GR L 38538; (April, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-38538. April 15, 1988. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANDRES MANGLALLAN y ARDAN alias “Ka Elmer,” VIRGILIO BALLESTEROS y ANDRADA alias ‘Ka Felix’ and CESAR ALVAREZ alias “Ka Karte,” accused, ANDRES MANGLALLAN y ARDAN alias “Ka Elmer,” defendant-appellant.
FACTS
On September 3, 1972, in Barrio Punti East, Sta. Ana, Cagayan, Andres Manglallan, along with other members of the New People’s Army (NPA), was directed by their leader, “Ka Daniel,” to kill Apolonio Ragual, who was suspected of being a Philippine Constabulary informer. The group proceeded to the barrio, where they found Ragual bathing his carabao. He was shot and killed by Manglallan and his companions. The group then placed a written warning on the victim’s body before reporting back to their leader. An autopsy confirmed the cause of death as multiple gunshot wounds.
An information for murder was filed against Manglallan, Virgilio Ballesteros, and Cesar Alvarez. Ballesteros was discharged to become a state witness, and trial proceeded against Manglallan. The trial court convicted him of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. Manglallan appealed, initially filing a motion to withdraw his appeal but later pursuing it, arguing that the crime was a political offense, not murder.
ISSUE
Whether the crime committed by the appellant constitutes murder or a political offense such as rebellion.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision, holding that the crime committed was simple rebellion, not murder. The legal logic is grounded in the doctrine of absorption for political crimes. The Court found that the killing was politically motivated, as it was carried out by NPA members upon orders of their leader to eliminate a suspected military informant, and was accompanied by a propagandistic warning left on the body. This act was deemed a means to further the subversive ends of the rebellion.
The Court, citing People vs. Agarin, ruled that when a killing is committed as part of or in furtherance of a rebellion, it is absorbed into the single crime of rebellion. The appellant’s liability is thus for rebellion under Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, not for the separate felony of murder. The Court rejected the appellant’s claim that he should only be liable for mere membership in the NPA under the Anti-Subversion Act, as his direct participation in the armed act constituted the graver offense of rebellion. However, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was correctly appreciated. Consequently, the appellant was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty and ordered to pay indemnity. As he had already served beyond the new penalty, his immediate release was ordered unless held for other charges.