LAUREL v MISA
During the Japanese occupation, a Filipino citizen
Laurel adhered to the enemy by giving aid and
comfort. He was arrested by Misa and imprisoned. He
filed for a petition for habeas corpus saying that he
cannot be prosecuted under Art. 114 of RPC because of
the following reasons:
> the occupation by the Japanese suspended his
allegiance to the Philippines. (that the sovereignty
of the legitimate government in the Philippines and,
consequently,the correlative allegiance of Filipino
citizens thereto was then suspended;)
>He further claims that there was a change in
sovereignty and his acts were against the
Commonwealth and not the Republic. (change of
sovereignty over these Islands upon the proclamation
of the Philippine Republic)
W/N Laurel is guilty of treason.
HELD:YES
1. Sovereignty and allegiance of Filipinos are not
suspended.
> citizen owes an absolute and permanent allegiance,
which consists in the obligation of fidelity and
obedience to his government or sovereign.
>sovereignty of the government or sovereign de
jure is not transferred thereby to the occupier.
It cannot be suspended because the existence of
sovereignty cannot be suspended without putting
it out of existence or divesting the possessor thereof
at least during the so-called period of suspension
That just as a citizen or subject of a
government or sovereign may be prosecuted for
and convicted of treason committed in a foreign
country, in the same way an inhabitant of a
territory occupied by the military forces of the
enemy may commit treason against his own
legitimate government or sovereign if he
adheres to the enemies of the latter by giving
them aid and comfort
The occupant has no power to repeal or suspend the
operation of the law of treason, essential for the
preservation of the allegiance owed by the inhabitants
to their legitimate government, or compel them to
adhere and give aid and comfort to him; because it is
evident that such action is not demanded by the
exigencies of the military service or not necessary for
the control of the inhabitants and the safety and
protection of his army, and because it is tantamount to
practically transfer temporarily to the occupant their
allegiance to the titular government or sovereign
o if an inhabitant of the occupied territory were
compelled illegally by the military occupant,
through force, threat or intimidation, to give him
aid and comfort, the former may lawfully resist and
die if necessary as a hero, or submit thereto
without becoming a traitor;
2. No change of sovereignty
Considering that section I (1) of the Ordinance
appended to the Constitution which provides that
pending the final and complete withdrawal of the
sovereignty of the United States "All citizens of the
Philippines shall owe allegiance to the United States",
was one of the few limitations of the sovereignty of the
Filipino people retained by the United States
All laws of the Philippine Islands * * * shall remain
operative, unless inconsistent with this Constitution * *
* and all references in such laws to the Government or
officials of the Philippine Islands, shall be construed, in
so far as applicable, to refer to the Government and
corresponding officials under this Constitution
change of our form of government from
Commonwealth to Republic does not affect the
prosecution of those charged with the crime of
treason committed during the Commonwealth,
because it is an offense against the same government
and the same sovereign people
o Article XVIII of our Constitution provides that "The
government
established by this constitution shall be known as the
Commonwealth of the Philippines. x x x the
Commonwealth of the Philippines shall thenceforth be
known as the Republic of the Philippines
_________________________________
NOTES:
In cases of enemy occupation, sovereignty de jure is
not
transferred to the occupier. Therefore, the allegiance of
a citizen to the legitimate government is not severed.
During the Japanese military occupation, sovereignty
was not suspended. It is the exercise of sovereignty
that was suspended.
It is during those times that a citizen should be most
loyal to his or her country.
Sir Jim on the meaning of war: it is constrained to
refer only to war against a foreign sovereign State.
Terrorism sponsored by non-states is not contemplated.
_________________________________
PEOPLE v PEREZ
Accused Susano Perez was charged convicted of
treason by the lower court for the following offenses:
1. For recruiting and apprehending numerous
girls and women against their will for the
purpose of using them to satisfy the immoral
purpose and sexual desire of Colonel Mini
(Japanese official)
2. For taking two women from their home to attend a
banquet and a dance organized in honor of Colonel
Mini in order that said Colonel might select those who
would later be taken to satisfy his carnal appetite
3. For taking another two women and raping them
before delivering both to a Japanese officer to satisfy
his carnal appetite
4. For taking commandeering another to girls on the
pretext that they were to be taken as witnesses before
a Japanese Colonel in the investigation of the case (and
claiming she was wanted in the house of her aunt )but
instead bringing them to the house of Colonel Mini
where the latter had carnal with the two women
against their will. And after the incident, accused
himself also succeeded in having carnal knowledge
with one of the girls
Basically, the charges were for furnishing women for
immoral purposes to the enemies. According to the
lower court, the acts of the accused constitute treason.
Solicitor General argued that Perez's act constituted
treason because the comfort women maintained and
preserved the soldiers' morale and is therefore an act
of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
WoN accused is guilty of treason- NO, he is guilty
of four (4) separate counts of rape
Held:
Treason
General Rule: To be treasonous the extent of aid
and comfort given to the enemies must be to
render assistance to them as enemies and not
merely as individuals and in addition, be directly in
furtherance of the enemies hostile designs.
The law of treason does not prescribe all kinds of
social, business, and political intercourse between the
belligerent occupants of the invaded country and its
inhabitants. What aid and comfort constitute
treason must depend upon their nature, degree,
and purpose.
Ex. to lend or give money to an enemy to enable him
to buy arms or ammunition to use in waging war
against the giver's country enhances his strength and
by the same count injures the interest of the
government of the giver
>Intent of disloyalty is a vital ingredient in the crime of
treason.
Accused not guilty of treason
The act of the accused of commandeering of
women to satisfy the lust of Japanese officers or men
or to enliven the entertainment held in their honor was
not treason even though the women and the
entertainment helped to make life more pleasant
for the enemies and boost their spirit.
Sexual and social relations with the Japanese did not
directly and materially tend to improve their war
efforts or to weaken the power of the Unite
States.
The acts charged were not, by fair implication,
calculated to strengthen the Japanese Empire or
its army or to cripple the defense and resistance
of the other side.
Whatever favourable effect the defendants
collaboration with the Japanese might have in their
prosecution of war was trivial, imperceptible, and
unintentional. Intent of disloyalty is a vital
ingredient in the crime of treason, which, in the
absence of admission, may be gathered from the
nature and
circumstances of each particular case.
Accused is instead guilty of rape
Accused may be punished for the rape of four
women, as principal by direct participation. Without his
cooperation in the manner above stated, the rapes
could not have been committed.
____________
Note: Aid and comfort should be material, and not
incidental, assistance to war effort.
Sir Jim: If the case were decided today, decision
might be
different. In war history, raping of the female
population always accompanied the
conquering/invasion. It is a manifestation of celebration
of the enemy's victory, and it weakens the resistance
of the invaded people.
____________
PEOPLE v ADRIANO
FACTS
- Apolinario Adriano, a Filipino citizen, was charged with
treason for joining the Makapili, a military
organization established and designed to assist
and aid militarily the Japanese Imperal forces in
the Philippines in the said enemys war efforts and
operations against the US and the Philippines
- Peoples Court found that ADRIANO participated with
the Jap soldiers in certain raids and confiscations; but
these were not established by the testimony of two
witnesses
o What the Peoples Court established under the two-
witness rule was that he was in Makapili military
uniform and with a rifle, performed duties as
sentry at the Japanese garrison and Makapili HQ
- However, even the fact of wearing uniform was
not borne out by proof of two witnesses testifying
to a single one of the various acts of treason; the
evidence presented were acts committed on
DIFFERENT dates without any two witnesses
coinciding in any one specific deed; And no two
people agreed if he was doing a routine military chore,
or just walking or eating
WON the accused is guilty of treason? NO, because of
failure to satisfy the two-witness rule on treason
The mere fact of having joined a Makapili
organization is evidence of both adherence to the
enemy and giving him aid and comfort.
II. Unless forced upon against his will, membership in
the Makapili organization imports treasonable
intent, considering the purposes for which the
organization was created, which were:
a. To accomplish the fulfillment of the obligations
assumed by the Philippines in the Pact of alliance with
the empire of
Japan
b. To shed blood and sacrifice the lives of our people in
order to eradicate Anglo-Saxon influence in East Asia
c. To collaborate unreservedly and unstintedly with the
Imperial Japanese Army and Navy in the Philippines
d. To fight the common enemies
III. At the same time, being a Makapili is itself
constitutive of an overt act. It is not necessary for
him that he went to battle or committed
nefarious acts against his country or
countrymen.
a. The crime of treason was committed if he placed
himself at the enemys call to fight side by side
with tthem when the opportune time came, even
though the opportunity never presented itself..
IV. HOWEVER, membership as a Makapili, as an overt
act, MUST be established by the deposition
of TWO witnesses.
a. Based on American materials where our law on
treason was derived, there must two direct
witnesses to the whole overt act; if it is
separable, there must be two witnesses to
each part of the overt act
i. Natural inferences, however strong or conclusive, are
unavailing as a substitute for the needed corroboration
in the form of direct testimony of another witness
for the same overt act
b. The authors of the constitutional provision of
which our treason law is a copy purposely
made conviction for treason difficult, the rule
severely restrictive
ACQUITTED
___
Notes:
Adherence to enemy is the mens rea. Giving of
aid and comfort
is the actus reus.
Ways of proving giving aid or comfort: (1) confession
in open
court, or (2) at least two witnesses testifying to the
same overt
act of giving aid or comfort
____
PEOPLE v PRIETO
 PRIETO, an undercover agent of the
Japanese(member of Japanese Military Police), assisted
in several executions of suspected guerillas, was
prosecuted for treason on 7 counts. After pleading not
guilty, PRIETO entered a plea of guilt to counts 1,2,3,
and 7 and maintained original plea to counts 4,5,6.
