103 People v. Lava (Telle) appear in the documents that were presented as evidence against him.
May 16, 1969/Zaldivar, J./Rule 132 Sec. 22 We find that the standards for comparison that were used were the
Petitioner: People of the Philippines
Respondent: Jose Lava
Summary:
This involves 5 criminal cases. The defendants in said cases were
charged with committing complex crime of rebellion w/ murders and
arsons under an identical information. The accused were allegedly high
officers/members of Communist Party of the Philippines of w/c the
Hukbong Magpalaya ng Bayan or the Hukbalahaps have come to an
agreement, consipiring & confederating with one another to commit crime
of rebellion to overthrow the Government. Trial court rendered a joint
decision in the given 5 cases. Out of the original 31 defendants in the 5
cases, 5 were acquitted. Only 18 out of the defendants who were found
guilty appealed their cases to the SC. Upon petition, Court appointed the
MIS as custodian of the exhibits and documents that were presented as
evidence in these five criminal cases before the trial court. This step was
taken because those documents and exhibits were needed also as
evidence in other courts in the prosecution of other members of the HMB
(Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan). Subsequently, Court appointed the
Philippine Constabulary as the custodian of the same documents and
exhibits. Documents was destroyed by fire. Upon a petition for the
reconstitution of the said documents and exhibits, Court appointed Deputy
Clerk of Court Ejercito as Commissioner to receive evidence for the
reconstitution of those documents and exhibits. Commissioner
recommended in his report that the documents and exhibits that were
burned be declared reconstituted by the photostatic copies of the originals
of those documents and exhibits. The photostatic copies were duly
identified during the hearings on the reconstitution. Court approved.
Appellants assail the reconstitution of the exhibits that were destroyed,
and claim that the reconstituted exhibits should not be considered in this
appeal.
Issue: W/N a handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who
believes it to be the handwriting of such person, and has seen the person
write? Yes. Rule 132 Sec. 22 allows this. Some of the documents seized,
and which were presented as evidence, were in appellant Lava's
handwriting, or were signed by him using his alias names. The
handwritings of Lava were based on the handwritten letters and
signatures using alias names, and book requests. This is clearly
established by the testimony of a handwriting expert that was presented
by the prosecution. The conclusion of the handwriting expert was based
on the specimens of Lava's handwriting which were used as standards in
comparing with the handwriting and/or signature of the appellant that
documents marked Exhibits FF-1 and FF-2. 11 Exhibit FF-1 is an
application for employment signed by Jose Lava. The signature thereon
was testified to by witness Eduardo Romualdez as looking "like the
signature of Jose Lava". Eduardo Romualdez was acquainted with the
handwriting of Jose Lava, having received reports, parts of which were in
the handwriting of Jose Lava "not less than three or four times" while Jose
Lava was a bank examiner.
The handwriting expert who made the comparison in this case positively
identified the handwriting of Jose Lava on the documents presented as
evidence against said appellant, specially the handwritten names of
Gregorio Santayana, Gaston, Gaston Silayan, Gavino and Greg.
Doctrine: The handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness
who believes it to be the handwriting of such person, and has seen the
person write. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by
comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or
treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or
proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.
General Facts of the Case from KP’s digest:
1. The case is a consolidation of five cases, where in Lava, et al. were
charged with having committed the complex crime of rebellion with murder
and arson.
2. In the Information filed, the facts are alleged as follows: a.) The accused
are members of the Communist Party of the PH (CPP) of which the Hukbong
Mapagpalaya ng Bayan (HMB) or otherwise known as the Huks. b.) They
came to an agreement to commit the crime of rebellion, to rise publicly
against the Government. c.) They made armed raids, sorties, ambushes,
attacked the police, constabulary, army detachments, etc.
Procedural History:
1. Counsel for defendants Jose Lava and Federico Bautista filed a MOTION
TO QUASH the Information, arguing that it did not conform to the prescribe
form.
a. They alleged that the Information charged more than one
offense.
b. They likewise filed a petition for PROVISIONAL LIBERTY for the
defendants, on the ground that guilt was not strong.
2. The five cases were then tried jointly.
 a. The cases with respect to Julia Messina and Rosenda Reyes
were dismissed on the ground of insufficiency of evidence.
3.The Trial Court then rendered a joint decision, finding that the defendants
were guilty as principals of the complex crime of rebellion with multiple
murder, arson, and robbery. Out of the original 31 defendants, only five were
acquitted.
4. The Deputy Chief of Military Intelligence Services (MIS) appointed the MIS
as the custodian of the exhibits and documents that were to be presented as
evidence in the five criminal cases.
a. This was needed because the documents and exhibits were to
be used as evidence in other courts, in the prosecution of other
members of the HMB.
b. The documents were kept in Camp Crame. However, on Sept
10, 1958, the headquarters of the Philippine Constabulary in Camp
Crame were burned. Thus, all the documents were destroyed in a
fire.
5. The Court appointed Deputy Clerk Ejercito as Commissioner to receive
evidence for the reconstitution of the documents. The Commissioner then
declared that the documents be reconstituted, by making photostatic copies
of the originals.
a. The photostatic copies were to be duly identified during a
hearing.
6. The counsels for the accused have since then appealed, but due to the
numerous cases being filed, the decision has been pending since Oct 1963.
7. On appeal, the appellants raised that:
a. the trial court erred in declaring that the crime committed was
“rebellion complexed with murder, arsons, and robberies”;
b. that the Information against them charge more than one offense;
c. that the RTC of Manila did not have jurisdiction to try the cases,
as they were committed outside of Manila;
d. that the documentary evidence seized was done in an illegal
manner;
e. that the reconstituted documents that were destroyed in the fire
could not be used as evidence, and
f. that the appellants were not afforded time to prepare for their
defense.
