Anastacio Laurel vs.
Eriberto Misa c) Whether the temporary allegiance by
77 Phil 856
G.R. No. L-409
January 30, 1947
DOCTRINE: Allegiance is either permanent or
temporary. A Filipino citizen owes permanent
allegiance to the Philippines while a resident
alien owes a temporary allegiance to our
country. Treason cannot be committed in time of
peace. It is a war crime. While there is peace,
there are no traitors. There must be a war in
which the Philippines is involved.
FACTS:
 This is a resolution of the decision of the SC
denying the petition for the writ of habeas
corpus filed by Laurel. Anastacio Laurel was
arrested by the US Army and was interned
under a commitment order for collaborating
with the Japanese during the Japanese
occupation. He was turned over to the
Commonwealth Government and since then
has been under the custody of the
respondent Director of Prisons. He filed an
original action in the Supreme Court invoking
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
 He maintains that his arrest was illegal and in
violation of his constitutional rights and that
the People’s Court Act 682 which suspends
the application of the six-hour limitation on
detention to political prisoners is
unconstitutional. The SC court in its decision,
denied his petition and rejected the
petitioner’s contention mainly because no
vested right was violated as the Act is not an
ex-post facto law. Although the RPC was in
effect during his arrest, he could not have
asked for release after 6 hours as Gen.
Douglas McArthur revived the laws of
Commonwealth but held the active
collaborationists in restraint “for the
duration of the war”.
 Laurel, not discouraged, filed a motion and
contends that he cannot be prosecuted for
the crime of treason because a) the
sovereignty of the legitimate government in
the Philippines, and consequently, the
allegiance of Filipino citizens was suspended;
b) there was a change of sovereignty over the
Islands upon the proclamation of the
Philippine Republic
ISSUES:
a) Whether the sovereignty of the legitimate
government in the Philippines is suspended
upon occupation
b) Whether the occupation by an enemy
suspends the allegiance of Filipino citizens to the
sovereignty
inhabitants of a territory to their occupants
removes the permanent allegiance of a citizen to
his legitimate government
d) Whether political laws, such as crimes against
national security, are suspended or inapplicable
against the occupants
e) Whether political laws, such as crimes against
national security, are suspended or inapplicable
against the inhabitants
f) Whether the occupant may repeal or suspend
the operation of the law of treason
g) Whether there was a change of sovereignty of
the Islands upon proclamation of the Republic
and therefore petitioner can be released as
treason was not committed against this
sovereignty
h) Whether petitioner can be granted the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
HELD/RATIO:
a) No. Sovereignty of the government or
sovereign de jure is not transferred to the
occupier but remains with the legitimate
government. It cannot be suspended because the
existence of sovereignty cannot be suspended
without putting it out of existence or divesting
the possessor thereof. What is suspended is the
exercise of the rights of sovereignty with the
control and government of the territory occupied
by the enemy which passes temporarily to the
occupant.
b) No. A citizen owes an absolute and
permanent allegiance to his legitimate
government and it cannot be transferred to the
occupant. Moreover, sovereignty itself is not
suspended and subsists during enemy
occupation so the allegiance to the sovereign
subsists and therefore there is no such thing as
suspended allegiance.
c) No. The temporary allegiance of inhabitants to
occupants is similar to temporary allegiance of a
resident alien to the territory wherein he
resides. In the same way that the citizen of a
sovereign or government can be convicted of
treason committed in a foreign country, the
inhabitant of a territory occupied by military
forces of an enemy may also commit treason
against his own legitimate government.
Allegiance is not merely the obedience to laws in
return for a man’s protection in his place of
residence because by obeying said laws, he is not
bound to obey the laws of his own government.
d) Yes. With the suspension of the exercise of the
rights of sovereignty by the legitimate
government, the authority to govern has passed
into the hands of the occupant and political laws
are suspended. They are inoperative or not
applicable to the government established by the
occupant because they exclusively bear relation
to the legitimate government. Crimes against
national security (of the legitimate government)
such as treason as penalized by the RPC are also
deemed suspended against the occupant because
they cannot be committed against it.
e) No. Treason is applicable to treason
committed against the national security of the
legitimate government because the inhabitants
of the occupied territory are still bound by their
allegiance to the latter during enemy occupation.
f) No. This is not necessary to control the
inhabitants and it is tantamount to practically
transfer temporarily to the occupant their
allegiance to the sovereign. If an inhabitant is
compelled illegally, he can lawfully resist or
submit without becoming a traitor.
g) No. There is no change of sovereignty so the
crime of treason committed during the Japanese
occupation was committed against the same
sovereign people and the same government.
h) No. He cannot be released.
