Other Acts Committed in Pursuance of Rebellion Are Absorbed in The Crime Itself Because They Acquired A Political Character
Other Acts Committed in Pursuance of Rebellion Are Absorbed in The Crime Itself Because They Acquired A Political Character
Other Acts Committed in Pursuance of Rebellion Are Absorbed in The Crime Itself Because They Acquired A Political Character
Other acts committed in pursuance of Rebellion are absorbed in the crime itself because they acquired a political character.
Divested of its common complexion, any ordinary act, however grave, assumes a different color by being absorbed in the crime of rebellion, which carries a lighter
penalty than the crime of murder. In deciding if the crime committed is rebellion, not murder, it becomes imperative for our courts to ascertain whether or not the act
was done in furtherance of a political end.
PP v. Lavediora GR 112235 November 29, 1995
Political crimes are those directly aimed against the political order, as well as such common crimes as may be committed to achieve a political purpose. The
decisive factor is the intent or motive.
If a crime usually regarded as common, like homicide, is perpetrated for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to the Government the territory of the
Philippine Islands or any part thereof, then it becomes stripped of its “common” complexion, inasmuch as, being part and parcel of the crime of rebellion, the former
acquires the political character of the latter. (Pp. v Hernandez, 99 Phil 515)
In deciding if the crime is rebellion, not murder, it becomes imperative for our courts to ascertain whether or not the act was done in furtherance of a political end.
In such cases the burden of demonstrating political motive falls on the defense, motive being a state of mind which the accused, better than any individual,
knows…[I]t is not enough that the overt acts of rebellion are duly proven. Both purpose and overt acts are essential components of the crime. With either of these
elements wanting, the crime of rebellion legally does not exist. (Prosecutor of Zamboanga v. CA, GR 125796 Dec. 27, 2000)
(In Tumultuous Disturbance under there is public disturbance but participants are lesser in number than sedition)
In Rebellion, the purpose is always political.
In Sedition, the purpose maybe political or social. It is for this reason that there may be complexing in Sedition (PP v. Kamlon, Oct. 24, 1963), as the Political
Offense Doctrine may not apply.
Sedition is punished even if the actual sedition does not happen. It is punished even if it is still on its conspiracy stage but there is no such crime as proposal to
commit sedition, only conspiracy and inciting to sedition.
Sedition may be political or social and because it may be social, the political offense may or may not apply. It depends on the objective of the sedition.
The main difference between sedition and rebellion is that in sedition it is not necessarily armed. There is still public uprising but not necessarily armed. If there are
armed person involved in sedition, their penalty is different from those who are not armed.
So, in order to be sedition, the manner of committing is by force, intimidation or unlawful mean.
If there is public uprising but the uprising is not by force, intimidation or unlawful means, it would be constitutionally protected. It would be part of the constitutionally
protected thus it would not amount to crime. The only time that it would be a crime of sedition is when it is committed with the use of force, intimidation or other
unlawful means. So if there are utterances, even if they tend to agitate the audience but does not have the effect of inspiring them or agitating them or order that
they would commit unlawful acts, then it would still be a constitutionally protected right.
The objective need not be political.
Can Sedition be complexed?
The answer to that would depend on the objective of the sedition:
_If the purpose is POLITICAL
If the purpose of the sedition is POLITICAL, we would follow the Political Offense Doctrine, in which case there would be no separation. We would adapt the
doctrine of absorption. Neither do we complex, because we follow the doctrine of absorption. All the common crimes will be absorbed, regardless of the fact that
they carry a higher penalty.
_If the purpose is SOCIAL
But if the objective of the sedition is SOCIAL, we would not anymore apply the Political Offense Doctrine, which means that we may complex if the formula is there.
What is the formula? It could be one act resulting to two or more grave or less grave offenses; or one crime as a means to commit another. So, if any of the
formulas work, then we complex under Art. 48.
THERE IS NO SUCH CRIME INVOLVING SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME OF SEDITION. The only way we can complex Sedition is if we complex it under Art. 48.