Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1957 > July 1957 Decisions > G.R. Nos. L-9462-63 July 11, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO YUZON

101 Phil 871:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. L-9462-63. July 11, 1957.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TEODORO YUZON alias VALLEJO, Defendant-Appellee.

Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla and Assistant Solicitor General Jose G. Bautista for Appellant.

Aurelio A. Cando for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; REBELLION WITH MURDER; ARSON, KIDNAPPING AND ROBBERY; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE WHEN PREVIOUS CONVICTION OF REBELLION WILL NOT BAR SUBSEQUENT PROSECUTION FOR KIDNAPPING AND MURDER. — In the criminal case filed in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac, defendant- appellee was charged with the crime of rebellion complexed with murder, arson, kidnapping and robbery. The prosecuting attorney agreed to a plea of guilty for the crime of simple rebellion but reserved his right to prosecute defendant-appellee for other crimes committed by him which the evidence might warrant. Without formally amending the original information, defendant-appellee pleaded guilty to the lesser crime of rebellion and was convicted of and sentenced for the said crime. In the cases at bar, defendant-appellee and his co-accused "being known members of the Huk organization," are charged with killing "one F.P. as a suspected government spy." Defendant-appellee moved to quash the information on the ground that having been previously convicted of and sentenced for the crime of simple rebellion by the Court of First Instance of Tarlac, his subsequent prosecution for the crimes included in the charge of rebellion would place him in danger of being tried and convicted again for the same offense. Held: While the term "known members of the Huk organization" may be deemed descriptive of the appellee and his companions who are still at large, and although the term used in the information "as a suspected government spy" may reveal by inference the motive of the crime, still as there is no evidence to show that the murders committed in the present case were in furtherance of the rebellion movement, the dismissal of the information was rather premature and unwarranted. If it be shown by the evidence that the murders committed by the appellee and his four other companions were linked to and were in furtherance of the rebellion, then the trial court would be justified in applying the rule laid down in the cases of People v. Hernandez, 52 Off. Gaz., 5506, and People v. Gerónimo, 53 Off. Gaz., 68. The appellee not having entered a plea to the informations filed in those cases, the appeal by the state from the order quashing the informations and the trial of the appellee to determine whether the crime committed by him was in connection with or in furtherance of the rebellion movement do not and cannot constitute double jeopardy.


D E C I S I O N


PADILLA, J.:


Teodoro Yuzon alias Vallejo, together with four other defendants whose names and whereabouts were unknown, was charged in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga with the complex crime of kidnapping with murder of Francisco Pineda and Quintin Pineda in two separate informations (crim. cases Nos. 2041 and 2041-A). The information in the first case, where the victim is Francisco Pineda, is couched in the following terms:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

That on or about the 19th day of May, 1951, at sitio Bisucul of barrio Irong, municipality of Mabalacat, province of Pampanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused being then private individuals and known members of the HUK organization, all armed with firearms, conspiring and confederating together and all helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, and for the purpose of killing one Francisco Pineda as a suspected government spy, kidnap, carry away, detain, and later, after having taken him to an uninhabited place in barrio Malamon, Magalang, Pampanga, with treachery, to wit: while the said Francisco Pineda was deprived of his liberty, with his two hands tied behind his back and was very weak as a result of the physical injuries which had been previously inflicted upon him by the said accused, stabbed him in the vital parts of his body with a bayonet, thereby inflicting upon him physical injuries which caused directly the death of said Francisco Pineda.

The information in the second case, where the victim is Quintin Pineda, is couched in similar terms.

Before arraignment Teodoro Yuzon moved to quash the informations in the two cases on the ground that he had been previously convicted of the crime of rebellion and sentenced to suffer 1 year, 1 month and 10 days of prision correcional by the Court of First Instance of Tarlac (crim. case No. 985), after withdrawing his plea of not guilty to the original information for rebellion with murder, robbery, arson and kidnapping and entering one of guilty to the crime of rebellion under the provisions of section 4, Rule 114.

The prosecution objected to the motion to quash contending that the crime with which the defendant was charged did not place him in danger of being convicted of the same offense for which he had been previously convicted and sentenced, as there is neither identity nor similarity between the complex crime of kidnapping with murder and that of rebellion; that the crime of rebellion does not necessarily include or is necessarily included in that of murder, arson, kidnapping or robbery; and that the offense with which the defendant is charged in the cases at bar was not included nor charged in the information filed in criminal case No. 985 of the Court of First Instance of Tarlac.

The Court held —

. . . that when the accused pleaded guilty and was sentenced by Judge Hilario in Criminal Case No. 985, the amended information upon which he was re-arraigned and finally convicted necessarily included the offenses of kidnapping with murder embodied in the informations in Criminal Cases Nos. 2041 and 2041-A and that, therefore, if such informations were allowed to stand, the accused would be in danger of being tried and/or convicted again of the same offense. The ground of double jeopardy is well founded,

and granted the motion to quash. The State appeals.

