good day to everyone our menu for today is all about the crime of rebellion as defined and penalized under article 134 and 135 of the revised penal code how is rebellion or insurrection committed 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 or anybody of land naval or other armed forces or depriving the chief executive or the legislature wholly or partially of any of their powers or prerogatives as amended by republic act 69 68 these are the elements of rebellion number one there is a public uprising and taking arms against the government and number two the purpose of the public uprising and taking arms against the government is either to remove from the allegiance to said government or its laws the territory of the philippines or any part thereof or anybody of land naval or other armed forces or depriving the chief executive or congress wholly or partially of any of their powers or prerogatives now what is the nature of the crime of rebellion in the case of people versus la vidoro the supreme court had occasion to mention that the government of the crime of rebellion is an armed public uprising against the government and by its very nature rebellion is essentially a crime of masses or multitudes involving crowd action what are the takeaways here first the supreme court did not mention the specific number of people that would be enough to constitute a rebellion it merely uses the phrase crime of masses or multitudes involving crowd action also the case and even the provision itself did not mention the nature of the arms to be used by the offenders or by the rebels who want to overthrow the government and of course it is required that it must be a public uprising when you see public uprising it is not necessary that the offenders or the so-called rebels should go out of their houses and go to the public plaza and declare the overthrow of the government in order to constitute a rebellion when you say public uprising it simply means that the public must be made aware of the purpose of the offenders why they are taking arms against the government and that is to overthrow the government the july constituted government of the philippines and you might ask fiscal [Music] or any other weapon which is not a firearm would that be enough of course it would not be enough it would be impossible to overthrow the government merely by using bladed weapons however take note that an actual clash of arms with the forces of government is not necessary rising publicly and taking arms are enough to constitute a crime but take note also that the purpose of the uprising which is to overthrow the government must be known must be known by whom it must be known by the public that's why it's called a public uprising and there must be evidence showing such motive or purpose because in the case of u.s versus constantino merely attacking policemen and kidnapping the municipal officials are not enough to show or to indicate that a rebellion is taking place or that the offenders are engaging in a rebellion against the government the motive or the reason or the purpose must be shown what i mean by this is the attack against the policeman and the kidnapping of the municipal officials must be shown to be one of the manifestations so to speak of their intention to overthrow the government by the use of force and it is also not necessary that the purpose of the rebellion should be accomplished or that the rebels succeed in overthrowing the government why because if they succeed they will no longer be prosecuted by the new government that they helped establish who will prosecute them if the rebels succeed if they succeed they will be the new government and the people mining the old government will be the one prosecuted instead that would be the result now if if the rebellion is accomplished or the purpose rather of the rebellion is accomplished that is to overthrow the government so the overthrow of the government is not necessary because to repeat merely rising publicly and taking arms are enough to constitute a crime and of course with the requirement that the purpose of the offenders in racing publicly and taking arms is for the purpose of overthrowing the government also take note that rebellion is a continuing crime or a continuing offense and i have already discussed to you the nature of a continuing offense okay and that discussion was discussed you know in my previous video so all you need is to scour the videos i posted in youtube and listen to them again hence for as long as the rebel continues to take arms against the government he can be arrested at any time even without a warrant again rebellion is a continuing crime and since it is a continuing crime for as long as the rebel continues to take up arms against the government as ruled in the case of garcia padilla versus in relay the rebel can be arrested at any time even without a warrant of arrest is it necessary that there be an overt act constitutive of rebellion taking place in the presence of the arresting officer before the rebel can be arrested without a warrant the answer is it depends for example x has openly declared himself to be a member of the cpp npa in other words there is evidence like for example a video footage showing ex carrying arms in the mountains as part of the said rebel group or showing him holding press conferences on behalf of the cpp npa i remember many years ago roger russell was the face of the cpp npa i usually see him on tv holding press conferences for the cpp npa and negotiating now he is the point person of the npa with respect to the negotiations for the release of hostages hostages of the npa and during press conferences you can readily and you can readily observed rather that uh he is speaking or he was speaking on behalf of the cpp npa now in such a case even if there is no footage video footage that he was carrying firearms he can be arrested without warrant even if at the time of the arrest he was not doing an overt act in pursuit of the rebellion so let us say was seen traveling by way of motorcycle or by way of bicycle traversing the streets of a certain municipality at that point in time he was not doing an overt act in pursuit of the rebellion generally there is no crime or you cannot arrest a person while riding a bicycle because that is a legitimate act there is nothing illegal about it but because he has been identified as a rebel and there is already evidence that he has already openly declared himself to be a member of the new people's army a guerrilla organization or an armed organization which has or which is in open