# te!#, o! that the #ini#u#

and #a;i#u# te!# 0ould both be ta/en f!o# the sa#e !an$e of penalt)Xabsu!dities that thela0 could not have intended. These special conside!ations 0hich 9ustified a deviation f!o#4onales a!e not p!esent in the instant case. *s 0ill be sho0n late!, 4ab!es is a !easonableinte!p!etation of the IS+ in !elation to *!ticle <&:, pa!. =@aB of the RP", and an) cont!a!)inte!p!etation 0ould be unfavo!able to the accused.<& :? Phil. &(? @&?<<B.<= This 0o!din$ of *ct No. 7&(< 0as late! a#ended to the cu!!ent 0o!din$ #ini#u# 0hichshall be 0ithin the !an$e of the penalt) ne;t lo0e! to that p!esc!ibed b) the "ode fo! theoffense b) *ct No. 7==:.<< #upra note <& at &&'-&&8.<7 Si#ila!l), in the instant case, the #a;i#u# te!# i#posed on the accused inc!eased as thea#ount def!auded inc!eased in the va!ious c!i#inal cases filed a$ainst he! as a conseuence

of the inc!e#ental penalt) !ule.<: Sec. '. 3ve!) p!isone! !eleased f!o# confine#ent on pa!ole b) vi!tue of this *ct shall, atsuch ti#es and in such #anne! as #a) be !eui!ed b) the conditions of his pa!ole, as #a) bedesi$nated b) the said %oa!d fo! such pu!pose, !epo!t pe!sonall) to such $ove!n#ent officialso! othe! pa!ole office!s he!eafte! appointed b) the %oa!d of Indete!#inate Sentence fo! ape!iod of su!veillance euivalent to the !e#ainin$ po!tion of the #a;i#u# sentence i#posedupon hi# o! until final !elease and discha!$e b) the %oa!d of Indete!#inate Sentence ashe!ein p!ovided. The officials so desi$nated shall /eep such !eco!ds and #a/e such !epo!tsand pe!fo!# such othe! duties he!eunde! as #a) be !eui!ed b) said %oa!d. The li#its of!esidence of such pa!oled p!isone! du!in$ his pa!ole #a) be fi;ed and f!o# ti#e to ti#echan$ed b) the said %oa!d in its disc!etion. If du!in$ the pe!iod of su!veillance such pa!oledp!isone! shall sho0 hi#self to be a la0-abidin$ citien and shall not violate an) of the la0s of

the Philippine Islands, the %oa!d of Indete!#inate Sentence #a) issue a final ce!tificate of!elease in his favo!, 0hich shall entitle hi# to final !elease and discha!$e.<' Sec. 8. heneve! an) p!isone! !eleased on pa!ole b) vi!tue of this *ct shall, du!in$ the

The dissent a!$ues that the use of uasi-!ecidivis# as an e;a#ple of an attendin$ci!cu#stance 0hich is outside the scope of *!ticle &7 of the RP" is inapp!op!iate becauseuasi-!ecidivis# is sui $ene!is. The a!$u#ent is off-tan$ent. The point is si#pl) that uasi-

Sec. 8. heneve! an) p!isone! !eleased on pa!ole b) vi!tue of this *ct shall, du!in$ thepe!iod of su!veillance, violate an) of the conditions of his pa!ole, the %oa!d of Indete!#inateSentence #a) issue an o!de! fo! his !e-a!!est 0hich #a) be se!ved in an) pa!t of thePhilippine Islands b) an) police office!. In such case the p!isone! so !e-a!!ested shall se!vethe !e#ainin$ une;pi!ed po!tion of the #a;i#u# sentence fo! 0hich he 0as o!i$inall)co##itted to p!ison, unless the %oa!d of Indete!#inate Sentence shall, in its disc!etion, $!anta ne0 pa!ole to the said p!isone!.<> #upra note <& at &&>.<8 4.R. No. &&=?8:, *p!il =&, &???, <(' S"R* ?(.<? 4.R. No. &(<(':, *u$ust &', &???, <&= S"R* <?>.7( 4.R. No. &7?7>=, Octobe! &:, =((=, <?& S"R* &'=.7& 4.R. No. &<<'7:, Septe#be! &>, =((=, <8? S"R* >&.7= <8< Phil. =&< @=(((B.7< 3stafa co##itted b) usin$ fictitious na#e, o! falsel) p!etendin$ to possess po0e!, influence,ualifications, p!ope!t), c!edit, a$enc), business o! i#a$ina!) t!ansactions, o! b) #eans ofothe! si#ila! deceits.77 3ffective *p!il ', &?8(.7: See *!ticle '& of the RP".7' 3ffective Cune &>, &?'>.7> 3ffective Octobe! ==, &?>:.78 Sup!a note 7& at 8(.7? *RTI"+3 <(?. Penalties. X *n) pe!son $uilt) of theft shall be punished b)1&. The penalt) of p!isi\n #a)o! in its #ini#u# and #ediu# pe!iods, if the value of the thin$stolen is #o!e than &=,((( pesos but does not e;ceed ==,((( pesosG but if the value of thethin$ stolen e;ceeds the latte! a#ount, the penalt) shall be the #a;i#u# pe!iod of the onep!esc!ibed in this pa!a$!aph, and one )ea! fo! each additional ten thousand pesos, but thetotal of the penalt) 0hich #a) be i#posed shall not e;ceed t0ent) )ea!s. In such cases, andin connection 0ith the accesso!) penalties 0hich #a) be i#posed and fo! the pu!pose of theothe! p!ovisions of this "ode, the penalt) shall be te!#ed p!isi\n #a)o! o! !eclusi\n te#po!al,as the case #a) be. ; ; ;:( Sup!a note 7= at ==>-==8.:& *RTI"+3 &'(. Commission o& 2nother Crime During #ervice o& Penalt3 %mposed &or

2nother Previous +&&ense Q Penalt3 . X %esides the p!ovisions of !ule : of a!ticle '=, an)pe!son 0ho shall co##it a felon) afte! havin$ been convicted b) final 9ud$#ent, befo!ebe$innin$ to se!ve such sentence, o! 0hile se!vin$ the sa#e, shall be punished b) the#a;i#u# pe!iod of the penalt) p!esc!ibed b) la0 fo! the ne0 felon).*n) convict of the class !efe!!ed to in this a!ticle, 0ho is not a habitual c!i#inal, shall bepa!doned at the a$e of sevent) )ea!s if he shall have al!ead) se!ved out his o!i$inal sentence,o! 0hen he shall co#plete it afte! !eachin$ said a$e, unless b) !eason of his conduct o! othe!ci!cu#stances he shall not be 0o!th) of such cle#enc).:= #ee People v. Perete, &&& Phil. ?7<, ?7> @&?'&B.:< 4.R. No. +-::&>>, Feb!ua!) =>, &?8>, &78 S"R* ?8, &&(.:7 4.R. No. +-=???7, Cul) =(, &?>?, ?& S"R* :((, :&&.

uasi !ecidivis# is sui $ene!is. The a!$u#ent is off tan$ent. The point is si#pl) that uasi!ecidivis# is not found unde! *!ticle &7 of the RP" )et it is t!eated as an attendin$ci!cu#stance fo! pu!poses of the application of the IS+ in !elation to the RP". 2ence, the!ea!e attendin$ ci!cu#stances outside the scope of *!ticles &< and &7 of the RP". Fo! thesa#e !eason, the inc!e#ental penalt) !ule is a special !ule outside of *!ticle &7 0hich, as 0illbe discussed late! on, se!ves the sa#e function as #odif)in$ ci!cu#stances unde! *!ticles &<and &7 of the RP". See also Re)es, +.%., The Revised Penal "ode, &7 th ed., &??8, p. >''.:: The co##on th!ead in the RP" is to fi; the p!esc!ibed penalt) as the sta!tin$ point fo!

dete!#inin$ the p!ison sentence to be final l) i#posed. F!o# the p!esc!ibed penalt), theattendin$ ci!cu#stances a!e then conside!ed in o!de! to finall) fi; the penalt) actuall)i#posed. Fu!the!, the desi$nation of a p!esc!ibed penalt) is #ade in individual a!ticles, o!p!esc!ibed penalties a!e individuall) desi$nated in sepa!ate pa!a$!aphs 0ithin a sin$le a!ticle.5nde! *!ticle <&:, the penalt) fo! estafa 0hen the a#ount def!auded is ove! P&=,(((.(( butdoes not e;ceed P==,(((.(( and 0hen such a#ount e;ceeds P==,(((.(( is lu#ped 0ithinthe sa#e pa!a$!aph. Thus, the penalt) of prisiOn correccional #a;i#u# to prisiOn ma3or#ini#u# #a) be !easonabl) conside!ed as the sta!tin$ point fo! the co#putation of thepenalt) actuall) i#posed, and hence, the p!esc!ibed penalt) 0hen the a#ount def!audede;ceeds P==,(((.((. *s 0ill be discussed sho!tl), the a#ount def!auded in e;cess ofP==,(((.(( #a) then be t!eated as a spec ial a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stance and the inc !e#entalpenalt) as analo$ous to a #odif)in$ ci!cu#stance in o!de! to a!!ive at the penalt) actuall)

i#posed consistent 0ith the lette! and spi!it of the IS+ in !elation to the RP".:' People v. )adHaalam, <?: Phil. &, <: @=(((B.:> "ases involvin$ p!ivile$ed #iti$atin$ ci!cu#stances 0ould, li/e0ise, deviate f!o# this$ene!al !ule since the #a;i#u# te!# 0ould be ta/en f!o# a penalt) lo0e! than the p!esc!ibedpenalt). See note &<.:8 4.R. Nos. &&??8>-88, Octobe! &=, &??:, =7? S"R* =77.:? Id. at =:&.'( The afo!esaid ph!ases a!e b!oad enou$h to 9ustif) M!. Custice *cunaQs inte!p!etation,ho0eve!, the) a!e va$ue enou$h not to e;clude the inte!p!etation unde! 4ab!es. The saidph!ases #a) be so const!ued 0ithout bein$ inconsistent 0ith 4ab!es. @See *!ticles ?( and ?=of the RP"B'& < Suthe!land Statuto!) "onst!uction ] :?1< @' th ed.B

'= Id. citin$ %ua!d v. "o##on0ealth, &<7 Va. '7&, &&7 S.3. ''7 @&??=B.

hile the!e is no dispute as to the dete!#ination of the #a;i#u# of the indete!#inatesentence fo! the c!i#e of estafa, the ponente puts into issue the co#putation of the #ini#u#0hen the c!i#e co##itted calls fo! the co#putation of additional o! inc!e#ental penalties.

G.R. No. 17373 ' PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES . 0ETH TEMPORA!A

P-o+ug#t&%B

!&*&+&- 17, 2//)

D' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' D

!ISSENTING OPINION

PUNO, C..B

The "ou!t toda) bas/s #a$nani#ous in its application of the !ule that penal la0s should beconst!ued in favo! of the accused. *lthou$h I ac/no0led$e that the application of this !ule inthe inte!p!etation of the Indete!#inate Sentence +a0 @IS+B is p!ope!l) ali$ned 0ith thefunda#ental p!inciple and pu!pose of the IS+ to uplift and !edee# hu#an #ate!ial and to

p!event unnecessa!) and e;cessive dep!ivation of pe!sonal libe!t) and econo#ic usefulness,& I a# const!ained to disa$!ee 0ith the !easonin$ of the #a9o!it).

In lieu of a st!ai$ht penalt), the IS+ p!ovides fo! $uidelines fo! the dete!#ination of anindete!#inate sentence, 0hich shall be co#posed of a #a;i#u# and a #ini#u#G thus, fo!c!i#es punishable unde! the Revised Penal "ode @RP"B, Section & of the IS+ p!ovides thatthe cou!t shall sentence the accused to an indete!#inate sentence the #a;i#u# te!# of

0hich shall be that 0hich, in vie0 of the attendin$ ci!cu#stances, could be p!ope!l) i#posedunde! the !ules of the said "ode, and the #ini#u# of 0hich shall be 0ithin the !an$e of thepenalt) ne;t lo0e! to that p!esc!ibed b) the "ode fo! the offense.= @e#phasis suppliedB

0hen the c!i#e co##itted calls fo! the co#putation of additional o! inc!e#ental penalties.

