G.R. No. L-11813; September 17, 1958
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JAIME SANTOS, alias “La Perla”, alias “Velasco”, alias “Santos” ET AL., defendants. JAIME SANTOS, appellant.

FACTS

An amended information was filed before the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan charging Jaime Santos and multiple other defendants with the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murders, arson, robberies, and physical injuries. The information alleged that from August 1947 to November 1953, in Pangasinan and other parts of the country, the accused, as members of the Hukbong Magpapalaya Ng Bayan (HMB) or HUKS, conspired to overthrow the Government of the Republic of the Philippines by force, violence, and sabotage. In pursuance of this rebellion, they allegedly rose publicly, took up arms, and engaged in armed raids, sorties, ambushes, and attacks against government forces and civilians. As necessary means to commit rebellion, they were charged with committing specific acts of murder, robbery, arson, and destruction of property, which were enumerated in nine (9) separate paragraphs detailing incidents in various municipalities including Mangatarem, Aguilar, Infanta, Mabini, Urbiztondo, and San Clemente, Tarlac. Of all the defendants, only Jaime Santos was apprehended, tried, and convicted. The trial court found him guilty of the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murders, robberies, etc., and sentenced him accordingly. The trial judge, despite the doctrine established in People vs. Hernandez, refused to follow it, believing the Hernandez ruling to be erroneous.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant of the complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, etc., in light of the doctrine established in People vs. Hernandez that common crimes committed as a necessary means to commit rebellion are absorbed by the latter and do not give rise to a complex crime.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the judgment of the trial court. Applying the doctrine laid down in People vs. Hernandez (99 Phil. 515), the Court held that rebellion is a single, indivisible offense. Acts of murder, arson, robbery, and other common crimes, when committed as a necessary means to accomplish the political purpose of rebellion, are absorbed by the crime of rebellion and do not constitute separate offenses or give rise to a complex crime. The proper charge should be simple rebellion under Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code. Consequently, the information in this case, which charged a complex crime, was fundamentally defective. The Court set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered the case remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings in accordance with the ruling, specifically for the filing of a proper information for simple rebellion.
DISSENTING OPINION:
Justice YOR, with whom Justice ENDENCIA concurred, dissented, reiterating the reasons stated in their dissenting opinion in People vs. Hernandez. They also disagreed with the majority’s stern admonition of the trial judge for refusing to follow the Hernandez doctrine. The dissent argued that when a Supreme Court ruling is not unanimous, inferior courts should occasionally be permitted to depart from it to provoke a reexamination of the legal question, giving the Court an opportunity to reaffirm or abandon the doctrine. They noted the trial judge had reasons for his action and did not wantonly ignore the ruling.