In his brief the Solicitor General quotes from the transcript part of the proceedings had in criminal case No. 985 of the Court of First Instance of Tarlac which is as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

If your Honor, pleases: The Army Screening Board has recommended that the accused in these cases can plead guilty to the lesser crime of simple rebellion, on the honest and sincere belief that these accused can be redeemed and return, once more to the democratic ways of life. Furthermore, if your Honor, please some of the accused have already been in jail for more than two years, and to continue the prosecution of these cases for the complex crime will mean the presentation of more than 200 witnesses in each case. In the case of Layug, we agree to his pleading to the simple crime of rebellion with reservation to prosecute him further for other crimes as the evidence may warrant taking into consideration the recommendation of the Screening Board. In this connection, therefore, all allegations in the information for the complex crime of rebellion are hereby discarded and only allegations for the crime of simple rebellion as member or executor shall remain as subsisting in the information. (Assistant Provincial Fiscal Fernando Bartolome speaking; p. 80, record.)

The record of criminal case No. 985 of the Court of First Instance of Tarlac is not before this Court. Attorney for the appellee does not, however, dispute the correctness of the quotation made by the Solicitor General.

Counsel for the State contends that all the allegations in the information filed in that case constituting the complex crime of rebellion with murder, arson, kidnapping and robbery were discarded or striken out and only the allegations constituting the crime of simple rebellion remained subsisting in the amended information. The statement of the prosecuting attorney in that case was to the effect that while he agreed to the entry by the defendant of a plea of guilty to the crime of simple rebellion, he reserved his right to prosecute the defendant for other crimes committed by him which the evidence might warrant. Counsel for the appellee contends only that the statement made by the prosecuting attorney above quoted did not amount to or constitute a further amendment of the amended information, as intended perhaps by the prosecuting attorney, because there was no such further amendment; that by entering a plea of guilty for a less serious offense included in the amended information the defendant was convicted and sentenced for the less serious offense under the unamended amended information; and that because there was no further amendment to the amended information, the defendant did not waive his right to plead double jeopardy in subsequent prosecution for crimes included in the information filed in the previous case where he entered a plea of guilty. The Solicitor General, on the other hand, claims that "by consenting to dismissal, Accused had waived his constitutional right" to be placed twice in jeopardy for the same offense, as such right may be waived. 1

But even without an amendment to the amended information filed in criminal case No. 985 of the Court of First Instance of Tarlac, which amendment would have excluded other crimes alleged therein except that of rebellion, and granting that there had been no waiver on the part of the defendant of his right not to be prosecuted for crimes included in the crime for which he had been prosecuted, convicted and sentenced, still in the information filed in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac there is no specific reference either to the date stated in the informations filed in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga or mention of the names of Francisco Pineda and Quintin Pineda. The only allegation in the informations filed in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga which might involve or include the death of Francisco Pineda and Quintin Pineda in the crime of rebellion for which the appellee had been prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac are the following: "the said accused being then private individuals and known members of the HUK organization . . . did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, and for the purpose of killing one Francisco Pineda as a suspected government spy, kidnap, carry away, detain, etc." The term "known members of the HUK organization" may be deemed descriptive of the appellee and his companions who are still at large; and although the term used in the information "as a suspected government spy" may reveal by inference the motive of the crime, still as there is no evidence to show that the murder committed in this case was in furtherance of the rebellion movement, the dismissal of the information was rather premature and unwarranted. If it be shown by the evidence that the murders committed by the appellee and his four other companions were linked to and were in furtherance of the rebellion, then the trial court would be justified in applying the rule laid down in the cases of People v. Hernandez, 99 Phil., 515, 52 Off. Gaz. 5506 and People v. Gerónimo, 100 Phil., 90, 53 Off. Gaz., 68.

The appellee not having entered a plea to the informations filed in these cases, the appeal by the State from the order quashing the informations and the trial of the appellee to determine whether the crime committed by him was in connection with or in furtherance of the rebellion movement do not and cannot constitute double jeopardy.

The order appealed from is set aside and the cases remanded to the Court of First Instance from whence they came for further proceedings in accordance with law, without pronouncement as to costs.

Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

Montemayor, J., concurs in the result.

Separate Opinions


REYES, J.B.L., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I regret to differ from the opinion of the majority. It is conceded that having been already accused and convicted in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac for the crime of rebellion, the appellant may not be tried again for the same crime or for any act absorbed in that of rebellion without infringing the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The reservation made by the prosecution in the Tarlac case, quoted in the majority opinion, was one "to prosecute him for other crimes;" hence it did not retain the privilege of prosecuting appellant again for rebellion or any of its component acts, even granting that such right could have been reserved.

In the present case, appellant and his co-accused "being known members of the Huk organization", are charged with killing "one Francisco Pineda as a suspected government spy." Descriptive or not, these words plainly charge an act of rebellion, since it is a matter of public knowledge, of which we can take judicial notice, that the Huk organization has rebelled and still is against the government; and it is not denied that the killing of government spies (actual or suspected) is an act in furtherance of the objective to overthrow the government. Hence it is clear, right now, that the crime charged in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga was an act included in the charge of rebellion in the Court of Tarlac to which the appellant has pleaded guilty and for which he has already been sentenced.