Count 1- intended to give aid and comfort to the
enemy, apprehended Abraham Puno, tied his hands
behind him, gave him fist blows and tortured by
placing red hot iron on his shoulders legs and
back and from there he was sent back to the Japanese
detention camp in Mandaue and detained for 7 days
Count 2- intended to give aid and comfort to the
enemy, apprehended Guillermo and Macario Ponce,
tied their hands and gave them fist blows on the
face and in other parts of the body and thereafter
detained them at the Kempei Tai Headquarters;
Count 3- intended to give aid and comfort to the
enemy, apprehended Damian and Santiago Alilin, tied
with a ope, torture and detained for 6 days.; that on
the 7th day said Damian Alilin and Santiago Alilin were
taken about kilometer from their home and the
accused did bayonet them to death;
Count 7-in conspiracy with the enemy, tortured
Antonio Soco and killed Gil Soco for guerilla activities
Special prosecutor introduce evidence only on
count 4, stating w/ reference to counts 5 and 6 that he
did no have sufficient evidence to sustain them. Two
witnesses gave evidence on count 4 but their
statements did not coincide on any single detail.
Witnesses referred to 2 different occassions.
2 witnesses testified but did not satisfy the two-witness
principle. They failed to corroborate each other.
o witness 1 (Juanito Albao)-March 1945-the accused
with other Filipino undercovers and Japanese soldiers
caught and American aviator. The witness pulled the
American on the sled. Brought the prisoner to
Kempetai headquarters
o witness 2 (Valentin Cuison)-saw the accused
following the American whose hands were tied. That
the accused struck the prisoner with a piece of rope
Trial court guilty of 5 counts of treason (counts 1, 2,
3, and 7 for "treason complexed by murder and
physical injuries" with aggrav circ; count 4 for treason).
Gave them fist blows
Placed red hot iron on shoulders, legs, back
Tied their hands behind their backs and gave them
fist blows
Sent them to detention camps
Bayoneted some of them to death
>SolGen agrees with decision except that he
says that the offense committed by PRIETO was a
complex crime of treason with homicide.
Counts 1, 2, 3 and 7 found below.
ISSUE WoN PRIETO committed a complex crime
of treason.
NO. Prieto is not liable for count 4, but liable for
counts 1,2,3 and 7 with aggravating
circumstance and mitigating. Common crimes
(Murder and Physical Inhuries) are absorbed
in treason. Prieto penalized with Recluision
Perpetua
Under the Philippine treason law and under the
United States constitution defining treason, there must
concur both adherence to the enemy and giving
him aid and comfort. One without the other does not
make treason.
The giving of aid and comfort can only be
accomplished by some kind of action (deed or
physical activity). This deed or physical activity
may be in itself is a criminal offense. When the
deed is charged as an element of treason it becomes
identified with the latter crime and can not be the
subject of a separate punishment, or used in
combination with treason to
increase the penalty as provided for in Art 48, RPC.
o Government can prosecute specifically for the
crimes murder or physical injuries but where
murder or physical injuries are charged as overt
acts of treason, they can not be regarded
separately under their general denomination.
Aggravating circumstance-use of torture and other
atrocities on the victims instead of the
usual and less painful method of execution
Mitigating circumstance-plea of guilty
__________
NOTE:
A defendant may not be made liable for
murder/physical injuries as a separate crime or in
conjunction with another offense where it is averred as
a constitutive ingredient of treason.
When the deed is charged as an element of treason,
it becomes identified with the latter crime and can not
be the subject of a separate punishment, or used in
combination with treason to increase the penalty as
article 48 of the Revised Penal Code provides.
>The brutality with which the killing or physical injuries
were carried out may be taken as an aggravating
circumstance.
_____________________________
PEOPLE v VICTORIA
VICTORIA, a member of the Intelligence Unit attached
to the Kempei Tai in Tayabas for the purpose of giving
and with the intent to give said enemy aid and
comfort:
> VICTORIA was sentenced by the lower court for
death penalty and fine of 20,000 for treason for the
following counts:
1. October 6, 1944 - VICTORIA, with 8 spies and a
Japanese soldier, went to the house of Federico
Unson and accused him of hiding guerillas. When
they were about to arrest Unson, a gerillas showed up
and killed a spy. The Japanese patrol left, but came
back the
same afternoon, arrested Unson, Perez and
Godoy, tortured them and set Unson's house on
fire. Unson and Perez sustained bayonet wounds,
were mutilated and left to rot. Godoy was never
heard of (thought to be killed as well)
2. December 21, 1944: VICTORIA accompanied
Japanese spies to the house of Jose Unson, arrested
Unson and brought him to a Japanese garrison due to a
short wave radio Unson owned. Unson was released,
but was again arrested. Jose Unson never
returned. They
saw Unson's skull in a school yard in Lukban
months after.
3. Feb 10, 1945: VICTORIA accompanied members of
the Intelligence Unit of the Kempei Tai to Felixberto
Romulo's house in Laguna and placed him under
arrest as a guerilla suspect. Felixberto also
believed to be killed.
4. Dec 21, 1944: VICTORIA accompanied the Japanese
Military Police and 2 undercover operatives to the
house of a Hermogenes Calauag and arrested him,
searched his house and brought Calauag to the
Japanese garrison where he was tortured for being
pro American and being a member of the
guerilla.
5. March 9, 1944: VICTORIA acted as an informer of the
Japanese Kempei Tai and this lead to the arrest of an
Antonio San Agustin, a guerrilla officer, who was
subsequently tortured.
6. June 1944: VICTORIA accompanied undercover
operatives to the house of Melecio Labalan, Sr. who
was arrested and tortured for being a guerrilla.
7. Feb 1945: VICTORIA as a member of Ganap (pro
Japanese party), joined Makapili organization
supporting the Imperial Japanese Forces. VICTORIA
took military training from the Japanese and
participated in the burning of a barrio in San
Pablo, Laguna upon
orders of the Japanese.
In all counts, VICTORIA defends that he is not a spy and
was only forced. He claims that he is in fact a guerilla
and tried helping Filipino prisoners.
In all counts, the lower court found VICTORIA guilty in
counts, 1,2,3,4 and 6. but the two were not proven so I
deleted them):
ISSUE: WON Victoria is guilty of treason? YES.
TREASON. Appellant contends that he was not a spy for
the Japanese and was only forced to join them in their
raids. This testimony of appellant cannot overthrow the
clear, positive, and straightforward declarations of the
witnesses for the prosecution. His contentions are
merely upshots of the wrong theory of suspended
allegiance and sovereignty.
I. Appellant's claim that he, too, was a guerrilla, had
helped the resistance movement, and in fact,
succeeded in interceding for some Filipino prisoners,
does not relieve him from criminal responsibility for the
acts he had committed as alleged in the counts in the
information which were declared proven by the
People's Court.
II. The performance of righteous action, no matter how
meritorious they may be, is not, as correctly stated by
the SolGen, a justifying, exempting, or mitigating
circumstance in the commission of wrongs.
III. And although the appellant had saved the lives of a
thousand and one persons, if he had cause the killing
of a single human being to give aid and comfort to the
enemy, he is, nonetheless a traitor.
ISSUE: WON treachery, the aid of armed persons
to insure or afford impunity, and deliberately
augmenting the crimes by causing other wrongs
not necessary in the commission thereof should
be considered aggravating circumstances in the
crime of Treason to warrant the imposition of
Death Penalty?
Majority Opinion: considered as aggravating
circumstances
Ponente: the circumstances in question are essential
elements of the treason he has committed. The crime
is of
such a nature that it may be committed by one single
act, by a series of acts, or by several series thereof, not
only in a single time, but in different times, it being a
continuous crime as was held by this Court in Guinto
vs.
Veluz (77 Phil., 801), so much so that there are some
accused of treason for just one count and there are
others
for several counts, their number not changing the
nature of the offense committed.
NO UNANIMITY ON THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH
PENALTY: Sentenced to Reclusion Perpetua and
15k fine
___
NOTE:
Doctrine: The crime of treason is of such a nature that
it may be committed by one single act, by a series of
acts, or by several series thereof, not only in a single
time, but in different times, it being a continuous
crime.
Dissent, J. Feria: Aggravating circumstances should
have been appreciated and should have warranted the
imposition of death penalty.Treachery, for one, is not an
integral element of treason. The fact that the crime of
treason may be committed by a single overt act or a
series of overt acts, committed at one and the same
time or at different times, does not, by any means,
make those circumstances essential elements of the
offense.
____
PEOPLE v TULIN
>March 2, 1991: M/T Tabangao, a cargo vessel owned
by PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation loaded
with gasoline, kerosene, and diesel oil worth P40M was
sailing off Mindoro
>Manned by 21 crew members,
>7 armed pirates boarded the vessel and had the
name changed to M/T Galilee (The pirates, including
Tulin, Loyola, and Infante, Jr., were armed with rifles,
handguns, and bolos
>The pirates was led by Emilio Changco who
represented himself as Captain Roberto Castillo
>The vessel was made to sail to Singapore while
sending misleading signals to PNOC that the ship was
undergoing repairs
>Once in Singapore, the ship met up with vessel Navi
Pride supervised by Cheong San Hiong and began
the ship to ship transfer
>Once the transfer was finished, the crew members
were released in 3 batches and were warned not to
report the incident
>Paul Gan, a Singaporean broker, offered to sell the
bunker oil for 300,000 Singaporean dollars
>Cheong argues that the court did not acquire
jurisdiction over his person because the crime was
committed outside Philippine waters
> Information charging qualified piracy or violation of
PD No. 532 (Piracy in the Philippine Waters) was filed
against accused-appellants.
ISSUE:
FIRST ISSUE: WON the trial court erred in finding that
the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that the accused-appellants committed the
crime of qualified piracy NO
There is sufficient evidence to convict appellants with
moral certainty. They did conspire
and confederate to commit the crime charged.
Greater weight is given to the categorical
identification of the accused by the
prosecution witness than to the accuseds plain denial
of participation in the commission
of the crime (People v Baccay)
There was conspiracy because all of the acts done by
the accused-appellants were well
coordinated.
