People vs. Romagosa

Murders, robberies, and kidnappings committed as a means to or in furtherance of rebellion are absorbed by and form part of the rebellion; there is no complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnappings under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. A plea of guilty to an information charging such acts admits any independent crime alleged in a count that is not related to the rebellion, especially where the accused fails to object to the information on the ground of multiplicity.

The prosecution arose from the government's armed conflict with the Communist Party of the Philippines and the Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan (HMB), also known as the Hukbalahaps (HUKS), whose armed force was alleged to have risen publicly against the Republic. Appellant Abundio Romagosa alias David was charged in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur under an information that treated his alleged acts as a complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnappings. The appeal was related to People vs. Federico Geronimo alias Comdr. Oscar, et al., G.R. No. L-8936, decided on October 23, 1956, which had resolved the same question under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.

The Provincial Fiscal filed an information in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur accusing Abundio Romagosa alias David, together with others, of the complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnappings. The information alleged that Romagosa was a ranking officer or member of, or otherwise affiliated with, the Communist Party of the Philippines and the Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan (HMB), also known as the Hukbalahaps (HUKS), the armed force of the Communist Party, and that he and his co-accused conspired to commit rebellion by helping support, promote, maintain, direct, and/or command the Hukbalahaps to rise publicly and take arms against the Government of the Republic of the Philippines for the purpose of removing the Philippines from allegiance to its government and laws. The three counts against Romagosa were the last three of the five counts charged against Federico Geronimo, et al. in G.R. No. L-8936.

The first count alleged that on or about the years 1951 to 1952 in Pasacao, Camarines Sur, a group of armed Huks under Commander Rustum raided the house of Nemesio Palo, a police sergeant of Libmanan, Camarines Sur, and captured him; once captured, with evident premeditation, treachery, and intent to kill, they stabbed, shot, and cut the neck of Nemesio Palo, causing his instantaneous death. The second count alleged that on or about January 31, 1953, at barrio 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, seriously wounding PFC Pancracio Torrado and Eusebio Gruta, a civilian.

The third count alleged that on or about February 1954 at barrio Cotmo, San Fernando, Camarines Sur, Abundio Romagosa, one of a group of four HMBS led by accused Commander Oscar, with evident premeditation, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously killed Policarpio Tipay, a barrio lieutenant.

Upon arraignment, Romagosa entered a plea of guilty to the information. In view of the voluntary plea, the prosecution recommended that the penalty of life imprisonment be imposed, on the ground that the charge was a complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnappings and that the penalty was the maximum of the most serious crime, murder. Defense counsel argued that the proper penalty was only prision mayor because there was no such complex crime; the murders, robberies, and kidnappings being natural consequences of rebellion, the charge should be considered only as simple rebellion. On October 13, 1954, the lower court found Romagosa guilty of the complex crime, gave him the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, a P10,000 fine, indemnity of P6,000 each to the heirs of the two persons killed named in the information, and costs. Romagosa appealed, insisting that there was no crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnappings and that he should have been convicted only of simple rebellion and sentenced to prision mayor in its minimum period in view of his plea of guilty.

• No Complex Crime: Petitioner-appellant argued that there is no crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnappings, because those crimes are natural consequences of rebellion and should be considered only as simple rebellion.
• Proper Penalty: Petitioner-appellant maintained that he should have been convicted only of simple rebellion and sentenced to prision mayor in its minimum period, in view of his voluntary plea of guilty.

• Complex Crime and Penalty: The prosecution recommended that the penalty of life imprisonment be imposed on the accused on the ground that the charge was a complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnappings, for which the penalty provided by law is the maximum of the most serious crime, murder.

• Complex Crime of Rebellion: Whether murders, robberies, and kidnappings committed as a means to or in furtherance of rebellion constitute a complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnappings under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, or are absorbed by simple rebellion.
• Effect of Plea of Guilty: Whether, in view of appellant's plea of guilty, he should be deemed to have admitted only simple rebellion or also separate crimes charged in counts that are independent of and not essential acts or ingredients of rebellion.
• Penalty: Whether the penalty imposed should be for the complex crime or for simple rebellion and any independent offense, with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty.