The penalt) p!esc!ibed b) the "ode fo! the c!i#e of estafa is 0o!ded as follo0s1*!ticle <&:. S0indlin$ @estafaB. *n) pe!son 0ho shall def!aud anothe! b) an) of the #eans#entioned he!einbelo0 shall be punished b)1

&st. The penalt) of p!ision co!!eccional in its #a;i#u# pe!iod to p!ision #a)o! in its #ini#u#

pe!iod, if the a#ount of the f!aud is ove! &=,((( pesos but does not e;ceed ==,((( pesos,and if such a#ount e;ceeds the latte! su#, the penalt) p!ovided in this pa!a$!aph shall bei#posed in its #a;i#u# pe!iod, addin$ one )ea! fo! each additional &(,((( pesosG but thetotal penalt) 0hich #a) be i#posed shall not e;ceed t0ent) )ea!s. In such cases, and inconnection 0ith the accesso!) penalties 0hich #a) be i#posed and fo! the pu!pose of theothe! p!ovisions of this "ode, the penalt) shall be te!#ed p!ision #a)o! o! !eclusion te#po!al,as the case #a) be. @e#phasis suppiedB

The p!oble#atic po!tion of Section & of the IS+ in !elation to the above-uoted p!ovision is theph!ase p!esc!ibed b) the "ode, 0hich is essential in dete!#inin$ the !an$e 0ithin 0hich the#ini#u# of the indete!#inate sentence can be pe$$ed. *s can be obse!ved f!o# *!ticle <&:,the penalt) p!esc!ibed fo! estafa in cases involvin$ a#ounts e;ceedin$ P==,((( #a) be

inte!p!eted in t0o 0a)s1 fi!st, that the te!# penalt) p!esc!ibed in Section & of the IS+ #e!el)!efe!s to the ph!ase the penalt) p!ovided in this pa!a$!aph, 0hich !efe!s to p!ision co!!eccionalin its #a;i#u# pe!iod to p!ision #a)o! in its #ini#u# pe!iod, 0ithout as )et conside!in$ theaddition of one )ea! fo! each additional P&(,((( involvedG o! second, that the penalt)p!esc!ibed denotes the 0hole ph!ase the penalt) p!ovided in this pa!a$!aph shall be i#posedin its #a;i#u# pe!iod, addin$ one )ea! fo! each additional &(,((( pesos.

In essence, the e;istin$ 9u!isp!udence< 0hich the ponencia staunchl) defended and upheld,adhe!es to the fi!st inte!p!etation. 5nde! this vie0, since the penalt) p!esc!ibed b) the RP" fo!estafa is p!ision co!!eccional #a;i#u# to p!ision #a)o! #ini#u#, the !an$e of the penalt)

0ithin 0hich the #ini#u# of the indete!#inate sentence 0ould be dete!#ined 0ould be thatde$!ee ne;t lo0e! the!eto, o! p!ision co!!eccional in its #ini#u# to #ediu# pe!iods.

*cco!din$l), the inc!e#ental penalt) o! the additional nu#be! of )ea!s fo! the co!!espondin$inc!ease in the a#ounts involved in the f!aud is #e!el) conside!ed as a #odif)in$ci!cu#stance 0hich is conside!ed in the dete!#ination of the #a;i#u#-but not the #ini#u#-of the indete!#inate sentence. 2ence, the !an$e 0ithin 0hich the #ini#u# of theindete!#inate sentence unde! the cu!!ent co#putation can be pe$$ed is pe!#anentl) set atp!ision co!!eccional in its #ini#u# to #ediu# pe!iods.

On the othe! hand, the second inte!p!etation p!ovides that the #ini#u# of the indete!#inatesentence should be a!!ived at b) descendin$ one de$!ee do0n the scale f!o# the p!incipalpenalt), afte! facto!in$ in the inc!e#ental penalt) into the sa#e. In othe! 0o!ds, fo! pu!posesof dete!#inin$ the #ini#u# of the indete!#inate sentence, the so-called p!esc!ibed penalt)fo! f!auds involvin$ a#ounts e;ceedin$ P==,((( denotes a penalt) 0hich has al!ead) been

co#puted acco!din$ to the nu#be! of )ea!s in e;cess of P==,(((. Necessa!il), the distancebet0een the #a;i#u# and the #ini#u# shall al0a)s be onl) one de$!ee a0a).

a#ounts involved e;ceeded P==,(((.((, plus an additional one @&B )ea! fo! each additionalP&(,(((.((. @e#phasis suppliedB

I find that this second inte!p!etation is #o!e in /eepin$ 0ith the intent and lette! of the IS+ andthe RP".It is a basic !ule in statuto!) const!uction that ca!e should be ta/en that eve!) pa!t of a statutebe $iven effect and a const!uction that could !ende! a p!ovision inope!ative should be avoided,and inconsistent p!ovisions should be !econciled 0heneve! possible as pa!ts of a ha!#onious

0holeG fo! ta/en in solitude, a 0o!d o! ph!ase #i$ht easil) conve) a #eanin$ uite diffe!entf!o# the one actuall) intended and evident 0hen a 0o!d o! ph!ase is conside!ed 0ith those

0ith 0hich it is associated.7

In ou! 9u!isdiction, inc!e#ental penalt) as used in !elation to c!i#es a$ainst p!ope!t) no0!efe!s to the ph!ase and if such a#ount e;ceeds the latte! su#, the penalt) p!ovided in thispa!a$!aph shall be i#posed in its #a;i#u# pe!iod, addin$ one )ea! fo! each additional&(,((( pesos. I sub#it that fo! pu!poses of dete!#inin$ the #ini#u# of the indete!#inatesentence, the penalt) p!esc!ibed fo! estafa should include the inc!e#ental penalt), since thepenalt) fo! estafa, as that in theft, hin$es on the value o! a#ount involved.:

People v. 4ab!es' 0as the fi!st case 0hich e;pounded on the t!eat#ent of the inc!e#entalpenalt) as a #odif)in$ ci!cu#stance in the co#putation of the penalt) fo! estafa involvin$

a#ounts e;ceedin$ P==,(((.((. It e;plained thus1

5nde! the Indete!#inate Sentence +a0, the #a;i#u# te!# of the penalt) shall be that 0hich,in vie0 of the attendin$ ci!cu#stances, could be p!ope!l) i#posed unde! the Revised Penal"ode, and the #ini#u# shall be 0ithin the !an$e of the penalt) ne;t lo0e! to that p!esc!ibedfo! the offense. The penalt) ne;t lo0e! should be based on the penalt) p!esc!ibed b) the"ode fo! the offense, 0ithout fi!st conside!in$ an) #odif)in$ ci!cu#stance attendant to theco##ission of the c!i#e. The dete!#ination of the #ini#u# penalt) is left b) la0 to the sounddisc!etion of the cou!t and it can be an)0he!e 0ithin the !an$e of the penalt) ne;t lo0e!

0ithout an) !efe!ence to the pe!iods into 0hich it #i$ht be subdivided. The #odif)in$ci!cu#stances a!e conside!ed onl) in the i#position of the #a;i#u# te!# of the indete!#inatesentence.

The fact that the a#ounts involved in the instant case e;ceed P==,(((.(( should not beconside!ed in the initial dete!#ination of the indete!#inate penalt)G instead, the #atte! shouldbe so ta/en as analo$ous to #odif)in$ ci!cu#stances in the i#position of the #a;i#u# te!#of the full indete!#inate sentence. This inte!p!etation of the la0 acco!ds 0ith the !ule thatpenal la0s should be const!ued in favo! of the accused. Since the penalt) p!esc!ibed b) la0fo! the estafa cha!$e a$ainst accused-appellant is p!ision co!!eccional #a;i#u# to p!ision#a)o! #ini#u#, the penalt) ne;t lo0e! 0ould then be p!ision co!!eccional #ini#u# to#ediu#. Thus, the #ini#u# te!# of the indete!#inate sentence should be an)0he!e 0ithinsi; @'B #onths and one @&B da) to fou! @7B )ea!s and t0o @=B #onths 0hile the #a;i#u# te!#of the indete!#inate sentence should at least be si; @'B )ea!s and one @&B da) because the

To #) #ind, the !ationale in 4ab!es is fla0ed. * plain !eadin$ of the p!ovision on estafa )ieldsthe conclusion that the la0, as in the c!i#e of theft,> intended a $!aduated penalt), vi1 fo!estafa involvin$ the a#ount of P=(( and belo0, the penalt) shall be a!!esto #a)o! in its#ediu# and #a;i#u# pe!iodsG fo! a#ounts ove! P=(( but not e;ceedin$ P',(((, a!!esto#a)o! in its #a;i#u# pe!iod to p!ision co!!eccional in its #ini#u# pe!iodG fo! a#ounts ove!P',((( but not e;ceedin$ P&=,(((, p!ision co!!eccional in its #ini#u# and #ediu# pe!iodsGand finall), the penalt) sub9ect of the cont!ove!s) he!ein, p!ision co!!eccional in its #a;i#u#pe!iod to p!ision #a)o! in its #ini#u# pe!iod, if the a#ount of the f!aud is ove! P&=,((( butdoes not e;ceed ==,((( pesosG and if such a#ount e;ceeds the latte! su#, the penalt)p!ovided in this pa!a$!aph shall be i#posed in its #a;i#u# pe!iod, addin$ one )ea! fo! eachadditional &(,((( pesosG but the total penalt) 0hich #a) be i#posed shall not e;ceed t0ent))ea!s. Ve!il), the #anne! in 0hich *!ticle <&: 0as c!afted lends an insi$ht in to the intention ofthe RP", 0hich is to ensu!e that the penalt) fo! the c!i#e co##itted be co##ensu!ate to thea#ount of the f!aud. 2ence, I sub#it that the so-called inc!e#ental penalt) is e;actl) thataninc!e#ental penalt)and not a #odif)in$ ci!cu#stance. Sho!t of the RP" enu#e!atin$ all the$!adations of the penalt) fo! each a#ount that #i$ht be involved, the "ode #e!el) p!ovided afo!#ula in o!de! to a!!ive at the p!esc!ibed penalt). Nonetheless, a p!esc!ibed penalt) hadbeen intended, and that p!esc!ibed penalt) can still be easil) de!ived afte! a #echanicalapplication of the $iven fo!#ula. In fact, this is not the fi!st ti#e 0e t!eated a #odif)in$

ci!cu#stance as sepa!ate and distinct f!o# the inc!e#ental penalt), thus, in the case ofPeople v. 2e!nando81On the othe! hand, the #ini#u# of the indete!#inate sentence shall be 0ithin the !an$e of thepenalt) ne;t lo0e! in de$!ee to that p!esc!ibed b) the "ode fo! the offense, 0ithout fi!stconside!in$ an) #odif)in$ ci!cu#stance no! the inc!e#ental penalt) fo! the a#ount in e;cessof t0ent) t0o thousand @P==,(((.((B pesos. Such penalt) is p!ision #a)o!, 0ith a du!ation ofsi; @'B )ea!s and one @&B da) to t0elve @&=B )ea!s. @e#phasis suppliedBThis position is boosted b) the ualifie! at the end of the p!ovision on the penalt) fo! f!audsinvolvin$ a#ounts e;ceedin$ P==,(((. To !evisit *!ticle <&:1*!ticle <&:. S0indlin$ @estafaB. *n) pe!son 0ho shall def!aud anothe! b) an) of the #eans#entioned he!einbelo0 shall be punished b)1

&st. The penalt) of p!ision co!!eccional in its #a;i#u# pe!iod to p!ision #a)o! in its #ini#u#pe!iod, if the a#ount of the f!aud is ove! &=,((( pesos but does not e;ceed ==,((( pesos,and if such a#ount e;ceeds the latte! su#, the penalt) p!ovided in this pa!a$!aph shall bei#posed in its #a;i#u# pe!iod, addin$ one )ea! fo! each additional &(,((( pesosG but thetotal penalt) 0hich #a) be i#posed shall not e;ceed t0ent) )ea!s. In such cases, and inconnection 0ith the accesso!) penalties 0hich #a) be i#posed and fo! the pu!pose of theothe! p!ovisions of this "ode, the penalt) shall be te!#ed p!ision #a)o! o! !eclusion te#po!al,as the case #a) be. @e#phasis suppiedB

*s can be seen, the RP" atte#pts to li#it the penalt) p!esc!ibed, i.e., the co#puted penalt),to a #a;i#u# of t0ent) )ea!s. Fu!the!#o!e, the co#puted penalt) is #andated to be te!#ed

p!ision #a)o! o! !eclusion te#po!al, as the case #a) be, in /eepin$ 0ith the state#ent of the

p!esc!ibed penalties fo! f!auds of lo0e! a#ounts. 2ad the la0 intended the inc!e#entalpenalt) to be a #odif)in$ ci!cu#stance, the!e 0ould have been no sense in doin$ so. The#o!e plausible e;planation, the!efo!e, is that the RP" is p!esc!ibin$ a penalt) fo! f!auds

It #ust be !e#e#be!ed that a statutes clauses and ph!ases #ust not be ta/en sepa!atel), butin !elation to the statutes totalit). Fu!the!, each statute #ust be const!ued as to ha!#onie it

p p p $ p )e;ceedin$ P==,(((. On this note, the!efo!e, I a# in a$!ee#ent 0ith the vie0 that the penalt)of p!ision co!!eccional #a;i#u# to p!ision #a)o! #ini#u# p!ovided in the "ode is #e!el) theinitial p!esc!iption o! the sta!tin$ pointbut not the co#plete penalt)0hich should be the basisfo! dete!#inin$ the !an$e of the penalt) ne;t lo0e! than that p!esc!ibed b) the "ode in o!de!to dete!#ine the #ini#u# of the indete!#inate sentence.

The !ational bac/bone and #ain 9ustification of the fi!st inte!p!etation is founded upon the !ulein statuto!) const!uction that penal la0s should be const!ued in favo! of the accused. Mindfulas I a# of the 0oes and 0ails of ou! p!isone!s, I cannot b!in$ #)self to i$no!e the e!!o! in this!easonin$.

It #ust be !ecalled that the const!uction in favo! of the accused is !ooted in the p!esu#ption ofinnocence 0hich ste#s f!o# the constitutional !i$ht to due p!ocess. 2ence, the st!ictconst!uction a$ainst the $ove!n#ent as !e$a!ds penal la0s pe!tains to cases in 0hich theaccused stands to be dep!ived of eithe! life, libe!t) o! p!ope!t).