Perfecto, concurring:
Treason is a war crime and cannot be committed
during time of peace. Allegiance to the
government was not suspended during the
enemy occupation. 4 kinds: Natural, Acquired,
Legal, Local. The idea of suspended sovereignty
of suspended allegiance is incompatible with the
Constitution which states that “Sovereignty
resides in the people and all government
authority emanates from them.”
Hilado, concurring:
Allegiance to citizens of the country to the
legitimate government and US was not
suspended during the Japanese occupation.
Because of the Brian-Kellogg Pact in which Japan
is an asignatory, the unjustifiable war is a crime
committed by Japan; hence it is an illegal war.
Dissent:
During the long period of Japanese occupation,
all the political laws of the Philippines were
suspended. Thus, treason under the Revised
Penal Code cannot be punishable where the laws
of the land are momentarily halted. Regarding
the change of sovereignty, it is true that the
Philippines wasn’t sovereign at the time of the
Commonwealth since it was under the United
States. Hence, the acts of treason done cannot
carry over to the new Republic where the
Philippines is now indeed sovereign.
Article 114
Treason
People vs. Mangahas
93 Phil. 1113
G.R. Nos. L-5367 & L-5368
June 9, 1953
FACTS: On December 13, 1944, Makapilis raided
Lawang, Norzagaray, and apprehended several
guerilla members. The Makapilis also stationed
themselves in front of the municipal building.
Among them were Cayetano and Mariano
Mangahas, with which they surrounded the
house of Enriqueta de la Merced, went up and
took and brought to the garrison of the Makapilis
near the municipal building foodstuffs intended
for the guerillas, consisting of 5 sacks of rice, 2
cans of salted beef, a basketful of camote and
another of tomatoes, a small bag of salt and a half
sack of sardines, salmon and corned beef.
Enriqueta de la Merced and Engracia de la Cruz
testified to the foregoing overt acts. On
December 29, 1944, a group of armed Makapilis,
among whom were the defendants, took and
carried away rice, shoes, helmet, clothes and
anything they could get hold in the house of
Primo S. Cruz and at the same time apprehended
him and brought him to the San Jose garrison
where Japanese soldiers were stationed and
since then Cruz has not returned and has not
been seen. A similar tragedy befell Artemio
Nicolas, who was tied up and brought to the San
Jose garrison by the defendants. Each of their
wives testified to each of the arrests of their
respective husbands. On December 30, 1944,
Moises Legaspi was brought to the garrison of
the Makapilis by five persons, among whom
were the defendants. His wife and son testified to
the foregoing acts. Cayetano Mangahas and
Mariano de los Santos Mangahas were charged
with treason at the Court of First Instance in
Bulacan. Both the defendants have appealed the
decision of the lower court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the defendants were
guilty of the crime of treason
HELD: Yes. The arrest of Primo S. Cruz and
Artemio Nicolas cannot be deemed sufficient to
constitute treason for lack of two witnesses,
because the arrest of both persons is established
only by the testimony of their widows, to each,
respectively. Nevertheless, it is a proof of
adherence to the enemy. However, there is no
merit in the argument that because there is no
evidence that the defendants acted as informers
or that they were responsible for the arrest of
Moises Legaspi, the evidence is insufficient to
support a conviction for treason. There is no
doubt that the defendants were present when
they arrested Moises Legaspi at his house. A
mere denial by Cayetano Mangahas that he was
with those who arrested Moises Legaspi is not
sufficient to outweigh the testimony of the
latter's wife and son who pointed to the
defendants as among the five Makapilis who
apprehended Moises Legaspi. The claim that
there is no proof of adherence to the enemy is
without merit. The acts of arresting guerillas,
commandeering foodstuffs, doing sentry work,
drilling in the plaza, going around town carrying
firearms, are more than sufficient proofs of
adherence to the enemy. Moreover, Cayetano
Mangahas' testimony that he was not present
when the house of Enriqueta de la Merced was
raided, cannot prevail over the testimony of the
latter and Engracia de la Cruz who on that
occasion saw the defendants among the raiders.
Therefore, the judgment appealed from is
affirmed by the Supreme Court.
