Enrile vs.

Salazar
Facts:

In February 1990, Senator Juan Ponce Enrile was arrested for the crime
of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder. The warrant
of arrest was issued by Judge Jaime Salazar. Said crime arose from the
failed coup attempts against then president Corazon Aquino. There was
no bail set for Enrile due to the seriousness of the crime charged against
him.

Enrile later filed a habeas corpus case questioning his detention and
alleging that the crime being charged against him is nonexistent. He
insists that there is no such crime as rebellion with murder and
multiple frustrated murder. Enrile invoked the ruling in the landmark
case of People vs Hernandez where it was ruled that rebellion cannot be
complexed with common crimes such as murder; as such, the proper
crime that should have been charged against him is simple rebellion –
which is bailable.

Issue:

Whether the crime rebellion cannot be complexed with common crimes

such as murder.

Held:

No, the said case is still good law. The Supreme Court also noted that
there was actually a previous law (P.D. 942) which sought to abandon the
Hernandez doctrine. The said law provided that graver crimes may not be
complexed with rebellion. However, President Corazon Aquino repealed
said law (by virtue of the power granted to her by the 1986 Freedom
Constitution). That being, the Hernandez doctrine, which reflects the
rebellion law under the Revised Penal Code, still stands. The courts cannot
change this because courts can only interpret laws. Only Congress can
change the rebellion law (which the SC suggested in order to strengthen
the rebellion law). But as it stands, Enrile is correct, there is no such crime
as rebellion with murder. Common crimes such as murder are absorbed.
He can only be charged with rebellion – which is bailable.
DOCTRINES: Hernandez doctrine: Murder and arson are crimes inherent when rebellion is taking place.
In the RPC, rebellion is just a single crime (Article 134) and there is no reason to complex it with other
crimes inherent in its commission. Thus, Article 48 applies only when there are two crimes committed
and not when there is only one such as in this case

Beltran vs. People

Facts:

Petitioners all face charges for Rebellion under Article 134 in relation to
Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code. Beltran was subjected to an inquest
at the Quezon City Hall of Justice for Inciting to Sedition under Article 142
of the Revised Penal Code based on a speech Beltran allegedly gave
during a rally in Quezon City on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of
the EDSA Revolution. The authorities brought back Beltran to Camp
Crame where he was subjected to a second inquest, this time for
Rebellion for an alleged foiled plot to overthrow the Arroyo government.

The Information alleged that Beltran, San Juan, and other individuals
“conspiring and confederating with each other, x x x, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously form a tactical alliance between the
CPP/NPA, renamed as Partidong Komunista ng Pilipinas (PKP) and its
armed regular members as Katipunan ng Anak ng Bayan (KAB) with the
Makabayang Kawal ng Pilipinas (MKP) and thereby rise publicly and take
up arms against the duly constituted government.

Issue:

Whether there is probable cause to indict Beltran for Rebellion

Held:

There is No Probable Cause to Indict Beltran for Rebellion. 

The elements of Rebellion are: 1. That there be a (a) public uprising and (b)
taking arms against the Government; and 2. That the purpose of the
uprising or movement is either – (a) to remove from the allegiance to said
Government or its laws: (1) the territory of the Philippines or any part
thereof; or (2) any body of land, naval, or other armed forces; or (b) to
deprive the Chief Executive or Congress, wholly or partially, of any of their
powers and prerogatives Thus, by its nature, rebellion is a crime of the
masses or multitudes involving crowd action done in furtherance of a
political end.

Attendance in meetings to discuss, among others, plans to bring down a

government is a mere preparatory step to commit the acts constituting
Rebellion under Article 134. Thus, the RTC Makati erred when it
nevertheless found probable cause to try Beltran for Rebellion based on
the evidence before it. To repeat, none of the affidavits alleges that
Beltran is promoting, maintaining, or heading a Rebellion.

Lagman vs. Medialdea

Facts:
On May 23, 2017, President Rodrigo Duterte issued Proclamation No. 216,
declaring Martial Law in the whole island of Mindanao and the suspension
of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus therein. On May 25, the
president submitted a written report to Congress on the factual basis of
the Martial Law declaration (as required by the Constitution).  The main
basis of the declaration was the attack of the Maute terrorist group in
Marawi City. According to the report, the Maute group is an affiliate of ISIS
which is aiming to establish an Islamic caliphate in Marawi City (and might
spread its control in all the other parts of Mindanao). It also cited the
ongoing rebellion and lawless violence that has plagued Mindanao for
decades.

Lagman claims that the declaration of martial law has no sufficient factual
basis because there is no rebellion or invasion in Marawi City or any part
of Mindanao.
Issue:
Whether the armed hostilities mentioned in the Report are sufficient
bases: for existence of rebellion.
Held:
YES. In reviewing the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation or
suspension, the Court considers only the information and data available
to the President prior to or at the time of the declaration.
The determination by the Court of the sufficiency of factual basis must be
limited only to the facts and information mentioned in the Report and
Proclamation.

The Court held that the President, in issuing Proclamation No. 216, had
sufficient factual bases tending to show that actual rebellion exists. The
President only has to ascertain if there is probable cause for a declaration
of Martial Law and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.

The petitioners’ counter-evidence were derived solely from unverified

news articles on the internet, with neither the authors nor the sources
shown to have affirmed the contents thereof.

As the Court has consistently ruled, news articles are hearsay evidence,
twice removed, and are thus without any probative value, unless offered
for a purpose other than proving the truth of the matter asserted.