It is idle to speculate that the Fiscal may have intended to charge appellant with a private crime, a killing done with personal motives and not in furtherance of political objectives. If any such intention existed, why should the prosecuting attorney insert in the information the phrases "being known members of the Huk organization" and "killing one Francisco Pineda as a suspected government spy" ? These words have no relevancy whatever in a case of ordinary murder; on the other hand, they constitute an admission of the political motivation behind the killing and would bind the prosecution. The trial now ordered would thus seem to be pure ceremony.

To prolong appellant’s detention and his uncertainty concerning his fate until the political character of the offense charged is further evidenced, when it is so apparent on the face of the information is, I submit, a violation of the well established rule that doubts should be resolved in favor of the accused. The judgment of the Court of First Instance is correct and should be sustained.

Paras, C.J., Reyes, A., Concepcion, and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. U. S. v. Ondaro 39 Phil. 70, 73 citing ex-parte Lange, 18 Wallace (U. S.) , 163; U. S. v. Ball, 163 U. S. 662; Murphy v. Mass., 177 U. S. 155; Hopt v. Utah, 114 U. S. 488; Trono v. U. S. 199 U. S. 521.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






July-1957 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-8255 July 11, 1957 - CITY OF MANILA v. BUGSUK LUMBER CO.

    101 Phil 859

  • G.R. No. L-9303 July 11, 1957 - CIRILO PUNZALAN v. ALFREDO S. ASCAÑO, ET AL

    101 Phil 867

  • G.R. Nos. L-9462-63 July 11, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO YUZON

    101 Phil 871

  • G.R. No. L-10132 July 18, 1957 - LA TONDEÑA, INC. v. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO. INC., ET AL

    101 Phil 879

  • G.R. No. L-11583 July 19, 1957 - BENJAMIN K. GOROSPE v. MARIANO B. PEÑAFLORIDA, ET AL

    101 Phil 886

  • G.R. No. L-9109 July 24, 1957 - JAIME G. VILLANUEVA v. FLORENCIO CATINDIG

    101 Phil 893

  • G.R. No. L-10333 July 25, 1957 - ASSOCIATED WATCHMEN & SECURITY UNION (PTWO) v. UNITED STATES LINES, ET AL

    101 Phil 896

  • G.R. No. L-8679 July 26, 1957 - JUAN M. ARELLANO v. MACARIA TINIO DE DOMINGO, ET AL

    101 Phil 902

  • G.R. No. L-9578 July 30, 1957 - TOMAS RAMOS, ET AL v. HON. MANUEL ARRANZ, ET AL

    101 Phil 907

  • G.R. No. L-6622 July 31, 1957 - MARCELO DE BORJA, ET AL v. JUAN DE BORJA, ET AL

    101 Phil 911

  • G.R. No. 9331 July 31, 1957 - JOSE A. ORTALIZ v. CONRADO ECHARRI

    101 Phil 947

  • G.R. No. L-9427 July 31, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIRILO PASEDERIO, ET AL

    101 Phil 951

  • G.R. No. L-9555 July 31, 1957 - CIPRIANO LANUZA v. LAT & BELTRAN

    101 Phil 959

  • G.R. Nos. L-9593-94 July 31, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ILDEFONSO PALO, ET AL

    101 Phil 963

  • G.R. No. L-9664 July 31, 1957 - FERNANDO MANUEL v. PNB, ET AL

    101 Phil 968

  • G.R. No. L-9701 July 31, 1957 - CRESENCIA BLANCA ROSARIO, ET AL v. AMADOR ROSARIO, ET AL

    101 Phil 972

  • G.R. No. L-9776 July 31, 1957 - CARLOS T. PALANCA, ET AL v. TERESA PALANCA DEL RIO, ET AL

    101 Phil 976

  • G.R. No. L-9796 July 31, 1957 - LEON C. SANTOS v. REHABILITATION FINANCE CORP., ET AL

    101 Phil 980

  • G.R. No. L-9903 July 31, 1957 - JESUS QUIATCHON, ET AL v. MANUEL VILLANUEVA, ET AL

    101 Phil 989

  • G.R. No. L-10089 July 31, 1957 - MARCELO LAPEÑA, ET AL v. JESUS P. MORFE, ET AL

    101 Phil 997

  • G.R. No. L-10289 July 31, 1957 - BRUNA PANTALEON, ET AL v. GREGORIA CATOPO SANTOS, ET AL

    101 Phil 1001

  • G.R. No. L-10794 July 31, 1957 - AGUSTIN RAMIREZ v. ELENA R. CAUSIN, ET AL

    101 Phil 1009

  • G.R. No. L-12083 July 31, 1957 - VICENTE M. FERRER v. JOSEFIN DE ALBAN

    101 Phil 1018