RATIO: Giving information to or commandeering
foodstuffs for, the enemy is evidence of both
adherence and aid or comfort. The defendant’s act
of commandeering foodstuffs for the Japanese
soldiers is sufficient proof of adherence to the
enemy. The phrase “adherence to enemy” means
intent to betray. There is adherence to the enemy
when a citizen intellectually or emotionally favors
the enemy and harbors sympathies or convictions
disloyal to his country’s policy or interest.
People vs Adlawan
GR No L-456
29 March 1949
FACTS: This is a review of the sentence of death
and fine of P20,000.00 imposed upon appellant
Cucufate Adlawan by the People’s Court wherein
Adlawan was charged with treason but convicted
of the “complex crime of treason with murder,
robbery and rape.” Appellant Adlawan pleaded
guilty to a complaint against charged against
him. Said complaint states that during the year
1943 to 1945, Adlawan adhered to the enemy,
the Empire of Japan and its Imperial Japanese
forces, with treasonable intent to give aid and
comfort to said enemy by going out on numerous
patrols in company with Japanese forces in
search of guerilla and other elements resisting
the enemy of the Philippines. In the course of
doing so, Adlawan also committed murder,
torture, robbery, and rape.
RULING: The People’s Court convicted Adlawan
guilty of the complex crime of treason with
murder, robbery and rape. He is sentenced to
suffer the penalty of death and fine of
P20,000.00. Upon review before the Supreme
Court Adlawan assails the conviction and the
lower court should have appreciated his
mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender,
that he is a witness utilised by the CIC and that
he saved many civilian lives from the Japanese
forces. He further states that the lower court
erred in appreciating the aggravating
circumstances treachery, murder, abuse of
superiority and unnecessary cruelty. The
Supreme Court modified the decision of the
lower court to the extent that the penalty to be
imposed is reclusion perpetua and fine of
P20,000.00
RATIONALE: The Supreme Court said that the
aggravating circumstances of treachery and
abuse of superior strength should not have been
considered. These are by their nature inherent in
the offense of treason. However, the facts show
that in committing treason, appellant augmented
the wrong by being cruel to captured guerilla
suspects, subjecting them to torture and death.
He also chose to add ignominy by stripping off
the clothes of a guerilla suspect’s wife and
abusing them with other Filipino girls. These two
aggravating circumstances of unnecessary
cruelty and ignominy may be appreciated. The
penalty for the crime of treason is reclusion
perpetua to death, and a fine not to exceed
P20,000. Appellant is given the benefit of
voluntary confession of guilty, but appreciating
against him the aggravating circumstances of
unnecessary cruelty and ignominy, the penalty
should be imposed in its maximum. However,
five members of the court opposed the death
penalty.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF
AND APPELLEE, VS. ANTONIO RACAZA,
DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
G.R. No. L-365,
January 21, 1949
82 Phil. 623
FACTS: Racaza was found guilty on fourteen
counts of treason. The trial court found the
aggravating circumstances of evident
premeditation, superior strength, treachery and
employment of means for adding ignominy to
the natural effects of the crime.
ISSUE: Is the finding of the trial court proper as
regards the aggravating circumstances?
DECISION: No. Evident premeditation, superior
strength, and treachery are, by their nature,
inherent in the offense of treason and may not be
taken to aggravate the penalty. Adherence and
the giving of aid and comfort to the enemy is a
long, continued process requiringfixed, reflective
and persistent determination and planning.
Treachery is merged in superior strength. To
overcome the opposition and wipe out resistance
movements, the use of a large force and
equipment was necessary. The enemy to whom
the accused adhered was itself the
personification of brute, superior force, and it
was this superior force which enabled him to
overrun the country and for a time subdue its
inhabitants by his brutal rule.
People vs. Perez
83 Phil 314
G.R. No. L-856
April 18, 1949
Ponente: Tuason, J.
Susano Perez was convicted of treason by the
5th Division of the People's Court sitting in Cebu
City and sentenced to death by electrocution.
Only five (1, 2, 4, 5, 6) out of seven counts of
information were substantiated by the
prosecution.
