Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4K views

    PP v. Hernandez Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jezen Esther Pati
    People of the Philippines v. Hernandez was a 1956 Philippine Supreme Court case that established the doctrine that rebellion under Philippine law is a single offense that cannot be charged as a complex crime along with other offenses. The case involved writer Amado Hernandez, who was charged with "Rebellion with Murder, Arson and Robbery" for his alleged involvement with the Communist Party of the Philippines. The Supreme Court ruled that rebellion inherently includes crimes such as murder and arson, and granted Hernandez's petition for bail. This decision established an important precedent that rebellion constitutes a single crime.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    PP v. Hernandez Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jezen Esther Pati
    4K views2 pages
    People of the Philippines v. Hernandez was a 1956 Philippine Supreme Court case that established the doctrine that rebellion under Philippine law is a single offense that cannot be charged as a complex crime along with other offenses. The case involved writer Amado Hernandez, who was charged with "Rebellion with Murder, Arson and Robbery" for his alleged involvement with the Communist Party of the Philippines. The Supreme Court ruled that rebellion inherently includes crimes such as murder and arson, and granted Hernandez's petition for bail. This decision established an important precedent that rebellion constitutes a single crime.

    Original Title

    PP V. HERNANDEZ DIGEST.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    People of the Philippines v. Hernandez was a 1956 Philippine Supreme Court case that established the doctrine that rebellion under Philippine law is a single offense that cannot be charged as a complex crime along with other offenses. The case involved writer Amado Hernandez, who was charged with "Rebellion with Murder, Arson and Robbery" for his alleged involvement with the Communist Party of the Philippines. The Supreme Court ruled that rebellion inherently includes crimes such as murder and arson, and granted Hernandez's petition for bail. This decision established an important precedent that rebellion constitutes a single crime.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    4K views2 pages

    PP v. Hernandez Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jezen Esther Pati
    People of the Philippines v. Hernandez was a 1956 Philippine Supreme Court case that established the doctrine that rebellion under Philippine law is a single offense that cannot be charged as a complex crime along with other offenses. The case involved writer Amado Hernandez, who was charged with "Rebellion with Murder, Arson and Robbery" for his alleged involvement with the Communist Party of the Philippines. The Supreme Court ruled that rebellion inherently includes crimes such as murder and arson, and granted Hernandez's petition for bail. This decision established an important precedent that rebellion constitutes a single crime.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    People of the Philippines v. Hernandez, 99 Phil.

    Rep 515 (1956), was a case decided by


    the Philippine Supreme Court which held that the crime of rebellion under the Revised Penal
    Code of the Philippines is charged as a single offense, and that it cannot be made into
    a complex crime. While it was decided on an almost divided opinion, it nevertheless
    became a stable doctrine in Philippine jurisprudence.

    Facts

    It was the height of the Government action against communists and


    the Hukbalahap guerillas. President Elpidio Quirino, through his Defense Secretary (and later,
    President) Ramon Magsaysay intensified the campaign against them, and the crackdown
    was on against communist organizations. Due to such government action, several
    communist leaders like Luis Taruc and the Lava brothers were soon in government custody.
    On January 20, 1951, the Congress of Labor Organizations (CLO) headquarters was raided.
    Writer (and future National Artist for Literature) Amado V. Hernandez, himself a labor leader,
    was arrested on January 26 for various rebellious activities with the CLO. Upon his arrest, he
    was charged in the criminal information of “Rebellion with Murder, Arson and Robbery”. Five
    years after his arrest, Hernandez asked for bail with the court where his case was pending,
    but was denied on the basis of the nature of the offense (if the crime was complexed, the
    penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed). Thus, he filed a petition to the Supreme
    Court.

    Arguments

    The government, headed by Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla, argued that the gravity of
    the crime committed required the denial of the bail. Moreover, the complex crime charged
    by the government against Hernandez has been successfully imposed with other arrested
    communist leaders and was sentenced to life imprisonment.

    Decision

    The Supreme Court, through then Associate Justice Roberto Concepcion, ruled that
    rebellion cannot be complexed with other crimes, such as murder and arson. Rebellion in
    itself would include and absorb the said crimes, thus granting the accused his right to bail.
    Murder and arson are crimes inherent and concomitant when rebellion is taking place.
    Rebellion in the Revised Penal Code constitutes one single crime and that there is no reason
    to complex it with other crimes. As basis, the Court cited several cases convicting the
    defendants of simple rebellion although they killed several persons.
    Thus, the petition for bail was granted. On May 30, 1964, the Supreme Court acquitted
    Hernandez (People v. Hernandez (1964)).
    As of 1990, the Philippine Supreme Court again revisited the doctrine in Hernandez,
    where Juan Ponce Enrile was similarly charged with the same offense as Hernandez. The
    Supreme Court upheld anew the Hernandez decision (Enrile v. Salazar (1990)), maintaining
    that it is still good law and applicable.

    You might also like