G.R. Nos. L-6025-26. People vs. Hernandez (Sydney Gil) 4.
4. This was denied by lower courts because they considered the crime of
July 18, 1956​| Justice Concepcion | Complex Crime Proper
Petitioner:​ The People of the Philippines
Respondents: ​Amado V. Hernandez
SUMMARY: ​Amado V. Hernandez, writer and labor leader and 31 others were
accused of the crime of rebellion, complexed with murder, arson, and robbery.
The issue is WON the charge of rebellion can be considered a complex
crime. The Court ruled NO, it is presumed that violence (murder, arson, robbery)
are inherent in the crime of rebellion and that the accused should only be charged
with a single offense of ​simple rebellion​. The Court later granted Hernandez a
chance for bail because his escape was unlikely and his provisional release was
no threat to the security of the State.
DOCTRINE:
DOCTRINE OF ABSORPTION​. In ​People vs. Hernandez , G.R. No. L-6025, July
18, 1956 – The Supreme Court justified the doctrine of absorption in rebellion
since murder, robbery, and arson are just a part of the “engaging in war against
the forces of the government", "committing serious violence", and “destroying
property in Article 135. However, RA No. 6968 eliminated the phrases "engaging
in war against the forces of the government", "committing serious violence" and
“destroying property” in Article 135.
In other words​, “overt acts of violence” such as murder, robbery, arson, etc., are
deemed SUBSUMED in the crime of rebellion; it is a single offense.
FACTS:
1. Amado V. Hernandez, a writer, labor leader and others were arrested and
accused of the crime of rebellion, complexed with murder, arson and
robbery.
2. It is alleged that Hernandez and others are part of the Communist Party of
the Philippines (​Partido Komunista Pilipinas 1930 or PKP 1930) and aided
the armed rebellion of the ​Huks ​(Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan) or
HMB or the HUKBALAHAP.
3. Hernandez was already in prison for five years, since 1951 and wanted a
chance for bail
rebellion as a complex crime
a. This means that capital punishment should be the penalty
(murder being the ​most serious crime, Art. 48) although the court
only meted out life imprisonment for Hernandez.
ISSUE/S:
1. WON the crime of rebellion can be considered a complex crime
(murder, arson, robbery)​ – NO
a. It is presumed that violence (murder, arson, robbery) are inherent
in the crime of rebellion and that the accused should only be
charged with a single offense.
2. Whether or not the defendant can be granted bail.​ - ​YES
RATIO:
1. NO – According to Art. 135, if an act is performed “as a necessary means
to commit rebellion, in connection therewith and in furtherance thereof”
and “so as to facilitate the accomplishment of the purpose of the rebellion”
– constitutes neither two or more offenses, nor a complex crime, ​but one
crime – that of rebellion plain and simply, punishable with one single
penalty as prescribed by Article 135.
a. Domestic and international laws also deem common crimes if
done for political ends, are subsumed to a political crime, and
cannot be punished separately.
2. YES – Because the penalty was only rebellion which is 12 years, ​prision
mayor ​and a fine of P20,000. Hernandez’s release will not jeopardize the
security of the State. Also, it is unlikely given his circumstances that he will
be able to escape.
DISPOSITION:
1. In conclusion, we hold that, under the allegations of the amended information
against ​Defendant​-​Appellant Amado V. Hernandez, the murders, arsons and
robberies described therein ​are mere ingredients of the crime of rebellion
allegedly committed by said ​Defendants​, as means “necessary” 4 for the
perpetration of said offense of rebellion; that the crime charged in the
aforementioned amended information is, therefore, simple rebellion, not the
complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons and robberies;
2. that the maximum penalty imposable under such charge cannot exceed
twelve (12) years of ​prision mayor and a fine of P20,000; and that, in
1
 conformity with the policy of this court in dealing with accused persons
amenable to a similar punishment, said ​Defendant​ may be allowed bail.
2. Wherefore, the aforementioned motion for bail of ​Defendant​- ​Appellant
Amado V. Hernandez is hereby granted and, upon the filing of a bond,
with sufficient sureties, in the sum of P30,000, and its approval by the
court, let said ​Defendant​-​Appellant be provisionally released. It is ​SO
ORDERED.