Facts:
 Count 1: Perez, with other Filipinos, recruited
women girls and women against their will to
satisfy the lust of Colonel Mini. The victims
included Felina Laput, Eriberta Ramo,
Eduarda Daohog, Eutiquia Lamay, Feliciana
Bonalos and Flaviana Bonalos. Eriberta Ramo
testified that on June 15, 1942, the accused
came to her house to get her and told her that
she was wanted in the house of her aunt, but
instead, she was brought to the house of the
Puppet Governor Agapito Hontanosas; that
she escaped and returned to Baclayon her
hometown; that the accused came again and
told her that Colonel Mini wanted her to be
his Information Clerk; that she did not accept
the job; that a week later the accused came to
Baclayon to get her, and succeeded in taking
some other girls Puppet Governor Agapito
Hontanosas; that Governor Hontanosas told
her that Colonel Mini wanted her to be his
wife; that when she was brought to Colonel
Mini the latter had nothing on but a "G"
string; that he, Colonel Mini threatened her
with a sword tied her to a bed and with force
succeeded in having carnal knowledge with
her; that on the following night, again she
was brought to Colonel Mini and again she
was raped; that finally she was able to escape
and stayed in hiding for three weeks and only
came out from the hiding when Colonel Mini
left Tagbilaran.
 Count 2: Perez, in company with some
Japanese and Filipinos, took Eriberta Ramo
and her sister Cleopatra Ramo from their
home in Baclayon to attend a banquet and a
dance organized in honor of Colonel Mini in
order that Mini might select those who would
later be taken to satisfy his lust. By means of
threat, force and intimidation, the above
mentioned two sisters were brought to the
headquarters of the Japanese Commander at
the Mission Hospital in Tagbilaran.
 Count 4: On July 16, 1942, Eduarda S. Daohog
and Eutiquia Lamay, were taken from their
homes in Corella, Bohol, by Perez and his
companion named Vicente Bullecer, and
delivered to the Japanese Officer, Dr.
Takibayas to satisfy his lust, but Perez and
Bullecer raped the women first before
bringing them to Takibayas. Perez raped
Eduarda and Bullecer raped Eutiquia Lamay.
Eduarda S. Daohog testified that while on the
way to Tagbilaran, Perez through force and
intimidation, raped her in an uninhabited
house; that upon arriving in Tagbilaran, she
was delivered to the Japanese Officer named
Takibayas who also raped her. Eutiquia
Lamay testified that on July 16, 1942, the
accused and his companion, Bullecer, went to
her house to take her and her sister; that her
sister was then out of the house; that the
accused threatened her with a revolver if she
refuses to go; that she was placed in a car
where Eduarda Daohog was; that while they
were in the car, the accused carried Eduarda
out of the car, and their companion Bullecer
took Eutiquia Lamay; that later, she and
Eduarda were taken to the Governor's house;
that the accused and Bullecer brought the
two girls to the Japanese headquarters; that
Eduarda was raped by Takibayas and
Eutiquia was raped by another Japanese.
 Count 5: On or about June 4, 1942, Perez
commandeered Feliciana Bonalos and her
sister Flaviana and that they were to be taken
as witnesses before a Japanese Colonel in the
investigation of a case against a certain
Chinese (Insik Eping), and upon arriving at
Tagbilaran, Bohol, the accused brought the
two girls to the residence of Colonel Mini and
by means of violence, threat and intimidation,
Mini abused and had sexual intercourse with
Flaviana Bonalos; that Perez followed in
having carnal knowledge with Flaviana; that
two days later, Perez brought Feliciana
Bonalos to a secluded place in Tagbilaran,
Bohol, and in the darkness, by means of
threat and violence had carnal knowledge
with her against her will.
 Count 6: Perez, together with his Filipino
companion, apprehended Natividad Barcinas,
Nicanora Ralameda and Teotima Barcinas,
nurses of the provincial hospital, for not
having attended a dance and reception
organized in honor of Colonel Mini and other
Japanese high ranking officers which was
held in Tagbilaran market on June 25, 1942;
that on July 8, 1942, said nurses were forced
to attend another banquet and dance in order
that the Japanese officers might make a
 selection which girls would suit best their
fancy.
Issue: Whether or not the acts of Perez in luring
women to satisfy the lust of Japanese officials
constitute treason.
Held: No.
Ratio:
 As general rule, to be treasonous the
extent of the 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. His "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; he was not
guilty any more than the women
themselves would have been if they
voluntarily and willingly had surrendered
their bodies or organized the
entertainment. 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
United State.
Ruling: Perez is guilty of four counts of rape and
sentenced for each of them to an indeterminate
penalty of from 10 year of prision mayor to 17
year and 4 months of reclusion temporal.
PEOPLE V. PRIETO
FACTS: The appellant was prosecuted for
treason.
Two witnesses gave evidence but their
statements do not coincide in any single detail.
