topic in the syllabus: People vs. Amado Hernandez
PEOPLE VS. AMADO HERNANDEZ
The following evidence were presented against the accused Henandez:
Documents which proved that Amado V. Hernandez used the aliases “Victor”, or was referred to as “Victor” or “Soliman”.
(a) Letter dated April 23, 1950 (signed) by Victor addressed to Julie telling the latter of his sympathies for other communists, describing his experiences with Communists abroad, telling Julie to dispose of materials that may be sent by Victor. (Exh. D-2001-2004)
(b) “Paano Maisasagawa, etc.” — mentions different groups of labor unions of which Victor heads one group, consisting of the MRRCO, PTLD, PGWU, EMWU and IRWU (Exh. C-2001-2008) Cadres assigned to different industries. (Exh. V-40-41)
(c) Handwritten certificate of Honofre Mangila states that he knew Amado Hernandez as Victor from co-party members Hugo and Ely. (Exh. LL)
(d) Letter of Elias to Ka Eto requesting the latter to deliver attached letter to Victor. (Exh. 1103)
(e) Saulo’s letter about his escape, asks Victor why his press statement was not published in the newspapers. (Exh. C-362) Letter was however published by Hernandez in the Daily Mirror.
(f) Letter of Taruc to Maclang directing the latter to give copy of Huk Story to Victor. (Exh. D-463-64)
(g) Notes of Salome Cruz, Huk courier, stating that she went to Soliman at Pampanga St. to bring to the latter communications from the Communist Party. (Exh. D-1203) That Soliman was given copies of “Titis”. (Exh. D-1209)
(h) SEC directions to Politburo members, Soliman not to be involved with Nacionalista Rebels. (Exh. F-92-93. SEC)
(i) Letter of SEC to Politburo reporting that Saulo be sent out and Soliman has “tendencies of careerism and tendency to want to deal with leaders of the party”; that he should be asked to choose to go underground or fight legally. (Exh. F-562)
(j) Explanation given by Hernandez why he did not join Saulo in going underground. (Exh. V-87) (1) His election as councilor until December, 1951. (Exhs. V-42, W-9) (2) His election as President of CLO until August of following year. (Exhs. V-42, W-9)
Letters and Messages of Hernandez:
(a) To Lyden Henry and Harry Reich, tells Huks still fighting. (Exh. V-80)
(b) To SOBSI Jakarta — that Filipinos are joining other communist countries of the East. (Exh. V-82)
(c) Press release on Saulo’s disappearance published by Amado Hernandez. (Exh. W-116-120)
(d) To Hugh and Eddie, July 8, 1949 — Extends greetings to National Union of Marine Cooks and Stewards, states that labor has one common struggle — “the liberation of all the peoples from the chains of tyranny, fascism and imperialism”. (Exh. V-259)
(e) To Kas. Pablo and Estrada – talks of the fight – fight of labor. (Exh. V-85-89)
(f) Appeal to the Women and Asia. (Exh. V-5-10)
(g) Letter to Julie (Exh. V-2001-2004)
(h) Letter to Chan Lieu – states that leaders during the war are being persecuted, like Taruc. Tells of reward of P100,000.00 on Taruc’s head. (Exh. X-85-88)
(i) Letter to John Gates of the Daily Worker — condemns Wall Street maneuvers; corruption and graft in Quirino administration, etc. (Exh. V-83)
(j) Cablegram: CLO join ILWU commends Harry Bridges, US Communist. (Exh. V-79)
(k) Communication of Hernandez to CLO at MRRCO — Praises Balgos and Capadocia for joining the Huks. (Exhs. V-12-22, V-289)
(l) “Philippine labor Demands Justice” — Attacks czars of Wall Street and U.S. Army and Government. (Exh. V-94) .
(m) Letter to Taruc — June 28, 1948.-States solidarity among the CLO Huks and PKM. Attacks North Atlantic Pact. Praises Mao Tse Tung (contained in Exh. V-94)
(n) “Philippines Is Not A Paradise” — States of a delegation to Roxas attacking unemployment. (Exh. V-90-93)
(o) Article “Progressive Philippines” — (Exh. V-287)
(p) Article “Hands Off Korea” — (Exhs. V-488-494, 495-501, 509-515, W-25-26)
(q) “Limang Buwang Balak Sa Pagpapalakas Ng Organisasyon”. (Exh. X-35-38)
(r) Press statement of Hernandez — opposes acceptance of decorations from Greece by Romulo. (Exh. V-72)
Other Activities of Hernandez.
(a) Hernandez received clothes from Pres. Lines thru P. Campa, which clothes he sent to the field. Letters show of sending of supplies to Huks. (Exh. S-383)
(b) Hernandez was asked to furnish portable typewriter, which he did furnish to Huks. (Exh. C-364)
(c) Hernandez brought Taruc’s letter about facts and incidents about Huks to Bulosan for inclusion in Bulosan’s book. (Exh. FF-1)
(d) Had conference with Kumar Goshal a Hindu, about the Huks and their armed forces. (Photographs, Exhs. X-6 RR-54-55A)
(e) Supervised taking of pictures of sons of Capadocia and Joven. (Photographs, Exhs. T-1, RR-136-138A)
(f) Had knowledge of the going underground of Capadocia and Balgos and issued press release about their going underground. (Exh. F-91)
(g) Victor mentioned to continue as contact for Chino. (Exh. C-362)
(h) Taruc’s letter to Maclang shows that Soliman had sent 7 lessons to Taruc. (Exh. D-451-451-
Associated with fellow ranking Communist leaders.
