[G.R. No. L-8936.

  October 23, 1956.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. FEDERICO GERONIMO alias Cmdr. OSCAR, ET
AL., Defendants, FEDERICO GERONIMO alias Cmdr. OSCAR, Defendant-Appellant.
 
DECISION
REYES, J. B. L., J.:
In an information filed on June 24, 1954 by the provincial Fiscal in the Court of First Instance of
Camarines Sur, Appellant Federico Geronimo, together with Mariano P. Balgos alias Bakal alias Tony,
alias Tony Collante alias Taoic, alias Mang Pacio, alias Bonny Abundio Romagosa alias David, Jesus Polita
alias Rex, Jesus Lava alias Jessie alias NMT, alias Balbas, alias Noli, alias Noli Metangere, alias NKVD, Juan
Ocompo alias Cmdr. Bundalian, alias Tagle, Rosendo Manuel alias Cmdr. Sendong, alias Ruiz, Ernesto
Herrero alias Cmdr. Ed, alias Rene, alias Eddy, Santiago Rotas alias Cmdr. Jessie, Fernando Principe alias
Cmdr. Manding, Alfredo Saguni alias Godo, alias Terry, alias Terpy, Andres Diapera alias Maclang, alias
Berto, alias Teny, Lorenzo Saniel alias Wenny, Silvestre Sisno alias Tomo, alias Albert, Teodoro Primavera
alias Nestor, Lorenzo Roxas alias Argos, Vivencio Pineda alias Marquez, Pedro Anino alias Fernandez,
Mauro Llorera alias Justo, Richard Doe alias Cmdr. Danny and John Doe alias Cmdr. Berion, alias Mayo,
alias Cmdr. Paulito and many others, were charged with the complex crime of rebellion with murders,
robberies, and kidnapping committed as follows: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

x x x                    x x x                    x x x
“That on or about May 28, 1946 and for sometime prior and subsequent thereto continuously up to the
present time in the province of Camarines Sur, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court and in other municipalities, cities and provinces and other parts of the country where they have
chosen to carry out their rebellious activities, the above-named accused being then ranking officers
and/or members of, or otherwise affiliated with the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the
Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan (HMB) or otherwise known as the Hukbalahaps (HUKS) the latter being
the armed force of said Communist Party of the Philippines (CCP) having come to an agreement and
decide to commit the crime of Rebellion, and therefore, conspiring together and confederating among
themselves with all of the thirty-one accused in criminal case Nos. 14071, 14282, 14315, 14270, 15344
and with all the accused in criminal case No. 19166 of the Court of First Instance of Manila with the
other members, officers and/or affiliates of the Communist Party of the Philippines and the Hukbong
Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan and with many others whose identities and whereabouts are still unknown,
acting in accordance with their conspiracy and in furtherance thereof, and mutually helping one
another, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, help, support, promote, maintain,
direct and/or command the Hukbalahaps (HUKS) or the Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan (HMB), to rise
publicly and take arms against the government of the Republic of the Philippines, or otherwise
participate in such public armed uprisings for the purpose of removing the territory of the Philippines
from the allegiance to the government and laws thereof as in fact the said ‘Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng
Bayan (HMB) or the Hukbalahaps’ (HUKS) pursuant to such conspiracy, have risen publicly and taken
arms against the Government of the Republic of the Philippines to attain said purpose, by then and
there making armed raids, sorties, and ambuscades, attacks against the Philippine Constabulary, the
civilian guards, the Police and the Army Patrols and other detachments as well as upon innocent
civilians, and as a necessary means to commit the crime of Rebellion, in connection therewith and in
furtherance thereof, have then and there committed wanton acts of murder, pillage, looting, plunder,
kidnapping and planned destructions of private and public property and plotted the liquidation of
government officials, to create and spread disorder, terror, confusion, chaos and fear so as to facilitate
the accomplishment of the aforesaid purpose, among which are as follows, to wit: chanroblesvirtua llawlibrary