SECOND ISSUE: WON RA 7659 obliterated the crime 2. Cheongs participation was indisputably one
committed by accused-appellant Cheong NO which aided or abetted Changco and his pirates
1. Art. 122 of the Revised Penal Code was not in the disposition of the stolen cargo
superseded by P.D. No. 532 - Personally directing transfer of cargo from M/T
a. Old Art. 122 committed on high seas by any person Galilee to M/T Navi Pride
not a passenger - Bought the stolen cargo for Navi Marine Services,
b. New Art. 122 as amended by R.A. No. 7659 Pte., Ltd.
widened to include the offenses - Falsified General Declarations and Crew List to ensure
committed in Philippine waters illegal transfer went through (avert detection)
c. P.D. No. 532 piracy embraces any person including f. Cargo was sold for half its value Cheong
a passenger or member of should have been aware of the irregularity
vessel in Philippine waters Nobody in his right mind would go to far away
d. Laws may exist harmoniously with each other Singapore, spend much time and money for
As to the 7 pirates transportation only to sell at the aforestated price if
a. The Court found them guilty as principals in it were legitimate sale involved.
the crime of piracy for having committed the g. Act of falsification shows that Cheong was
piracy while still in Philippine waters aware that the cargo was stolen
h. Even if under orders from a superior, the
Accused Cheong: RA 7659 impliedly superseded PD violation was committed on board a Philippine-
532. PD No. 532 has been rendered superfluous operated vessel.
because both Article 122 of the RPC and PD 532 punish i. Means carried out was equally unlawful Cheong
piracy committed in Philippine waters. In order to should have realized the nature and implications
reconcile the 2 laws, the word any person of PD 532 of the order from the superior
must be omitted such that PD 532 shall only apply to
offenders who are members of the complement or to
passengers of the vessel, whereas RA 7659 shall apply
to offenders who are neither members of the
complement or passengers of the vessel, hence,
excluding him from the coverage of the law.
SC: Article 122 of RPC provided that piracy
must be committed on the high seas by any
person not a member of its complement nor a
passenger thereof. Upon its amendment by RA
7659, the coverage of the pertinent provision
was widened to include offenses
committed in Philippines waters. Under PD 532,
the coverage embraces any person including a
passenger or member of the complement of
said vessel in the Philippine waters. Hence,
passenger or not, a member of the complement
or not, any person is covered by the law.
RA 7659 neither superseded nor amended the
provisions of piracy under PD 532. There is no
contradiction between the two. All the PD did
was to widen the coverage of the law.

WON accused-appellant Cheong can be convicted

when the acts allegedly committed by
him were done or executed outside Philippine wasters
and territory YES, CHEONG as ACCOMPLICE
a. The crime was still committed on Philippine
waters even if the vessel was eventually
brought to Singapore
b. Disposition by the pirates of the vessel and its cargo
is still deemed part of the act of piracy thus need not
be committed on Philippine waters
c. Piracy falls under Title One of Book Two which
is an exception to the rule on
territoriality in criminal law
d. Well-settled that piracy is a reprehensible crime
against the whole world
e. Guilty merely as accomplice because:
1. Trial court found insufficient evidence that Cheong
- Directly participated in the seizure of M/T Tabangao
- That he induced Changco and group to attack M/T
Tabangao
- That his act was indispensable to the attack on M/T
Tabangao
People v Dasig
3Police Officers (Manatad, Tizon and Catamora) were
handling traffic when Catamara saw 8 persons acting
suspiciously and the n decided to follow the 2 persons
that approached Manatad.
>When the men sensed that they were being followed,
they engaged him in a gun battle.
a. Manatad was quick to fall after being shot at
and shot at again to make sure he was dead
b. Catamora sought refuge in the nearby BIR office
where he saw the 2 person take Manatads gun and
shoot him again.
c. The group fled from the scene using a vehicle. Out
of the eight, Catamora testified that he can
identify Nuez because of the mole at the bridge
of his nose near the left eye (noticed while
passing him- 2-3 m away)
3. On August 16, teams of police officers captured
Dasig and Nuez while doing surveillance on a
suspected safehouse, in Cebu City (Sparrow Unit)
where they saw the group of Nuez et al trying to
escape. The police team of Captain Antonio Gorre
caught them and confiscated a .45 caliber revolver
with 3 magazines and ammunitions; the police team of
Sgt. Ronald Arnejo followed DASIG who
subsequently threw a grenade. DASIG was shot on
his left arm and was apprehended. A gun and
ammunitions were confiscated from him.
a. Dasig was brought to a hospital for treatment, and
was offered counsel (Atty. Fortunato of the Creer Law
Office) which he agreed to
b. Dasig confessed that they killed Manatad and
that they were members of the sparrow unit
(NPA), and what their aliases were
4. Dasig interposes this appeal contending that the
procedure by which his confession was taken was
legally defective; and that he should be convicted at
most of simple rebellion and not murder
with direct assault.
1. WoN the procedure by which Dasigs
confession was taken was legally defective. NO
1. We do not find any reason to doubt the factual
findings and conclusions of the trial court
that the extra-judicial confession was voluntarily
made.
a. A confession is admissible until the accused
successfully proves that it was given as a result of
violence, intimidation, threat or promise of reward or
leniency.
2. WoN Dasig should be convicted of simple
rebellion, not murder with direct assault. YES
. Dasig should be convicted of the political crime
of simple rebellion.
a. Rebellion is committed by taking up arms against
the government, among other means.
i. Means to a subversive end (NPA objective:
overthrowing duly-constituted government)
1. He voluntarily confessed membership with
sparrow unit and his participation in the
killing (Sparrow unit - liquidation squad of the
New Peoples Army) It is therefore not hard to
comprehend that the killing of Pfc. Manatad was
committed as a means to or in furtherance of the
subversive ends of the NPA. Consequently, appellant is
liable for the crime of rebellion, not murder with direct
assault upon a person in authority
ii. Consists of many acts - vast movement of men and
net of intrigues and plots
1. Acts committed in furtherance of rebellion,
though crimes in and of themselves, are deemed
absorbed in a single crime of rebellion.
2. The act of killing a police officer, knowing too
well that the victim is a person in authority is a
mere component or ingredient of rebellion or an
act done in furtherance of the rebellion.
b. Article 134-135 of the Revised Penal Code on
rebellion:
i. ISL is not applicable to persons committed of
rebellion
ii. Imposes a penalty of prision mayor, and a fine not
exceeding P20K to any person who
promotes, maintains, or heads a rebellion
1. No evidence that Dasig headed the crime
committed.
____
ENRILE v SALAZAR
Juan Ponce Enrile was arrested based on his
commission of the complex crime of rebellion with
murder and frustrated murder.
Doctrine: The crime of rebellion absorbs all other acts.
There is no distinction on whether the other offense to
be complexed with rebellion was a means necessary to
its commission, or an unintended effect of a rebellious
activity. Rebellion cannot be complexed with any other
crime.\
In February 1990, Senator Juan Ponce Enrile was
arrested for the crime of rebellion with murder and
multiple frustrated murder. The warrant of arrest
was issued by Judge Jaime Salazar. Said crime arose
from the failed coup attempts against then
president Corazon Aquino. There was no bail set for
Enrile due to the seriousness of the crime charged
against him. Enrile was then brought to Camp Karingal.
Enrile later filed a petition for habeas corpus
questioning his detention and alleging that the crime
being charged against him is nonexistent. He insists
that there is no such crime as rebellion with murder
and multiple frustrated murder. Enrile invoked the
ruling in the landmark case of People vs
Hernandez where it was ruled that rebellion cannot be
complexed with common crimes such as murder; as
such, the proper crime that should have been charged
against him is simple rebellion which is bailable.
Enrile also questioned the regularity of the issuance of
the warrant of arrest against him. He claimed that it
only took Judge Salazar one hour and twenty minutes
(from the raffling of the case to him) to issue the
warrant. Enrile claimed that such period is so short that
it was impossible for the judge to have been able to
examine the voluminous record of the case from the
prosecutions office that being, the constitutional
provision that a judge may only issue a warrant of
arrest after personally determining the existence of
probable cause has not been complied with.
For the prosecution, the Solicitor General argued that
the Hernandez ruling should be abandoned and that it
should be ruled that rebellion cannot absorb more
serious crimes like murder.
(a) Whether the petitioner has committed
complex crimes (delito compleio) arising from an
offense being a necessary means for committing
another, which is referred to in the second
clause of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code?
NO SIMPLE REBELLION- BAIL
There is one other reason and a fundamental one at
that why Article 48 of the Penal Code cannot be applied
in the case at bar. If murder were not complexed with
rebellion, and the two crimes were punished separately
(assuming that this could be done), the following
penalties would be imposable upon the movant,
namely: (1) for the crime of rebellion, a fine not
exceeding P20,000 and prision mayor, in the
corresponding period, depending upon the modifying
circumstances present, but never exceeding 12 years
of prision mayor, and (2) for the crime of murder,
reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death,
depending upon the modifying circumstances present.
In other words, in the absence of aggravating
circumstances, the extreme penalty could not be
imposed upon him. However, under Article 48 said
penalty would have to be meted out to him, even in
the absence of a single aggravating circumstance.
Thus, said provision, if construed in conformity with the
theory of the prosecution, would be unfavorable to the
movant.
>The plaint of petitioner's counsel that he is charged
with a crime that does not exist in the statute books,
while technically correct so far as the Court has ruled
that rebellion may not be complexed with other
offenses committed on the occasion thereof, must
therefore be dismissed as a mere flight of rhetoric.
Read in the context of Hernandez, the information
does indeed charge the petitioner with a crime
defined and punished by the Revised Penal Code:
simple rebellion.
>BAIL! The Court reiterates that based on the doctrine
enunciated in People vs. Hernandez, the questioned
information filed against petitioners Juan Ponce Enrile
and the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio must be
read as charging simple rebellion only, hence
said petitioners are entitled to bail, before final
conviction, as a matter of right. The Court's earlier
grant of bail to petitioners being merely provisional in
character, the proceedings in both cases are ordered
remanded to the respondent Judge to fix the amount of
bail to be posted by the petitioners. Once bail is fixed
by said respondent for any of the petitioners, the
corresponding bail bond flied with this Court shall
become functus oficio.