HOWEVER, he Court found that the CLO is independent and separate from the CPP,
Defendant-appellant Amado V. Hernandez, as a Communist, was an active advocate of the principles of Communism, frequently exhorting his hearers to follow the footsteps of Taruc and join the uprising of the laboring classes against capitalism and more specifically against America and the Quirino administration, which he dubbed as a regime of puppets of American imperialism. But beyond the open advocacy of Communistic Theory there appears no evidence that he actually participated in the actual conspiracy to overthrow by force the constituted authority.
xxx Hernandez, as President of the CLO therefore, by his presidency and leadership of the CLO cannot be considered as having actually risen up in arms in rebellion against the Government of the Philippines, or taken part in the conspiracy to commit the rebellion as charged against him in the present case; he was merely a propagandist and indoctrinator of Communism, he was not a Communist conspiring to commit the actual rebellion by the mere fact of his presidency of the CLO.
That Hernandez refused to go underground is a fact which is further corroborated by the following reasons (excuses) given by him for not going underground, namely (1) that his term of councilor of the City of Manila was to extend to December, 1951; and (2) that he was elected President of the CLO for a term which was to end the year 1951.
The acts of the appellant as thus explained and analyzed fall under the category of acts of propaganda, but do not prove that he actually and in fact conspired with the leaders of the Communist Party in the uprising or in the actual rebellion, for which acts he is charged in the information.
The advocacy of Communism or Communistic theory and principle is not to be considered as a criminal act of conspiracy unless transformed or converted into an advocacy of action. In the very nature of things, mere advocacy of a theory or principle is insufficient unless the communist advocates action, immediate and positive, the actual agreement to start an uprising or rebellion or an agreement forged to use force and violence in an uprising of the working class to overthrow constituted authority and seize the reins of Government itself. Unless action is actually advocated or intended or contemplated, the Communist is a mere theorist, merely holding belief in the supremacy of the proletariat a Communist does not yet advocate the seizing of the reins of Government by it. As a theorist the Communist is not yet actually considered as engaging in the criminal field subject to punishment. Only when the Communist advocates action and actual uprising, war or otherwise, does he become guilty of conspiracy to commit rebellion. Borrowing the language of the Supreme Court of the United States:
The most important activity of appellant Hernandez appears to be the propagation of improvement of conditions of labor through his organization, the CLO. While the CLO of which he is the founder and active president, has communistic tendencies, its activity refers to the strengthening of the unity and cooperation between labor elements and preparing them for struggle; they are not yet indoctrinated in the need of an actual war with or against Capitalism. The appellant was a politician and a labor leader and it is not unreasonable to suspect that his labor activities especially in connection with the CLO and other trade unions, were impelled and fostered by the desire to secure the labor vote to support his political ambitions. It is doubtful whether his desire to foster the labor union of which he was the head was impelled by an actual desire to advance the cause of Communism, not merely to advance his political aspirations.
Insofar as the appellant’s alleged activities as a Communist are concerned, We have not found, nor has any particular act on his part been pointed to Us, which would indicate that he had advocated action or the use of force in securing the ends of Communism. True it is, he had friends among the leaders of the Communist Party, and especially the heads of the rebellion, but this notwithstanding, evidence is wanting to show that he ever attended their meetings, or collaborated and conspired with said leaders in planning and encouraging the acts of rebellion, or advancing the cause thereof. Insofar as the furnishing of the mimeograph machine and clothes is concerned, it appears that he acted merely as an intermediary, who passed said machine and clothes on to others. It does not appear that he himself furnished funds or material help of his own to the members of the rebellion or to the forces of the rebellion in the field.
But the very act or conduct of his in refusing to go underground, in spite of the apparent desire of the chief of the rebellion, is clear proof of his non-participation in the conspiracy to engage in or to foster the rebellion or the uprising.
We next consider the question as to whether the fact that Hernandez delivered speeches of propaganda in favor of Communism and in favor of rebellion can be considered as a criminal act of conspiracy to commit rebellion as defined in the law. In this respect, the mere fact of his giving and rendering speeches favoring Communism would not make him guilty of conspiracy, because there was no evidence that the hearers of his speeches of propaganda then and there agreed to rise up in arms for the purpose of obtaining the overthrow of the democratic government as envisaged by the principles of Communism.
In view of all the above circumstances We find that there is no concrete evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant (Hernandez) actually participated in the rebellion or in any act of conspiracy to commit or foster the cause of the rebellion. We are constrained, in view of these circumstances, to absolve, as We hereby absolve, the appellant Amado V. Hernandez from the crime charged, with a proportionate share of the costs de oficio.
Photo by Pexels files from the WordPress Free Stock Photo Library