G.R. No. L-13469, L-14240, L-14209; May 27, 1965
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PABLO EGUAL alias COMMANDER REYES, ET AL., defendants, PABLO EGUAL alias COMMANDER REYES, MARCELO MENDOZA, alias COMMAND OSCAR, GAUDENCIO HERNANDEZ and SANCHO DIWA, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

These are consolidated appeals from three separate decisions of the Court of First Instance of Batangas.
1. In Criminal Case No. 1147 (G.R. No. L-13469), Pablo Egual and Domingo Encallado were charged with the murder of Julian Castillo. Egual was found guilty and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Encallado was acquitted.
2. In Criminal Case No. 1148 (G.R. No. L-14240), Pablo Egual, Gaudencio Hernandez, Marcelo Mendoza, Sancho Diwa, and others were charged with assault against agents of a person in authority with triple murder for killing three Philippine Constabulary soldiers. Egual, Hernandez, Mendoza, and Diwa were found guilty and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
3. In Criminal Case No. 1153 (G.R. No. L-14209), Gaudencio Hernandez and Marcelo Mendoza were charged with the murder of Ruperto Publico. Both were found guilty and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
The appellants, members of the Hukbalahap organization, contended in the first two cases that the murder charges should be quashed as the acts were absorbed by the crime of rebellion, for which Egual had already been convicted. The prosecution evidence established the killings: Egual and others tied and shot Julian Castillo; a group including Egual, Hernandez, Mendoza, and Diwa ambushed and killed three PC soldiers; and Hernandez and Mendoza killed Ruperto Publico. Appellants Mendoza and Diwa also claimed their extrajudicial confessions were coerced.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether the murder charges are absorbed by the crime of rebellion, thereby barring separate prosecution. Subsidiary issues involve the validity of extrajudicial confessions and the sufficiency of evidence to establish guilt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions.
1. The defense of absorption by rebellion is without merit. The murder of Julian Castillo was not alleged in the prior rebellion case, there was no evidence it was a necessary means to commit rebellion, it was committed in a different province (Batangas) outside the jurisdiction of the Laguna court that tried the rebellion case, and the victim was a private overseer with no proven government connection or link to the killing of a Huk commander.
2. The crime committed in each case is murder. In G.R. No. L-13469, the killing of Castillo was qualified by treachery as his hands were tied. Aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength and nighttime were absorbed by treachery. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was correct.
3. In G.R. No. L-14240, the killing of the three soldiers constituted murder. The claim that the act was in furtherance of rebellion was rejected, as the soldiers were in civilian clothes and there was no proof the killing was necessary for rebellion. The extrajudicial confessions of Mendoza and Diwa were admissible, and their defense of coercion was not credible. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was correct.
4. In G.R. No. L-14209, the killing of Ruperto Publico was murder. The testimonies of witnesses were credible, and Mendoza’s claim of absorption by rebellion failed as there was no evidence the killing was necessary for rebellion; rather, it was motivated by Hernandez’s personal grudge. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was correct.
The decisions of the trial court were affirmed in toto.