‘1.  That on or about April 28, 1949 at Kilometer 62 at Barrio Salubsob, municipality of Nueva Ecija, an
undetermined number of HUKS led by Commanders Viernes, Marzan, Lupon and Mulong did, then and
there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously ambush, assault, attack and fired upon the party of Mrs.
Aurora A. Quezon and her PC escort whom they considered as their enemies resulting in the killing of
Mrs. Aurora A. Quezon, Baby Quezon, Mayor Bernardo of Quezon City, Major P. San Agustin, Lieutenant
Lasam, Philip Buencamino III, and several soldiers and the wounding of General Jalandoni and Captain
Manalang.
‘2.  That on or about August 26, 1950 in Santa Cruz, Laguna, about one hundred armed HUKS with intent
to gain and for the purpose of securing supplies and other materials for the support and meintenance of
the Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan (HMBS) did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
and forcibly bringing the Cashier of the Provincial Treasury, Mr. Vicente Reventar from his house to the
Provincial Capitol and at the point of guns forced him to open the Treasury Vault and took therefrom
Eighty Thousand Pesos (P80,000) consisting of various denominations and including Fifty, One hundred
and Five-Hundred Peso Bills and also took away with them type- writers and other Office supplies which
they found in the Provincial Capitol Building, burning and looting private buildings in towns.
‘3.  That on or about the years 1951 to 1952 in the municipality of Pasacao, Camarines Sur, Philippines, a
group of Armed Huks under Commander Rustum raided the house of one Nemesio Palo, a police
sergeant of Libmanan, Camarines Sur and as a result, said HUKS were able to capture said Nemesio Palo
and once captured, with evident premeditation, treachery and intent to kill, stab, shot and cut the neck
of said Nemesio Palo thereby causing the instantaneous death of Nemesio Palo.
‘4.  That on or about January 31, 1953, at barrio of Santa Rita, Del Gallego, Camarines Sur a group of
HMBS with Federico Geronimo alias Commander Oscar ambushed and fired upon an Army Patrol
headed by Cpl. Bayrante, resulting in seriously wounding of Pfc. Paneracio Torrado and Eusebio Gruta a
civilian.
‘5.   That on or about February 1954 at barrio Cotmo, San Fernando, Camarines Sur, a group of four
HMBS led by accused Commander Oscar with evident premeditation, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously killed one Policarpio Tipay a barrio lieutenant.’“ (Appellee’s brief, pp. 1-8)
Accused Federico Geronimo first entered a plea of not guilty to the information. When the case was
called for trial on October 12, 1954, however, he asked the permission of the court to substitute his
original plea with one of guilty, and was allowed to change his plea. On the basis of the plea of guilty,
the fiscal recommended that the penalty of life imprisonment be imposed upon the accused, his
voluntary plea of guilty being considered as a mitigating circumstance. Geronimo’s counsel, on the other
hand, argued that the penalty imposable upon the accused was only prision mayor, for the reason that
in his opinion, there is no such complex crime as rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnapping,
because the crimes of murders robberies, and kidnapping being the natural consequences of the crime
of rebellion, the crime charged against the accused should be considered only as simple rebellion. On
October 18, 1954, the trial court rendered judgment finding the accused guilty of the complex crime of
rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnappings;  and giving him the benefit of the mitigating
chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to
pay a fine of P10,000, to indemnify the heirs of the various persons killed, as listed in the information, in
the sum of P6,000 each, and to pay the proportionate costs of the proceedings. From this judgment,
accused Federico Geronimo appealed, raising the sole question of whether the crime committed by him
is the complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnappings, or simple rebellion.
After mature consideration, a majority of seven justices 1 of this Court are of the opinion that the issue
posed by Appellant has been already decided in the recent resolution of this Court in the case of People
vs. Hernandez et al., (99 Phil., 529;  21 Lawyers Journal, No. 7 [July 31, 1956], p. 316). As in treason,
chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