In the instant case, I find that the application of this !ule is so#e0hat st!ained. Fo! one, the

th!eat of losin$ life, libe!t) o! p!ope!t) 0ithout due p!ocess of la0 is #o!e appa!ent than !eal,because the sub9ects of the IS+ a!e no lon$e! #e!el) accused individuals. On the cont!a!),the) a!e al!ead) convicted felons 0hose $uilt had al!ead) been p!oven be)ond !easonabledoubt. 2ence, I do not see ho0 the) can still be acco!ded the p!esu#ption of innocence.

Fu!the!, I a# in doubt as to the cha!acte!iation of the IS+ as a penal la0 that could 0a!!ant ap!esu#ption of innocence fo! the accused. * penal la0 is an act of the le$islatu!e thatp!ohibits ce!tain acts and establishes penalties fo! its violations.? * close! loo/ at the IS+,ho0eve!, !eveals that it does not #a/e an) act punishable. Its co#plete title is tellin$1 *n *ctTo P!ovide Fo! *n Indete!#inate Sentence *nd Pa!ole Fo! *ll Pe!sons "onvicted Of "e!tain"!i#es %) The "ou!ts Of The Philippine IslandsG To "!eate * %oa!d Of Indete!#inateSentence *nd To P!ovide Funds The!efo!G *nd Fo! Othe! Pu!poses. Mo!eove!, the

classification of the IS+ as penal 0as #ade a!bit!a!il) and 0ithout clea! le$al basis. People v.Nan$ a),&( 0hich cited the "o!pus Cu!is Secundu#, points to the 5.S. case of State v.4!oos&& as its autho!it) fo! sa)in$ that the IS+ is a penal statute. * pe!usal of the said 5.S.case !eveals, ho0eve!, that the penal cha!acte! of the IS+ 0as not put into issue in that case,and that it 0as #e!el) assu#ed that the IS+ is a penal la0. *cco!din$l), I sub#it that thep!esu#ption of innocencecould not be used in $!antin$ lenienc) in the co#putation of the #ini#u# in the IS+.

Finall), even if 0e concede that the IS+ is a le$islation a/in to an act of $!ace $ea!ed to0a!dsthe !ehabilitation of c!i#inals, and it bein$ so, the intention of the la0#a/e!s #ust be $iveneffect, I still stand fi!# that the e;istin$ inte!p!etation is e!!oneous and !ee/s of dis!espect tothe sac!osanct p!inciples of 9ustice and fai!ness.

in !elation to the statutes totalit). Fu!the!, each statute #ust be const!ued as to ha!#onie it 0ith the p!e-e;istin$ bod) of la0s. P!ovisions of statutes #ust be !econciled, unless clea!l)!epu$nant.&=

In the p!esent case, it is clea! that it could not have been the intention of the RP" to do a0a) 0ith the $!adations of penalt) fo! the c!i#e of estafa. 6et that is p!ecisel) 0hat the #a9o!it)has decided to do toda). To be su!e, the e;istin$ inte!p!etation distu!bs the ladde!ied penalt)

sche#e p!ovided in the RP" and $!ants an undese!ved p!otection to felons convic ted off!auds involvin$ hi$he! a#ounts. In effect, this puts in the sa#e cate$o!) those 0ho #e!el)co##itted f!auds involvin$ lo0e! a#ounts, thus, defeatin$ the lette! and intent of the RP" andthe IS+. Fo! these !easons, I a# dut) bound to !e$iste! #) dissent.

IN VI3 23R3OF, I vote to *FFIRM the decision of the "ou!t of *ppeals.

RE>NATO S. PUNOC&< ust*&

& People v. Nan$ a), 88 Phil. :&:, @&?:&B.= RP", Section &.< The Fi!st School of Thou$ht, acco!din$ to the ponencia.7 3uato!ial Realt) Develop#ent, Inc. v. Sps. Deside!io F!o$oo, 4.R. No. &=8:'<, Ma!ch=:, =((7, 7=' S"R* =>&.: People v. "oncepcion, 4.R. No. &<&7>>, *p!il =(, =((&, <:> S"R* &'8, &8=.' 4.R. Nos. &&8?:(-:7, Feb!ua!) ', &??>, ='> S"R* :8&.> People v. "oncepcion, sup!a note :.8 4.R. No. &=:=&7, Octobe! =8, &???, <&> S"R* '&>.?6u Oh v. "ou!t of *ppeals, 4.R. No. &=:=8>, Cune ', =((<, 7(< S"R* <((, <(8, citin$+acson v. 3;ecutive Sec!eta!), et al., 4.R. No. &=8(?', Canua!) =(, &???, <(& S"R* =?8,<=<.

&( No. +-<:':, 88 Phil. :&:, :=( @&?:&B.&& &&( "onn. 7(<, &78 *. <:(, Canua!) ', &?<(.&= Sup!a note 7.

The application of the Indete!#inate Sentence +a0 is one of the #o!e co#plicated andconfusin$ topics in c!i#inal la0. It befuddles not a fe0 students of la0, le$al schola!s and

G.R. No. 17373 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES &-sus 0ETH TEMPORA!A.

P-o+ug#t&%B JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ D ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' D

SEPARATE OPINIONCORONA, .B

* #an cannot suffe! #o!e punish#ent than the la0 assi$ns, but he #a) suffe! less. illi a#%lac/stone&

Fo! 0hen lenit) and c!uelt) pla) fo! a /in$do#, the $entle! $a#este! is the soonest 0inne!.illia# Sha/espea!e=

confusin$ topics in c!i#inal la0. It befuddles not a fe0 students of la0, le$al schola!s and#e#be!s of the bench and of the ba!.< Fo!tunatel), this case p!esents a $!eat oppo!tunit) fo!the "ou!t to !esolve 0ith finalit) a cont!ove!sial aspect of the application and inte!p!etation ofthe Indete!#inate Sentence +a0. It is an occasion fo! the "ou!t to pe!fo!# its dut) tofo!#ulate $uidin$ and cont!ollin$ p!inciples, p!ecepts, doct!ines o! !ules.7 In the p!ocess, the#atte! can be cla!ified, the public #a) be educated and the "ou!t can e;e!cise its s)#bolicfunction of inst!uctin$ bench and ba! on the e;tent of p!otection $iven b) statuto!) andconstitutional $ua!antees.:

The funda#ental p!inciple in appl)in$ and inte!p!etin$ c!i#inal la0s, includin$ theIndete!#inate Sentence +a0, is to !esolve all doubts in favo! of the accused. In dubio p!o !eo.hen in doubt, !ule fo! the accused. This is in consonance 0ith the constitutional $ua!anteethat the accused ou$ht to be p!esu#ed innocent until and unless his $uilt is establishedbe)ond !easonable doubt.'

Inti#atel) inte!t0ined 0ith the in dubio p!o !eo p!inciple is the !ule of lenit). It is the doct!inethat a cou!t, in const!uin$ an a#bi$uous c!i#inal statute that sets out #ultiple o! inconsistentpunish#ents, should !esolve the a#bi$uit) in favo! of the #o!e lenient punish#ent.>

+enit) beco#es all the #o!e app!op!iate 0hen this case is vie0ed th!ou$h the lens of thebasic pu!pose of the Indete!#inate Sentence +a0 to uplift and !edee# valuable hu#an#ate!ial, and p!event unnecessa!) and e;cessive dep!ivation of pe!sonal libe!t) andecono#ic usefulness.8 Since the $oal of the Indete!#inate Sentence +a0 is to loo/ /indl) onthe accused, the "ou!t should adopt an application o! inte!p!etation that is #o!e favo!able tothe accused.

It is on the basis of this basic p!inciple of c!i#inal la0 that I !espectfull) sub#it this opinion.

T23 %ON3 OF "ONT3NTION

The #e#be!s of the "ou!t a!e unani#ous that accused-appellant %eth Te#po!ada 0asco!!ectl) found $uilt) be)ond !easonable doubt of the c!i#es of ille$al !ec!uit#ent and estafab) the Re$ional T!ial "ou!t of Manila, %!anch << and the "ou!t of *ppeals. 2o0eve!, opinionsdiffe! sha!pl) on the penalt) that should be i#posed on accused-appellant fo! estafa. Inpa!ticula!, the!e is a debate on ho0 the Indete!#inate Sentence +a0 should be applied in acase li/e this 0he!e the!e is an inc!e#ental penalt) 0hen the a#ount e#beled e;ceedsP==,((( @b) at least P&(,(((B.In this connection, the !elevant po!tion of *!ticle <&: of the Revised Penal "ode p!ovides1*RT. <&:. S0indlin$ @estafaB. *n) pe!son 0ho shall def!aud anothe! b) an) #eans #entionedhe!einbelo0 shall be punished b)1

&st. The penalt) of p!ision co!!eccional in its #a;i#u# pe!iod to p!ision #a)o! in its#ini#u# pe!iod, if the a#ount of the f!aud is ove! &=,((( pesos but does not e;ceed ==,(((

ci!cu#stances @such as #iti$atin$, a$$!avatin$ and othe! !elevant ci!cu#stancesB that #a)#odif) the i#posable penalt) appl)in$ the !ules of the Revised Penal "ode is conside!ed indete!#inin$ the #a;i#u# te!#. Stated othe!0ise, the #a;i#u# te!# is a!!ived at afte! ta/in$

p , , p ,pesos, and if such a#ount e;ceeds the latte! su#, the penalt) p!ovided in this pa!a$!aph shallbe i#posed in its #a;i#u# pe!iod, addin$ one )ea! fo! each additional &(,((( pesosG but thetotal penalt) 0hich #a) be i#posed shall in no case e;ceed t0ent) )ea!s. In such case, andin connection 0ith the accesso!) penalties 0hich #a) be i#posed unde! the Revised Penal"ode, the penalt) shall be te!#ed p!ision #a)o! to !eclusion te#po!al, as the case #a) be.

; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;On the othe! hand, the !elevant po!tion of the Indete!#inate Sentence +a0 p!ovides1S3"TION &. 2e!eafte!, in i#posin$ a p!ison sentence fo! an offense punished b) the RevisedPenal "ode, o! its a#end#ents, the cou!t shall sentence the accused to an indete!#inatesentence the #a;i#u# te!# of 0hich shall be that 0hich, in vie0 of the attendin$ci!cu#stances, could be p!ope!l) i#posed unde! the !ules of the said "ode, and the #ini#u#

0hich shall be 0ithin the !an$e of the penalt) ne;t lo0e! to that p!esc!ibed b) the "ode fo! theoffenseG ; ; ;

Cu!isp!udence sho0s that the!e a!e t0o schools of thou$ht on the inc!e#ental penalt) inestafa vis--vis the Indete!#inate Sentence +a0. 5nde! the fi!st school of thou$ht, the#ini#u# te!# is fi;ed at p!ision co!!eccional 0hile the #a;i#u# te!# can !each up to

!eclusion te#po!al. This is the $ene!al inte!p!etation. It 0as !eso!ted to in People v. Pabalan,? People v. %ene#e!ito,&( People v. 4ab!es&& and in a st!in$ of cases.&=

On the othe! hand, unde! the second school of thou$ht, the #ini#u# te!# is one de$!eea0a) f!o# the #a;i#u# te!# and the!efo!e va!ies as the a#ount of the thin$ stolen o!e#beled !ises o! falls. It is the line of 9u!isp!udence that follo0s People v. De la "!u.&<*#on$ the cases of this $en!e a!e People v. Ro#e!o,&7 People v. Din$lasan&: andSalaa! v. People.&'

The "ou!t is u!$ed in this case to adopt a consistent position b) cate$o!icall) disca!din$ oneschool of thou$ht. 2ence, ou! dile##a1 0hich of the t0o schools of thou$ht should 0e affi!#K

T23 FIRST S"2OO+ OF T2O542T ISMOR3 F*VOR*%+3 TO T23 *""5S3D

5nde! the Indete!#inate Sentence +a0, in i#posin$ a sentence, the cou!t #ust dete!#ine t0openalties co#posed of the #a;i#u# and #ini#u# te!#s, instead of i#posin$ a sin$le fi;edpenalt).&> 2ence, the indete!#inate sentence is co#posed of a #a;i#u# te!# ta/en f!o#the penalt) i#posable unde! the Revised Penal "ode and a #ini#u# te!# ta/en f!o# thepenalt) ne;t lo0e! to that fi;ed in the said "ode.

The #a;i#u# te!# co!!esponds to that 0hich, in vie0 of the attendin$ ci!cu#stances, could

be p!ope!l) i#posed unde! the !ules of the Revised Penal "ode. Thus, attendin$

into conside!ation the effects of attendant #odif)in$ ci!cu#stances.

On the othe! hand, the #ini#u# te!# shall be 0ithin the !an$e of the penalt) ne;t lo0e! tothat p!esc!ibed b) the Revised Penal "ode fo! the offense. It is based on the penalt)p!esc!ibed b) the Revised Penal "ode fo! the offense 0ithout conside!in$ in the #eanti#e the#odif)in$ ci!cu#stances.&8

The penalt) p!esc!ibed b) *!ticle <&: of the Revised Penal "ode fo! the felon) of estafa@e;cept estafa unde! *!ticle <&:@=B@dBB&? is p!ision co!!eccional in its #a;i#u# pe!iod top!ision #a)o! in its #ini#u# pe!iod if the a#ount of the f!aud is ove! P&=,((( but does note;ceed P==,(((. If it e;ceeds P==,(((, the penalt) p!ovided in this pa!a$!aph shall bei#posed in its #a;i#u# pe!iod. Mo!eove!, 0he!e the a#ount e#beled is #o!e thanP==,(((, an inc!e#ental penalt) of one )ea! shall be added fo! eve!) additional P&(,(((.