• Complex Crime of Rebellion: No. Where murders, robberies, and kidnappings are committed as a means to or in furtherance of rebellion, they are absorbed by and form part of rebellion; the accused can be convicted only of simple rebellion. The lower court erred in holding appellant guilty of the complex crime and imposing its penalty.
• Effect of Plea of Guilty: The plea admitted simple rebellion and, as to count 3, the independent crime of murder. The first count did not charge appellant's participation; the second alleged an essential act of rebellion and was absorbed; the third charged the murder of Policarpio Tipay, which did not appear related to rebellion and constituted an independent offense. The averment of "in furtherance" was a mere conclusion and did not bar conviction for murder, absent objection to multiplicity.
• Penalty: Modified. For rebellion, 8 years prision mayor and P10,000 fine without subsidiary imprisonment under Article 38; for murder, indeterminate 10 years and 1 day prision mayor as minimum to 18 years reclusion temporal as maximum; indemnify heirs of Policarpio Tipay P6,000 solidarily with Federico Geronimo alias Commander Oscar and others adjudged guilty; costs.

• Complex Crime of Rebellion: The question whether there is a complex crime of rebellion with murder, robbery, and kidnapping under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code was the same question raised and decided in People vs. Hernandez, et al. and People vs. Geronimo. No member of the Court found reason to change his stand as expressed in Geronimo, where the majority held that where murders, robberies, and kidnappings are committed as a means to or in furtherance of the rebellion charged, they are absorbed by and form part and parcel of the rebellion, and the accused can be convicted only of simple rebellion. Consistently, the lower court erred in holding appellant guilty of the complex crime and imposing the penalty for such crime.
• Effect of Plea of Guilty: As in Geronimo, the Court considered whether the plea of guilty admitted only simple rebellion or also separate crimes charged in counts independent of and not essential acts or ingredients of rebellion. The three counts against Romagosa were exactly the same as the last three of the five counts against Federico Geronimo. The first count did not charge appellant's participation and could not be considered. The second alleged an essential act of rebellion and was absorbed by that crime. The third charged the murder of Policarpio Tipay, a barrio lieutenant; although committed within the lower court's jurisdiction, the killing did not appear related to the rebellion and constituted an independent offense. A majority of six justices maintained the view in Geronimo that by his plea of guilty, appellant admitted the independent crime of murder alleged in count 3; the averment that the crime was perpetrated "in furtherance" of the rebellion was a mere conclusion and not a bar to conviction and punishment for murder, appellant having failed at arraignment to object to the information on the ground of multiplicity of crimes charged. Therefore, appellant was guilty of two separate offenses, simple rebellion and murder.
• Penalty: Considering the mitigating effect of his plea of guilty, appellant was sentenced for rebellion to 8 years of prision mayor and a P10,000 fine, without subsidiary imprisonment pursuant to Article 38 of the Revised Penal Code; and for murder to an indeterminate sentence of not less than 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum and not more than 18 years of reclusion temporal as maximum. He was also ordered to indemnify the heirs of Policarpio Tipay P6,000 solidarily with Federico Geronimo alias Commander Oscar and other adjudged guilty of participating in the slaying, and to pay the costs.

• Absorption of Crimes in Rebellion — Where murders, robberies, and kidnappings are committed as a means to or in furtherance of the rebellion charged, they are absorbed by and form part and parcel of the rebellion. The accused can be convicted only of simple rebellion, not of a complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnappings under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Plea of Guilty and Independent Offenses — A plea of guilty admits the commission of an independent crime alleged in the information. An averment that the crime was perpetrated "in furtherance" of the rebellion is a mere conclusion and does not bar conviction and punishment for the independent offense. Failure to object to the information on the ground of multiplicity of crimes charged at arraignment permits conviction and punishment for separate offenses.
• Mitigating Circumstance of Voluntary Plea of Guilty — The voluntary plea of guilty was credited as a mitigating circumstance in imposing the penalties for both simple rebellion and murder.