where both intent and overt act are necessary, the crime of rebellion is integrated by the coexistence of
both the armed uprising for the purposes expressed in article 134 of the Revised Penal Code, and the
overt acts of violence described in the first paragraph of article 135. That both purpose and overt acts
are essential components of one crime, and that without either of them the crime of rebellion legally
does not exist, is shown by the absence of any penalty attached to article 134. 2 It follows, therefore
that any or all of the acts described in article 135, when committed as a means to or in furtherance of
the subversive ends described in article 134, become absorbed in the crime of rebellion, and cannot be
regarded or penalized as distinct crimes in themselves. In law they are part and parcel of the rebellion
itself, and cannot be considered as giving rise to a separate crime that, under article 48 of the Code,
would constitute a complex one with that of rebellion.
The terms employed in the first paragraph of article 135 of the Revised Penal Code to describe the
component of violence in the crime of rebellion are broad and general. The Spanish text (which is the
one controlling, People vs. Manaba, 58 Phil. 665) states that the acts of the rebels may consists of —
“Sosteniendo combate 3 con la fuerza leal, causando estragos en las propiedades, ejerciendo violencia
grave, exigiendo contribuciones, o distroyendo caudales publicos de su inversion legitima.”
If all the overt acts charged in the information against herein Appellant were committed for political
ends or in furtherance of the rebellion, they come within the preceding description. Thus, count 4
(ambushing and firing upon army patrol) constitutes engaging in combat with the loyal troops;  count chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

2 (taking funds and equipment from the Provincial Treasury of Laguna) is diverting public funds from
their ligitimate purpose;  while the killings outlined in the other counts (1, 3 and 5) are instances of
chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

committing serious violence.

The majority of the Court found no cogent reason for limiting “commission of serious violence” in article
135 to hostilities against the Government’s armed forces exclusively;  for in that case, the former
chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

expression would be redundant and mere duplication of “engaging in combat” with loyal troops, also
described in the same article. If the infliction of “serious violence” was separately expressed in the law,
it is because the violence referred to is that inflicted upon civilians. Again, to restrict “serious violence”
to acts short of homicide, is to unwarrantedly assume that the broad term “violencia grave” is used in
the limited sense of “lesiones graves”, which in our Penal Code has a specialized signification. In truth, if
physical injuries constitute grave violence, so would killing necessarily be, if not more. Additionally, it
may be observed that rebellion is by nature a crime of masses or multitudes, involving crowd action,
that cannot be confined a priori within predetermined bounds. (People vs. Hernandez, supra;  People chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

vs. Almazan, C. A., 31 Off. Gaz. 1932). Hence the broad terms employed by the statute.
The prosecution insists that the “more serious” crime of murder cannot be justifiably regarded as
absorbed by the lesser crime of rebellion. In the first place, it is not demonstrated that the killing of an
individual is intrinsically less serious or less dangerous to society than the violent subversion of
established government, which emperils the lives of many citizens, at least during the period of the
struggle for superiority between rebels and loyalists. If, on the other hand, murder is punished by
reclusion perpetua to death, and rebellion only by prision mayor, this leniency is due to the political
purpose that impels every rebellious act. As noted by Groizard (“Codigo Penal de 1870”, Vol. 3, p. 239)
—
“El analisis de toda clase de delitos politicos ofrece para el jurisconsulto un resultado precioso, pues
pone de relieve las diferencias cardinales que existen entre esta clase de hechos y los delitos comunes;  chan
 entre los reos de aquellos crimenes y los reos de estos otros. Para los delitos comunes, la sociedad
roblesvirtualawlibra ry

tiene una constante y energica reprobacion que no atenua ni el trascurso de tiempo ni el cambio de las
ideas. Para los delitos politicos, no. Quien se atrevera si de honrado se precia, a hacer alarde de la
amistad de un hombre condenado por robo o por asesinato? Y quien no ha tendido la mano cariñosa sin
perder nada de respetabilidad, a algun reo de un delito politico en la serie continuada de revoluciones y
contrarevoluciones que constituyen desgraciadamente los ultimos periodos de nuestra historia? La
consumacion del delito y el exito de la rebelion, ya lo hemos dicho, para el reo politico, es mas que la
impunidad, es el triunfo, es el poder, es el Gobierno, es casi la gloria. Pero no sucede lo mismo
tratandose de delitos comunes:  la consumacion del delito ni apaga el remordimiento, ni aleja del chanroblesvirtua llawlibrary