Thus, the Revised Penal "ode i#poses p!ision co!!eccional in its #a;i#u# pe!iod to p!ision#a)o! in its #ini#u# pe!iod @o! a pe!iod of fou! )ea!s, t0o #onths and one da) to ei$ht)ea!sB if the a#ount of the f!aud is #o!e than P&=,((( but not #o!e than P==,(((. If ite;ceeds P==,(((, the penalt) is i#posed in its #a;i#u# pe!iod @o! a pe!iod of si; )ea!s, 8

#onths and =& da)s to ei$ht )ea!sB 0ith an inc!e#ental penalt) of one )ea! fo! eachadditional P&(,((( sub9ect to the li#itation that the total penalt) 0hich #a) be i#posed shallin no case e;ceed =( )ea!s.

St!ictl) spea/in$, the ci!cu#stance that the a#ount #isapp!op!iated b) the offende! is #o!ethan P==,((( is a ualif)in$ ci!cu#stance. In People v. %a)ot,=( this "ou!t defined aualif)in$ ci!cu#stance as a ci!cu#stance the effect of 0hich is not onl) to $ive the c!i#eco##itted its p!ope! and e;clusive na#e but also to place the autho! the!eof in such asituation as to dese!ve no othe! penalt) than that especiall) p!esc!ibed fo! said c!i#e.*ppl)in$ the definition to estafa 0he!e the a#ount e#beled is #o!e than P==,(((, thea#ount involved ipso 9u!e places the offende! in such a situation as to dese!ve no othe!penalt) than the i#position of t he penalt) in its #a;i#u# pe!iod plus inc!e#ental penalt), if

0a!!anted.=& In othe! 0o!ds, if the a#ount involved is #o!e than P==,(((, then the offende!shall be sentenced to suffe! the #a; i#u# pe!iod of the p!esc!ibed penalt) 0ith an inc!e#entalpenalt) of one )ea! pe! additional P&(,(((.

2o0eve!, People v. 4ab!es conside!ed the ci!cu#stance that #o!e than P==,((( 0asinvolved as a $ene!ic #odif)in$ ci!cu#stance 0hich is #ate!ial onl) in the dete!#ination ofthe #a;i#u# te!#, not of the #ini#u# te!#15nde! the Indete!#inate Sentence +a0, the #a;i#u# te!# of the penalt) shall be that 0hich,in vie0 of the attendin$ ci!cu#stances, could be p!ope!l) i#posed unde! the Revised Penal"ode, and the #ini#u# shall be 0ithin the !an$e of the penalt) ne;t lo0e! to that p!esc!ibedfo! the offense. The penalt) ne;t lo0e! should be based on the penalt) p!esc!ibed b) the"ode fo! the offense, 0ithout fi!st conside!in$ an) #odif)in$ ci!cu#stance attendant to the

co##ission of the c!i#e. The dete!#ination of the #ini#u# penalt) is left b) la0 to the sounddisc!etion of the cou!t and it can be an)0he!e 0ithin the !an$e of the penalt) ne;t lo0e!

0ithout an) !efe!ence to the pe!iods into 0hich into 0hich it #i$ht be subdivided. The

o!se, the ci!cu#stance @that #o!e than P==,((( 0as e#beledB is not a #odif)in$ci!cu#stance but a pa!t of the penalt), if adopted, 0ill #ean that the #ini#u# te!# of theindete!#inate sentence 0ill neve! be lo0e! than the #ediu# pe!iod of p!ision co!!eccional in

#odif)in$ ci!cu#stances a!e conside!ed onl) in the i#position of the #a;i#u# te!# of theindete!#inate sentence.

The fact that the a#ounts involved in the instant case e;ceed P==,(((.(( should not beconside!ed in the initial dete!#ination of the indete!#inate penalt)G instead, the #atte! shouldbe so ta/en as analo$ous to #odif)in$ ci!cu#stances in the i#position of the #a;i#u# te!#of the full indete!#inate sentence. This inte!p!etation of the la0 acco!ds 0ith the !ule thatpenal la0s should be const!ued in favo! of the accused. Since the penalt) p!esc!ibed b) la0fo! the estafa cha!$ed a$ainst accused-appellant is p!ision co!!eccional #a;i#u# to p!ision#a)o! #ini#u#, the penalt) ne;t lo0e! 0ould then be p!ision co!!eccional #ini#u# to#ediu#. Thus, the #ini#u# te!# of the indete!#inate sentence should be an)0he!e 0ithinsi; @'B #onths and one @&B da) to fou! @7B )ea!s and t0o #onths 0hile the #a;i#u# te!# ofthe indete!#inate sentence should at least be si; @'B )ea!s and one @&B da) because thea#ounts involved e;ceeded P==,(((.((, plus an additional one @&B )ea! fo! each additionalP&(,(((.((. @e#phasis suppliedB

If the ci!cu#stance that #o!e than P==,((( 0as involved is conside!ed as a ualif)in$

ci!cu#stance, the penalt) p!esc!ibed b) the Revised Penal "ode fo! it 0ill be the #a;i#u#pe!iod of p!ision co!!eccional in its #a;i#u# pe!iod to p!ision #a)o! in its #ini#u# pe!iod.This has a du!ation of si; )ea!s, 8 #onths and =& da)s to ei$ht )ea!s. The penalt) ne;t lo0e!@0hich 0ill co!!espond to the #ini#u# penalt) of the indete!#inate sentenceB is the #ediu#pe!iod of p!ision co!!eccional in its #a;i#u# pe!iod to p!ision #a)o! in its #ini#u# pe!iod,

0hich has a du!ation of five )ea!s, five #onths and && da)s to si; )ea!s, ei$ht #onths and =(da)s.==

If the ci!cu#stance is conside!ed si#pl) as a #odif)in$ ci!cu#stance @as in 4ab!esB, it 0ill bedis!e$a!ded in dete!#inin$ the #ini#u# te!# of the indete!#inate sentence. The sta!tin$point 0ill be p!ision co!!eccional #a;i#u# to p!ision #a)o! #ini#u# and the penalt) ne;tlo0e! 0ill then be p!ision co!!eccional in its #ini#u# to #ediu# pe!iods, 0hich has a du!ation

of si; #onths and one da) to fou! )ea!s and t0o #onths.

F!o# the fo!e$oin$, it is #o!e favo!able to the accused if the ci!cu#stance @that #o!e thanP==,((( 0as involvedB is to be conside!ed as a #odif)in$ ci!cu#stance, not as a ualif)in$ci!cu#stance. 2ence, I sub#it that the 4ab!es !ule is p!efe!able.

On the cont!a!), the second school of thou$ht is inva!iabl) p!e9udicial to the accused. %) fi;in$the #ini#u# te!# of the indete!#inate sentence to one de$!ee a0a) f!o# the #a;i#u# te!#,the #ini#u# te!# 0ill al0a)s be lon$e! than p!ision co!!eccional in its #ini#u# to #ediu#pe!iods.

its #a;i#u# pe!iod to p!ision #a)o! in its #ini#u# pe!iod, the penalt) ne;t lo0e! to the#a;i#u# pe!iod of p!ision co!!eccional in its #a;i#u# pe!iod to p!ision #a)o! in its #ini#u#pe!iod.

T23 S3"OND S"2OO+ OF T2O542T*ND ITS S2ORT"OMIN4S

The p!i#a!) defect of the so-called second school of thou$ht is that it cont!adicts the in dubiop!o !eo p!inciple. It also violates the lenit) !ule. Instead, it advocates a st!icte! inte!p!etation

0ith ha!she! effects on the accused. In pa!ticula!, co#pa!ed to the fi!st school of thou$ht, itlen$thens !athe! than sho!tens the penalt) that #a) be i#posed on the accused. Seen in itsp!ope! conte;t, the second school of thou$ht is cont!a!) to the avo0ed pu!pose of the la0 thatit pu!po!tedl) see/s to p!o#ote, the Indete!#inate Sentence +a0.

The second school of thou$ht li#its the concept of #odif)in$ ci!cu#stance to eithe! a#iti$atin$ o! a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stance listed unde! *!ticles &< and &7 of the Revised Penal"ode. It contends that the !espective enu#e!ations unde! the said p!ovisions a!e e;clusiveand all othe! ci!cu#stances not included the!ein 0e!e intentionall) o#itted b) the le$islatu!e. It

fu!the! asse!ts that, even assu#in$ that the ci!cu#stance that #o!e than P==,((( 0ase#beled #a) be dee#ed as analo$ous to a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stances unde! *!ticle &7, thesaid ci!cu#stance cannot be conside!ed as an a$$!avatin$ ci!cu#stance because it is onl) in#iti$atin$ ci!cu#stances that analo$ous ci!cu#stances a!e allo0ed and !eco$nied.=< Thesecond school of thou$ht then insists that, since the ci!cu#stance that #o!e than P==,(((

0as involved is not a#on$ those listed unde! *!ticle &7, the said ci!cu#stance is not a#odif)in$ ci!cu#stance fo! pu!poses of the Indete!#inate Sentence +a0.

The second school of thou$ht the!efo!e st!ictl) const!ues the te!# attendin$ ci!cu#stancesa$ainst the accused. It !efuses to !eco$nie an)thin$ that is not e;p!essed, ta/es thelan$ua$e used in its e;act #eanin$ and ad#its no euitable conside!ation.To the point of bein$ !epetitive, ho0eve!, 0he!e the accused is conce!ned, penal statutes

should be inte!p!eted l ibe!all), not st!ictl).The fact that the!e a!e t0o schools of thou$ht on the #atte! b) itself sho0s that the!e isunce!taint) as to the concept of attendin$ o! #odif)in$ ci!cu#stances. Pu!suant to the indubio p!o !eo p!inciple, the doubt #ust be !esolved in favo! of the accused and not a$ainsthi#.

Mo!eove!, la0s #ust !eceive sensible inte!p!etation to p!o#ote the ends fo! 0hich the) a!eenacted.=7 The #eanin$ of a 0o!d o! ph!ase used in a statute #a) be ualified b) thepu!pose 0hich induced the le$islatu!e to enact the statute. The pu!pose #a) indicate 0hethe!to $ive a 0o!d o! ph!ase a !est!icted o! e;pansive #eanin$.=: In const!uin$ a 0o!d o!ph!ase, the cou!t should adopt the inte!p!etation that best se!ves the #anifest pu!pose of thestatute o! p!o#otes o! !ealies its ob9ect.=' he!e the lan$ua$e of the statute is fai!l)

susceptible to t0o o! #o!e const!uctions, that 0hich 0ill #ost tend to $ive effect to the#anifest intent of the la0#a/e! and p!o#ote the ob9ect fo! 0hich the statute 0as enactedshould be adopted.=> Ta/en in con9unction 0ith the lenit) !ule, a doubtful p!ovision of a la0h / ll i h ff f i i h b i i i h

RENATO C. CORONAAsso*#t& ust*&

that see/s to alleviate the effects of inca!ce!ation ou$ht to be $iven an inte!p!etation thataffo!ds lenient t!eat#ent to the accused.

The Indete!#inate Sentence +a0 is intended to favo ! the accused, pa!ticula!l) to sho!ten histe!# of i#p!ison#ent.=8 The !eduction of his pe!iod of inca!ce!ation !easonabl) helps upliftand !edee# valuable hu#an #ate!ial, and p!event unnecessa!) and e;cessive dep!ivation ofpe!sonal libe!t) and econo#ic usefulness. The la0, bein$ penal in cha!acte!, #ust !eceive aninte!p!etation that benefits the accused.=? This "ou!t al!ead) !uled that in cases 0he!e theapplication of the la0 on indete!#inate sentence 0ould be unfavo!able to the accused,!esultin$ in the len$thenin$ of his p!ison sentence, said la0 on indete!#inate sentence shouldnot be applied.<( In the sa#e vein, if an inte!p!etation of the Indete!#inate Sentence +a0 isunfavo!able to the accused and 0ill 0o!/ to inc!ease the te!# of his i#p!ison#ent, thatinte!p!etation should not be adopted. It is also fo! this !eason that the c lai# that the po0e! ofthis "ou!t to li$hten the penalt) of lesse! c!i#es ca!!ies 0ith it the !esponsibilit) to i#pose a$!eate! penalt) fo! $!ave penalties is not onl) 0!on$ but also dan$e!ous.

No0he!e does the Indete!#inate Sentence +a0 p!esc!ibe that the #ini#u# te!# of thepenalt) be no fa!the! than one de$!ee a0a) f!o# the #a;i#u# te!#. Thus, 0hile it #a) bet!ue that the #ini#u# te!# of the penalt) in an indete!#inate sentence is $ene!all) onede$!ee a0a) f!o# the #a;i#u# te!#, the la0 does not #andate that its application be!i$o!ousl) and na!!o0l) li#ited to that situation.