Facts related to Lava’s appeal:
1. Lava was known under these aliases: Harry, Felix Cruz, Gaston, Gaston
Silayan, Greg, Gregorio Santayana and Gavino. He became a member
of the Communist Party during the Japanese occupation.
2. He was a high ranking leader of the CPP, being a member of the
Central Committee (CC) of the CPP and he participated in the Politburo
meetings.
3. Jose Lava’s duties as "Gaston"
a. take care of the editorial of the "TITIS", the official organ of the
Communist Party; he was given supervision over women
matters, and over political and educational matters
b. in charge of Direct Party Propaganda, Curriculum and
Analysis.
4. Jose Lava’s duties as "Greg"
a. one of the 15 members of the Military Committee (MC).
b. He was to supervise the newly organized Technological Group.
c. He was instructed to prepare a draft of the resolution for
discussion before the Military Committee.
d. Given power to review all the minutes and decisions of the
National Education Commission (NEC) and only matters which
he did not approve were to be taken up by the Secretariat.
5. Jose Lava was the author of many articles or writings, a
a. "Self-Appraisal by Gregorio Santayana," a hand-written
outline;
b. "Struggle against Awaitism, by Gregorio Santayana", also a
handwritten outline, with a typewritten copy;
c. "Outline of Strategy and Tactics"; "Strategy and Tactics";
"Twenty Years of Struggle of the CPP"; "Outline on Milestones
in the History of the CPP";
d. "Milestones in the History of the CPP", which is a part of the
curriculum in the secondary course of the schools conducted
by the CPP.
e. The "Outline on Strategy and Tactics" and "Strategy and
Tactics" were also in the secondary curriculum texts of the
CPP.
f. He is also the author of "Finance Opportunism, Its Basic
Causes and Remedies", a portion of which reads:
g. "Accounting of the People's Funds Received and Spent to
Finance the Revolutions"
6. Jose Lava also wrote other documents:
 a. Handwritten notes containing the territorial extent of Recos 1
to 7, and a plan of attack on the November 7, 1950 celebration;
b. a list containing several persons (aliases) assigned to Recos 1
to 7 and to the Military, Pol-Ed, organizational and GHQ
organs;
c. a letter to Eto (Federico Maclang) on the reverse of a list
containing names of Malacañang special agents.
d. He also wrote letters to Party members concerning the
activities of the Party and/or HMB—unmistakably indicating
conspiracy or connection between him and other top HMB and
CPP leaders in the field.
ISSUE: W/N a handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who
believes it to be the handwriting of such person, and has seen the person
write? Yes. Rule 132 Sec. 22 allows this
RATIO:
1. The foregoing findings of this Court are based mainly on documents
presented as evidence during the trial. Those documents were taken:
a. From the 3rd floor of the Mayflower Apartments, at Estrada and
Pennsylvania Streets in Manila, which was then rented by
appellant Lava when it was raided by peace officers
b. From the different places that were raided by the MIS agents
and the Manila Police where most of the accused in these five
cases were arrested.
c. From 683 Pasaje Rosario, Paco, Manila, where appellant Lava
was arrested.
2. Some of the documents thus seized, and which were presented as
evidence, were in appellant Lava's handwriting, or were signed by
him using his alias names.
3. This is clearly established by the testimony of a handwriting expert
that was presented by the prosecution. The conclusion of the
handwriting expert was based on the specimens of Lava's
handwriting which were used as standards in comparing with the
handwriting and/or signature (in alias) of the appellant that appear
in the documents that were presented as evidence against him.
4. It is contended by appellant's counsel that no genuine specimen of
Lava's handwriting was presented as standard for comparison. We
do not see merit in this contention.
5. We find that the standards for comparison that were used were the
documents marked Exhibits FF-1 and FF-2. 11 Exhibit FF-1 is an
application for employment signed by Jose Lava.
6. The signature thereon was testified to by witness Eduardo Romualdez
as looking "like the signature of Jose Lava".
7. Eduardo Romualdez was acquainted with the handwriting of Jose
Lava, having received reports, parts of which were in the
handwriting of Jose Lava "not less than three or four times" while
Jose Lava was a bank examiner.
8. Exhibit FF-2 is a cardboard containing a list of books requested by Jose
Lava while the latter was detained in Bilibid Prison. Buenaventura
Villanueva, to whom the list was given, testified that he saw Lava
writing the list on the cardboard. What appears on Exhibit FF-2 is
certainly a genuine specimen of Lava's handwriting.
9. The handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who
believes it to be the handwriting of such person, and has seen the
person write. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be
given by comparison, made by the witness or the court, with
writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom
the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction
of the judge.
10. The handwriting expert who made the comparison in this case positively
identified the handwriting of Jose Lava on the documents presented as
evidence against said appellant, specially the handwritten names of
Gregorio Santayana, Gaston, Gaston Silayan, Gavino and Greg.
11. Evidence adduced during the trial has proved beyond reasonable doubt
that appellant Jose Lava was one of the top leaders of the CPP, and
that he was not only working to propagate the doctrine of communism in
the Philippines but was actually promoting an armed uprising against
the Government.
12. He did not actually take to the field and participate in the armed attacks
against constituted authorities, but in the positions that he held in the
CPP, he actually promoted, maintained, and even directed the armed
activities of the HMB which were aimed at overthrowing the Government
and implanting a new system of government in the Philippines.
13. As General Secretary of the CPP he signed, in his aliases, the
communications or transmissions of the Secretariat to the HMB and
CPP leaders in the field.
DISPOSITION: We agree with the finding of the lower court that appellant
Jose Lava is guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion,
and he should be punished accordingly.