The first witness testified that the accused with
other Filipino undercovers and Japanese soldiers
caught an American aviator and had the witness
carry the American to town on a sled pulled by a
carabao. That on the way, the accused walked
behind the sled and asked the prisoner if the sled
was faster than the airplane; that the American
was taken to the Kempetai headquarters, after
which he did not know what happened to the
flier.
The next witness, testified that he saw the
accused following an American and the accused
were Japanese and other Filipinos.
The lower court believes that the accused
is “guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of treason complexed by murder and physical
injuries”, with “the aggravating circumstances
mentioned above”. Apparently, the court has
regarded the murders and physical injuries
charged in the information, not only as crimes
distinct from treason but also as modifying
circumstances. The Solicitor General agrees with
the decision except as to the technical
designation of the crime. In his opinion, the
offense committed by the appellant is a “complex
crime of treason with homicide”.
Accused being a member of the Japanese
Military Police and acting as undercover man for
the Japanese forces with the purpose of giving
and with the intent to give aid and comfort
feloniously and treasonably lad, guide and
accompany a patrol of Japanese soldiers and
Filipino undercovers for the purpose of
apprehending guerillas and locating their
hideouts.
ISSUES;
1. Whether the “two-witness” rule was
sufficiently complied.
2. Whether the TC erred in ruling that the
murders and physical injuries were crimes
distinct from treason.
HELD:
1. NO, it was not sufficiently complied.
The witnesses evidently referred to two different
occasions. The two witnesses failed to
corroborate each other not only on the whole
overt act but on any part of it.
2. The execution of some of the guerilla
suspects mentioned and the infliction of physical
injuries on others are not offenses separate from
treason. There must concur both adherence to
the enemy and giving him aid and comfort. One
without the other does not make treason.
In the nature of things, the giving aid and
comfort can only be accomplished by some kind
of action. Its very nature partakes of a deed or
physical activity as opposed to a mental
operation. This deed or physical activity may be,
and often is, in itself a criminal offense under
another penal statute or provision. Even so,
when the deed is charged as an element of
treason it becomes identified with the latter
crime and cannot be the subject of a separate
punishment.
However, the brutality with the killing or
physical injuries were carried out may be taken
as an aggravating circumstance. Thus, the use of
torture and other atrocities on the victims
instead of the usual and less painful method of
execution will be taken into account to increase
the penalty.
PEOPLE V. MANAYAO
FACTS: Appellant Pedro Manayao was among
those who were charged with the aggravating
circumstances of 1.) the aid of armed men and
2.) the employment or presence of a band in the
commission of the crime, he was sentenced to
death.
The guerrillas raided the Japanese in
Angat, Bulacan. In reprised, Japanese soldiers
and a number of Filipinos affiliated with the
Makapili, among them the instant appellant,
conceived the diabolical idea of killing the
residents. Appellant killed six women.
Appellant’s counsel contends that
appellant was a member of the Armed Forces of
Japan, was subject to military law, and not
subject to the jurisdiction of the People’s Court.
Appellant had lost his Philippine citizenship and
was therefore not amenable to the Philippine
law of treason.
He further contends certain provisions of
CA 63 states that:
A Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship
in any of the following ways and/or events.
By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to
support the constitution or laws of a foreign
country upon attaining twenty-one years of age
or more.
By accepting commission in the military,
naval or air service of a foreign country.
By having been declared, by competent
authority, a deserter of the Philippine Army,
Navy, or Air Corps in time of war, unless
subsequently a plenary pardon or amnesty has
been granted.
ISSUE: Whether the accused is guilty of treason
HELD: Yes, the appellant was found guilty of the
crime of treason.
The Makapili, although organized to
render military aid to the Japanese Army in the
Philippines during the late war, was not a part of
said army. It was an organization of Filipino
traitors.
There is no evidence that appellant has
subscribed to an oath of allegiance to support the
constitution or laes of Japan.
The members of the Makapili could have
sworn to help Japan in the war without
necessarily swearing to support her constitution
and the laws.
Neither was there any showing too that
they have lost their citizenship in connection
with the provisions stated in CA 63. No person
even when he has renounced or incurred the loss
of his nationality, shall take up arms against his
native country; he shall be held guilty of felony
and treason, of he does not strictly observe this
duty.
As to appellant’s contention that he only
acted in obedience to an order issued by a
superior and is therefore exempt from criminal,
liability, because he allegedly acted in the
fulfillment of a duty incidental to his service for
Japan as a member of the Makapili. Paragraphs 5
and 6 of Art. 11 of RPC states that compliance
with duties to or orders from a foreign sovereign
is considered an illegal order.