T23 PROP3R IND3T3RMIN*T3P3N*+TI3S IN T23S3 "*S3S

F!o# the above disuisition, I !espectfull) sub#it that the p!evailin$ !ule, the so-called fi!stschool of thou$ht, be follo0ed. ith !espect to the indete!#inate sentence that #a) bei#posed on the accused, I a$!ee 0ith the position ta/en b) Mada#e Custice "onsuelo6na!es-Santia$o.*cco!din$l), I vote that the decision of the "ou!t of *ppeals be *FFIRM3D 0ith the follo0in$

#odifications1

@&B in "!i#inal "ase No. (=-=(8<>=, the accused be sentenced to an indete!#inate penalt) of7 )ea!s and = #onths of p!ision co!!eccional as #ini#u#, to ? )ea!s, 8 #onths and =& da)sof p!ision #a)o! as #a;i#u#G@=B in "!i#inal "ase Nos. (=-=(8<><, (=-=(8<>:, and (=-=(8<>', the accused be sentencedto an indete!#inate penalt) of 7 )ea!s and = #onths of p!ision co!!eccional as #ini#u#, to &()ea!s, 8 #onths and =& da)s of p!ision #a)o! as #a;i#u# fo! each of the afo!esaid th!eeestafa cases and@7, the accused be sentenced to an indete!#inate penalt) of7 )ea!s and = #onths of p!ision co!!eccional as #ini#u#, to &= )ea!s, 8 #onths and =& da)sof p!ision #a)o! as #a;i#u#.

& "o##enta!ies on the +a0s of 3n$land ?=.= in$ 2en!) The Fifth, *ct <, Scene ', +ine &&.< * su!ve) of c!i#inal la0 9u!isp!udence 0ill sho0 that a#on$ the po!tions of the !ulin$ of t!ialcou!ts and the appellate cou!t that a!e #ost co##onl) co!!ected b) this "ou!t is theapplication of the Indete!#inate Sentence +a0. In fact, even th is "ou!t has $!appled 0ith the#atte!. @See People v. Moises, &'( Phil. 87: @&?>:B ove!!ulin$ People v. "ol#an &(< Phil. '@&?:8BG People v. 4onales >< Phil. :7? @&?7=B ove!tu!nin$ People v. "o Pao :8 Phil. :7:@&?<?' @&?<7B and People v. Mape >> Phil. 8(? @&?7>B!eve!sin$ People v. 2aloot '7 Phil. ><? @&?<>B 0hich follo0ed the "o Pao !ulin$.B7 See Salon$a v. "!u Pao, =&? Phil. 7(= @&?8:B.: Id.' See Section &7 @=B, "onstitution.> %lac/s +a0 Dictiona!), 3i$hth 3dition @=((7B, p. &<:?.8 People v. Ducosin, :? Phil. &(? @&?<<B.? <<& Phil. '7 @&??'B.&( <<= Phil. >&( @&??'B.&& <<: Phil. =7= @&??>B.&= These cases include People v. 2e!nando, <>: Phil. &(>8 @&???B, People v. Menil, <?7

Phil. 7<< @=(((B, People v. +o$an, 7&7 Phil. &&< @=((&B, People v. 4alla!do, 7<' Phil. '?8@=((=B, 4a!cia v. People, 7:> Phil. >&< @=(( Phil. '=& @=((=B.&' 7<? Phil. >'= @=((=B.&> People v. Ducosin, sup!a.&8 People v. 4onales, sup!a note <.&? The penalt) fo! estafa unde! *!ticle <&:@=B@dB is p!ovided unde! PD 8&8 @*#endin$ *!ticle<&: of the Revised Penal "ode b) Inc!easin$ the Penalties fo! 3stafa "o##itted b) Means of%ouncin$ "hec/sB.

=( '7 Phil. ='? @&?<>B.=& This is si#ila! to the effect of the ci!cu#stance that the offende! intended to aid theene#) b) $ivin$ notice o! info!#ation that is useful to the ene#) in the c!i#e ofco!!espondence 0ith hostile count!) unde! *!ticle &=(@<B of the Revised Penal "ode @0hichnecessitates the i#position of !eclusion pe!petua to deathB o! of the ci!cu#stance that theoffende! be a public office! o! e#plo)ee in the c!i#e of espiona$e unde! *!ticle &&> of theRevised Penal "ode @0hich !eui!es the i#position of the penalt) ne;t hi$he! in de$!ee thanthat $ene!all) i#posed fo! the c!i#eB.== See *!ticle '&@:B of the Revised Penal "ode. If the penalt) is an) one of the th!ee pe!iodsof a divisible penalt), the penalt) ne;t lo0e! in de$!ee shall be that pe!iod ne;t follo0in$ the$iven penalt). Thus, the penalt) i##ediatel) infe!io! to p!ision #a)o! in its #a;i#u# pe!iod isp!ision #a)o! in its #ediu# pe!iod @People v. "o Pao, sup!a note <B. If the penalt) is !eclusion

te#po!al in its #ediu# pe!iod, the penalt) ne;t lo0e! in de$!ee is !eclusion te#po!al in its#ini#u# pe!iod @People v. 4a)!a#a, sup!a note <B. The penalt) p!esc!ibed b) the RevisedPenal "ode fo! a felon) is a de$!ee. If the penalt) p!esc!ibed fo! a felon) is one of the th!ee

i d f di i ibl lt th t i d b d d th i d i di t l

SUPREME COURTManila

FIRST DIVISION

pe!iods of a divisible penalt), that pe!iod beco#es a de$!ee, and the pe!iod i##ediatel)belo0 is the penalt) ne;t lo0e! in de$!ee @Re)es, +uis %., The Revised Penal "ode, %oo/T0o, Fifteenth 3dition =((&, p. >((B.=< In pa!ticula!, *!ticle &<@&(B e;p!essl) p!ovides that an) othe! ci!cu#stances of a si#ila!natu!e and analo$ous to those above #entioned a!e t!eated as #iti$atin$. *!ticle &7, ho0eve!,does not have a si#ila! p!ovision.=7 +o "ha# v. Oca#po, >> Phil. '<' @&?7'B.

=: !iven/o v. Re$iste! of Deeds, >? Phil. 7'& @&?7>B.=' Muo "o. v. 2o!d, &= Phil. '=7 @&?(?B.=> T) Sue v. 2o!d, &= Phil. 78: @&?(?B.=8 People v. Nan$ a), 88 Phil. :&: @&?:&B.=? Id.<( Id.

Republic of the Philippines

G.R. No. 1727/ August 1(, 2//1

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HA0EAS CORPUS OF PETE C. LAGRAN, PETEC. LAGRAN, petitione!.

PUNO,J .1

On *p!il &8, &??7, petitione! Pete ". +a$!an 0as convic ted b) the Re$ional T!ial "ou!t ofJueon "it) of th!ee @<B counts of violation of %atas Pa#bansa @%PB %l$. ==. 2e 0assentenced to suffe! i#p!ison#ent of one @&B )ea! fo! each count and to pa) a fine ofP&=:,(((.((, 0ith subsidia!) i#p!ison#ent in case of insolvenc). & 2e appealed the decisionof the t!ial cou!t to the "ou!t of *ppeals but the appeal 0as dis#issed on Cul) &&, &??> fo!failu!e to file appellants b!ief. The decision beca#e final and e;ecuto!) on *u$ust ', &??> andent!) of 9ud$#ent 0as #ade on Ma!ch :, &??8. =

%) vi!tue of a "o##it#ent O!de! issued b) 2on. 3lsa I. De 4u#an, P!esidin$ Cud$e,Re$ional T!ial "ou!t of Jueon "it), %!anch ?<, petitione! 0as co##itted to the Jueon "it)Cail on Feb!ua!) =7, &???.< On *p!il <, &???, he 0as t!ansfe!!ed to the Ne0 %il ibid P!ison7

0he!e he has been se!vin$ his sentence until the p!esent.

Petitione! filed the instant petition fo! habeas co!pus on Ma!ch &?, =((&. 2e p!a)ed fo! hisi##ediate !elease as he had alle$edl) co#pleted the se!vice of his sentence. "itin$ *!ticle >(of the Revised Penal "ode, he a!$ued that if the penalties o! sentences i#posed on theaccused a!e identical, and such penalties o! sentences e#anated f!o# one cou !t and oneco#plaint, the accused shall se!ve the# si#ultaneousl). 2e stated that he has beeninca!ce!ated fo! t0o @=B )ea!s and fou! @7B da)s, counted f!o# Feb!ua!) =8, =((&, thus, hisdetention in the Ne0 %ilibid P!ison is no0 0ithout le$al basis.Petitione!s a!$u#ent dese!ves scant conside!ation.Section >( of the Revised Penal "ode p!ovides1*RTI"+3 >(. #uccessive service o& sentences. E hen the culp!it has to se!ve t0o o! #o!epenalties, he shall se!ve the# si#ultaneousl) if the natu!e of the penalties 0ill so pe!#itGothe!0ise, the follo0in$ !ules shall be obse!ved1

In the i#position of the penalties, the o!de! of thei! !espective seve!it) shall be follo0ed sothat the) #a) be e;ecuted successivel) o! as nea!l) as #a) be possible, should a pa!donhave been $!anted as to the penalt) o! penalties fi!st i#posed, o! should the) have beense!ved out.Fo! the pu!pose of appl)in$ the p!ovisions of the ne;t p!ecedin$ pa!a$!aph the !espectiveseve!it) of the penalties shall be dete!#ined in acco!dance 0ith the follo0in$ scale1&. Death,=. Reclusion pe!petua,<. Reclusion te#po!al,7. P!ision #a)o!,:. P!ision co!!eccional,'. *!!esto #a)o!,

>. *!!esto #eno!,8. Destie!!o,?. Pe!petual absolute disualification,&( Te#po!a! absol te dis alifi cation


Manila

&(. Te#po!a!) absolute disualifi cation,&&. Suspension f!o# public office, the !i$ht to vote and be voted fo!, the !i$ht to follo0p!ofession o! callin$, and&=. Public censu!e.Not0ithstandin$ the p!ovisions of the !ule ne;t p!ecedin$, the #a;i#u# du!ation of theconvicts sentence shall not be #o!e than th!eefold the len$th of ti#e co!!espondin$ to the#ost seve!e of the penalties i#posed upon hi#. No othe! penalt) to 0hich he #a) be liable

shall be inflicted afte! the su# total of those i#posed euals the sa#e #a;i#u# pe!iod.Such #a;i#u# pe!iod shall in no case e;ceed fo!t) )ea!s.In appl)in$ the p!ovisions of this !ule the du!ation of pe!petual penalties @ penal perpetuaB shallbe co#puted at thi!t) )ea!s.*!ticle >( of the Revised Penal "ode allo0s si#ultaneous se!vice of t0o o! #o!epenaltiesonl3 i& the nature o& the penalties so permit .: The penalties that can besi#ultaneousl) se!ved a!e1 @&B pe!petual absolute disualification, @=B pe!petual specialdisualification, @B public censu!e, @8B fine and bond to /eep the peace, @?B civilinte!diction, and @&(B confiscation and pa)#ent of costs. These penalties, e;ceptdestierro, canbe se!ved si#ultaneousl) 0ith i#p!ison#ent. The penalties consistin$ in dep!ivation of libe!t)cannot be se!ved si#ultaneousl) b) !eason of the natu!e of such penalties.' he!e the

accused is sentenced to t0o o! #o!e te!#s of i#p!ison#ent, the te!#s should be se!vedsuccessivel).>

In the case at ba!, petitione! 0as sentenced to suffe! one )ea! i#p!ison#ent fo! eve!) count ofthe offense co##itted. The natu!e of the sentence does not allo0 petitione! to se!ve all thep!ison te!#s si#ultaneousl). *ppl)in$ the !ule on successive se!vice of sentence, 0e find thatpetitione! has not )et co#pleted the se!vice of his sentence as he co##enced se!vin$ hissentence onl) on Feb!ua!) =7, &???. 2is p!a)e!, the!efo!e, fo! the issuance of a 0!it ofhabeascorpushas no basis.

IN VI3 23R3OF, the petition is DISMISS3D.SO ORD3R3D.Davide, Jr., C .J ., apunan, Pardo and !nares"#antiago, JJ ., concu!.

Foot$ot&s& Decision, "!i#inal "ase No. J-?=-<<=&=-=&7, Rollo, pp. ?-&:.= Rollo, p. &8.< %d ., p. =&.7 %d ., p. ==.: Rod!i$ue vs. Di!ecto! of P!isons, 7> S"R* &:< @&?>=B.' Re)es, Revised Penal "ode %oo/ I, &<th ed. @&??<B, p. >78.> 4o!don vs. olfe, ' Phil >'.

ManilaS3"OND DIVISION

G.R. No. 136(/6 August 23, 2//1

REPU0LIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitione!,vs.

THE HONORA0LE ANIANO A. !ESIERTO #s OM0U!SMAN, E!UAR!O COUANGCO,R., UAN PONCE ENRILE, MARIA CLARA LO0REGAT, ROLAN!O !ELA CUESTA,OSE ELEAZAR, R., OSE C. CONCEPCION, !ANILO URSUA, NARCISO PINE!A #$%AUGUSTO OROSA, !espondents.