The alleged false and/or inaccurate statements are just pieces and parcels
of the Report; along with these alleged false data is an arsenal of other
independent facts showing that more likely than not, actual rebellion
exists.
People vs. Dasig

Facts:

Appellant and several others who were part of a sparrow unit killed a
police officer performing traffic duties. Appellant was convicted of murder
with direct assault. He appealed that it was merely rebellion. 

Pfc. Redempto Manatad and two other police officers, Pfc. Ninah Tizon
and Pfc. Rene Catamora, were tasked to man traffic. Pfc. Catamora
noticed eight persons, including Edwin Nuñez, acting suspiciously, one of
whom gave instructions to two of the men to approach Pfc. Manatad. Pfc.
Catamora followed the, but they sensed it and proceeded to the middle of
the road and engaged him in a gunfight. He then heard a series of shots
from the other group and saw Pfc. Manatad on the ground. Pfc. Catamora
sought refuge at the BIR Office, from where he saw two persons take Pfc.
Manatad’s gun and again fired on him to assure he was dead before the
group fled. 3. Nuñez and appellant Rodrigo Dasig were located in a
safehouse, where they were apprehended and disarmed. In the process,
Dasig was shot in the arm. He confessed that he and Nuñez’s group had
killed Pfc. Manatad, and that he and Nuñez, alias ‘Armand’ and ‘Mabi’
respectively, were members of a sparrow unit. He was found guilty of
murder with direct assault. Nuñez died while the trial was still ongoing.

Issue:

Whether the proper crime charged is rebellion, not murder with direct
assault.

Held:

Yes. Art 135, RPC: Rebellion is committed by taking up arms against the
government, among other means. Appellant voluntarily confessed his
membership in the sparrow unit and his participation and that of the
group in Pfc.Manatad’s killing. It is of judicial notice that the sparrow unit
is the NPA’s liquidation squad, with the objective of overthrowing the
government. Rebellion consists of many acts. Acts committed in
furtherance of rebellion through crimes in themselves are deemed
absorbed in one single crime of rebellion. The act of killing a police officer,
knowing that the victim is a person in authority, is a mere component or
ingredient of rebellion, or an act done in its furtherance. It cannot be the
basis of a separate charge.

CRIMINAL LAW; REBELLION; ABSORBS THE CRIME OF DIRECT ASSAULT WHEN DONE IN
FURTHERANCE THEREOF. — The crime of rebellion consists of may acts. It is a vast movement of
men and a complex net of intrigues and plots. Acts committed in furtherance of rebellion though
crimes in themselves are deemed absorbed in one single crime of rebellion. The act of killing a
police officer, knowing too well that the victim is a person in authority is a mere component or
ingredient of rebellion or an act done in furtherance of the rebellion. It cannot be made a basis of a
separate charge

People vs. Abalos

Facts:
On that night, while accused Tiburcio Abalos and his father, Major Cecilio
Abalos were having a heated argument, a women shouted for help. Pfc.
Sofronio Labine appeared in the scene to appease them. The victim
saluted Abalos when the latter turned around to face him. As Major
Abalos leveled his carbine at Labine, Tuburcio Abalos hurriedly left and
procured a piece of wood, about two inches thick, three inches wide and
three feet long, from a nearby Ford Fiera vehicle. He then swiftly returned
and unceremoniously swung with that wooden piece at Labine from
behind, hitting the policeman at the back of the right side of his head.
Labine collapsed unconscious in a heap, and he later expired from the
severe skull fracture he sustained from that blow.

The Regional Trial Court pronounced the appelant guilty of the complex
crime of direct assault with murder.
Issue:
Whether or not the court erred in convicting the crime of direct assault
with murder.
Held:
No. On the offense committed by appellant, the trial court correctly
concluded that he should be held accountable for the complex crime of
direct assault with murder. Under Art. 148 of the Revised Penal Code,
there are two ways of committing direct assaults. First, without public
uprising, by employing force or intimidation for the attainment of any of
the purposes enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and sedition.
Second, without public uprising, by attacking, by employing force, or by
seriously intimidating or seriously resisting any person in authority or any
of his agents, while engaged in the performance of official duties, or on
the occasion of such performance. The appellant committed the second
form of assault, the elements of which are that there must be an attack,
use of force, or serious intimidation or resistance upon a person in
authority or his agent; the assault was made when the said person was
performing his duties or on the occasion of such performance; and the
accused knew that the victim is a person in authority or his agent, that is,
that the accused must have the intention to offend, injure or assault the
offended party as a person in authority or an agent of a person in
authority. In the case, Labine was a duly appointed member of the then
INP in Catbalogan, Samar and, thus, was an agent of a person in authority
pursuant to Article 152 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. There is
also no dispute that he was in the actual performance of his duties when
assaulted by appellant, that is, he was maintaining peace and order during
the fiesta in Barangay Canlapwas. Appellant himself testified that he
personally knew Labine to be a policeman  and, in fact, Labine was then
wearing his uniform. These facts should have sufficiently deterred
appellant from attacking him, and his defiant conduct clearly
demonstrates that he really had the criminal intent to assault and injure
an agent of the law. When the assault results in the killing of that agent or
of a person in authority for that matter, there arises the complex crime of
direct assault with murder or homicide. When the

assault results in the killing of that agent or of a person in authority for

that matter, there arises the complex crime of direct assault with murder
or homicide. The killing constituted the felony of murder qualified
by alevosia through treacherous means since Pfc. Labine was struck from
behind while he was being confronted at the same time by appellant's
father. The evidence shows that appellant deliberately went behind the
victim whom he then hit with a piece of wood which he deliberately got
for that purpose.