O14. People V Liwanag

People vs.
Liwanag
GR No. L-27683 October 19, 1976
Facts:
In June 1942, accused Silvestre Liwanag, who grew up from the fams of
Pampanga, fired by patriotic fervor, joined HUKBALAHAP. He held the
position of commander of Squadron 18-E with the station in Lubao,
Pampanga until 1944, when he was promoted to the rank of military
inspector, a position he held until liberation when the organization was
disbanded. Before the national elections of 1946, the Hukbalahap was
revived. The accused was designated provincial commander for Pampanga
and later as vice commander of the Central Luzon Regional Command
(CLRC).
In 1948, CPP held a conference in the mountains of Norzagaray, Bulacan

attended by the accused. In that conference, it was also agreed to change
the name of "Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan" or HMB. Being a member of
the Hukbalahap and the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the
Philippines, the accused was designated as supervisor and adviser to
Squadron 18 of Field Command (FC) of the HMB operating in the province of
Bataan until early in 1956. Among his duties were to see to it that orders
and directives coming from the Regional Command (RECO) 2, comprising
the provinces of Bataan, Zambales, Pampanga, Tarlac, Pangasinan and
Bulacan, are obeyed and implemented. The accused upon orders of his
superior, planned and effected the capture of Orani, Bataan in 1949 and
Camp Makabolos in Tarlac on August 26, 1950.
In February, 1958, the accused and his men had an encounter with
Government forces in Magalang, Pampanga. The HMB sustained three
casualties, while the Government had two, including a P.C. lieutenant. The
HMB under the command of the appellant retreated to San Fernando,
Pampanga, where they stayed until about the last part of March 1958, when
they again had an encounter with the P.C. and had to retreat to Bataan.
After this encounter, the accused asked for, and was granted, leave to rest
and recuperate from his ailment which he spent in the mountain of Bataan.
Although on leave, his advice was sought after.
In the evening of June 21, 1960, a PC patrol led by then Major Wilfredo
Encarnacion captured the accused and his wife, Rosita Manuel, in their
hideout at Barrio Kalungusan, Orion, Bataan.
For violation of the provisions of RA 1700, Silvestre Liwanag was charged in

an information filed before the CFI of Bataan, for having unlawfully and
wilfully continued and remained as officer and/or ranking leader of the
outlawed Communist Party of the Philippines and its military arm, the
Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan, until his apprehension on June 21, 1960,
without having renounced his aforementioned leadership and/or membership
therein within the period prescribed by law, and, while remaining as such
leader or high-ranking member, has taken up arms against the Government
by making and conducting raids, ambuscades and armed attacks against
civilians, Philippine Constabulary, and local police forces.
On April 14, 1961, the appellant filed a motion to quash the information
upon the grounds that the defendant has been previously convicted of
rebellion based upon the same overt acts as in the instant case, and that RA
No. 1700 is an ex post facto law (bill of attainder) in that it changes the
punishment and inflicts a greater punishment or penalty than that annexed
to the crime when committed. The court denied the motion on September
11, 1961.
At the trial, the witnesses for the prosecution who testified at the preliminary
investigation were recalled and were again cross-examined by counsel for
the appellant. To bolster their case, the prosecution presented 3 additional
witnesses. The defense, on the other hand, presented the appellant himself
who stated that after his apprehension, he was charged with rebellion before
the CFI of Pampanga and found guilty thereof; and he was also charged with
murder before the CFI of Tarlac and acquitted; and that he surrendered to
the PC patrol at Calungusan, Orion, Bataan on June 21, 1960.
On being cross-examined by the court, however, the appellant admitted

membership in the Hukbalahap, and later in the HMB, from 1948 to 1960,
and did not take advantage of the amnesty offered in 1948.
The trial court rendered the decision finding the accused guilty.
Issues:
1. Whether Liwanag was deprived of his fundamental right to confront the
witnesses against him.
2. Whether the "two-witness" rule on the same overt act has not been
observed and complied with in convicting him.
3. Whether Liwanag, since he had already been convicted of rebellion,

cannot now be prosecuted for subversion.
Held:
1. NO. The Constitution guarantees an accused person the right to meet

the witnesses against him fact of face. This provision "intends to secure
the accused in the right to be tried, so far as facts provable by witnesses are
concerned, by only such witnesses as meet him face to face at the trial, who
give their opportunity of cross-examination. It was intended to prevent the
conviction of the accused upon depositions or ex-parte affidavits, and
particularly to preserve the right of the accused to test the recollection of the
witnesses in the exercise of the right of cross-examination."
Here, the testimony sought to be made part of the evidence in chief