>Petitioner finally claims that he was denied the right
to bail. In the light of the Court's reaffirmation of
Hernandez as applicable to petitioner's case, and of the
logical and necessary corollary that the information
against him should be considered as charging only the
crime of simple rebellion, which is bailable before
conviction, that must now be accepted as a correct
proposition. But the question remains: Given the facts
from which this case arose, was a petition for habeas
corpus in this Court the appropriate vehicle for
asserting a right to bail or vindicating its denial? The
criminal case before the respondent Judge was
the normal venue for invoking the petitioner's
right to have provisional liberty pending trial
and judgment. The original jurisdiction to grant
or deny bail rested with said respondent. The
correct course was for petitioner to invoke that
jurisdiction by filing a petition to be admitted to
bail, claiming a right to bail per se by reason of
the weakness of the evidence against him. Only
after that remedy was denied by the trial court
should the review jurisdiction of this Court have
been invoked, and even then, not without first
applying to the Court of Appeals if appropriate relief
was also available there.
OTHER ISSUES
1. Whether or not the Hernandez ruling should
be abandoned.
2. Whether or not Judge Salazar personally
determined probable cause in the case at bar.
HELD:
1. No, the said case is still good law. The Supreme
Court also noted that there was actually a previous law
(P.D. 942) which sought to abandon the Hernandez
doctrine. The said law provided that graver crimes may
not be complexed with rebellion. However, President
Corazon Aquino repealed said law (by virtue of the
power granted to her by the 1986 Freedom
Constitution). That being, the Hernandez doctrine,
which reflects the rebellion law under the Revised
Penal Code, still stands. The courts cannot change this
because courts can only interpret laws. Only Congress
can change the rebellion law (which the SC suggested
in order to strengthen the rebellion law). But as it
stands, Enrile is correct, there is no such crime as
rebellion with murder. Common crimes such as murder
are absorbed. He can only be charged with rebellion
which is bailable.
2. Yes. There is nothing irregular on the fact that Judge
Salazar only took an hour and twenty minutes to issue
the warrant from the time the case was raffled to him
despite the fact that the prosecution transmitted quite
a voluminous record from the preliminary investigation
it conducted. It is sufficient that the judge follows
established procedure by personally evaluating the
report and the supporting documents submitted by the
prosecutor. Just because Judge Salazar had what some
might consider only a relatively brief period within
which to comply with that duty, gives no reason to
assume that he had not, or could not have, so
complied; nor does that single circumstance suffice to
overcome the legal presumption that official duty has
been regularly performed.
PEOPLE v HERNANDEZ
Facts: Defendant-appellant Amado Hernandez is a
bonafide member of Congress of Labor
Organizations. CLO is an affiliate of Hukbong
Magpalayang Bayan, a known group performing
rebellious activities. Hernandez was charged and
convicted of the crime of rebellion complexed with
murders, arsons and robbery and was sentenced to life
imprisonment.
> Defendants apparently took arms w/ the Huks
to make armed raids, sorties and ambushes,
attacks against police, constabulary and army
detachments as well as innocent civilians, and, as a
necessary means to commit the crime of rebellion, in
connection therewith and in furtherance thereof, they
also committed then and there committed acts of
murder, pillage, looting, plunder, arson, and planned
destruction of private and public property
The prosecution maintains that Hernandez is charged
with, and has been convicted of, rebellion complexed
with murders, arsons and robberies, for which the
capital punishment, it is claimed, may be imposed,
although the lower court sentenced him merely to life
imprisonment
The defense contends, among other things, that
rebellion cannot be complexed with murder,
arson, or robbery. Hence the motion to post bail.
ISSUE 1: WoN rebellion can be complexed w/
murder, arson, or robbery NO. Consider first the
following Articles of the RPC:
Art 48, RPC:When a single act constitutes two or more
grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a
necessary means for committing the other, the penalty
for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same
to be applied in its maximum period.
>presupposes the commission of 2 or more
crimes, does not apply when the culprit is guilty
of only one crime
>a mere participant in the rebellion, who is not a public
officer, should not be placed at a more
disadvantageous position than the promoters,
maintainers or leaders of the movement, or the public
officers who join the same, insofar as the application of
this article is concerned
Art 135; RPC: any person, merely participating or
executing the commands of others in a rebellion shall
suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum
period. The penalty is increased to prision mayor and
a fine not to exceed P20,000 for any person who
promotes, maintains or heads a rebellion or
insurrection or who, while holding any public office or
employment, takes part therein: (1) engaging in
war against the forces of the government, (2)
destroying property, or (3) committing coconut land uphill. At around 8 a.m., Cinco & Ibaya
serious violence, (4) exacting contributions
or (5) diverting public funds from the lawful
purpose for which they have been appropriated.
>Whether performed singly or collectively, these 5
classes of acts constitute only one offense, and no
more, and are, altogether, subject to only one penalty
prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P20,000.
>Since all of the acts enumerated in Art 135
constitute only ONE offense, Art 48 cannot apply
since it presupposes the existence of TWO. In no
occasion has the court ever complexed the crime of
rebellion. The rule is that the ingredients of a crime
form part and parcel thereof, and, hence, are absorbed
by the same and cannot be punished either separately
therefrom or by the application of Art 48. (court uses
several cases to show how this rules is applicable to
treason, then says the rule is even more applicable to
rebellion, basically, these violent acts are part of the
crime, they are how one commits them, they are
inherent to the crime).
>Citing Spanish and other foreign cases, the SC states
that common crimes, perpetrated in furtherance
of a political offense, are divested of their
character as common offenses and assume the
political complexion of the main crime of which
they are mere ingredients, and, consequently, cannot
be punished separately from the principal offense,
or complexed with the same, to justify the
imposition of a graver penalty.
>Further, if Art 48 were to be used in this case, it
would be unfavourable to the culprit, and Art 48
was enacted for the purpose of favoring the
culprit, not of sentencing him to a penalty more
severe than that which would be proper if the several
acts performed by him were punished separately.
SC also states that simply because one act may
constitute two or more offenses, it does not
follow necessarily that a person may be
prosecuted for one after conviction for the other,
without violating the injunction against double
jeopardy.
ISSUE 2: WoN defendants should be granted bail
YES. Since exclusion from bail in capital offenses is an
exception to the otherwise absolute right guaranteed
by the constitution, the natural tendency of the courts
has been toward a fair and liberal appreciation of the
evidence in the determination of the degree of proof
and presumption of guilt necessary to warrant a
deprivation of that right. In the evaluation of the
evidence the probability of flight is one other important
factor to be taken into account. The court took into
account the ff. things: (1) Whether it appears that in
case of conviction the Defendants criminal liability
would probably call for a capital punishment
(Answer: no clear showing); and (2) the
probablility of flight (Answer: possibility seems
remote and nil). Additionally, the decision appealed
from the opposition to the motion in question do not
reveal satisfactorily and concrete, positive act of
the accused showing, sufficiently, that his
provincial release, during the pendency of the
appeal, would jeopardize the security of the
State. PETITION FOR BAIL GRANTED.
____
PEOPL v OLIVA
>May 26, 1986: Jacinto Magbojos, Jr. went out of their
house early morning to count the coconuts in his dads
went to Magbojos house, however, they left after
learning that he was not home. A few minutes after
Magbojos got home, 4 persons entered their
house, hogtied him and took him away walking
towards the western direction
>Arturo Inopia, a farmer, testified that Ka Ambot
(Oliva) & company visited him informed him that they
were out to get Magbojos. warned him not to report to
the
Edgardo Labajata, a farmer, testified Magbojos
appeared weak & w/abrasions on both sides of his face
& can hardly talk.
>Magbojos brother, Renato, a policeman was informed
by one Levelito Tuberion that he knew where Magbojos
was buried since he was the one asked by Olivas
group to accompany them to the burial site.
Graveyard was dug & they found human bones, a
shirt, short pants, coralon rope, a brief & black rubber
band. Magbojos wife testified that these were
personal belongings of her husband.
Original charge: murder amended to kidnapping
w/murder against Oliva, Salcedo & Cinco. All of them
pleaded not guilty.
>Olivas defense: He was an NPA commanding
officer in the Masbate area. Thus, he should be
charged w/rebellion. Tuberion is in the list of shoot-to-
kill order while Inopia was member of a group called
Walang Patawad, pretending to be an NPA member for
business extortion.
WON Oliva should be charged w/rebellion.
No rebellion in this case since the killing was not
committed in furtherance of rebellion but for
personal reasons/other motives. Thus, killing
must punished separately even if committed
simultaneously w/the rebellious acts there being no
proof that the killing was in connection w/or in
furtherance of the rebellious acts. It was not
indubitably proven that Oliva was indeed a member
of the NPA.
>Circumstantial evidence proves that Ka Ambot &
Oliva are one & the same and that he took part in the
commission of the crime Alibi cant stand since it was
not impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime
and they were positively identified by witnesses
No treachery, evident premeditation & use of superior
strength since theres no proof at all on how the killing
was done
Absence of further proof, the crime of attempt under
Arts 249and 250 of the Penal Code.
HELD: RTC decision modified. Oliva & Salcedo guilty of
homicide.
___
CARIO v PEOPLE
> It was found by the CA that CARIO was a close
friend of Dr. LAVA (a top leader of the
Communists and a wanted man with a price on his
head) who was his classmate in the HS, and who later
on became the godfather of Carinos first child.
LAVA arrived in Carinos house
asking for shelter, stating that he was being
persecuted by certain politicians on suspicion that he
had something to do with the killing of Mayor Roxas of
Bulacan.
- The next time CARINO heard from LAVA was when
LAVA asked CARINO for some cigarettes, powdered
milk and canned goods. Every now and then, a boy
brought to CARINO similar notes
from LAVA.
- CA also found that CARINO, as a ranking employee of
National City Bank of NY, was approached by a
prominent member of a special unit of the CPP,
entrusted with carrying out of raids, hold-ups,
for the purpose of raising funds, and through his
assistance, $6K was changed into pesos and
delivered to the treasurer of the communist and
also assisted in opening bank accounts of two top-
level communists although their initial deposit is
below P2,000
- Sometime in 1949, CARINO was also present at a
banquet given by the Communists in honor of
Amado Hernandez, one of the supposed top-level
members of the organization
> While at the banquet, He was introduced as a
communist to Florentino Diolata, who posed as a
communist but who, in reality, was a person secretly
planted by the
Constabulary as a spy
o While being introduced, the accused stated that he
was at the command of his comrades for any
assistance for the advancement and promotion of their
common purpose
- CA affirmed TC ruling finding him guilty as an
accomplice for the crime of rebellion or insurrection.