!E LEON, R., J .B

%efo!e us is a petition fo! ce!tio!a!i & 0hich see/s to annul the Revie0 and Reco##endation= dated *u$ust ', &??8 of 4!aft Investi$ation Office! I 3#o!a ". Pa$unu!an, app!oved b)O#buds#an *niano *. Desie!to, dis#issin$ the petitione!s co#plaint in OM%-(-?(-=8(8a$ainst p!ivate !espondents 3dua!do M. "o9uan$co, C!., Cuan Ponce 3n!ile, Ma!ia "la!a+ob!e$at, Rolando Dela "uesta, Cose R. 3leaa!, C!., Cose ". "oncepcion, Danilo S. 5!sua,

Na!ciso M. Pineda and *u$usto O!osa, fo! violation of Republic *ct No. <(&? othe!0ise /no0nas the *nti-4!aft and "o!!upt P!actices *ct as 0ell as the O!de! < dated Septe#be! =:, &??8den)in$ petitione!s subseuent #otion fo! !econside!ation of the said Revie0 andReco##endation.It appea!s that on Feb!ua!) &=, &??( the Office of the Solicito! 4ene!al @OS4B 7 initiated theco#plaint fo! violation of R.*. No. <(&? befo!e the P!esidential "o##ission on 4ood4ove!n#ent @P"44B. The co#plaint 0as subseuentl) !efe!!ed to the Office of theO#buds#an: and doc/eted as OM%-(-?(-=8(8. The !efe!!al of the case to the O#buds#an

0as in line 0ith ou! decision in CoHuangco, Jr. v. PC//,' p!o#ul$ated on Octobe! =, &??(, 0he!ein 0e decla!ed that 0hile the P"44 has the po0e! to conduct p!eli#ina!) investi$ation,it cannot possibl) conduct the p!eli#ina!) investi$ation of said c!i#inal co#plaints 0ith thecold neut!alit) of an i#pa!tial 9ud$e, afte! havin$ ea!lie! $athe!ed evidence conce!nin$

alle$ed ill-$otten 0ealth a$ainst the !espondents, and also afte! havin$ issued a f!eee o!de!a$ainst all p!ope!ties of !espondent "o9uan$co, C!.>

The co#plaint alle$ed, inter alia, that !espondent "o9uan$co, C!., ta/in$ advanta$e of hisclose !elationship 0ith then P!esident Ma!cos, had caused the latte! to issue favo!abledec!ees to advance his pe!sonal and business inte!ests, had caused the $ove!n#ent th!ou$hthe National Invest#ent Develop#ent "o!po!ation @NID"B to ente! into a cont!act 0ith hi#unde! te!#s and conditions $!ossl) disadvanta$eous to the $ove!n#ent, and, in conspi!ac)

0ith the afo!ena#ed #e#be!s of the 5"P% %oa!d of Di!ecto!s, in fla$!ant b!each of thefiducia!) dut) as ad#inist!ato!-t!ustee of the "oconut Indust!) Develop#ent Fund @"IDFB,#anipulated the said Fund !esultin$ in the successful siphonin$ of 3i$ht 2und!ed Fo!t) MillionSeven 2und!ed 3i$ht)-Nine Thousand 3i$ht 2und!ed Fift)-Five Pesos and Fift)-Th!ee"entavos @P87(,>8?,8::.:<B of "IDF to his o0n co!po!ation, the *$!icultu!al Investo!s, Inc.

@*IIBG and that !espondents 0e!e di!ectl) o! indi!ectl) inte!ested fo! pe!sonal $ain o! had#ate!ial inte!est in the t!ansactions !eui!in$ the app!oval of a boa!d, panel o! $!oup of 0hichthe) 0e!e #e#be!s, in violation of the *nti-4!aft and "o!!upt P!actices *ct to the $!aveda#a$e and p!e9udice of public inte!est the Filipino people the Republic of the Philippines

On *p!il &?, &?8<, the 5"P% %oa!d of Di!ecto!s, co#posed of !espondents "o9uan$co, C!., asP!esident, 3n!ile as "hai!#an, Dela "uesta, Ha)co, 5!sua and Pineda as #e#be!s, adoptedResolution No. &&&-8<, !esolvin$ to note the decision of the %oa!d of *!bit!ato!s, allo0in$ thea!bit!al a0a!d to lapse 0ith finalit)

da#a$e and p!e9udice of public inte!est, the Filipino people, the Republic of the Philippines,and the coconut fa!#e!s.*ppa!entl), du!in$ the ea!l) sta$e of the Ma!tial +a0 !ule of the then P!esident Fe!dinand 3.Ma!cos in &?>=, !espondent 3dua!do Dandin$ "o9uan$co, C!., th!ou$h *II, a p!ivateco!po!ation o0ned and cont!olled b) !espondent "o9uan$co. C!., sta!ted to develop a coconutseed $a!den in its p!ope!t) in %u$su/ Island, Pala0an.8

On Nove#be! &7, &?>7, P!esidential Dec!ee No. :8= 0as issued b) then P!esident Ma!cos, ?

0hich c!eated the "oconut Indust!) Develop#ent Fund @"IDFB. The "IDF is one of the fou!@7B so-called "oco-+ev) Funds set-up to !evitalie the coconut indust!). The "IDF 0asenvisioned to finance a nation0ide coconut-!eplantin$ p!o$!a# usin$ p!ecocious hi$h-)ieldin$ h)b!id seednuts to be dist!ibuted fo! f!ee b coconut fa!#e!s. &( Its initial capital of One2und!ed Million Pesos @P&((,(((,(((.((B 0as to be pa id f!o# the "oconut "onsu#e!sStabiliation Fund @""SFB, 0ith an additional a#ount of at least t0ent) centavos @P(.=(B pe!/ilo$!a# of copra resecada out of the ""SF collected b) the Philippine "oconut *utho!it). &&

Si; @'B da)s afte! the issuance of P.D. No. :8=, o! on Nove#be! =(, &?>7, at the insti$ation of!espondent "o9uan$co, C!., *II, !ep!esented b) !espondent "o9uan$co, C!. as "hai!#an andP!esident, and NID", !ep!esented b) its Senio! Vice-P!esident, *u$usto 3. O!osa, ente!edinto a Me#o!andu# of *$!ee#ent @MO*B. "o9uan$co had an e;clusive cont!act 0ith D!. 6annF!e#ond of the Resea!ch Institute fo! Oil and Oilseeds, $!antin$ the fo!#e! the e;clus ive !i$ht

to establish and ope!ate a seed $a!den fo! the p!oduction of Ivo!) "oast 2)b!id Seednuts, ah)b!id developed b) D!. F!e#ond, and supposedl) #ost suitable fo! Philippine soil andcli#ate.&= *II and NID" stipulated, in fine, that *II shall develop the %u$su/ p!ope!t) fo! the$!o0in$ of h)b!id seednuts and sell the enti!e p!oduction to NID", 0hich shall in tu!n pa) *IIpa!t of the costs in the develop#ent and ope!ation of the seed $a!den and the suppo!tfacilities.&<

On Cune &&, &?>8, P!esident Ma!cos issued P.D. No. &7'8, othe!0ise /no0n as the Revised"oconut Indust!) "ode, substitutin$ the 5nited "oconut Plante!s %an/ @5"P%B fo! the NID"as ad#inist!ato!-t!ustee of the "IDF. 5"P% is a co##e!cial ban/ acui!ed b) the $ove!n#entth!ou$h the ""SF fo! the benefit of the coconut fa!#e!s. On *u$ust =>, &?8=, P!esidentMa!cos lifted the coconut lev). ith the onl) financial sou!ce of the "IDF depleted, 5"P% hadno choice but to te!#inate the a$!ee#ent 0ith the *II effective Dece#be! <&, &?8=.

*dve!sel) affected b) this tu!n of events, *ll de#anded a!bit!ation. * %oa!d of *!bit!ato!s 0asc!eated pu!suant to the a!bit!ation clause in the MO*. *II no#inated *tt). 3steban %autista

0hile 5"P% desi$nated *tt). *nacleto Dideles. In tu!n, the t0o appointed *tt). %a!tolo#e"a!ale, a p!ofesso! at the 5P "olle$e of +a0, as thi!d #e#be! and "hai!#an of the %oa!d.On Ma!ch =?, &?8<, the %oa!d of *!bit!ato!s !ende!ed a decision a0a!din$ to *II liuidatedda#a$es fo! Nine 2und!ed Fift)-3i$ht Million Si; 2und!ed Fift) Thousand Pesos@P?:8,':(,(((.((B f!o# the "IDF. F!o# this a0a!d 0as deducted the Fou! 2und!ed T0ent)-Si; Million T0o 2und!ed Si;t)-One Thousand Si; 2und!ed Fo!t) Pesos @P7=',='&,'7(.((Badvanced b) the NID" fo! the develop#ent of the seed $a!den, leavin$ a balance due to *IIa#ountin$ to Five 2und!ed Thi!t)-T0o Million Th!ee 2und!ed 3i$ht)-3i$ht Thousand Th!ee2und!ed Fift)-Fou! Pesos @P:<=,<88,<:7.((B. "osts of a!bit!ation and the a!bit!ato!s fee ofOne 2und!ed Fift) Thousand Pesos @P&:(,(((.((B 0e!e also ta/en f!o# the "IDF.&7

a!bit!al a0a!d to lapse 0ith finalit).The co#plaint filed b) the Solicito! 4ene!al alle$ed that the MO* is a one-sided cont!act 0ithp!ovisions clea!l) stac/ed up a$ainst the NID" the!eb) placin$ the latte! in a no-0in situation.It cited seve!al stipulations in the cont!act to substantiate its clai#, to 0it1 &:

&. 5nde! Section ?.& of the MO*, neithe! pa!t) shall be liable fo! an) loss o! da#a$e due tothe non-pe!fo!#ance of thei! !espective obli$ations !esultin$ f!o# an) cause be)ond the!easonable cont!ol of the pa!t) conce!ned. 2o0eve!, unde! Section ?.<, not0ithstandin$ the

occu!!ence of such causes, the ob li$ation of the NID" to pa) *IIs sha!e of the develop#entcosts a#ountin$ to P7=',='(,(((.(( 0ould still !e#ain enfo!ceable.=. 5nde! Sec. &&.=, if NID" fails to pe!fo!# its obli$ations, fo! an) cause 0hatsoeve!, it 0ill beliable out of the "IDF, not onl) fo! the develop#ent costs, but also fo! liuidated da#a$eseual to the stipulated p!ice of the h)b!id seednuts fo! a pe!iod of five @:B )ea!s at the !ate of&?,&><,((( seednuts pe! annu#, totalin$ P?:8,':(.((. &'

<. 5nde! Section &&.<, 0hile *II 0as $iven the !i$ht to te!#inate the cont!act in case of &orcemaHeure, no such !i$ht 0as $iven in favo! of NID". Mo!eove!, *II can do so 0ithout incu!!in$an) liabilit) fo! da#a$es.7. *II 0as onl) !eui!ed to e;e!t best effo!ts to p!oduce a p!o9ected nu#be! of seednuts 0hileNID" 0as !eui!ed to set aside and !ese!ve f!o# "IDF such a#ount as 0ould insu!e full andp!o#pt pa)#ent.

Respondent "o9uan$co, C!. sou$ht the dis#issal of the co#plaint on the $!ound ofp!esc!iption, citin$ the &??= cases of People v. #andiganba3an,&> and Raldivia v. on. 2ndres. $e3es.&8

On Dece#be! =?, &??>, 4!aft Investi$ation Office! @4IOB Manuel C. Tablada !eco##endedthe dis#issal of the case, 0hich 0as subseuentl) assi$ned to 4IO I 3#o!a ". Pa$unu!an.4IO I Pa$unu!an issued the assailed #e#o!andu#, deno#inated Revie0 andReco##endation, dated *u$ust ', &??8 0he!ein she found that the alle$ed offense hadalle$edl) p!esc!ibed. Follo0in$ the case of People v. #andiganba3an, 4IO I Pa$unu!an!ec/oned the p!esc!iption pe!iod f!o# the date the Me#o!andu# of *$!ee#ent 0as ente!edinto, o! on Nove#be! =(, &?>7. *s the case 0as filed onl) on Feb!ua!) &=, &??(, !espondentO#buds#an !uled that the sa#e 0as filed be)ond the p!esc!iptive pe!iod of ten @&(B )ea!s asfi;ed unde! Sec. && of R.*. No. <(&?. In addition, the Revie0 and Reco##endation !uled

that the uestioned MO* 0as e;p!essl) confi!#ed and !atified b) P.D. No. ?'&&?

@&?>'B andP.D. No. &7'8=( @&?>8B and, thus, 0as $iven le$islative i#p!i#atu!.The OS4 filed a Motion fo! Reconside!ation dated Septe#be! &&, &??8, a!$uin$ that @aB theoffense cha!$ed in the co#plaint falls 0ithin the cate$o!) of an ill-$otten 0ealth case 0hichunde! the "onstitution is i#p!esc!iptibleG and @bB that void cont!acts a!e not sub9ect to!atification andAo! confi!#ation. Inas#uch public !espondent O#buds#an denied petitione!s#otion fo! !econside!ation in the O!de! dated Septe#be! =:, &??8, petitione! inte!posed onDece#be! =8, &??8 the instant petition !aisin$ t0o @=B issues fo! !esolution, to 0it1 =&

I23T23R T23 OM%5DSM*N *"T3D IT2 4R*V3 *%5S3 OF DIS"R3TION IND3"+*RIN4 T2*T T23 OFF3NS3 "2*R43D IN T23 "OMP+*INT FOR VIO+*TION OFR*. NO. <(&? 2*D *+R3*D6 PR3S"RI%3D 23N T23 "OMP+*INT *S FI+3D.