are not ex-parte affidavits, but testimony of witnesses taken down
by question and answer during the preliminary investigation in the
presence of the accused and his counsel who subjected the said
witnesses to a rigid and close cross-examination. The inclusion of said
testimony was made subject to the right of the defendant to further cross-
examine the witnesses whose testimony are sought to be reproduce and,
pursuant to said order, the witnesses were recalled to the stand during the
trial and again examined in the presence of the appellant. Upon the fact,
there was no curtailment of the constitutional right of the accused to meet
the witnesses face to face.
2. The "two-witness" rule was observed. The law adverted to, Section 7
of RA No. 1700, provides that "No person shall be convicted of any of the
offenses penalized herein with prision mayor to death unless on the
testimony of at least two witnesses to the same overt act or on confession of
the accused in open court."
The offense is punishable by prision mayor to death if the offender is an
officer or ranking leader of the Communist Party of the Philippines or of any
subversive association a defined in Section 2 of RA No. 1700; or if such
member takes up arms against the Government.
Here, appellant's being an officer or ranking leader of the Communist Party

of the Philippines and its military arm, the HMB, is borne out by the
testimony of Santos Miguel, Melencio Guevara, Pablo Guintu, and
Lazaro Esteban, former associates of the appellant in the CPP and
the HMB. In addition, there is his sworn statement wherein the appellant
admitted membership in the Central Committee of the CPP and recounted
his prismatic rise in the "Hukbalahap" and later in the HMB, as well as the
numerous armed clashed he and his men had with the Philippine
Constabulary and police forces. There is also the testimony of Pablo
Guintu, Melencio Guevara, and Sgt. Sales Cresencia as to the gun
battle between a PC patrol and a group of HMB men led by the
appellant on June 8, 1960, in Mt. Timak, Abucay, Bataan, and on June 21,
1960, in Calungusan, Orion, Bataan, where the appellant was captured along
with his wife.
Besides, appellant admitted in court that he was a member of the

"Hukbalahap" and later the "Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan" or
HMB and fought against the government.
3. Violation of RA No. 1700, or subversion, is a crime distinct from

that of actual rebellion. The crime of rebellion is committed by rising
publicly and taking up arms against the Government for any of the purposes
specified in Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code; while the Anti-Subversion
Act (RA No. 1700) punishes affiliation or membership in a subversive
organization as defined therein. In rebellion, there must be a public uprising
and the taking of arms against the Government; whereas, in subversion,
mere membership in a subversive association is sufficient, and the taking up
of arms by a member of a subersive organization against the Government is
but a circumstance which raises the penalty to be imposed upon the
offender.
In the rebellion case, the appellant and several others were charged and
convicted of rebellion for having risen publicly and taken up arms against the
Government for the purpose of removing the allegiance of the Republic of
the Philippines or its law, the territory of the Philippines, and in furtherance
thereof, engaged in combat against the forces of the Government, destroyed
property, and committed serious violence during the period from May 28,
1946 to June 19, 1957.
In the instant case, however, the accused is prosecuted under RA No. 1700
for having remained a high ranking member of the Communist Party of the
Philippines and its military arm, the HMB, from January, 1946 to June 21,
1960, without having renounced his membership in said organizations; and,
being a member or officer of said subversive association, has taken up arms
against the Government.
Although the information charges the appellant with having taken up

arms against the Government, the same is not specific as to the
period covered by it. But, since the appellant is prosecuted for
violation of RA No. 1700 it is deducible that the period covered is
that from June 20, 1957, when the Act took effect, up to June 21,
1960, when the appellant was captured. Inasmuch as the rebellion case
covered the period up to June 19, 1957 and the period covered in the instant
case is from June 20, 1957 to June 21, 1960, the claim of having been put
twice in jeopardy for the same act cannot be sustained.
Dispositive:
UPON THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from should be, as it is,
hereby affirmed, with costs.

O14. People V Liwanag

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

O14. People V Liwanag

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

O14. People V Liwanag

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs.

GR No. L-27683 October 19, 1976

In 1948, CPP held a conference in the mountains of Norzagaray, Bulacan

For violation of the provisions of RA 1700, Silvestre Liwanag was charged in

On being cross-examined by the court, however, the appellant admitted

3. Whether Liwanag, since he had already been convicted of rebellion,

1. NO. The Constitution guarantees an accused person the right to meet

Here, the testimony sought to be made part of the evidence in chief

Here, appellant's being an officer or ranking leader of the Communist Party

Besides, appellant admitted in court that he was a member of the

3. Violation of RA No. 1700, or subversion, is a crime distinct from

Although the information charges the appellant with having taken up

You might also like