WON Cario is guilty of rebellion. NO
SC reversed and acquitted.
Doctrine: In the crime of treason any act of giving
comfort or moral aid may be criminal, but such is
not the case with rebellion or insurrection where
the Code expressly declares that there must be a
public uprising and the taking up of arms in
rebellion or insurrection
> Cario did not take up arms against the
government; neither was he a member of the
Hukbalahap. Carios acts may be considered an
indirect help or aid in the rebellion, which the
positively doubt, the same cannot constitute
previous or simultaneous acts of uprising or
rebellion.
> a. The act of sending or furnishing cigarettes
and food supplies to a famous Huk does not
prove intention to help him in committing
rebellion or insurrection
b. Neither is an act of having $6k changed to PH
money or in helping Huks to open accounts, by
themselves show an intent or desire to
participate or help in an uprising or rebellion.
c. Appellants work as a public relations officer of
the bank of which he was an employee,
and the work above indicated performed by him was a
part of his functions as an employee of the bank.
These acts by themselves do not and cannot prove any
criminal intent of helping the Huks.
III. NO presumption of the existence of a criminal
intent can arise from the above acts which are in
themselves legitimate and legal.
a. In the crime of treason any act of giving comfort or
moral aid may be criminal, but such is not the case
with rebellion or insurrection where the Code expressly
declares that there must be a public uprising and the
taking up of arms in rebellion or insurrection.
_____
GONZALES v ABAYA
2003 Oakwood Mutiny:
o More than 300 heavily armed AFP members led by Lt.
SG Antonio Sonny Trillanes entered the premises of
Oakwood Apartments in Makati.
o They expressed on broadcast media their grievances
against PGMA and her administration, declared their
withdrawal of support for the President and demanded
her resignation.
o GMA issued state of rebellion and directed the AFP
and PNP to suppress the rebellion then taking place.
o After hours of negotiation, Trillanes, Gonzales and co.
surrendered.
> NBI recommended charging the perps with coup
dtat under Art. 134-A RPC. DOJ then filed an
informations for coup dtat before the Makati RTC.
>Later on, AFP Chief of Staff Abaya ordered a Pre-Trial
Investigation Panel to conduct an investigation to
consider filing a case against them for violating several
provisions of the
Articles of War.
> The panel recommended that following the doctrine
of absorption, those charged with coup dtat before
the RTC should not be charged before the military
tribunal for violations of the Articles of War.
->RTC issued an order stating that all charges
against the accused are not service-related but
rather absorbed in the crime of coup detat, over
which they can exercise jurisdiction.
> The JAGO (Judge Advocate Generals Office) of the
AFP recommended that the 29 officers involved in the
Oakwood Mutiny, including the petitioners, be
prosecuted before a general court martial for violations
of Art. 96 (Conduct Unbecoming of an officer and
gentleman) of the Articles of War.
- Pets filed a petition for writ of prohibition
against the AFP Chief of Staff and JAGO, arguing
that since RTC already ruled that the offense is
not service-connected but absorbed in the crime
of coup detat, the military tribunal cant
exercise jurisdiction.
- SolGen argued that the pets should be charged before
the military tribunal because the charge against them
for violating Art. 96 of the Articles of War is service-
connected as specified in RA 7055.
ISSUE: WON the military tribunal has jurisdiction.
YES.
*Relevant Law: Sec. 1, RA 7055:
Members of the AFPshall be tried by the proper civil
court, except when the offense, as determined
before arraignment by the civil court, is service-
connected, in which case, the offense shall be tried
by court martial. Provided, That the President of the
Philippines may, in the interest of justice, order or
direct at any time before arraignment that any such
crimes or offenses be tried by the proper civil
courts.
>As used in this Section, service-connected crimes of
offenses shall be limited to those defined in Arts.
54-70, Arts. 72-92, and Arts. 95-97 of
Commonwealth Act 408 (i.e. the Articles of War), as
amended.
ART. 96, Articles of War. Conduct Unbecoming an
Officer and Gentleman. Any officer, member of the
Nurse Corps, cadet, flying cadet, or probationary
second lieutenant, who is convicted of conduct
unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be
dismissed from the service.
I. Sec. 1 of RA 7055 is clear and unambiguous:
a. 1st, it gives the general rule that members of the
AFP who commit crimes under the RPC like coup
detat shall be tried by the proper civil court.
b. 2nd, provides an exception that when the offense is
service-connected, then the offense will be tried by the
court martial.
c. 3rd, states the exception to the exception wherein
the President directs before arraignment that any such
crimes of offenses be tried by the proper civil court.
- The 2nd paragraph Sec. 1 further identifies the
service-connected crimes or offenses as limited to
those defined in Arts. 54 70, Arts. 72 92, and Arts.
95-97 of the Articles of War; these are the crimes
triable by court martial.
- The officers were charged for violating Art. 96,
which is expressly provided by law to be service-
connected. The charge concerns an alleged violation
of their solemn oath as officers to defend the
constitution. It has a bearing on their
professional conduct or
behavior as military officers. Such violation
allegedly caused dishonor and disrespect to the
military profession. In short, the charge has a bearing
on their professional conduct or behavior as
military officers. Equally indicative of the service-
connected nature
pronounced the offense to be non-service related and
instead absorbed in the crime of coup detat. The RTC
in its ruling committed grave abuse of discretion
because it practically amended what is already
expressly provided by law regarding
which acts are considered service connected-
crimes or offenses.
RA 7055 did not divest the military courts of
jurisdiction to try cases involving violations of Art. 96
of the AoW
Military law is sui generis; history, experience, and the
nature of a military org dictate that the military
be subjected to a separate disciplinary system not
applicable to unarmed civilians or unarmed
government personnel
-Courts-martial form part of the disciplinary system
that ensures the Presidents control, and thus civilian
supremacy, over the military. At the apex of this
disciplinary system is the President who
exercises review powers over decisions of courts-
martial.
-While the Court had intervened before in courts-
martial or similar proceedings, it did so sparingly and
only to release a military personnel illegally detained or
to correct objectionable procedures. The Court has
never suppressed court-martial proceedings on the
ground that the offense charged is absorbed and in
furtherance of another criminal charge pending with
the civil courts. The Court may now do so only if the
offense charged is not one of the service-connected
offenses specified in Section 1 of RA 7055. Such is not
the situation in the present case.
-Art. 63: disrespect toward the President, the Secretary
of National Defense, etc
-Art. 64: disrespect toward a superior officers
-Art. 67: mutiny or sedition
-Art. 96: conduct unbecoming an officer and a
gentleman
-Art. 97: conduct prejudicial to good order and military
discipline

Another indication that the offense is service-

connected is the prescribed penaltydismissal
from the service. Such penalty is purely
disciplinary in character, evidently intended to
cleanse the military of misfits and to preserve the
stringent standard of military discipline.
- No merit in argument that they cant be tried
by the court martial because the RTC already
PEOPLE v UMALI
Antecedent: Punzalan-Mayor, Umali-Congressman
>Narciso Umali and Marcial Punzalan were friends and
belonged to the same political faction.
>Umali became jealous of Punzalans popularity
among the people of Tiaong, and in time they
stopped being comrades and filed cases against
each other.
>In 1951, Punzalan ran for reelection. Umali
picked Epifanio Pasumbal to oppose Punzalan.
! The pre-election campaign was intense, bitter, and
ruthless. Umali spoke at political meetings, promoting
Pasumbal and, at the same time, attacked Punzalan,
accusing him of dishonesty, corruption in office, abuse
of power, etc.
! At one of those meetings Umali told the audience
not to vote for Punzalan because he would not
sit for blood will flow, and that he had already
prepared a golden coffin for Punzalan.
>Amado Mendoza was enlisted by Umali to help
in Pasumbals campaign.
On November 13, Punzalan won
THE RAID (testimony of Amado Mendoza)
November 12, the eve of the election Umali
instructed Pasumbal to contact the Huks
(HUKBALAHAP) through Commander Abeng, to kill
Punzalan. Pasumbal then went to the mountains and
held a conference with Commander Abeng, who was
agreeable to the proposition.
November 14, evening Umali brought Mendoza
to the Tiaong Elementary School and ordered
him to wait for Commander Abeng and his troops.
When they arrived, Abeng and 50 men, armed
with garlands and carbines, were led to Punzalans
house. But >Mendoza, after pointing out
Punzalans house, left the Huks.
! Later on, Mendoza heard shots and immediately
evacuated his family to their dugout in his yard.
>While doing so, he and his wife saw
Congressman Umali, holding a revolver, in the
company of Huk Commander Torio and about 20
armed men, in the lanzones grove which was owned by
Umalis father.( evidently observing and waiting for
developments)
Afterwards Umali and his companions left in the
direction of Taguan, by way of the railroad tracks.
Commander Abeng and his troops went towards
Punzalans house and attacked it with automatic
weapons, hand grenades, and even with bottles
filled with gasoline.
The raid burned and destroyed the house of
Mayor Punzalan, and two nearby houses. It
resulted in the death of three people, and the
wounding of a patrolman and five civilians. Some of the
raiders
also engaged in looting and robbing one house and two
Chinese stores.
>Mrs. Punzalan heard the firing, hid in the bathroom
with her kids, when she heard the
grenade and noticed the fire, they went to the house of
their neighbor
Punzalan was actually in Lucena, reporting the
results of the election to the Governor.
ISSUE: WON the accused are guilty of the
complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder,
frustrated murder, arson and robbery?
NO. They are guilty of sedition, multiple murder,
arson frustrated murder
and physical injuries.
>guilt of Umali and Punzalan (in participation)
Umali and Pasumbal claimed that they were not in
Tiaong during the raid but in the home of Pasumbal in
Taguan. The two were informed about the raid, and
considering the proximity of Taguan to Tiaong, a
distance of about seven kilometers and the stillness
and darkness of the night, the incident could have
been seen and heard from Taguan. But instead
of following a natural impulse and urge to go to
Tiaong, they fled in the opposite direction towards
Candelaria. Umali purposely avoided the road and
preferred to hike
through coconut groves. They sent no rescue
party nor did they join the army reinforcements who
were passing though Taguan on their way to Tiaong.