The contention that as a member of the
Makapili appellant had to obey his Japanese
masters under pain of severe penalty, and that
therefore his acts should be considered as
committed under the impulse of an irresistible
force or uncontrollable fear of an equal or
greater injury. Appellant joined the Makapili
with the full knowledge of its avowed purpose of
rendering military aid to Japan. He knew the
consequences to be expected- if the alleged
irresistible force or uncontrollable fear
subsequently arose, he brought them about
himself freely and voluntarily.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF
AND APPELLEE, VS. APOLINAR ADRIANO,
DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
G.R. No. L-477,
June 30, 1947
78 Phil. 561
FACTS: Adriano was convicted of treason. The
prosecution did not introduce any evidence to
substantiate any of the facts alleged except that
of defendant's having joined the Makapili
organization. Even the findings of the court are
not borne out by the proof of two witnesses. No
two of the prosecution witnesses testified to a
single one of the various acts of treason imputed
by them to the appellant.
ISSUE: Can the appellant be held guilty of
treason?
DECISION: No. Membership as a Makapili, as an
overt act, must be established by the deposition
of two witnesses. Where two or more witnesses
give oaths to an overt act and only one of them is
believed by the court or jury, the defendant, it
has been said and held, is entitled to discharge,
regardless of any moral conviction of the
culprit's guilt as gauged and tested by the
ordinary and natural methods, with which we
are familiar, of finding the truth.
GO TIAN SEK SANTOS, PETITIONER, VS.
ERIBERTO MISA, DIRECTOR OF PRISONS,
RESPONDENT.
G.R. No. L-319
March 28, 1946
76 Phil 415
FACTS: The petitioner avers he is a Chinese
citizen apprehended in February, 1945, by the
Counter Intelligence Corps of the United States
Army, turned over last September, to the
Commonwealth Government, and since then
detained by the respondent as a political
prisoner. Such detention, he claims, is illegal,
because he has not been charged before, nor
convicted by, the judge of a competent court, and
because he may not be confined under Act No.
682, as he owes allegiance neither to the United
States nor to the Commonwealth of the
Philippines.
ISSUE: Is the contention of the petitioner
correct?
DECISION: No. Petitioner’s foreign status does
not exclude him ipso facto from the scope of
Commonwealth Act No. 682. As stated by the
Solicitor-General, he might be prosecuted for
espionage, a crime not conditioned by the
citizenship of the offender, and considered as an
offense against national security.
Piracy
People v. Lol-lo and Saraw
GR#17958
Feb. 27, 1922
Ponente: Malcolm, J.
FACTS: Days after leaving Matuta, Dutch East
Indies (now Indonesia) on Jun. 30, 1920, two
boats carrying 12 Dutch nationals (1 person in
one boat, 11 men, women and children in
another) were boarded by 24 armed Moros
(including the accused Lol-lo and Saraw) at
around 7:00 PM. The Moros took all the cargo
from the Dutch. They also raped and abducted
the two women on board. The Moros poked
holes in the boat and left the rest of the Dutch in
it (they were later rescued). The two women
were able to escape once the Moros docked in
the island of Maruro (also a Dutch possession).
Lol-lo and Saraw were arrested after returning
to their home in South Ubian, Tawi-tawi. They
were charged w/ Piracy before the Sulu CFI and
were found guilty, with punishment of life
imprisonment; and to return the stolen 39 sacks
of copra plus 924 rupees in damages, plus costs.
ISSUES: 1) W/N the Sulu CFI has jurisdiction
over the crime
2) W/N the defendants are guilty
HELD: 1) Yes
2) Yes
RATIO: 1) Piracy is a crime against all mankind.
The jurisdiction of piracy has no territorial
limits, pirates being hostes humani generis
(enemies of mankind). Piracy may be prosecuted
in any court where the offender may be found or
into which he may be carried.
2) The provisions of the Spanish Penal
Code on piracy (Arts. 153-154) remained in force
after the American takeover, by virtue of Pres.
McKinley’s Instructions. Art. 154 specified that
piracy with rape shall be punished by cadena
perpetua to death. Lol-lo, who was proven to
have taken part in the rape of the two women,
should therefore be put to death - the crime
being aggravated by cruelty, ignominy, and
abuse of superior strength (rape of the women,
abandonment of the other victims, 24 armed
men vs. 12 men, women & children) with the
mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction.
