Case of People of the Philippines vs. Elias Lovedioro y Castro
G.R.No. 112235 29November1995 (People vs. Lovedioro 250 SCRA 389)
Rebellion -- Art.134 of the Revised Penal Code
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Elias Lovedioro with 3 other companions fatally shot SPO3 Jesus Lucilo while Lucilo was walking along Burgos St. away from Daraga, Albay Public Market. The victim died on the same day from massive blood loss. On November 6, 1992, Elias Lovedioro was then charged of the crime of murder, and subsequently found guilty. Lovedioro then appealed the decision, contesting the verdict of murder instead of rebellion. It was confirmed by the prosecution’s principal witness that Lovedioro was a member of the New People’s Army.
ISSUES OF THE CASE:
Was the RTC correct in holding Lovedioro liable for the crime of murder, instead of rebellion?
- Yes. Because, overt acts and purpose are essential components of the crime of rebellion, with either of these elements wanting, the crime of rebellion does not exist.
- Political motive should be established before a person charged with a common crime- alleging rebellion in order to lessen the possible imposable penalty- could benefit from the law’s relatively benign attitude towards political crimes. If no political motive is established or proved, the accused should be convicted of the common crime and not of rebellion.
- In cases of rebellion, motive relates to the act, and mere membership in an organization dedicated to the furtherance of rebellion would not, by and of itself suffice.
- The killing of the victim, as observed by the Solicitor General, offered no contribution to the achievement of the NPA’s subversive aims, in fact, there were no known acts of the victim’s that can be considered as offending to the NPA.
- Evidence shows that Lovedioro’s allegation of membership to the N.P.A was conveniently infused to mitigate the penalty imposable upon him.
HELD:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the trial court's decision dated September 14, 1993, sentencing the accused of Murder is hereby AFFIRMED, in toto.
G.R.No. 112235 29November1995 (People vs. Lovedioro 250 SCRA 389)
Rebellion -- Art.134 of the Revised Penal Code
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Elias Lovedioro with 3 other companions fatally shot SPO3 Jesus Lucilo while Lucilo was walking along Burgos St. away from Daraga, Albay Public Market. The victim died on the same day from massive blood loss. On November 6, 1992, Elias Lovedioro was then charged of the crime of murder, and subsequently found guilty. Lovedioro then appealed the decision, contesting the verdict of murder instead of rebellion. It was confirmed by the prosecution’s principal witness that Lovedioro was a member of the New People’s Army.
ISSUES OF THE CASE:
Was the RTC correct in holding Lovedioro liable for the crime of murder, instead of rebellion?
- Yes. Because, overt acts and purpose are essential components of the crime of rebellion, with either of these elements wanting, the crime of rebellion does not exist.
- Political motive should be established before a person charged with a common crime- alleging rebellion in order to lessen the possible imposable penalty- could benefit from the law’s relatively benign attitude towards political crimes. If no political motive is established or proved, the accused should be convicted of the common crime and not of rebellion.
- In cases of rebellion, motive relates to the act, and mere membership in an organization dedicated to the furtherance of rebellion would not, by and of itself suffice.
- The killing of the victim, as observed by the Solicitor General, offered no contribution to the achievement of the NPA’s subversive aims, in fact, there were no known acts of the victim’s that can be considered as offending to the NPA.
- Evidence shows that Lovedioro’s allegation of membership to the N.P.A was conveniently infused to mitigate the penalty imposable upon him.
HELD:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the trial court's decision dated September 14, 1993, sentencing the accused of Murder is hereby AFFIRMED, in toto.