When they arrived at Lucena and met Col.
Gelveson, they did not ask for aid or
reinforcement but showed that they had nothing to
do with the raid. The next day, Umali left for Manila.
"The guilty man flees even if no one pursues, but the
innocent stands bold as a lion."
> Umali, Pasumbal, Abeng and Punzalan were
officers of guerilla units during the Japanese
occupation. After the occupation, Abeng joined the
dissidents. This would make a connection between
Umali and the Huks.
NOT REBELLION
Guilty of Sedition not Rebellion
Purpose of the raid and the act of the raiders in
rising publicly and taking up arms was not
exactly against the Government and for the
purpose of doing the things defined in
Art. 134 of the RPC
> The purpose was to attain by means of force,
intimidation, etc. one object, to inflict an act of hate
or revenge upon the person or property of public
official, namely, Punzalan who was then Mayor of
Tiaong (particularly to kidnap or kill Punzalan and
destroy his house)
Robbery -was not one of the purposes of the raid. The
robberies were actually committed by only some of the
raiders, as an afterthought; the three appellants did
not participate in the said act.
Multiple frustrated murder: the assault upon
policeman Pedro Lacorte with a hand grenade causing
him injuries resulting in his blindness in one eye
frustrated murder; the wounding of
Ortega, Aselo, Rivano, Garcia and Lector physical
injuries
____
PEOPLE v TAHIL of the Constabulary encouraged him to do so, and even
Datu Tahil was a member of the provincial board promised to furnish him with arms and munitions.
of Sulu. He was one of the persons who refused However, Datu Tahil could not have signed the affidavit
to pay cedula and land taxes in Patikul, Sulu. without being informed of its
- Lieutenant Angeles, a secret agent who was charged contents. Furthermore, the supposed inducement by
by Sulu Governor Carl Moore with collecting the taxes, Malone, aside from not being an excuse for committing
met with Datu Tahil to discuss his non-payment of tax. the crime, was denied by Tahil.
Datu Tahil suggested that Angeles return the next day
because he would call a meeting at his house in Liang
first to discuss the matter with his people. PRIMICIAS v FUGOSO
- Angeles came back the next day and met with Tahil Cipriano Primicias (campaign manager of Coalesced
and 70 other people. They held there a secret Minority Parties)
conference where Tahil informed Angeles that he wants to compel Valeriano Fugoso (Mayor of
was not objecting to paying tax, but the others Manila) to issue a permit for the holding of a
asked for time to do so. public meeting for petitioning the government to
- Angeles reported the secret conference to Governor redress public grievances, which was to be held in
Moore, and informed him that the extension Plaza Miranda. Fugoso denied the request because
requested for the payment of tax was only a ruse there is a reasonable ground to believe, basing
to gain time to construct a fort. upon previous utterances and upon the fact that
- Indeed, a few days after, a fort was being passions, specially on the part of the losing
constructed on a strategically located hill. groups, remains bitter and high, that similar
- Datu Tahil and his people, including co-accused Datu speeches will be delivered tending to undermine
Tarson who also refused to pay tax and was present at the faith and confidence of the people in their
the conference, gathered at the completed fort. government, and in the duly constituted authorities,
- They then began to do propaganda to extend which might threaten breaches of the peace and a
their movement to abolish land tax, the privilege disruption of public order." Courts compelled Fugoso to
of carrying arms and the removal of certain issue the permit on the grounds that Fugoso did not
provincial officials including Gov. Moore, with the have sole and complete discretion (police power) to
threat of using force if their requests were not regulate the right to peacefully assemble.
granted. Doctrine: The only way the right to peacefully
- Datu Tahil made all his people take an oath to the assemble can be limited is through the time,
Koran to pursue their goals. They took turns guarding place and manner chosen by those who wish to
the fort under orders from Datu Tahil, who always assemble, mostly for health and safety concerns.
carried a rifle and revolver. If the clear and present danger test is not met,
- Fiscal filed a complaint for sedition against there is no right to limit assembly.
Tahil et. al. and a warrant was issued. Gov. Moore
wanted to confer with them to reach a peaceful
settlement but it was unsuccessful because he was
informed that they intended to attack him.
- The Constabulary came to the fort and tried to
execute the warrant of arrest, but Tahils group
responded with force. Fighting began and Tahils
men were repealed. Tahil later
surrendered and was then charged with rebellion.
ISSUE: WON Tahil et. al. guilty of rebellion. NO, guilty of
sedition.
Guilty of sedition and not rebellion.
a. when served w/ judicial warrant of arrest.. Tahil
refused to surrender, Tahil prevented the service of the
warrant of arrest against him by the officer
charged with this duty by means of force.
b. The acts committed only constitute sedition, being
limited to preventing the Government officials, through
force, from complying with their duties in connection
with the judicial order, the enforcement of which was
entrusted to them.
..
Tahil alleged in defense that the construction of the fort
and the meetings therein were only to discuss their
grievances against the government and pursue their
requests peacefully. However, this defense is not
supported by evidence. Datu Tahil himself admitted
that he swore his followers on the Koran, but he stated
that this was to commit themselves to pursuing their
objectives peacefully. If this were the purpose of the
oath, the necessity of taking it doesnt make sense.
>Tahil allegedly admitted in an affidavit that he
committed all these acts because Commander Malone
PEOPLE v PEREZ
Ignacio Perez, a municipal secretary, engaged in a
political discussion with several people (in the
municipality
of Pilar, Sorsogon.) about the administration of
Governor-General Wood, which resulted in Perez
shouting several times, "The Filipinos, like myself,
must use bolos for cutting off Wood's head for
having recommended a bad thing for the
Filipinos, for he has killed our independence." For
maligning the name of the Chief Executive of the
Philippine Islands, he was charged with Sedition
> He was charged under art 256 (begins: Any person
who, by . . . writing, shall defame, abuse,
or insult any Minister of the Crown or other person in
authority," etc.) but the court found him
guilty under Act. No. 292 of the Philippine Commission,
the Treason and Sedition Law
ISSUES/HELD: WoN Perez is guilty of sedition? YES
Perez uttered seditious words. He has made a
statement and done an act which
o tended to instigate others to cabal or meet together
for unlawful purposes
o suggested and incited rebellious conspiracies
o tended to stir up the people against the lawful
authorities
o tended to disturb the peace of the community and
the safety or order of theGovernment
o All of these various tendencies may be characterized
by section 8 of Act no. 292:
Every person who shall utter seditious words or
speeches, or who shall write, publish or circulate
scurrilous libels against the Government of the
United States or against the Government of the
Philippine Islands, or who shall print, write, publish,
utter or make any statement, or speech, or do any act
which tends to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in
executing his office or in performing his duty, or which
tends to instigate others to cabal or meet
together for unlawful purposes, or which
suggest or incites
rebellious conspiracies or which tends to stir up
the people against the lawful authorities, or
which tends to disturb the peace of the
community or the safety or order of the Government,
or who shall knowingly conceal such evil practices from
the constituted authorities, shall be punished by a fine
not exceeding two thousand dollars United States
currency or by imprisonment not exceeding two yeas,
or both, in the discretion of the court.
The words of the accused did not so much tend to
defame, abuse, or insult, a person in authority, as they
did to raise a disturbance in the community
Sedition is the raising of commotions or
disturbances in the State. It is a revolt against
legitimate authority.
Provisions of Act No. 292 must not be interpreted so
as to abridge the freedom of speech and the right of
the people peaceably to assemble and petition the
Government for redress of
grievances. Criticism is permitted to penetrate
even to the foundations of Government.
Criticism, no matter how severe, is within the
range of liberty of speech, unless the intention
and effect be seditious. When it is seditious, it must
yield to punitive measure designed to maintain the
prestige of constituted authority, the supremacy of the
constitution and the laws, and the existence of the
State
The attack on the Governor-General passes the
furthest bounds of free speech and common
decency. More than a figure of speech was
intended. There is seditious tendency in the
words used, which could easily produce
tendency in the words used, which could easily
produce disaffection among the people and a
sate of feeling incompatible with a disposition to
remain loyal to the Government and obedient to
the
laws. A seditious attack on the governor-General is
an attack on the rights of the Filipino people and on
American Sovereignty
IMPRISONED for 2 months and 1 day and pay the costs
__
Note: Sedition is the raising of commotions or
disturbances in the State. It is a revolt against
legitimate authority. Though the ultimate object of
sedition is a violation of the public peace or at least
such a course of measures as evidently engenders it,
yet it does not aim at direct and open violence against
the laws, or the subversion of the Constitution.
__________
TEXAS v JOHNSON
Johnson participated in a political demonstration to
protest the policies of the Reagan administration
and some Dallas-based corporations. After a
march through the city streets, Johnson burned an
American flag while protesters chanted. No one was
physically injured or threatened with injury, although
several witnesses were seriously offended by the flag
burning. Johnson was convicted of desecration of a
venerated object.
Doctrine: The restriction on Johnson's political
expression is content based, since the Texas statute is
not aimed at protecting the physical integrity of the
flag in all circumstances, but is designed to protect it
from intentional and knowing abuse that causes
serious offense to others. It is therefore subject to "the
most exacting scrutiny." The Government may not
prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea
merely because society finds the idea offensive or
disagreeable, even where our flag is involved.
PEOPLE v RODIL
Accused Stabbing of Philippine Constabulary
Lieutenant Guillermo Masana in Indang, Cavite. Asked
if gun in waist was licensed. Gun was confiscated and
Rodil made to receive a receipt for the gun. Refused
then stabbed the officer.
Doctrine: Aggravating circumstance of public authority
is appreciated. Clearly established that he knew they
were public officers. Accused is inferior in rank and
social status to the victim. With two aggravating
circumstances and no mitigating circumstance, the
appellant is condemned to suffer the maximum period
of reclusin temporal, the penalty prescribed for
homicide.