• "where the crimes of murders, robberies, and kidnappings are committed as a means to or in furtherance of the rebellion charged, they are absorbed by, and form part and parcel of, the rebellion, and that therefore, the accused can be convicted only of the simple crime of rebellion." — This is the Court's statement of the majority holding in People vs. Geronimo, which it followed in holding that the lower court erred in convicting appellant of the complex crime.
• "the first count under the present information (the third count against Geronimo) does not charge appellant's participation and can not, therefore, be taken into consideration in this case; the second (the fourth count against Geronimo) alleges essential act of rebellion and is absorbed by that crime; while the third (the fifth count against Geronimo) charges the murder of one Policarpio Tipay, a barrio lieutenant, which killing, though committed within the jurisdiction of the lower court, does not appear to be related to the rebellion and hence constitutes an independent offense in itself." — This passage explains the treatment of the three counts and why only the murder count could stand as a separate offense.
• 'by his plea of guilty, appellant has admitted the commission of the independent crime of murder alleged in count 3 of the information, the averment that said crime was perpetrated "in furtherance" of the rebellion being a mere conclusion and not a bar to appellant's conviction and punishment for said offense, appellant having failed, at the arraignment, to object to the information on the ground of multiplicity of crimes charged.' — This states the ratio for convicting appellant of murder despite his plea of guilty to an information charging rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnappings.

• People vs. Federico Geronimo alias Comdr. Oscar, et al., G.R. No. L-8936, October 23, 1956 (100 Phil. 90; 53 Off. Gaz. No. 1, 68) — Principal precedent followed. The majority held that murders, robberies, and kidnappings committed as a means to or in furtherance of rebellion are absorbed by rebellion; the case also addressed the effect of a plea of guilty on independent offenses charged in the information.
• People vs. Hernandez, et al., 52 Off. Gaz., No. 11, 5506 — Cited as the case in which the same question of whether there is a complex crime of rebellion with murder, robbery, and kidnapping under Article 48 was raised and decided. The Court noted that the question in the present appeal was exactly the same as in Hernandez and Geronimo.

• Article 48, Revised Penal Code — The provision on complex crimes. The Court held that it did not make the murders, robberies, and kidnappings a complex crime with rebellion where those acts were committed as a means to or in furtherance of the rebellion; they were absorbed by simple rebellion.
• Article 38, Revised Penal Code — The Court ordered the fine for rebellion without subsidiary imprisonment pursuant to Article 38. The provision thus governed the non-imposition of subsidiary imprisonment for the fine.

Chief Justice Paras and Justices Bengzon, A. Reyes, Bautista Angelo, and Felix concurred. Justices Montemayor and Concepcion filed separate concurring and dissenting opinions.

• Justice Montemayor — Concurred and dissented for the same reasons given in his concurring and dissenting opinion in People vs. Geronimo (100 Phil. 90; 53 Off. Gaz. [1.], 68).
• Justice Labrador — Dissented for the reasons contained in the dissenting opinion of Justice M. R. Montemayor in the Hernandez case.
• Justice Endencia — Stood on his dissenting opinion expressed in the Geronimo and Hernandez cases.
• Justice Padilla — Opined that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed for the same reasons stated in his opinion in People vs. Geronimo, 100 Phil. 90; 53 Off. Gaz., 68, 92.
• Justice Concepcion — Concurred and dissented. He stressed that count 3 alleged the killing of Policarpio Tipay, a barrio lieutenant, by Romagosa, one of a group of four HMBS led by Commander Oscar, with evident premeditation, in accordance with the conspiracy to commit rebellion and as a necessary means to commit rebellion, in connection therewith and in furtherance thereof, so as to facilitate the accomplishment of the purpose. He found it difficult, if not impossible, to conclude that the killing was not related to rebellion and constituted an independent offense. Nothing in the record showed the allegation inaccurate. Because appellant was sentenced upon his plea of guilty, the Court should confine itself strictly to the allegations of the information. Had appellant pleaded not guilty, he could have objected to evidence tending to prove the killing was independent; had he moved to quash on multiplicity, denial would have been proper because only one offense was alleged. Appellant was never advised he was accused of more than one offense; conviction for murder as a distinct offense would deny due process. He dissented insofar as appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced accordingly in addition to simple rebellion.