PEOPLE V. HERNANDEZ 99 Phil.

515 (Digest)
No Complex Crime of Rebellion With Murder, Arson or Robbery
20. PEOPLE V. HERNANDEZ 99 Phil. 515

FACTS:
Amado HERNANDEZ5 (member of the CPP and President of the Congress of Labor Organizations) re-filed
for bail (previous one denied) for his conviction of rebellion complexed with murders, arsons and robberies. The
prosecution said to deny this again because the capital punishment may be imposed. The defense however
contends that rebellion cannot be complexed with murder, arson, or robbery. The information states that the
“…murders, arsons and robberies allegedly perpetrated by the accused “as a necessary means to commit the crime
of rebellion, in connection therewith and in furtherance thereof.”

ISSUE: W/N rebellion can be complexed with murder, arson, or robbery.

Held: NO!

RATIO:

Under the allegations of the amended information, the murders, arsons and robberies described therein
are mere ingredients of the crime of rebellion allegedly committed by HERNANDEZ, as means “necessary” for the
perpetration of said offense of rebellion and that the crime charged in the amended information is, therefore,
simple rebellion, not the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons and robberies. Under Article
1346 and 1357, these five (5) classes of acts constitute only one offense, and no more, and are, altogether, subject
to only one penalty. One of the means by which rebellion may be committed, in the words of said Article 135, is by
“engaging in war against the forces of the government” and “committing serious violence” in the prosecution of
said “war”. These expressions imply everything that war connotes. Since Article 135 constitute only 1 crime, Article
48 doesn’t apply since it requires the commission of at least 2 crimes.

Hernandex et al. (31 defendants), were convicted by the lower courts of rebellion, w/ multiple murder,
arsons and robberiesOrganizations they were found to be affiliated w/ (and took part in ‘rebellious’
activities w/): Congress of Labor Organizations (CLO) w/c is an instrumentality of the Communist Party of
the Philippines (PKP); Hukbong Magpalayang Bayan (HMB, a.k.a. Hukbalahaps/Huks)Defendants
apparently took arms w/ the Huks to make armed raids, sorties and ambushes, attacks against police,
constabulary and army detachments as well as innocent civilians, and, as a necessary means to
committhe crime of rebellion, in connection therewith and in furtherance thereof, they also committed
then and there committed acts of murder, pillage, looting, plunder, arson, and planned destruction of
private and public propertyThe prosecution maintains that Hernandez is charged with, and has been
convicted of, rebellion complexed with murders, arsons and robberies, for which the capital
punishment, it is claimed, may be imposed, although the lower court sentenced him merely to life
imprisonmentThe defense contends, among other things, that rebellion cannot be complexed with
murder, arson, or robbery.ISSUES:(1)WoN rebellion can be complexed w/ murder, arson, or robbery
Title: Valenzuela v. People, GR No. 160188
Subject Matter: Applications of the provisions of Article 6 of the Revised Penal
Code; Stages of theft

Facts:

While a security guard was manning his post the open parking area of a supermarket, he saw the
accused, Aristotel Valenzuela, hauling a push cart loaded with cases of detergent and unloaded
them where his co-accused, Jovy Calderon, was waiting. Valenzuela then returned inside the
supermarket, and later emerged with more cartons of detergent. Thereafter, Valenzuela hailed a
taxi and started loading the boxes of detergent inside. As the taxi was about to leave the security
guard asked Valenzuela for the receipt of the merchandise. The accused reacted by fleeing on foot,
but were subsequently apprehended at the scene. The trial court convicted both Valenzuela and
Calderon of the crime of consummated theft. Valenzuela appealed before the Court of Appeals,
arguing that he should only be convicted of frustrated theft since he was not able to freely dispose
of the articles stolen. The CA affirmed the trial court’s decision, thus the Petition for Review was
filed before the Supreme Court.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioner Valenzuela is guilty of frustrated theft.

Held:

No. Article 6 of the RPC provides that a felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its
execution and accomplishment are present. In the crime of theft, the following elements should be
present – (1) that there be taking of personal property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3)
that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the
owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidating of
persons or force upon things. The court held that theft is produced when there is deprivation of
personal property by one with intent to gain. Thus, it is immaterial that the offender is able or unable to
freely dispose the property stolen since he has already committed all the acts of execution and the
deprivation from the owner has already ensued from such acts. Therefore, theft cannot have a
frustrated stage, and can only be attempted or consummated.
Aristotle Valenzuela v. People of the
Philippines
G. R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007
Tinga, J.

FACTS:
Petitioner and Jovy Calderon were sighted outside the Super Sale Club, a supermarket within the
ShoeMart (SM) complex along North EDSA, by Lorenzo Lago (Lago), a security guard who was
then manning his post at the open parking area of the supermarket. Lago saw petitioner, who was
wearing an identification card with the mark Receiving Dispatching Unit (RDU), hauling a pushcart
with cases of detergent of the well-known Tide brand. Petitioner unloaded these cases in an open
parking space, where Calderon was waiting. Petitioner then returned inside the supermarket, and
after five (5) minutes, emerged with more cartons of Tide Ultramatic and again unloaded these boxes
to the same area in the open parking space. When Lago asked petitioner for a receipt of the
merchandise, petitioner and Calderon reacted by fleeing on foot, but Lago fired a warning shot to
alert his fellow security guards of the incident. Petitioner and Calderon were apprehended at the
scene, and the stolen merchandise recovered. Before the Court of Appeals, petitioner argued that he
should only be convicted of frustrated theft since at the time he was apprehended, he was never
placed in a position to freely dispose of the articles stolen.

ISSUE:
Is the crime committed frustrated or consummated theft?

HELD:
The crime is consummated. The following elements of theft as provided for in Article 308 of the
Revised Penal Code, namely: (1) that there be taking of personal property; (2) that said property
belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without
the consent of the owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against
or intimidation of persons or force upon things. There was no need of an intent to permanently
deprive the owner of his property to constitute an unlawful taking.

So long as the descriptive circumstances that qualify the taking are present, including animo lucrandi
and apoderamiento, the completion of the operative act that is the taking of personal property of
another establishes, at least, that the transgression went beyond the attempted stage. Insofar as we
consider the present question, unlawful taking is most material in this respect. Unlawful taking,
which is the deprivation of one’s personal property, is the element which produces the felony in its
consummated stage. At the same time, without unlawful taking as an act of execution, the offense
could only be attempted theft, if at all. With these considerations, we can only conclude that under
Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, theft cannot have a frustrated stage. Theft can only be
attempted or consummated.