PEOPLE v BALBAR
Defendant-appellee allegedly entered the room where
schoolteacher Ester Gonzales was conducting her
classes, he placed his arms around her and kissed her
on the eye. She tried to flee but defendant allegedly
brought out his dagger and pursued complainant,
catching up with her before she was able to get out of
the room. Defendant embraced her again, at the same
time holding on to his "daga"(dagger). They both fell to
thefloor, as a result of which complainant sustained
slight physical injuries.
>Two informations, one for Direct Assault Upon A
Person in Authority and another for Acts of
Lasciviousness were filed. Criminal case for direct
assault was quashed because the filed complaint
lacked the information that the offender had
knowledge that the person he is attacking is a person
in authority. Only physical injury-absorbs
lasciviousness dw,
Supreme Court otherwise. Remanded for trial on
merits of direct assault case.
Held:
By express provision of law (Com. Act No. 578, now
part of Article 152 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Republic Act No. 1978), "teachers,
professors, and persons charged with the supervision
of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges
and universities shall be deemed persons in
authority ."
>Complainant was a teacher. The information
sufficiently alleges that the accused knew that fact,
since
she was in classroom and engaged in the performance
of her duties.
Doctrine: Teachers, professors, and persons charged
with the supervision of public or duly recognized
private schools, colleges and universities shall be
deemed persons in authority, in applying the provisions
of Article 148. This special classification is obviously
intended to give teachers protection, dignity,
and respect while in the performance of their
official duties. Complainant was a teacher. The
information sufficiently alleges that the accused
knew that fact, since she was in her classroom and
engaged in the performance of her duties. He
therefore knew that she was a person in authority, as
she was so by specific provision of law. It matters not
that such knowledge on his part is not expressly
alleged, complainant's status as a person in authority
being a matter of law and not of fact, ignorance
whereof could not excuse non-compliance on his
part
__
No The presence or absence of lewd designs is inferred
from the nature of the acts themselves and the
environmental circumstances.
o Considering the manner, place and time under which
the acts complained of were done, even as alleged in
the information itself, lewd designs can hardly be
attributed to accused.
o The factual setting, i.e., a schoolroom in the presence
of complainant's students and within hearing distance
of her co-teachers, rules out a conclusion that the
accused
was actuated by a lustful design or purpose or that his
conduct was lewd
o Embracing and kissing her would not necessarily
bring the case within the provision of Article 336 of the
Revised Penal Code
PEOPLE v RECTO
While trying to settle a land dispute between Linda
Rance and Cornelio Regis and investigating a break-
in at a palay bodega, the following individuals and
members of the Barangay Council:
a. Barangay Captain Percival Obre (summoned by the
police to the site)
b. Barangay Kagawad Antonio Macalipay (Chairman,
Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee)
c. Barangay Tanod Melchor Recto (just happened to
pass by the palay bodega) Thereupon, MELCHOR
began his own investigation
The group of RECTO arrived ..(aggressors) Julio
Recto(nephew of Cornelio) (accused), Cornelio
(coaccused), Dante, Melvar, Teodoro, Enrica, Nida
> ORBE advised them not to create trouble,
2. Regis began by throwing a piece of wood, Julio
approached Orbe with a knife. Orbe told him to put it
away, and thats
when Julio brought out a ~de sabog~ gun.
a. Orbe retreated, and Macalipay stepped forward with
both hands raised and said, Do not do it. Well just
settle this.
b. Julio fired at Macalipay, and Cornelio Regis flipped
his bolo at him, causing him to roll into the rice paddy.
c. Melchor Recto ran inside the bathroom of the
bodega, and while peeking out of the window
saw Julio fire at Emilio Santos (hired bodyguard
of Rance), who fell but attempted to shoot at Cornelio,
who hacked him with his bolo. KAP and MELCHOR
heard JULIO saying: Where is that kapitan?
d. Melchor ran out of the bathoom, but was hit in the
thigh with a bullet from Julio. Orbe also ran but was hit
by Julio
in the arm before getting away.
e. Macalipay and Santos died due to multiple wounds.
Orbe and Melchor got away.
3. The accused interposed self-defense, because they
were berated at, and Santos allegedly fired the first
shot. Alberto Rance was also involved in hitting them.
Julio managed to get the fun from Wilfredo Arce and
shoot at Santos.
4. TC: Found that Melchor and Orbe had been shot at
on the occasion of the performance of [their] official
duties, and ruled out treachery in the killing of Santos
because of the gun duel. Convicted Julio for murder
of Macalipay.
____
ISSUES:
1. WoN defense of self-defense and defense of relative
can prosper. - NO
2. CN 1970: WoN accused should be convicted of
qualified direct assault with frustrated homicide of
Melchor Recto (brggy tanod). - NO, no assault,
attempted homicide
3. CN 1971: WoN accused should be convicted of
qualified direct assault with frustrated
homicide.Percival Orbe (KAP) - NO, yes assault,
attempted homicide
4. CN 1972: WoN accused should be convicted of
qualified direct assault with murder.Brggy Kagawad
Macalipay- NO, yes assault, homicide
5. CN 1973: WoN accused should be convicted of
homicide.bodyguard Santos YES
______
1. Julio failed to discharge burden of proving self-
defense.
a. For self-defense, must prove the three requisites:
unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the
means used,
lack of provocation
b. For defense of a relative, must prove: unlawful
aggression, reasonable necessity, played no part in
provocation
c. Appellant is clearly the aggressor in both
occasions; without unlawful aggression on the
part of the victim,
there can be no viable self-defense or defense of
a relative.
i. Macalipay was unarmed and was trying to
pacify them
ii. Santos was only acting in self-defense
because Julio fired first
iii. No aggression ever emanated from Melchor
and Orbe, they were unarmed and clearly
running away
_______
2. CN 1970 MELCHOR: ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE
A. Direct assault is a crime against public order
and may be committed in two ways:
i. Any person who, without a public uprising, shall
employ force or intimidation for the attainment of any
of the purposes enumerated in defining the crimes of
rebellion and sedition;
1. Tantamount to rebellion or sedition WITHOUT
element of public uprising; or
ii. Any person who, without a public uprising,
shall attack, employ force, or seriously
intimidate or resist
any person in authority or any of his agents,
while engaged in the performance of official
duties, or on
the occasion of such performance;
1. More common form of assault;
2. Aggravated when:
a. Committed with a weapon;
b. Offender is a public officer or employee; or
c. Offender lays a hand upon a person in
authority.
B. An agent of a person in authority: Any person
who, by direct provision of law or by election or
by
appointment by competent authority, is charged
with the maintenance of public order and the
protection
and security of life and property, such as barrio
councilman, barrio policeman and barangay leader,
and
any person who comes to the aid of persons in
authority.
C. Melchor was an agent of a person in authority
BUT at that moment was just a mere bystander;
he was not
acting in the performance of his official duties
(he was on his way home when he passed by the
bodega) so
NOT DIRECT ASSAULT
D. Even if Julio only shot once, the nature of the de
sabog (containing several pellets inside a bullet)
inflicted
five entry wounds
i. Nature of the weapon used and the direction it
was aimed (the victims back) unmistakably
showed
appellants intent to kill.
ii. Should be ATTEMPTED homicide because the
last act necessary to produce homicide was not
performed.
____________
3. CN 1971 OBRE: QUALIFIED DIRECT ASSAULT
WITH ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE
a. Same assault discussion as above
b. Percival Obre was attacked on the occasion of
the performance of his duty (pacifying appellant
to keep the
peace) DIRECT ASSAULT
c. Orbe sustained several gunshot wounds on his
elbow, could not have caused his death;
ATTEMPTED
HOMICIDE
____
4. CN 1972 MACALIPAY: QUALIFIED DIRECT
ASSAULT WITH HOMICIDE
a. Same assault discussion as above
b. Killing was NOT attended by treachery
because:
i. Victims companions outnumbered those of the
appellant
RANCE group (victims) SPO4 Rafol, Wilfredo, spouses
Crestito, Rance, Barangay Captain Orbe (Kap),
Barangay Kagawad Macalipay, Barangay Tanod
Melchor Recto (accuseds cousin)
c. et al. (There were 16 persons in this group.)
ii. There were strained relations between the Regiss
and the Rances; confrontation was not totally
unexpected
iii. Both groups were armed
iv. They were assembled to inform them of the TC
decision to award the land to Regis, members of the
group were to start collecting landlords share
v. Appellant was seen holding a balisong before he
pulled out a gun, and Macalipay foolishly attempted to
appease
c. Victim had all the opportunity to escape or
defend himself from the aggression that was to
ensue, yet
chose not to and placed himself in a position
open to attack
d. Appellant did not deliberately choose the
mode of the attack to kill with victim with
impunity and without
risk to himself
________________
5. CN 1973 SANTOS: HOMICIDE
a. They had a gun duel
b. No mitigating or aggravating circumstances
________________________________________________
US v GARCIA
Justice Serra was presiding at the hearing of a suit
between a certain Carmen Pascual and Calixto
Espinosa.
>When the decision had been read, DEF Garcia
said We dont agree to the
decision when in fact he was not a party
thereof.
- He was asked to leave the room but when he
reached the stairway, eh turned back toward
the justice and said in a threatening manner
Well see
- When justice was on his way home, Garcia followed
him and attacked him, striking him with a cane he
was carrying and also slapping his face.
- Findings of the court based on the testimony of Judge
Serra, 3 witnesses to the scene in the court and 2
more to the assault in the street. - Alibi: assault was
not in connection with the trial in the court and that the
assault was provoked by Judge Serra to which DEF
Garcia responded in defense.
> GARCIA was tried for the crime of attempt against an
authority, alleging that he attacked and
employed force upon Manuel Serra (Justice of the
Peace), while the latter was discharging the duties
of his office o Penalized by Article 249, in connection
with Article 250, of the Penal Code
ISSUE: WON DEF Garcia is liable for the assault?
YES.
Doctrine: The Justice of the Peace is still in discharge of
his duties even after trial and/or outside the court
room. Therefore, Garcia could still be charged of Direct
Assault.
THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED A VIOLATION OF
ARTICLE 249 OF THE PENAL CODE
o By attacking an officer in the discharge of his duties
as justice of the peace
o With the third of the aggravating circumstances in
Article 250, in that he placed his hands upon an
officer of the law, for which reason the penalty was
raised to the degree fixed in the judgment
PENALTY
o Four years, two months and one day of prision
correccional, with the accessories of article 61, a
fine of P300
ALBERTO v DE LA CRUZ
In Criminal Case No. 9414, "The People of the
Philippines, plaintiff, versus Eligio Orbita, accused,"
Eligio Orbita, a Provincial guard, is prosecuted
for the crime of Infidelity in the Custody of
Prisoner under Article 224, RPC
o With great carelessness and unjustifiable negligence
left the prisoner Pablo Denaque unguarded,
thereby giving him the opportunity to run away
and escape
Defense counsel brought forth a note,
purportedly written by Gov. Armando Cledera,
asking Jose Esmeralda(asst prov warden) to send
five men to work in the construction of a fence at
his house
o Beleiving that the escape of Pablo Denaque was
made possible by the note of Gov. Cledera and that
Cledera and Esmeralda are equally guilty of the offense
for which the accused Orbita had been charged
Respondent Judge directed the Fiscals office to
cause the further investigation of the case, taking
into consideration the provisions of Article 156 in
relation to Articles 223 and 224
o Summons were issued to Gov. Esmeralda, Lorenzo
Padua, and Eligio Orbita Orbita did not appear
o No prima facie case against Governor Cledera
and Jose Esmeralda exist, hence, they cannot be
charged
Orbita filed a Motion for Reconsideration to amend
the information to include Cledera and Esmeralda.
 CFI granted the MR, considering the provisions
of Article 156 in relation to Articles 223 and 224,
RPC
Fiscal filed a motion for the reconsideration
ISSUE: WON respondent Judge committed an error in
ordering the fiscal to amend the information so as to
include Armando Cledera and Jose Esmeralda as
defendants in Criminal Case No. 9414 YES
HELD:
FISCAL BY THE NATURE OF HIS OFFICE, IS UNDER
NO COMPULSION TO FILE A PARTICULAR
CRIMINAL INFORMATION WHERE HE IS NOT
CONVINCED THAT HE HAS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT
THE ALLEGATIONS THEREOF.
The procedure should have been to appeal the
Fiscal's decision to the Ministry of Justice and/or ask for
a special prosecutor
The respondent Judge cannot determine once and for
all whether or not to include Gov.Cledera and Jose
Esmeralda in the information
Likewise, no additional fact was elicited since Eligio
Orbita did not appear upon summons issued THUS,
there is no sufficient evidence in the record to show a
prima facie case against Gov. Cledera and Jose
Esmeralda.
REAL ISSUE: *WON Gov. Cledera and Esmeralda
are guilty of violating Articles 156 in relation to
223 and 224
SINCE GOV. CLEDERA AS GOVERNOR, IS THE
JAILER OF THE PROVINCE, AND JOSE ESMERALDA
IS THE ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL WARDEN, THEY
CANNOT BE PROSECUTED FOR THE ESCAPE OF
PABLO DENAQUE UNDER ARTICLE 156, RPC
Under Article 156, offenders may be committed in
two ways:
(1) by removing a person confined in any jail or penal
establishment
To remove means to take away a person from the
place of his confinement, with or without the active
compensation of the person released
(2) by helping such a person to escape. To help in the
escape of a Person confined in any jail or penal
institution means
to furnished that person with the material means such
as a file, ladder, rope, etc.which greatly facilitate his
escape
The offenders under this article are usually
committed by an outsider who removes from jail
any person therein confined or helps him escape.
If the offender is a public officer who has
custody or charge of the prisoner, he is liable for
infidelity in the custody of prisoner defined and
penalty under Article 223 of the Revised Penal
Code.
THERE IS L NO SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO
WARRANT GOV. CLEDERA & ESMERALDAS
PROSECUTION UNDER ARTICLE 223, RPC
In order to be guilty under this article, it is necessary
that the public officer had consented to, or
connived in, the escape of the prisoner under his
custody or charge.
o If the public officer charged with the duty of guarding
him does not connive with the fugitive, then he has not
violated the law and is not guilty of the crime.
There was NO connivance in the escape of Pablo
Denaque from the custody of the accused Eligio Orbita
that can be deduced from the note of Gov. Cledera
to Jose Esmeralda asking for five men to work in
the guest house which was at the time being rented
by
the province)
o BECAUSE the note does not mention the names
of the prisoners to be brought to the guest
house
o It was the accused Eligio Orbita who picked the men
to compose the work party
NEITHER IS THERE EVIDENCE TO WARRANT THE
PROSECUTION OF CLEDERA AND ESMERALDA
UNDER ARTICLE 224 OF THE REVISED PENAL
CODE.
This article punishes the public officer in whose
custody or charge a prisoner has escaped by
reason of his negligence resulting in evasion is
definite amounting to deliberate nonperformance of
duty.
According to law, if there is any negligence
committed it must be the officer who is charged
with the custody and guarding of the
DISPOSITION: The order to amend the information to
include Cledera and Esmeralda are ANNULLED and SET
ASIDE.
__________________
PEOPLE v DIOSO
Dioso was serving a sentence for robbery while Abarca
was convicted of the crime of homicide
The accused were members of the Batang
Mindanao gang while the victims (also
prisoners) were members of the group known as
Happy Go Lucky gang. These factions were rivals
and had been involed in intermittent, sometimes
bloody, clashes.
One of the clashes resulted to the death of a
member of Batang Mindanao. Believing that the
victims had authored the slaying of their gangmate,
the two accused set their minds to avenge his death.
The victims were confined in the prison
hospital. Abarca, feigned illness and went to the
hospital accompanied by Dioso. The two approached
each of the victims and drew out their improvised
knives and stabbed them multiple times. The
victims died due to
massive bleeding.
> o Gave themselves up and handed their
weapons to the jail guard
During arraignment, the two pleaded guilty. The trial
court found that the crime was perpetrated with
alevosia.
The accused, however, seek the attenuation of
mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and
plea of guilty
ISSUE/HELD
WON death sentence should be imposed. NO. For lack
of the requisite votes, the Court is constrained
to commute the death sentence imposed on each
of the accused to reclusion perpetua.
The trial court correctly found that the crime was
perpetrated with alevosia. o Thus the crime committed
is murder
Mitigating circumstances of plea of guilt and
voluntary surrender are not the basis of the
commutation on the penalty imposed.
Suffice it to say that the accused are
quasirecidivist, having committed the crime
charged while serving sentence for a prior
offense. o Maximum penalty for murder is death
regardless of the presence or absence of mitigating or
aggravating circumstance or the complete absence
thereof. Doctrine: The accused are quasi-recidivists,
having committed the crime charged while serving
sentence for a prior offense. Thus, the maximum
penalty is to be imposed regardless of mitigating
circumstances.
______________
PEOPL v LADJAALAM
FACTS: More than 30 policemen went to the house of
Walpan Ladjaalam in Zamboanga City (a drug den) to
conduct a search by virtue of a warrant. When the
policemen were about 10 meters from the main gate of
the house, they were met by a rapid burst of gunfire
coming from the second floor window. There was also
gunfire at the back of the house. Ladjaalam was
identified as the one firing the M14 rifle in the 2nd
floor.
RTC: Ladjaalam was convicted of 3 crimes: (1)
maintenance of a drug den, (2) direct assault
with attempted homicide, and (3) illegal possession of
firearms. RTC found Ladjaalam guilty of direct assault
with multiple attempted homicide (not murder since no
policeman was hit and injured) and sentenced a
separate offense of illegal possession of firearms under
PD 1866, as amended by RA 8294.
ISSUE: WON Ladjaalam is guilty of the separate crime
of illegal possession in addition to the crime of direct
assault with attempted homicide. NO
Doctrine: Republic Act No. 8294 penalizes simple
illegal possession of firearms, provided that the
person arrested committed no other crime.
Furthermore, if the person is held liable for murder or
homicide, illegal possession of firearms is an
aggravating circumstance, but not a separate offense.
Hence, where an accused was convicted of direct
assault with multiple attempted homicide for
firing an unlicensed M-14 rifle at several policemen
who were about to serve a search warrant, he cannot
be held guilty of the separate offense of illegal
possession of firearms. Neither can such
unlawful act be considered to have aggravated
the direct assault
> A simple reading thereof shows that if an unlicensed
firearm is used in the commission of any crime, there
can be no separate offense of simple illegal possession
of firearms. If the other crime
is murder or homicide, illegal possession of firearms
becomes merely an aggravating circumstance, not a
separate offense. Since a crime was committed (direct
assault with multiple attempted homicide),
Ladjaalam cannot be held liable for illegal possession
of firearms. Moreover, penal laws are construed
liberally in favor of the accused. Accordingly,
Ladjaalam cannot be convicted of separate
offenses of illegal possession of firearms and
direct assault with
attempted homicide. Furthermore, since the
crime committed was direct assault and not
homicide or murder, illegal possession of
firearms cannot be deemed an aggravating
circumstance.
___
"SECTION 1. Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866,
as amended, is hereby further amended to read as
follows: "Section 1. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale,
Acquisition, Disposition or Possession
of Firearms or Ammunition Instruments Used or
Intended to be Used in the Manufacture of Firearms or
Ammunition. -- The penalty of prision correccional in its
maximum period and a fine of not less than Fifteen
thousand pesos (P15,000) shall be imposed upon any
person who shall unlawfully manufacture, deal in,
acquire, dispose, or possess any low powered firearm,
such as rimfire handgun, .380 or .32 and other firearm
of similar firepower, part of firearm, ammunition, or
machinery, tool or instrument used or intended to be
used in the manufacture of any firearm or ammunition:
Provided, That no other crime was committed.
"The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period
and a fine of Thirty thousand pesos (P30,000) shall be
imposed if the firearm is classified as high powered
firearm which includes those with bores bigger in
diameter than .30 caliber and 9 millimeter such as
caliber .40, .41, .44, .45 and also lesser calibered
firearms but considered powerful such as caliber .357
and caliber .22 centerfire magnum and other firearms
with firing capability of full automatic and by burst of
two or three: Provided, however, That no other
crime was committed by the person arrested.
"If homicide or murder is committed with the use
of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an
unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an
aggravating circumstance..
___