II23T23R T23 OM%5DSM*N *"T3D IT2 4R*V3 *%5S3 OF DIS"R3TION IND3"+*RIN4 T2*T T23R3 IS NO %*SIS TO INDI"T PRIV*T3 R3SPOND3NTS FORVIO+*TION OF T23 *NTI 4R*FT +* %*S3D ON T23 "ONTR*"T IN J53STION

State *n) P!ope!t) Found to 2ave been 5nla0full) *cui!ed %) *n) Public Office! o!3#plo)ee and P!ovidin$ fo! the P!ocedu!e The!efo!.*s this is supposedl) a suit unde! R.*. No. &<>?, the Solicito! 4ene!al u!$es the "ou!t tofollo0 its !ulin$ in $epublic v (igrino =' 0hich held that cases fallin$ unde! the said la0 a!e

VIO+*TION OF T23 *NTI-4R*FT +* %*S3D ON T23 "ONTR*"T IN J53STION.Respondents ave! that the instant petition fo! ce!tio!a!i is but a #e!e atte#pt to substitute fo! alost appeal and 0as filed out of ti#e. hile the petitione! concedes that its petition suffe!sf!o# p!ocedu!al infi!#ities, it u!$es this "ou!t to e;e!cise its euit) 9u!isdiction.*t the outset, this "ou!t notes that the petitione! !eceived a cop) of the assailed #e#o!andu#dated *u$ust ', &??8 on *u$ust =8, &??8. Petitione! inte!posed a #otion fo! !econside!ationon Septe#be! &&, &??8. On Octobe! =8, &??8, petitione! !eceived a cop) of the o!de! den)in$

its #otion fo! !econside!ation. Follo0in$ Section 7 of Rule ': of the &??> Rules of "ivilP!ocedu!e, as a#ended b) "i!cula! No. <?-?8, == 0hich too/ effect on Septe#be! &, &??8, theinstant petition should have been filed on Dece#be! &<, &??8. Thus, since the instant petition

0as filed onl) on Dece#be! =8, &??8, it 0as filed fifteen @&:B da)s be)ond the si;t) @'(B da)!e$le#enta!) pe!iod p!esc!ibed b) the Rules. 2o0eve!, du!in$ the pendenc) of the instantpetition, the "ou!t p !o#ul$ated *.M. No. ((-=-(<-S",=< effective on Septe#be! &, =(((, 0hichfu!the! a#ended Section 7 of Rule ': of the &??> Rules of "ivil P!ocedu!e to !ead as1S3"TION 7. Nhen and where petition &iled . E The petition shall be filed not late! than si;t)@'(B da)s f!o# notice of 9ud$#ent, o!de! o! !esolution. %n case a motion &or reconsideration ornew trial is timel3 &iled, whether such motion is reGuired or not, the siEt3 9;= da3 period shallbe counted &rom notice o& the denial o& said motion.The petition shall be filed in the Sup!e#e "ou!t o!, if it !elates to the acts o! o#issions of a

lo0e! cou!t o! of a co!po!ation, boa!d, office! o! pe!son, in the Re$ional T!ial "ou!t e;e!cisin$ 9u!isdiction ove! the te!!ito!ial a!ea as defined b) the Sup!e#e "ou!t. It #a) also be filed in the"ou!t of *ppeals 0hethe! o! not the sa#e is in aid of its appellate 9u!isdiction, o! in theSandi$anba)an if it is in aid of its appellate 9u!isdiction. If it involves the acts o! o#issions of auasi-9udicial a$enc), unless othe!0ise p!ovided b) la0 o! these !ules, the petition shall befiled in and co$niable onl) b) the "ou!t of *ppeals.No e;tension of ti#e to file the petition shall be $!anted e;cept fo! co#pellin$ !eason and inno case e;ceedin$ fifteen @&:B da)s.=7

Statutes !e$ulatin$ p!ocedu!e of the cou!ts 0ill be const!ued as applicable to actions pendin$and undete!#ined at the ti#e of thei! passa$e. In that conte;t and in v ie0 of the !et!oactiveapplication of p!ocedu!al la0s,=: the instant petition should thus be conside!ed ti#el) filed.On the #atte! of p!esc!iption, befo!e %.P. %l$. &?:, 0hich 0as app!oved on Ma!ch &', &?8=,

the p!esc!iption pe!iod fo! violation of the *nti-4!aft P!actices *ct 0as ten @&(B )ea!s. Theco#plaint fo! violation of R.*. No. <(&? 0as filed befo!e the P"44 on Feb!ua!) &=, &??( o!#o!e than fifteen @&:B )ea!s afte! the bi!th of the alle$edl) ille$al cont!act.The Solicito! 4ene!al p!esents a novel theo!) to advance his vie0 that the p!esc!iption pe!iodin R.*. No. <(&? does not appl) to !espondents. The Solicito! 4ene!al asse!ts that the!espondents a!e public office!s 0ithin the cove!a$e of the *nti-4!aft +a0 since the) a!e bein$p!osecuted as #e#be!s and office!s of the %oa!d of Di!ecto!s of the 5"P%, 0hich 0asacui!ed b) the $ove!n#ent th!ou$h the coco lev) funds. 2e a!$ues that 0hile the dis#issedco#plaint is fo! violation of R.*. No. <(&?, o! the *nti-4!aft and "o!!upt P!actices *ct, thep!osecution the!eof is actuall) a suit intended to !ecove! ill-$otten 0ealth f!o# public officials,and the!efo!e cove!ed b) R.*. No. &<>?, entitled *n *ct Decla!in$ Fo!feited in Favo! of the

follo0 its !ulin$ in $epublic v. (igrino,=' 0hich held that cases fallin$ unde! the said la0 a!ei#p!esc!iptible. *cco!din$ to (igrino, Sec. = of R.*. No. &<>? 0hich p!ovides that petition fo!fo!feitu!e of unla0full) acui!ed 0ealth shall p!esc!ibe 0ithin fou! @7B )ea!s f!o# the date of!esi$nation, dis#issal o! sepa!ation o! e;pi!ation of the office! o! e#plo)ee conce!ned shouldbe dee#ed a#ended o! !epealed b) Section &:, *!ticle LI of the &?8> "onstitution 0hichp!ovides1The !i$ht of the State to !ecove! p!ope!ties unla0full) acui!ed b) public officials o!

e#plo)ees, f!o# the# o! thei! no#inees, shall not be ba!!ed b) p!esc!iption, laches, o!estoppel.It has al!ead) been settled in Presidential 2d oc act"inding Committee on ehest )oans v.Desierto=> that Section &: of *!ticle LI of the "onstitution applies onl) to civil actions fo!!ecove!) of ill-$otten 0ealth, and not to c!i#inal cases such as the co#plaint a$ainst the!espondents in OM%-(-?(-=8(8. "onve!sel), p!esc!iption of c!i#inal cases a!e $ove!ned b)special la0s on p!esc!iption.Fu!the!#o!e, to const!ue Section &:, *!ticle LI of the &?8> "onstitution in o!de! to $ive it!et!oactive application to the p!ivate !espondents 0ill !un counte! to anothe! constitutionalp!ovision, that is, Section ==, *!ticle III 0hich p!ovides that No eE post &acto la0 o! bill ofattainde! shall be enacted. *n eE post &acto la0 is defined, in pa!t, as a la0 0hich dep!ivespe!sons accused of c!i#e of so#e la0ful p!otection of a fo!#e! conviction o! acuittal, o! of

the p!ocla#ation of a#nest)G eve!) la0 0hich, in !elation to the offense o! its conseuences,alte!s the situation of a pe!son to his disadvanta$e.=8 * const!uction 0hich !aises a conflictbet0een diffe!ent pa!ts of the constitution is not pe!#issible 0hen b) !easonable const!uction,the pa!ts #a) #ade to ha!#onie. =?

e no0 tu!n to anothe! novel theo!) of the Solicito! 4ene!al. 2e clai#s that the!e a!e specialci!cu#stances that 0ould 0a!!ant the !ec/onin$ of the p!esc!iption pe!iod, not f!o# the dateof the violation of the penaliin$ la0 because it could not have been /no0n at that ti#e, butf!o# the 3DS* Revolution of Feb!ua!) &?8', 0hich is supposedl) the onl) ti#e that theoffense could have been discove!ed. *cco!din$ to the Solicito! 4ene!al1 <(

It bea!s e#phasiin$ that the c!i#inal acts co#plained of a$ainst p!ivate !espondents in thiscase 0e!e co##itted du!in$ the Ma!cos !e$i#e. P!ivate !espondents 0e!e closel) associated

0ith Ma!cos 0ho unuestionabl) 0ielded po0e! and influence andAo! 0ho, b) the#selves,

0e!e also hi$hl)-placed in $ove!n#ent. Thus assu#in$ that the offense cha!$ed is dee#ed tohave been co##itted upon the e;ecution of the cont!act in uestion, 0ho could have /no0nof the e;istence of this cont!act apa!t f!o# the cont!actin$ pa!ties the!etoK %ein$ p !ivies to thecont!act, 0ould p!ivate !espondents have initiated c!i#inal suits a$ainst the#selvesK*ssu#in$ that thi!d pe!sons to the cont!act /ne0 of its e;istence, 0as the!e a !easonableoppo!tunit), o! even political 0ill, to p!osecute those involved in the e;ecution of theuestioned cont!actKTo !ecall, due to the abno!#al situation obtainin$ at that ti#e, no one da!ed uestion thee;cesses and abscesses of the officialdo# 0hich is elouentl) e;e#plified b) sub9ect case.The applicable p!ovisions of la0 on p!esc!iption of offenses a!e found in *!ticle ?( and *!ticle?& of the Revised Penal "ode fo! offenses punishable the!eunde! and *ct No. <<=' fo! thosepenalied b) special la0s. R.*. No. <(&? bein$ a special la0, the co##ence#ent of the

pe!iod fo! the p!esc!iption fo! an) act violatin$ it is $ove!ned b) Section = of *ct No. <<=', <& 0hich p!ovides1S3"TION =. P!esc!iption shall be$in to !un f!o# the da) of the co##ission of the violation ofthe la0 and if the sa#e be not /no0n at the ti#e f!o# the discove!) the!eof and the

People v. Duue is #o!e in point, and 0hat 0as stated the!e stands !eite!ation1 In the natu!eof thin$s, acts #ade c!i#inal b) special la0s a!e f!euentl) not i##o!al o! obviousl) c!i#inalin the#selvesG fo! this !eason, the applicable statute !eui!es that if the violation of the specialla0 is not /no0n at the ti#e the prescription begins to run onl3 &rom the discover3 thereo& i e

the la0, and if the sa#e be not /no0n at the ti#e, f!o# the discove!) the!eof and theinstitution of 9udicial p!oceedin$s fo! its investi$ation and punish#ent.The p!esc!iption shall be inte!!upted 0hen p!oceedin$s a!e instituted a$ainst the $uilt)pe!son, and shall be$in to !un a$ain if the p!oceedin$s a!e dis#issed fo! !easons notconstitutin$ 9eopa!d).*s a !ule, if the co##ission of the c!i#e is /no0n, the p!esc!iptive pe!iod shall co##ence to!un on the da) it 0as co##itted.<= 2o0eve!, in cases 0he!e the ti#e of co##ission is

un/no0n, p!esc!iption shall onl) !un f!o# its discove!) and institution of 9udicial p!oceedin$sfo! its investi$ation and punish#ent. O!dina!il), the!e is no p!oble# in dete!#inin$ the date

0hen the c!i#e consists of a se!ies of acts, especiall) 0hen so#e o! all of these acts a!einnocent in the#selves.The O#buds#an and p!ivate !espondents !elied on ou! !ulin$ in People v. #andiganba3an,involvin$ the p!osecution of a P!ovincial *tto!ne) 0ho alle$edl) influenced officials in the%u!eau of +ands to issue a f!ee patent in his favo!. The p!osecution advanced the theo!) thatthe p!esc!iptive pe!iod should not co##ence upon the filin$ of the application because no onecould have /no0n about it e;cept the accused and the +ands Inspecto!. In !e9ectin$ his theo!)and !ulin$ that the date of the violation of the la0 beco#es the ope!ative date of theco##ence#ent of the pe!iod of p!esc!iption, this "ou!t !atiocinated1It is not onl) the +ands Inspecto! 0ho passes upon the disposabilit) of public land ; ; ; othe!

public officials pass upon the application fo! a f!ee patent includin$ the location of the landand, the!efo!e, the disposable cha!acte! the!eof. Indeed, p!acticall) all the depa!t#entpe!sonnel, 0ho had a hand in p!ocessin$ and app!ovin$ the application, na#el) ; ; ; couldnot have helped discove!in$ that the sub9ect of the application 0as nondisposable publica$!icultu!al land.This issue conf!onted this "ou!t ane0, albeit in a la!$e! scale, in Presidential 2d oc act"inding Committee on ehest )oans v. Desierto.<< In the said !ecent case, the %oa!d ofDi!ecto!s of the Philippine Seeds, Inc. and Develop#ent %an/ of the Philippines 0e!e cha!$ed

0ith violation of pa!a$!aphs @eB and @$B of Section < of R.*. No. <(&?, b) the P!esidential *d2oc Fact-Findin$ "o##ittee on %ehest +oans, c!eated b) then P!esident Fidel V. Ra#os toinvesti$ate and to !ecove! the so-called %ehest +oans, 0he!e the Philippine 4ove!n#ent$ua!anteed seve!al fo!ei$n loans to co!po!ations and entities connected 0ith the fo!#e!

