Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Carino V People

    Uploaded by

    Tynny Roo Beldua
    44 views2 pages
    The document summarizes two court cases from the Philippines: 1) Francisco Carino's case, where he was charged as an accomplice to rebellion for being a member of rebel groups. The court found he did not meet the legal definition of an accomplice under Philippine law as he did not directly participate in acts of rebellion. 2) Buscayno, Sison, and Aquino's case, where they claimed rebellion was a lesser crime included in subversion. The court dismissed this, finding rebellion and subversion are separate crimes - rebellion is against public order, while subversion is a war crime aimed at overthrowing the government to establish communist rule.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Carino v People

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The document summarizes two court cases from the Philippines: 1) Francisco Carino's case, where he was charged as an accomplice to rebellion for being a member of rebel groups. The court found he did not meet the legal definition of an accomplice under Philippine law as he did not directly participate in acts of rebellion. 2) Buscayno, Sison, and Aquino's case, where they claimed rebellion was a lesser crime included in subversion. The court dismissed this, finding rebellion and subversion are separate crimes - rebellion is against public order, while subversion is a war crime aimed at overthrowing the government to establish communist rule.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    44 views2 pages

    Carino V People

    Uploaded by

    Tynny Roo Beldua
    The document summarizes two court cases from the Philippines: 1) Francisco Carino's case, where he was charged as an accomplice to rebellion for being a member of rebel groups. The court found he did not meet the legal definition of an accomplice under Philippine law as he did not directly participate in acts of rebellion. 2) Buscayno, Sison, and Aquino's case, where they claimed rebellion was a lesser crime included in subversion. The court dismissed this, finding rebellion and subversion are separate crimes - rebellion is against public order, while subversion is a war crime aimed at overthrowing the government to establish communist rule.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    L-14752 April 30, 1963


    FRANCISCO R. CARIÑO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and CA,
    respondents

    Facts:
    On April 28, 1952, being an alleged member of NPA & HUKBALAHAP, the accused was
    charged with the crime of rebellion with murders, arsons, robberies and kidnappings, for the
    purpose of overthrowing the Government and disrupting its activities.
    The RTC and CA found that the accused was an accomplice for the Crime of Rebellion or
    Insurrection.

    Issue:
    Whether, Carino is an Accomplice for the Crime of Rebellion or Insurrection

    Ruling:
    No, Article 18 of the Revised Penal Code defines accomplices, thus: ART. 18. Accomplices.
    — Accomplices are those persons who, not being included in article, cooperate in the
    execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. So that there are two elements
    required, in accordance with the definition of the term accomplice given in the Penal Code, in
    order that a person may be considered an accomplice to a criminal act, namely, that he
    takes part in the execution of the crime by previous and simultaneous acts and that he
    intends by said acts to commit or take part in the execution of the crime.

    Meanwhile, ART. 134. Rebellion or insurrection — How committed. — The crime of rebellion
    or insurrection is committed by rising publicly and taking arms against the Government for
    the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Government or its laws, the territory of
    the Philippine Islands or any part thereof, of any body of land, naval or other armed forces,
    or of depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their
    powers, or prerogatives.

    In the case at bar the appellant did not take up arms against the Government. Neither was
    he a member of the Hukbalahap organization. The Court of Appeals also found that he did
    not openly take part in the commission of the crime above defined by any other act without
    which said crime would not have been committed.

    For the foregoing considerations, we declare that the guilt of appellant as an accomplice in
    the crime of rebellion or insurrection as charged in the information has not been proved
    beyond reasonable doubt, his supposed acts not having been shown to be acts of direct
    cooperation in the execution of the crime, nor have they been introduced by a criminal intent,
    nor were they shown to be sufficiently efficacious to make appellant guilty as accomplice in
    the crime charged.

    WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed and the appellant absolved
    from the charge contained in the information. With costs de officio.
    Buscayno v. Military Commissions No. 1, 2, 6 and 25
    109 SCRA 273

    Rebellion v. Subversion

    Principle: Rebellion is a crime against public order whereas subversion, like treason, is a
    war crime.

    Facts:
    Buscayno, Sison and Aquino were charged of rebellion, subversion and murder. They
    upheld their constitutional right against double jeopardy because they alleged that rebellion
    is an element of the crime of subversion.

    Issue:
    Whether or not the Court erred in dismissing the defense of the plaintiffs. (No)

    Ruling:
    Their defense is untenable. The plaintiffs were accused of rebellion for having allegedly
    undertaken a public uprising to overthrow the government. Whereas they were accused of
    subversion for being allegedly officers and ranking members of the Communist Party and
    similar subversive groups.

    Rebellion is an offense that existed in the Penal Code for a long time. It may be committed
    by noncommunist without collaborating with the agents of an alien power. In contrast, the
    crime of subversion came into existence when the communists sought to dominate the world
    in order to establish a new social, economic and political power and is punishable by RA No.
    1700 and was superseded by PD No. 885.

    You might also like