DECISION: Judgment affirmed with respect to
Saraw, modified with respect to Lol-lo.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-
APPELLEE, VS. JAIME RODRIGUEZ ALIAS
JIMMY ALIAS WILFRED DE LARA Y MEDRANO
AND RICO LOPEZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
G.R. No. 60100
March 20, 1985
220 Phil. 162
FACTS: Appellants were convicted of the crime
of piracy and were sentenced to suffer the
extreme penalty of death. They contend that the
trial court erred in imposing the death penalty
despite their plea of guilty.
ISSUE: Is the contention of the appellants
correct?
DECISION: No. Presidential Decree No. 532
Amending Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code,
provides that if rape, murder or homicide is
committed as a result or on the occasion of
piracy, or when the offenders abandoned the
victims without means of saving themselves, or
when the seizure is accomplished by firing upon
or boarding a vessel, the mandatory penalty of
death shall be imposed. Further, Article 63 of the
same Code provides that in all cases in which the
law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it
shall be applied by the courts regardless of any
mitigating or aggravating circumstances that
may have attended the commission of the deed.
People v Siyoh
G.R. No. L-57292
February 18, 1986
The People of The Philippines vs. Julaide
Siyoh, Omar-Kayam Kiram, Namli Indanan &
Andaw Jamahali,
FACTS: Siyoh, Kiram, Indanan and Jamahali were
accused of qualified piracy with triple murder
and frustrated murder. On July 14, 1979, accused
fired their guns into the air and stopped the
pumpboat wherein de Castro, Hiloen and 2 de
Guzmans were riding, boarded the said
pumpboat and took, stole and carried away all
their cash money, wrist watches, stereo sets,
merchandise and other personal belongings
amounting to the total amount of P 18,342.00,
Philippine Currency, ordered them to jump into
the water, whereupon, the said accused, fired
their guns at them which caused the death of de
Castro and one de Guzman while wounding the
other de Guzman. It appears that Siyoh and
Kiram were with the victims, also selling their
goods, before the incident happened.
Lower court decision: Sentenced to
DEATH. However, considering the provision of
Section 106 of the Code of Mindanao and Sulu,
the illiteracy or ignorance or extreme poverty of
the accused who are members of the cultural
minorities, under a regime of so called
compassionate society, a commutation to life
imprisonment is recommended.
ISSUE: Whether or not Siyoh and Kiram are
guilty beyond reasonable doubt, considering the
credibility of the witness
HELD: Yes, they are guilty BRD.
RATIO: Appellants contentions are
unconvincing:
1. That if they were the culprits they
could have easily robbed their victims at the
Kiram house or on any of the occasions when
they were travelling together. Suffice it to say
that robbing the victims at Kiram's house would
make Kiram and his family immediately suspect
and robbing the victims before they had sold all
their goods would be premature. However,
robbing and killing the victims while at sea
and after they had sold all their goods was
both timely and provided safety from prying
eyes.
2. That the accused immediately reported
the incident to the PC. The record does not
support this assertion.
3. That the affidavits of Dolores de
Guzman, wife of the deceased Anastacio de
Guzman, and Primitiva de Castro, wife of the
deceased Rodolfo de Castro, state that Antonio
de Guzman informed them shortly after the
incident that their husbands were killed by the
companions of Siyoh and Kiram. The thrust of
the appellants' claim, therefore, is that Namli
Indanan and Andaw Jamahali were the killers
and not the former. But this claim is baseless in
the face of the proven conspiracy among the
accused.
4. That there is no evidence Anastacio de
Guzman was killed together with Rodolfo de
Castro and Danilo Hiolen because his remains
were never recovered. There is no reason to
suppose that Anastacio de Guzman is still alive
or that he died in a manner different from his
companions. The incident took place on July 14,
1979 and when the trial court decided the case
on June 8, 1981 Anastacio de Guzman was still
missing. But the number of persons killed on the
occasion of piracy is not material. P.D. No. 532
considers qualified piracy, i.e. rape, murder or
homicide is committed as a result or on the
occasion of piracy, as a special complex crime
punishable by death regardless of the number of
victims.
5. That the death certificates are vague as
to the nature of the injuries sustained by the
victims; were they hacked wounds or gunshot
wounds? The cause is consistent with the
testimony of Antonio de Guzman that the victims
were hacked; that the appellants were armed
with "barongs" while Indanan and Jamahali were
armed with armalites.