rebellion against the duly constituted government then he can be arrested even without a warrant on the other hand if x has not openly declared himself to be a member of the cpp npa or that there is no evidence that he is indeed a rebel he cannot therefore be arrested without waran he can only be arrested without warrant under the circumstances of a valid warrantless arrest as provided for in section 5 rule 113 of the revised rules on criminal procedure i'm talking about inflagrante de litto and hot pursuit arrests now on december 9 2020 the anti-terrorism council pursuant to its mandate under the anti-terror law or ra 11479 issued atc resolution number 12 declaring the cpp npa as a terrorist organization according to the anti-terrorism council the cpp npa was organized for the purpose of engaging in terrorism and for almost half a century have been and are still using acts of terror to sow and create a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace in order to overthrow the duly constituted authorities and cease control of the philippine government through armed struggle what is the implication of this atc resolution a rebel assuming there is evidence now that a person is indeed an npa combatant he can now be charged with either rebellion or with the crime of terrorism as provided for in ra 11 479 because mere membership in a terrorist organization will already make the person liable under republican 11 479 but i will have a separate discussion on the new anti-terror law which repealed the human security act in a separate video in the case of umil vs ramos the supreme court made the following pronouncement given the ideological content of membership in the cpp npa which includes armed struggle for the overthrow of organized government x did not cease to be subversive or became less of a subversive for purposes of arrest simply because he was at the time of arrest confined in the same agnes hospital ex was identified as one of several persons who the day before his warrantless arrest at the saint agnes hospital had shot two policemen in their patrol car that ex had shot the two policemen in kalokan city as part of his mission as a sparrow or an npa member did not end there and then dural one of the companions of umil given another opportunity would have shot or would shoot other policemen anywhere as agents or representatives of organized government it is in this sense that subversion like rebellion or insurrection is perceived here as a continuing offense unlike other so-called common offenses like adultery murder arsenal etc which generally end up under commission subversion and rebellion are anchored on an ideological base which compels the repetition of the same acts of lawlessness and violence until the overriding objective of overthrowing organized government is attained now you must remember that at that time this case was decided the anti-subversion law was still in effect i'm referring to republic act 1700 and when you say subversion the crime observation is a crime against the national security it was enacted or the law against separation was enacted to outlaw precisely the cpp npa or other similar organizations and its successors because according to that law the existence of the cpp npa and activities constitute a clear present and grave danger to national security and i agree because this organization exists to precisely overthrow the july constituted government and that was the reason why the anti-separation law was enacted mere membership in that organization is enough to constitute the crime and as applied in the case of umil versus ramos there was a petition for the release of umil and his companions because according to them the arrest was illegal because they were arrested without warrant and they were arrested when they or some of them were being treated at saint agnes hospital they were confined there at st agnes hospital and the military authorities proceeded to arrest them and according to them the arrest was invalid because they were not committing a crime while being confined at the hospital but the supreme court did not side with their argument the supreme court said that mere membership in a subversive organization like the cpp npa was enough but more than the crime of subversion there was also evidence showing that a day before their confinement at the hospital they were positively identified as the person or persons who shot and killed two policemen and their attack against that policeman had a political motive because they were members of the cpp npa members of the dreaded spiral unit at that time now that was the reason that the supreme court gave in validating their warrantless arrest because according to the supreme court their warrantless arrest can come under section 5b i am referring to the doctrine or the arrest based on hot pursuit there was probable cause on the part of the military and police authorities to arrest them because it engendered in the mind of the military authorities and police officers a well-founded belief that they were based on the identification of witnesses they were the persons who shot and killed two policemen the day before their supposed warrantless arrest so their arrest in short was based on probable cause section 5b rule 113 of the revised rules and criminal procedure so in this case there were two legal grounds that the supreme court advanced to justify the warrantless arrest of umil and his companions first the ground that mere membership in a subversive organization like the cppnp is already a crime in itself and at the same time their identification the positive identification by witnesses that they were the ones who shot and killed the two policemen a day before and that was enough according to the supreme court to constitute probable cause justifying their warrantless arrests however no later in 1992 if i remember right republic 1700 or the anti-separation law had been or was repealed but that has been cured so to speak because at present the cpp npa although there is no more anti-separation law the cpp npa has been declared by the anti-terrorism council as a terrorist organization pursuant to its mandate and the republic act 11 479. now i will not discuss the constitutionality of the said anti-terror law i will leave that to the supreme court and to the proponents of the petition to declare its unconstitutionality but considering that there is yet no declaration of unconstitutionality we have to abide by the statutory principle that a law is presumed constitutional and that is the reason why i am discussing or mentioning the