Jan 11, 2010

Criminal Law 2- People of the Philippines vs. Elias Lovedioro y Castro

This case is with regard to Art 134 of the R.P.C -Rebellion

Case of People of the Philippines vs. Elias Lovedioro y Castro
G.R.No. 112235 29November1995 (People vs. Lovedioro 250 SCRA 389)


FACTS OF THE CASE:

Elias Lovedioro with 3 other companions fatally shot SPO3 Jesus Lucilo while Lucilo was walking along Burgos St. away from Daraga, Albay Public Market. The victim died on the same day from massive blood loss. On November 6, 1992, Elias Lovedioro was then charged of the crime of murder, and subsequently found guilty. Lovedioro then appealed the decision, contesting the verdict of murder instead of rebellion. It was confirmed by the prosecution’s principal witness that Lovedioro was a member of the New People’s Army.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:


Was the RTC correct in holding Lovedioro liable for the crime of murder, instead of rebellion?

- Yes. Because, overt acts and purpose are essential components of the crime of rebellion, with either of these elements wanting, the crime of rebellion does not exist.
- Political motive should be established before a person charged with a common crime- alleging rebellion in order to lessen the possible imposable penalty- could benefit from the law’s relatively benign attitude towards political crimes. If no political motive is established or proved, the accused should be convicted of the common crime and not of rebellion.
- In cases of rebellion, motive relates to the act, and mere membership in an organization dedicated to the furtherance of rebellion would not, by and of itself suffice.
- The killing of the victim, as observed by the Solicitor General, offered no contribution to the achievement of the NPA’s subversive aims, in fact, there were no known acts of the victim’s that can be considered as offending to the NPA.
- Evidence shows that Lovedioro’s allegation of membership to the N.P.A was conveniently infused to mitigate the penalty imposable upon him.

HELD:

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the trial court's decision dated September 14, 1993, sentencing the accused of Murder is hereby AFFIRMED, in toto.

I hope this helps.

Jeff David

Criminal Law 2- People of the Philippines vs. Federico Geronimo alias Cmdr. Oscar, et al.

This case is with regard to Art 134 of the R.P.C -Rebellion

Case of People of the Philippines vs. Federico Geronimo alias Cmdr. Oscar, et al.
G.R.No. L- 8936 23October1956 (People v Geronimo 110 Phil 90)

FACTS OF THE CASE:


On June 24, 1954 a Federico Geronimo, et al. were charged with the complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnapping. These are the ranking officers/ or members of CCP and Huks. In the information it alleged 5 instances including an ambush on Mrs. Aurora Quezon’s convoy on April 28, 1949 and ending on February 1954 where Geronimo killed Policarpio Tipay a Barrio Lieutenant. He pleaded guilty to the accusation and the trial court found him guilty of the complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnappings, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. He appealed raising the sole question of whether the crime committed by him is not the complex crime of rebellion, but simply rebellion, thus punishable only by prision mayor.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

Can rebellion be complexed with murder, robbery or kidnapping?

- No. Even if the crime is not committed in furtherance of rebellion, without political motivation, the crime would be separately punishable and would not be absorbed in rebellion.
- According to the Hernandez resolution; the complexing of rebellion will lead to undesirable results.
- It cannot be taken with rebellion to constitute a complex crime, for the constitutive acts and intent would be unrelated to each other. He would be held liable for separate crimes, and these cannot be merged into a juridical whole.

HELD:


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-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 and, as above explained, for the murder, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, to not less than 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor and not more than 18 years of reclusion temporal; to indemnify the heirs of Policarpio Tibay in the sum of P6,000; and to pay the costs.

I hope this helps.

Jeff David