Cario vs.

People and CA April 30, 1963 [GRN L-14752 April 30, 1963] FRANCISCO CARIO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS (1st Division), respondents. PETITION for review by certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion of the, Court. O. Teehankee and F. Carreon for petitioner. Acting Asst. Solicitor General P. P. de Castro and Solicitor J. R. Coquia, for the, respondents.. LABRADOR, J.: This is an appeal by way of certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 18, 1958 in, the. above entitled case, affirming the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila finding the accused Francisco Cario guilty as accomplice in the crime of rebellion, and sentencing him to suffer two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional and to pay a fine in the sum of P2,000 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. In an information dated April 28, 1952, filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila, the accused was charged with the crime of rebellion with murders, arson, robberies and kidnappings, for having,, as a high ranking officer and/or member. of the Communist Party of the Philippines and of the Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bakan otherwise known as the Hukbalahaps (Huks), agreed in conspiracy with 31 other who were charged with the same crime in other criminal cases then pending in the, Court of First Instance of Manila, for the purpose of overthrowing the Government and disrupting its activities. The specific acts of rebellion which the accused is alleged to have committed, in conspiracy with other members of the Communist Party, between the period from May 6, 1946 to September 1-2, 1950, are: 1. The ambush on May 6, 1946 of -the 10th MPC. Company in Barrio Sta. Monica, Aliaga, Nueva Ecija; resulting in the death of 10 enlisted men; 2. The raid on August 6, 1946 of the Municipal Building of Majayjay, Laguna; 3. The ambush on April 10, 1947 of 14 enlisted men in Barrio San Miguel na Munti, Talavera, Nueva Ecija, during which Lt. Pablo Cruz and Pvt. Santiago Mercado were killed; 4. The raid on the poblacion of Laur, Nueva Ecija of May 9, 1947; 5. The, ambush on August 19, 1947 of a detachment of the 155th Company, in San Miguel,, Bulacan, killing two officers thereof; 6. The raid on Pantabangan, Nueva Ecija of June 1946; 7. The, ambush on April 25, 1947 of Mr& Aurora Aragon Quezon and party at Barrio Salubsob, Bongabon, Nueva Ecija, resulting in the death of said Mrs. Quezon and other members of her party; 8. The raid on Camp Macabulos, Tarlac, Tarlac, on August 25, 1950; 9. The raid on Sta. Cruz, Laguna, of. August 26, 1950; 10. The raid on Arayat, Pampanga, of Au gust 25, 1950; 11. The seizure of September 12, 1950 of an army scout car in Barrio Mapalad, Arayat, Pampanga and the murder of two TPs on the said occasion; 12. The attack on the headquarters of a PC detachment of March 28, 1950, at Montalban, Rizal; and 13. The raid on San, Pablo, Laguna, of March 29, 1950, resulting in the death of Major Alikbusan of the government armed forces. Although the defendant-appellant expressly admitted the truth of the allegations of the commission of robberies, murders, arsons, kidnappings, etc., in- the manner and form alleged and on the dates stated in the information, he vigorously denied any participation therein. It appears from the evidence, as found by the Court, of Appeals, that the accused is a close friend of Dr. Jesus Lava (a top leader of the Communists and a wanted man with a price on his head) who was his classmate in the high school, and who later on became the godfather of the' first child of the accused. Appellant's wife and children were treated successfully by Dr. Lava in 1939 and 1943 for various illnesses free. of charge and appellant believed that his wife and children owe their lives to Dr. Lava. One night in the year 1946, Dr. Lava arrived in the house of the accused asking for shelter, stating that he was being persecuted by certain politicians from Bulacan, on suspicion that he had something to do with the killing of Mayor Roxas of Bulacan, Bulacan. Appellant gave Lava accommodation for the night, and early the following morning Lava left. The next time

that the appellant heard from Dr. Lava was in May, 1949, when he received a note from the latter asking for some cigarettes, powdered milk and canned goods. The note was brought by a boy of 12 or 15 years, named Totoy, and through him the accused sent the needed supplies. Thereafter, every now and then, the same boy brought to appellant similar notes from. Dr. Lava, requesting for food and supplies, which the accused furnished in as small amounts as he could send. In the first note of Dr. Lava, appellant was instructed to sign "Turko" all notes to be sent by him to the former and to address them to "Pinang" in order to conceal their respective identities. This exchange of notes between them and the furnishing of supplies and foodstuffs by appellant to Dr. Lava lasted from 1949 until April, 1952, when the accused was arrested and detained. The Court of Appeals also found that appellant, as a ranking employee of the National City Bank of New York was approached by a prominent member of a special unit of the Communist Party, entrusted with the carrying out, of raids, hold-ups, etc. for the purpose of raising funds, and through his assistance the amount of $6,000, part of the proceeds or loot of said special unit, was changed into pesos and then delivered to the treasurer of the acts and that he intend by said acts to commit or take part in the execution of the crime. The crime of rebellion or insurrection has been defined as follows: "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." (Revised Penal Code.) 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 acts without which said crime would not have been committed. (Decision, p. 7) Said the Court of Appeals: "There is no clear and conclusive evidence that the accused is a member of the Communist Party or of its sister organization, the 'Hukbong Mapagpalaya, Ng Bayan', but there can be no doubt that he is a sympathizer of the communists land helped them by giving supplies to Dr. Jesus Lava, and by sending notes to him, knowing that he is a top-level communist with a high price on his, head. And not only that. The accused also helped -a toplevel communist in changing six thousand dollars ($6,000) into pesos in the National City Bank of New York, of which he was a ranking official with the designation of Pro Manager. He also introduced to the bank two toplevel communists and helped them in opening checking accounts in the bank where they deposited money used in the activities of the Communist Party. "By extending such help to well-known members of the Communist Party and knowing that the avowed purpose of said party is to overthrow the government, the accused, by means of overt acts gave them aid, comfort, and assistance and, indirectly helped them in their fight against the Government. Of course the accused did not take direct participation in the acts alleged in the information, nor did he directly force or induce the communists. But granting, for the sake of argument, that appellant had the criminal intent of aiding the communist in their unlawful designs to overthrow the Government, the assistance thus extended by him may not be considered efficious enough to help in the successful prosecution of the crime of insurrection or rebellion so as to make him an accomplice therein. (People vs. Tamayo, supra.) We, therefore, find that the supposed acts found by the Court of Appeals to have been committed by the appellant do not necessarily and legitimately lead to the conclusion that he performed said acts precisely with the criminal intent of helping in the execution or, the carrying out of the rebellion of insurrection. 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 induced 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 oficio.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concur. Judgment reversed.