DOCTRINE OF ABSORPTION

a. People vs. Labra, G.R. No. L-886, August 10, 1948

RATIONALE:

The killing of a guerilla in an element of the crime of treason for which appellant is prosecuted. The elements constituting a given crime are integral and inseparable parts of a whole.

If the accused is convicted for treason under the first information, he cannot be convicted for murder under the second information involving killing a guerilla, which act constitutes giving aid and comfort to the Japanese enemy in adherence thereof, because of the rule on double jeopardy 

The lower court erred in finding appellant guilty of the murder of Tomas Abella. The arrest and killing of Tomas Abella for being a guerrilla, is alleged in count 3 of the information, as one of the elements of the crime of treason for which appellant is prosecuted. Such element constitutes a part of the legal basis upon which appellant stands convicted of the crime of treason. The killing of Tomas Abella cannot be considered as legal ground for convicting appellant of any crime other than treason. The essential elements of a given crime cannot be disintegrated in diffugient parts, each one to stand as a separate ground to convict the accused of a different crime or criminal offense.

b. People Vs. Hernandez; G.R. No. L-6025 May 30, 1964: 

Criminal Case No. 15841- Rebellion with Multiple Murder, Arsons and Robberies (ABSOLVED)

Criminal Cases Nos. 15841 and 15479 -  rebellion with murders, arsons and kidnappings (GUILTY OF CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT REBELLION)

In the case at bar the prosecution is for actual rebellion which consists in rising publicly and taking aims against the Government for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Government or its laws, the territory of the Philippines, or any part thereof, etc., a crime defined in Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code; whereas Evangelista was charged and convicted for inciting to rebellion under Art. 138, Revised Penal Code (formerly Sec. 2, Act No. 292). As the specific charge against appellants is that of rising up in arms in actual rebellion against the Government, they cannot be held guilty of inciting the people to arms under Article 138, which is a different offense.

On the other hand, Rep. Act 1700, known as the Anti-subversion Act, which penalizes membership in any organization or association committed to subvert the Government, cannot be applied to the appellants because said Act was approved on June 20, 1957 and was not in force at the time of the commission of the acts charged against appellants (committed 1945-1950) ; the Anti-Subversion Act punishes participation or membership in an organization committed to overthrow the duly constituted Government, a crime district from that of actual rebellion with which appellants are charged.

Membership in the HMB (Hukbalahap) implies participation in an actual uprising or rebellion to secure, as the Huks pretend, the liberation of the peasants and laboring class from thraldom. By membership in the HMB, one already advocates uprising and the use of force, and by such membership he agrees or conspires that force be used to secure the ends of the party. Such membership, therefore, even if there is nothing more, renders the member guilty of conspiracy to commit rebellion punishable by law.

And when a Huk member, not content with his membership, does anything to promote the ends of the rebellion like soliciting contributions, or acting as courier, he thereby becomes guilty of conspiracy, unless he takes to the field and joins in the rebellion or uprising, in which latter case he commits rebellion.

“In short, 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.”

c. People Vs. Geronimo; G.R. No. L-8936; October 23, 1956

Any or all of the acts described in article 135 (Rebellion, Insurrection, or Coup d' etat) when committed as a means to or in furtherance of the subversive ends described in article 134, become absorbed in the crime of rebellion, and can not be regarded or penalized as distinct crimes in themselves.   In law they are part and parcel of the rebellion itself, and can not be considered as giving rise to a separate crime that, under article 48 of the Code, would constitute a complex one with that of rebellion.

Not every act of violence is to be deemed absorbed in the crime of rebellion solely because it happens to be committed simultaneously with or in the course of the rebellion.

If the killing, robbing, etc. were done for private purposes or profit, without any political motivation, the crime would be separately punishable and would not be absorbed by the rebellion.

But even then, the individual misdeed could not be taken with the rebellion to constitute a complex crime, for the constitutive acts and intent would be unrelated to each other; and the individual crime would not be a means necessary for committing the rebellion as it would not be done in preparation or in furtherance of the latter. This appears with utmost clarity in the case where an individual rebel should commit rape; certainly the latter felony could not be said to have been done in furtherance of the rebellion or facilitated its commission. in any way. The ravisher would then be liable for two separate crimes, rebellion and rape, and the two could not be merged into a juridical whole.

RULING:

Guilty of simple (non-complex) crime of rebellion under article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, arid also for the crime of murder.

d. Gonzales V. Abaya; G.R. No. 164007; 10 August 2006

RTC: all charges before the court martial against the accused…are hereby declared not service-connected, but rather absorbed and in furtherance of the alleged crime of coup d’etat.

In the meantime, the AFP approved the recommendation that those involved be prosecuted before a general court martial for violation of Article 96 (conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman) of the Articles of War. The AFP Judge Advocate General then directed petitioners to submit their answer to the charge but instead they filed with this Court the instant Petition for Prohibition praying that respondents be ordered to desist from charging them with violation of Article 96 of the Articles of War maintaining that since the RTC has made a determination in its Order that the offense for violation of Article 96 of the Articles of War is not service-connected, but is absorbed in the crime of coup d’etat, the military tribunal cannot compel them to submit to its jurisdiction.

RULING:

Doctrine of Absorption of Crimes - not applicable

The doctrine of ‘absorption of crimes’ is peculiar to criminal law and generally applies to crimes punished by the same statute, unlike here where different statutes are involved. Secondly, the doctrine applies only if the trial court has jurisdiction over both offences. Here, Section 1 of R.A. 7055 deprives civil courts of jurisdiction over service-connected offenses, including Article 96 of the Articles of War. Thus, the doctrine of absorption of crimes is not applicable to this case.

e. Enrile Vs. Amin; G.R. No. 93335; September 13, 1990

Allegations against Enrile:

a.  REBELLION COMPLEXED WITH MURDER

b. violation of  PD No. 1829 (for harboring and concealing Honasan, suspect of a crime, in his house)

ISSUE:

WoN Enrile could be separately charged for violation of PD No. 1829 notwithstanding the

rebellion case earlier filed against him.

HELD/RATIO:

- NO! The violation of PD No. 1829 is ABSORBED in the crime of rebellion.

As can be readily seen, the factual allegations supporting the rebellion charge constitute or include the very incident which gave rise to the charge of the violation under Presidential Decree No. 1829. 

Department of Justice resolution there is only one crime of rebellion complexed with murder and multiple frustrated murder but there could be 101 separate and independent prosecutions for harboring and concealing" Honasan and 100 other armed rebels under PD No. 1829. The splitting of component elements is readily apparent.

Necessarily, being in conspiracy with Honasan, petitioners alleged act of harboring or concealing was for no other purpose but in furtherance of the crime of rebellion thus constitute a component thereof. it was motivated by the single intent or resolution to commit the crime of rebellion.