resolution of the atc declaring the cpp npa as a terrorist organization and to repeat since the cpp npa is already or has been declared as a terrorist organization by the atc although there is yet no judicial declaration of them as a terrorist organization the military and police authorities would now have an additional reason to create in them or to create in their minds probable cause to effect the warrantless arrest of persons seeking to overthrow the government but i would also advance the argument that mere identification of certain persons as belonging to the cpp npa would that be enough there must still be what or the arrest must still be based on the instances of a valid warrantless arrest under section 5b of rule 113 of the revised rules on criminal procedure this was what i was talking about earlier at the time umil was decided the anti-subversion law was still in effect the law was enacted to outlaw the cpp npa because as i said its existence and activities constituted a clear and present danger to the national security of the of the country however in 1992 republic act 7636 was enacted precisely repealing the anti-separation law so at present there is no more crime of subversion subversion the crime observation has been decriminalized and like what i said a while ago in the umil case x was arrested not just because he belonged to a subversive organization but more so because his arrest was justified under section 5b rule 113 supra what happens if common crimes like murder or kidnapping are committed in furtherance of the rebellion will they be absorbed in rebellion or will they stay as separate crimes again in people versus lobidioro the supreme court noted that one aspect noteworthy in the commission of rebellion is that other acts committed in its first ones are by law absorbed in the crime itself because they acquire a political character so this precisely answers the question i pointed out earlier what happens if common crimes like murder or kidnapping are committed in foreign or by reason of the rebellion it becomes what absorbed in the crime of rebellion itself because although they they are common crimes per se but they have already acquired a political character according to the case of people versus la vidyaro now how do we know that they have acquired a political character in the old case of people versus hernandez which is still the controlling case in so far as rebellion is concerned political crimes are those directly aimed against the political order against the state as well as such common crimes as may be committed to achieve a political purpose the decisive factor here is the intent or motive of the offender or offenders if a crime usually regarded as common like homicide is perpetrated for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to the government the territory of the philippines or any part thereof then it becomes stripped of its common complexion in as much as being part and parcel of the crime of rebellion the former acquires the political character of the latter so there can be no more clearer explanation than what was declared in the case of people versus hernandez all crimes committed in furtherance of the rebellion are deemed absorbed in the rebellion itself and if i need to add further which i will explain in the later slides even those common crimes that are committed or that are not committed or that are committed not in furtherance of the rebellion but they were committed during the course of the rebellion are also deemed absorbed in the crime of rebellion itself in other words article 48 of the revised penal code on complex crimes whether it is a complex crime proper or a compound crime will not apply in so far as rebellion is concerned there is no complex crime of rebellion with murder or rebellion with kidnapping only a single crime of rebellion shall be filed against the offender now if common crimes such as murder kidnapping or robbery are committed in furtherance of the rebellion take note there will only be one single crime of rebellion to be charged against the offender or offenders the common crimes will lose their separate complexion as common crimes and will become absorbed in the rebellion and also take note that when i say there should only be one crime of rebellion to be charged there should only be one not two three four five or six despite how many acts are committed in furtherance of the rebellion the reason for this the reason is because no matter how many acts are committed by the offender or or offenders in furtherance of the rebellion there is only one crime because the offender or offenders are impelled only by a single criminal intent now why is it important to determine whether the common crime like murder was committed in furtherance or during the course of the rebellion it is important because of the disparity in the penalties between for example rebellion and murder with respect to the offender who merely participates in a rebellion like an npa rebel or combatant take a look at this in rebellion the impossible penalty is only reclusion temporal if let's say x a rebel is found guilty of rebellion he will only be meet at the penalty of reclusion temporal despite the fact that he killed someone like a policeman for which reason he was arrested tried and convicted because the charge is only rebellion and rebellion as provided for in article 135 to repeat only has a an impossible penalty of reclusion temporal now contrast that with the crime of murder same example x a rebel was charged of the crime of murder if proven guilty he will be imposed the penalty of reclosion perpetua which is definitely one degree higher than reclusion temporal 20 years and one day to 40 years so that is no the reason why there must be a determination that the common crime was committed in furtherance or during the course of the rebellion although with respect to the offender who promotes maintains or heads a rebellion the penalty is the same as that of murder which is requesting perpetua so whether the promoter or the head of the rebellion is charged with rebellion or murder as the case may be it is already of no moment because the impossible penalty is the same let us go through some examples here example number one x y and z members of the npa's dreaded sparrow unit assassinated the chief of police for his alleged abuses and crimes against the filipino people here the murder of the chief of police assumes a political character why because it is clear based on the facts of the case that it was committed in furtherance of the rebellion hence only a case