Paras, ​C.J.​, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo and Reyes. J.B.L., ​JJ.​,
concur.
Bengzon, J., concurs in the result.
Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code
Penalty for complex crimes​. - When a single act constitutes two or more grave or
less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the
other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same be applied
in its maximum period.
Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code
“The crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed by rising publicly and taking
arms against the Government for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to
said Government or its laws, the territory of the Philippine Islands or any part
thereof, of any body of land, naval or other armed forces, or of depriving the Chief
Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or
prerogatives.”
Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code
“Any person, merely participating or executing the commands of others in a
rebellion shall suffer the penalty of ​prision mayor​ in its minimum period.”
The penalty is increased to ​prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P20,000 for “any
person who promotes, maintains or heads a rebellion or insurrection who, while
holding any public office or employment takes part therein:”
1. “engaging in war against the forces of the government”
2. “destroying property,” or
3. “committing serious violence,”
4. “exacting contributions or”
5. “diverting public funds from the lawful purpose for which they have been
appropriated.”
OTHER NOTES:
1. Complex Crime Requisites:
a. That at least two offenses are committed
b. That one or some of the offenses must be necessary to commit
the other
c. That both or all the offenses must be punished under the same
statute
2. Political crimes – are those directly aimed ​against the political order,​ as
well as such common crimes as may be committed to achieve a political
purpose.
3. Common crimes - ​may be committed to achieve a political purpose
The decisive factor for both is the intent or motive. Crimes are said to be
common to those who injure individual legal assets (v. Gr., Crimes against
life, against honesty, against property, etc.)
4. Amado V. Hernandez is a noted writer, journalist, poet, and essayist. One
of his most famous works is ​Mga Ibong Mandaragit​ (Birds of Prey).
5. This was a highly controversial case involving nationalist Claro M. Recto,
Jose P. Laurel, Claudio Teehankee
6. Why charge Hernandez?​ In very, very simplified terms:
a. Communist Party of the Philippines (PKP 1930) serves as the
brains of the revolution​.
b. Congress of Labor Organizations (CLO) where Hernandez is
active labor leader is the ​face or front of the revolution ​(for
recruitment purposes)
c. HUKBALAHAP serves as the armed wing (coercive instrument)
or ​fist of the revolution​.
7. People vs. Hernandez ​was used in ​Enrile vs. Salazar​, a case wherein
Enrile aided Gringo Honasan after an unsuccessful coup in 1990.
SEPARATE OPINIONS
1. Padilla J.​ ; .; in his dissenting opinion he argued that the privilege to post bail
should have not be given to the accused. He recognized that simple Rebellion
was not entitled to be sentenced to the capital punishment, which is the death
penalty, thus this fact would make him a person that can post bail under the
discretion of the Court. Likewise, Padilla further argued that a person that is
convicted of even simple rebellion should be removed the choice to post bail
as Hernandez is a threat to the country
2. Montemayor J​.; In his dissenting opinion he argued that the crime of simple
Rebellion and it being able to shield the accused by virtue of absorption of the
2
 crimes of murder, arson, and etc. is wrong as the majority opinion pointed out.
This is because those who would commit crimes that are penalized by the
capital punishment would just cite that they are acting under the crine of
rebellion. The Penal Code (Spanish era) did not have Rebellion with murder
because they were tried separately. Rebellion can be accomplished even
without committing crimes that would entail the capital punishment and thus
the non-recognition of the majority of this fact is where they erred. ​The
majority in ruling that the crimes under the capital punishment may be
seen as part of the act that constitute to rebellion gave the violators an
option to seek to be only liable by simple rebellion which is a
non-capital punishment​, likewise making Hernandez legible for posting bail.
However Montemayor finds it to be faulty for this court to rule like how they
did, inadvertently lowering the penalty that Hernandez should have received
for his atrocities.

In other words​, the “crime of rebellion” whose penalty is not capital punishment
may be used (according to the ruling) to excuse murders/killings which should have
the maximum penalty. E.g., (The way I understand it hehe) If A, for example, in his
duties as a rebel, killed 10 members of a rural village, and then was apprehended
and brought before a court, it is possible to have him only liable for “simple
rebellion.”

Labrador J​.: he agrees with Padila and Montemayor in their dissenting opinions.