criminal el peligro de la pena, ni mejora en nada su condicion respecto de la justicia. Hay, pues, entre el
delito comun y el delito politico, entre las personas responsables de unos y otros diferencias
sustanciales, y el mayor error que en el estado actual de los estudios juridicos puede cometer el
legislador es no apreciar eses diferencias, sobre todo en la aplicacion de las penas.”
And our history of three centuries of uninterrupted rebellions against sovereign Spain, until she was
finally driven from our shores, suffices to explain why the penalty against rebellion, which stood at
reclusion temporal maximum to death in the Spanish Penal Code of 1870, was reduced only prision
mayor in our revised Penal Code of 1932.
In addition, the government counsel’s theory that an act punished by more serious penalty cannot be
absorbed by an act for which a lesser penalty is provided, is not correct. The theory is emphatically
refuted by the treatment accorded by the Penal Code to the crime of  forcible abduction, for which the
law imposes only reclusion temporal (article 342), notwithstanding that such crime necessarily involves
illegal detention of the abducted woman for which article 267 of the same Penal Code fixes the penalty
of reclusion temporal, in its maximum period, to death. The same situation obtains in the crime of
slavery defined in article 272, whereby the kidnapping of a human being for the purpose of enslaving
him is punished with prision mayor and a fine of not more than P10,000.00, when kidnapping itself is
penalized by article 267 with a much higher penalty.
And we have already pointed out in the Hernandez resolution that to admit the complexing of the crime
of rebellion with the felonies committed in furtherance thereof, would lead to these undesirable
results:  (1) to make the punishment for rebellion heavier than that of treason, since it has been
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

repeatedly held that the latter admits no complexing with the overt acts committed in furtherance of
the treasonous intent, and, in addition, requires two witnesses to every overt act which is not true in the
case of rebellion;  (2) to nullify the policy expressed in article 135 (R.P.C.) of imposing lesser penalty
chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

upon the rebel followers as compared to their leaders, because under the complexing theory every
rebel, leader or follower, must suffer the heavier penalty in its maximum degree;  and (3) to violate chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

the fundamental rule of criminal law that all doubts should be resolved in favor of the accused:  “in chanroblesvirtua llawlibrary

dubiis reus est absolvendus”;  “nullum crimen, nulla poena, sine lege.” chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

Of course, not every act of violence is to be deemed absorbed in the crime of rebellion solely because it
happens to be committed simultaneously with or in the course of the rebellion. If the killing, robbing,
etc. were done for private purposes or profit, without any political motivation, the crime would be
separately punishable and would not be absorbed by the rebellion. But ever then, the individual
misdeed could not be taken with the rebellion to constitute a complex crime, for the constitutive acts
and intent would be unrelated to each other;  and the individual crime would not be a means chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

necessary for committing the rebellion as it would not be done in preparation or in furtherance of the
latter. This appears with utmost clarity in the case where an individual rebel should commit rape;  chan

certainly the latter felony could not be said to have been done in furtherance of the rebellion or
roblesvirtualawlibra ry
facilitated its commission in any way. The ravisher would then be liable for two separate crimes,
rebellion and rape, and the two could not be merged into a juridical whole.
It is argued that the suppression in the present Penal Code of article 244 of the old one (article 259 of
the Spanish Penal Code of 1870) indicates the intention of the Legislature to revive the possibility of the
crime of rebellion being complexed with the individual felonies committed in the course thereof,
because the suppressed article prohibited such complexing. The text of the suppressed provision is as
follows: chanroblesvirtua llawlibrary

“ART. 244.  Los delitos particulares cometidos en una rebelion o sedicion, o con motivo de ellas, seran
castigados respectivamente segun las disposiciones de este codigo.
Cuando no puedan descubrirse sus autores, seran penados como tales los jefes principales de la rebelion
o sedicion.”
The first paragraph is to the effect that the “delitos particulares” (meaning felonies committed for
private non-political ends, as held by the commentators Cuello Calon and Viada, since the Penal Code
does not classify crimes into “general” and “particular”) are to be dealt with separately from the
rebellion, punishment for each felony to be visited upon the perpetrators thereof. This paragraph has no
bearing on the question of complex crimes, but is a mere consequence of the fact that the delicts
committed for private ends bear no relation to the political crime of rebellion (other than a coincidence
of time) and therefore must be separately dealt with. This is so obvious that, as Groizard pointed out
(Vol. 3, p. 650), such action (their punishment as a private misdeed) would be taken by the courts even if
this first paragraph of article 244 had not been written.
Far more significant, in the opinion of the majority, is that our Revised Penal Code of 1932 did not revive
the rule contained in the second paragraph of article 244 of the old Penal Code (Article 259 of the
Spanish), whereby the rebel leaders were made criminally responsible for the individual felonies
committed during the rebellion or on occasion thereof, in case the real perpetrators could not be found.
In effect that paragraph established a command responsibility;  and in suppressing it, the Legislature
chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