P!esident Ma!cos. *s in the p!esent case, the O#buds#an in that case dis#issed theco#plaint on the $!ound of p!esc!iption. In holdin$ that the case had not )et p!esc!ibed, this"ou!t !uled that1In the p!esent case, it 0as 0ell-ni$h i#possible fo! the State, the a$$!ieved pa!t), to have/no0n the violations of R.*. No. <(&? at the ti#e the uestioned t!ansactions 0e!e #adebecause, as alle$ed, the public officials conce!ned connived o! conspi!ed 0ith thebeneficia!ies of the loans. Thus, 0e a$!ee 0ith the "OMMITT33 that the p!esc!iptive pe!iodfo! the offenses 0ith 0hich the !espondents in OM%-(-?'-(?'8 0e!e cha!$ed should becomputed &rom the discover3 o& the commission thereo& and not &rom the da3 o& suchcommission.;;; ;;; ;;;

la0 is not /no0n at the ti#e, the prescription begins to run onl3 &rom the discover3 thereo& i.e.,discover3 o& the unlaw&ul nature o& the constitutive act or acts. @Italics suppliedBThe!e a!e st!i/in$ pa!allelis#s bet0een the said %ehest +oans "ase and the p!esent one

0hich lead us to appl) the !ulin$ of the fo!#e! to the latte!. irst , both cases a!ose out ofsee#in$l) innocent business t!ansactionsG second , both 0e!e discove!ed onl) afte! the$ove!n#ent c!eated bodies to investi$ate these ano#alous t!ansactionsG third , both involvep!osecutions fo! violations of R.*. No. <(&?G and, &ourth, in both cases, it 0as sufficientl)

!aised in the pleadin$s that the !espondents conspi!ed and connived 0ith one anothe! in o!de!to /eep the alle$ed violations hidden f!o# public sc!utin).This "ou!ts p!onounce#ent in the case of Domingo v. #andiganba3an<7 is uite !elevant andinst!uctive as to the date 0hen the discove!) of the offense should be !ec/oned, thus1In the p!esent case, it 0as 0ell-ni$h i#possible fo! the $ove!n#ent, the a$$!ieved pa!t), tohave /no0n the violations co##itted at the ti#e the uestioned t!ansactions 0e!e #adebecause both pa!ties to the t!ansactions 0e!e alle$edl) in conspi!ac) to pe!pet!ate f!auda$ainst the $ove!n#ent. The alle$ed ano#alous t!ansactions could onl) have beendiscove!ed afte! the Feb!ua!) &?8' Revolution 0hen one of the o!i$inal !espondents, thenP!esident Fe!dinand Ma!cos, 0as ousted f!o# office. P!io! to said date, no pe!son 0ould haveda!ed to uestion the le$alit) o! p!op!iet) of those t!ansactions. 2ence, the counting o& the prescriptive period would commence &rom the date o& discover3 o& the o&&ense, which could

have been between ebruar3 1:?; a&ter the 'D#2 $evolution and 4; (a3 1:?< when theinitiator3 complaint was &iled .<:

e do not subsc!ibe to the O#buds#ans vie0 that P.D. Nos. ?'& and &7'8 ipso facto se!vedto insulate the p!ivate !espondents f!o# p!osecution. The le$islative i#p!i#atu! alle$edl)$!anted b) the then P!esident Ma!cos to the MO* is not necessa!il) inconsistent 0ith thee;istence of a violation of R.*. No. <(&?. Thus, Section t, *!ticle III of P.D. No. ?'&,p!o#ul$ated in &?>', !eads1S3"TION <. Coconut %ndustr3 Development und . E The!e is he!eb) c!eated a pe!#anentfund to be /no0n as "oconut Indust!) Develop#ent Fund 0hich shall be deposited, sub9ect tothe p!ovisions of P.D. No. >::, 0ith, and ad#iniste!ed and utilied b) the Philippine National%an/ subsidia!), the National Invest#ent and Develop#ent "o!po!ation fo! the follo0in$pu!poses1

aB To finance the establish#ent ope!ation and #aintenance of a h)b!id coconut seednut fa!#unde! such te!#s and conditions that #a) be ne$otiated b) the National Invest#ent andDevelop#ent "o!po!ation 0ith an) p!ivate pe!son, co!po!ation, fi!# o! entit) as 0ould insu!ethat the count!) shall have, at the ea!liest possible ti#e, a p!ope!, adeuate and continuoussuppl) of hi$h-)ieldin$ h)b!id seednuts and, fo! this pu!pose, the cont!act ente!ed into b) theNID" as he!ein autho!ied is he!eb) confi!#ed and !atifiedG ; ; ;* si#ila!l) 0o!ded p!ovision in P.D. &7'8, p!o#ul$ated in &?>8, !eads1S3"TION <. Coconut %ndustr3 Development und . E The!e is he!eb) c!eated a pe!#anentfund to be /no0n as "oconut Indust!) Develop#ent Fund 0hich shall be ad#iniste!ed andutilied b) the ban/ acui!ed fo! the benefit of the coconut fa!#e!s unde! P.D. >:: fo! thefollo0in$ pu!poses1

aB To finance the establish#ent, ope!ation and #aintenance of a h)b!id coconut seednut fa!#unde! such te!#s and conditions that #a) be ne$otiated b) the National Invest#ent andDevelop#ent "o!po!ation @NID"B 0ith an) p!ivate pe!son, co!po!ation, fi!# o! entit) as 0ouldinsu!e that the count!) shall have at the ea!liest possible ti#e a p!ope! adeuate and

&= Rollo, p. &&?.&< Me#o!andu# of *$!ee#ent bet0een *II and NID", Nove#be! =(, &?>7, Rollo, pp. ::-><.&7 Rollo, p. :&. The assailed Revie0 and Reco##endation dated *u$ust ', &??8 p!ovides thea#ounts of P?>8 ':( ((( (( as liuidated da#a$es and P7'& ='& '7( (( as advanced b)

insu!e that the count!) shall have, at the ea!liest possible ti#e, a p!ope!, adeuate andcontinuous suppl) of hi$h-)ieldin$ h)b!id seednuts and, fo! this pu!pose, the cont!act,includin$ the a#end#ents and supple#ents the!eto as p!ovided fo! he!ein, ente!ed into b)NID" as he!ein autho!ied is he!eb) confi!#ed and !atified, and the ban/ acui!ed fo! thebenefit of the coconut fa!#e!s unde! P.D. >:: shall ad#iniste! the said cont!act, includin$ itsa#end#ents and supple#ents, and pe!fo!# all the !i$hts and obli$ation of NID" the!eunde!,utiliin$ fo! that pu!pose the "oconut Indust!) Develop#ent findG ; ; ;

R.*. No. <(&?, as applied to the instant case, cove!s not onl) the alle$ed one-sidedness ofthe MO*, but also as to 0hethe! the cont!acts o! t!ansactions ente!ed pu!suant the!eto b)p!ivate !espondents 0e!e #anifestl) and $!ossl) disadvanta$eous to the $ove!n#ent<' ,

0hethe! the) caused undue in9u!) to the $ove!n#ent,<> and 0hethe! the p!ivate !espondents 0e!e inte!ested fo! pe!sonal $ain o! had #ate!ial inte!est in the t!ansactions.<8

The tas/ to dete!#ine and find 0hethe! p!obable cause to cha!$e the p!ivate !espondentse;ists p!ope!l) belon$s to the O#buds#an. e onl) !ule that the Office of the O#buds#anshould not have dis#issed the co#plaint on the basis of p!esc!iption 0hich is e!!oneous ashe!einabove discussed. The O#buds#an should have $iven the Solicito! 4ene!al theoppo!tunit) to p!esent his evidence and then !esolve the case fo! pu!poses of p!eli#ina!)investi$ation. Failin$ to do so, the O#buds#an acted 0ith $!ave abuse of disc!etion.23R3FOR3, the instant petition is he!eb) 4R*NT3D. The assailed Revie0 and

Reco##endation dated *u$ust ', &??8 of 4!aft Investi$ation Office! 3#o!a ". Pa$unu!an,and app!oved b) O#buds#an *niano *. Desie!to, dis#issin$ the petitione!s co#plaint inOM%-(-?(-=8(8, and the O!de! dated Septe#be! =:, &??8 den)in$ the petitione!s #otion fo!!econside!ation, a!e he!eb) R3V3RS3D and S3T *SID3.The O#buds#an is he!eb) di!ected to p!oceed 0ith the p!eli#ina!) investi$ation of the caseOM%-(-?(-=8(8.No p!onounce#ent as to costs.SO ORD3R3D.ellosillo, (endo0a, 8uisumbing and uena, JJ ., concu!.

Foot$ot&s& 5nde! Rule ': of the &??> Rules of "ivil P!ocedu!e.=

ith Di!ecto! *n$el ". Ma)o!al$o, C!., !eco##endin$ app!oval, and !evie0ed b) *ssistantO#buds#an *bela!do +. *po!tade!a, C!., Rollo, pp. <8-7&.< Rollo, pp. 7=-7:.7 Then headed b) F!ancisco I. "have.: Rollo, pp. 7'-:7.' &?( S"R* ==' &??(.> %d ., p. =::.8 Rollo, p. :.? Fu!the! a#endin$ P!esidential Dec!ee No. =<=, as a#ended, the develop#ent and plantin$of ea!l)-b!eedin$ and hi$h-)ieldin$ h)b!id va!iet) of coconut t!ees.&( Sec. <-%, P.D. No. =<=, as a#ended b) P.D. No. :8=.&& %bid .

a#ounts of P?>8,':(,(((.(( as liuidated da#a$es and P7'&,='&,'7(.(( as advanced b)the NID", Rollo, p. <8-*.&: Rollo, pp. 78-:(.&' Should have been P?:8,'((,(((.((.&> =&& S"R* =7& &??=.&8 %d ., p. =>>.&? *n *ct To "odif) The +a0s Dealin$ ith The Develop#ent Of The "oconut *nd Othe!

Pal# Oil Indust!) Fo! Othe! Pu!poses.=( Revisin$ P!esidential Dec!ee Nu#be!ed Nine 2und!ed Si; t) One.=& Rollo, p. &<.== Sec. 7. Nhere and when petition to be &iled . E The petition #a) be filed not late! than si;t)@'(B da)s f!o# notice of the 9ud$#ent, o!de! o! !esolution sou$ht to be assailed in theSup!e#e "ou!t o!, if it !elates to the acts o! o#iss ions of a lo0e! cou!t o! of a co!po!ation,boa!d, office! of pe!son, in the Re$ional T!ial "ou!t e;e!cisin$ 9u!isdiction ove! the te!!ito!iala!ea as defined b) the Sup!e#e "ou!t. It #a) also be filed in the "ou!t of *ppeals 0hethe! o!not the sa#e is in aid of its appellate 9u!isdiction, o! in the Sandi$anba)an if it is in aid of its

9u!isdiction. If it involves the acts o! o#issions of a uasi-9udicial a$enc), and unless othe!0isep!ovided b) the la0 o! these Rules, the petition shall be filed in and co$niable onl) b) the"ou!t of *ppeals.

%& the petitioner had &iled a motion &or new trial or reconsideration in due time a&ter notice o&said Hudgment, order or resolution the period herein &iEed shall be interrupted. %& the motion isdenied, the aggrieved part3 ma3 &ile the petition within the remaining period, but which shallnot be less than &ive 9A= da3s in an3 event, recFoned &rom notice o& such denial. *o eEtensiono& time to &ile the petition shall be granted eEcept &or the most compelling reason and in nocase to eEceed &i&teen 91A= da3s. @3#phasis suppliedB.=< Fu!the! *#endin$ Section 7, Rule ': of the &??> Rules on "ivil P!ocedu!e.=7 3#phasis supplied.=: P!esidential "o##ission on 4ood 4ove!n#ent v. 2on. *niano Desie!to, et al., 4.R. No.&7(=<=, Canua!) &?, =((&, p. :G P!esidential "o##ission on 4ood 4ove!n#ent v. 2on.*niano Desie!to, et al., 4.R. No. &7(<:8 Dece#be! 8, =(((, p. :G Cuanita Na!oles, et al. v.N+R", et al., 4.R. No. &7&?:?, Septe#be! =?, =((( pp. :-'.='

&8? S"R* =8? &??(.=> <&> S"R* =>= &???.=8 %lac/s +a0 Dictiona!), Fifth ed. &?>?, p. :=(, cited in People v. Sandi$anba)an, see NoteNo. &>, supra.=? %lac/ on Inte!p!etation of +a0s, =nd ed., pp. =<-=:.<( Rollo, p. ='.<& *n *ct to 3stablish Pe!iods of P!esc!iptions fo! Violations Penalied b) Special *cts andMunicipal O!dinances and to P!ovide hen P!esc!iption Shall %e$in to Run.<= People v. Sandi$anba)an, see Note No. &>, supra.<< See Note =>.<7 <== S"R* ':: =(((.<: %d ., pp. ''<-''7, 3#phasis supplied.

<' Sec. < @$B, R*. <(&?.<> Sec. < @eB, R*. <(&?.

<8 Sec. < @&B, R*. <(&?.

round eight cases full text (complex crimes to end)

Documents