for simple rebellion should be filed against x y and z what about fiscal the killing of the chief of police isn't it or doesn't it constitute the crime of murder or direct assault with murder the answer is no because in this example we are assuming that these are the facts of the case meaning to say it is we are assuming that it is established that x y and z are members of the npa we are also assuming that it has been established that the purpose of killing the chief of police was because of this or was by reason of his alleged abuses so there can be no other crime to be charged here but only a crime of simple rebellion the killing of the chief of police is deemed absorbed in the crime of rebellion another example npa rebels raided the town hall ransacked the town hall of its valuables and killed the mayor here also only a case of simple rebellion should be filed and you might ask hindi philanthropy and np similar to my explanation a while ago and sim and in accordance with the ruling in people versus hernandez all the other acts committed in furtherance of the rebellion are deemed absorbed in the rebellion itself the killing of the mayor the ransacking of the town hall and the taking of the valuables have assumed a political character even if by its very nature or per se they are mere common crimes example number three ex an npa rebel rape y whom he saw bathing in the river in contrast to examples number one and two this is a mere common crime meaning to say what x did was a mere common crime which does not partake of a political character why is that so because in this example the act of x in raping y had no connection whatsoever to the crime of rebellion it was not committed in furtherance of rebellion neither was it committed during the course of the rebellion so in this situation only only the common crime of rape should be filed against x or the common rape and not rebellion should be filed against x even if x here even if it is established that x is an npa rebel example number four x and npa rebel has a personal grudge against y x thereafter killed y similar to example number three this is also a common crime only a case for homicide or murder as the case may be can be filed against x his being a rebel is not material or has no bearing to his decision or to his act of killing why whom he has a personal grudge with another example ex a rebel was caught in possession of an unlicensed firearm under section 29 of republic act 105.91 dilo particularly states that if his possession thereof is in furtherance of or incident to or in connection with the crime of rebellion or insurrection such violation shall be deemed absorbed as an element of the crime of rebellion or insurrection meaning to say x here will only be charged of rebellion aggravated by the use of an unlicensed or loose firearm so this is similar to the ruling in people versus hernandez that all other acts committed in furtherance of or during the course of the rebellion shall be deemed absorbed in the latter example number six take note of this let's say seven npa rebels raided the town hall ransacked the town hall of its valuables raped the mayor's wife and thereafter killed the mayor how many common crimes are committed here assuming not assuming that uh these seven offenders are not npa rebels how many common crimes are committed here run sucking the town hall of its valuables robbery raping the mayor's wife rape killing the mayor murder or direct assault with murder so or you can say that if these seven people were mere private persons or private individuals and not npa rebels the crime of robbery with homicide can be charged against these seven offenders but because these seven offenders are npa rebels and let us say it is established that they raided the town hall ransacked it and killed the mayor in furtherance of the rebellion then all these acts will be absorbed in the crime of rebellion and you might ask fiscal what about the rape of the mayor's wife raping raping the mayor's wife is not necessary or is definitely not in furtherance of the rebellion but take note that in the case of people versus hernandez all crimes not just committed in furtherance of the of the rebellion but all crimes committed during the course of the rebellion which is the situation obtaining an example number six will also be absorbed in the crime of rebellion meaning to say the rape of the mayor's wife even though not in furtherance of the rebellion but since it was committed during the course of the rebellion as shown in this example then only a case of simple rebellion pursuant to the doctrine in people versus hernandez should be filed that is to make rebellion absorb all other offenses committed in its course whether not necessary to its commission or in furtherance thereof example number seven senator in relay was charged with a crime of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder which he allegedly committed during the period of the failed coup attempt from november 29 to december 10 1990 the soldier contended that the ruling in hernandez doesn't apply because fernandez merely prohibited the complexing of rebellion with common crimes if the latter were committed in furtherance of the rebellion but not when common crimes are committed on the occasion of the rebellion the soldier and further con contended that the case which they filed against in relay and some other people including honasan was rebellion complexed with common crimes committed on the occasion of rebellion dsc however did not agree with the soldier it ruled that hernandez remains binding doctrine operating to prohibit the complexing of rebellion with any other offense committed on the occasion thereof either as a means necessary to its commission or as an unintended effect of an activity that constitutes rebellion so there is therefore no complex crime of rebellion with murder and other common crimes because that was the contention of senator in relay that there is no crime such as rebellion with murder or rebellion with complex with other common crimes he con he disputed the application of article 48 and the supreme court sided with him no that with respect to the crime of rebellion all crimes committed whether in furtherance of or on the occasion thereof meaning all crimes committed in the course of the rebellion even if it is not necessary to commit the crime of religion they will all be absorbed in the crime of rebellion such as there is only one single crime of rebellion that is simple rebellion to be filed against the accused it cannot be complexed with other common crimes