plainly revealed a policy of rejecting any such command responsibility. It was the legislative intent,
therefore, that the rebel leaders (and with greater reason, the mere followers) should be held
accountable solely for the rebellion, and not for the individual crimes (delitos particulares) committed
during the same for private ends, unless their actual participation therein was duly established. In other
words, the suppression of article 244 of the old Penal Code virtually negates the contention that the
rebellion and the individual misdeeds committed during the same should legally constitute one complex
whole. Whether or not such policy should be maintained is not for the courts, but for the Legislature, to
say.
But while a majority of seven justices 4 are agreed that if the overt acts detailed in the information
against the Appellant had been duly proved to have been committed “as a necessary means to commit
the crime of rebellion, in connection therewith and in furtherance thereof”, then the accused could only
be convicted of simple rebellion, the opinions differ as to whether his plea of guilty renders the accused
amenable to punishment not only for rebellion but also for murder or other crimes.
Six justices 5 believe that conceding the absence of a complex crime, still, by his plea of guilty the
accused-Appellant has admitted all the acts described in the five separate counts of the information;  chan

and that if any of such counts constituted an independent crime committed within the jurisdiction of
roblesvirtualawlibra ry

the lower court as seems to be the case under the facts alleged in Count No. 5 (the killing of Policarpio
Tibay), then the avertment in the information that it was perpetrated in furtherance of the rebellion,
being a mere conclusion, cannot be a bar to Appellant’s conviction and punishment for said offense, he
having failed, at the arraignment, to object to the information on the ground of multiplicity of crimes
charged. Hence, the acts charged in Counts 1 to 4 cannot be taken into consideration in this case, either
because they were committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court below (Count 1), or
because the allegations do not charge the Appellant’s participation (Count 3), or else the acts charged
are essentially acts of rebellion, with out private motives (Counts 2 and 4).
Five justices, 6 on the other hand, hold that by his plea of guilty, the accused avowed having committed
the overt acts charged in all five counts;  but that he only admitted committing them in fact “as a
chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

necessary means”, “in connection and in furtherance of the rebellion”, as expressly alleged by the
prosecution. This is not only because the information expressly alleged the necessary connection
between the overt acts and the political ends pursued by the accused, but in addition, it failed to charge
that the Appellant was impelled by private motives. Wherefore, such overt acts must be taken as
essential ingredients of the single crime of rebellion, and the accused pleaded guilty to this crime alone.
Hence, there being no complex crime, the Appellant can only be sentenced for the lone crime of
rebellion. Even more, the minority contends that under the very theory of the majority, the
circumstances surrounding the plea are such as to at least cast doubt on whether the accused clearly
understood that he was pleading guilty to two different crimes or to only one;  so that in fairness and chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

justice, the case should be sent back for a rehearing by the Court of origin, to ascertain whether or not
the accused fully realized the import of his plea (U.S. vs. Patala, 2 Phil., 752;  U.S. vs. Agcaoili, 31 Phil., chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

91;  U.S. vs. Jamad, 37 Phil., 305).

chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

In view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is modified and the accused convicted for the
simple (non-complex) crime of rebellion under article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and also for the
crime of murder;  and considering the mitigating effect of his plea of guilty, the accused-
chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

Appellant Federico Geronimo is hereby sentenced to suffer 8 years of  prision mayor and to pay a fine of
P10,000, (without subsidiary imprisonment pursuant to article 38 of the Penal Code) for the rebellion;  chan

and, as above explained, for the murder, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, to not less than 10
roblesvirtualawlibra ry

years and 1 day of  prision mayor and not more than 18 years of reclusion temporal;  to indemnify the chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

heirs of Policarpio Tibay in the sum of P6,000;  and to pay the costs. SO ORDERED. chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion and Felix, JJ., concur.