Decision affirmed with the following
modifications: (a) for lack of necessary votes the
penalty imposed shall be reclusion perpetua; and
(b) each of the appellants shall pay in solidum to
the heirs of each of the deceased indemnity in
the amount of P30,000.00. No special
pronouncement as to costs.
SORIA VS DESIERTO
FACTS: Petitioners Rodolfo Soria and Edimar
Bista were arrested on May 13, 2001 (a Sunday
and the day before May 14 elections) without a
warrant by respondents for alleged illegal
possession of firearms and ammunition. One
police identified Bista to have a standing warrant
of arrest for violation of BP Blg. 6.From the time
of Soria’s detention up to the time of his release,
22 hours had already elapsed and Bista was
detained for 26 days.
The crimes for which Soria was arrested
without warrant are punishable by correctional
penalties or their equivalent, thus, criminal
complaints or information should be filed with
the proper judicial authorities within 18 hours of
his arrest. The crimes for which Bista was
arrested are punishable by afflictive or capital
penalties, or their equivalent, thus, he could only
be detained for 36 hours without criminal
complaints or information having been filed with
the proper judicial authorities.
Article 125 stated that Delay in the
delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial
authorities. - The penalties provided in the next
preceding article shall be imposed upon the public
officer or employee who shall detain any person
for some legal ground and shall fail to deliver such
person to the proper judicial authorities within
the period of: twelve (12) hours, for crimes or
offenses punishable by light penalties, or their
equivalent; eighteen (18) hours, for crimes or
offenses punishable by correctional penalties, or
their equivalent; and thirty-six (36) hours, for
crimes or offenses punishable by afflictive or
capital penalties, or their equivalent.
Petitioners filed with the Office of the
Ombudsman for Military Affairs a complaint-
affidavit for violation of Art. 125 of the Revised
Penal Code against herein private respondents.
The office dismissed the complaint for lack of
merit. Petitioners then filed their motion for
reconsideration which was denied for lack of
merit in the second assailed Resolution.
ISSUE: W/O officers of the Office of the
Ombudsman gravely abused their discretion in
dismissing the complaint for violation of Article
125 of the Revised Penal Code (Delay in the
delivery of detained persons)
HELD: Grave abuse of discretion is such
capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment
on the part of the public officer concerned which
is equivalent to an excess or lack of jurisdiction.
The abuse of discretion must be so patent and
gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive
duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty
enjoined by law.
No grave abuse of discretion can be
attributed to the respondents. Their disposition
of petitioners' complaint for violation of Article
125 of the Revised Penal Code cannot be said to
have been conjured out of thin air as it was
properly backed up by law and jurisprudence.
Regarding the complaint of Soria, based on
applicable laws and jurisprudence, an election
day or a special holiday, should not be included
in the computation of the period prescribed by
law for the filing of complaint/information in
courts in cases of warrantless arrests, it being a
'no-office day. Hence, there could be no arbitrary
detention or violation of Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code.
In the same vein, the complaint of Bista
against the respondents for Violation of Article
125, will not prosper because the running of the
thirty-six (36)-hour period prescribed by law for
the filing of the complaint against him from the
time of his arrest was tolled by one day (election
day). Moreover, he has a standing warrant of
arrest for Violation of B.P. Blg. 6 and he could
only be released if he has no other pending
criminal case requiring his continuous detention.
JASPER AGBAY, petitioner, vs. THE
HONORABLE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE
MILITARY, SPO4 NEMESIO NATIVIDAD, JR.
and SPO2 ELEAZAR M. SOLOMON,
respondents.
G.R. No. 134503
July 2, 1999
FACTS: On September 7, 1997, petitioner Agbay
and a certain Jugalbot were arrested and
detained for the alleged violation of RA 7610.
The next day, a case was filed against them in the
MCTC. Petitioner, however, filed a complaint
against private respondents before the Office of
the Ombudsman for failure to deliver the
detained petitioner to the proper judicial
authority within 36 hours from arrest. Said
complaint was transferred to the Deputy
Ombudsman for the Military who recommended
the dismissal of the complaints.
ISSUE: Whether or not there was a delay in the
delivery of Agbay, as prescribed by Article 125?
RULING: On the alleged violation of Art. 125 of
the Revised Penal Code, petitioner contended
that the proper judicial authority is the Regional
Trial Court, not the MCTC. The Court, however,
ruled that upon the filing of the complaint with
the MTC, the intent behind Art. 125 is satisfied
considering that the detained person is informed
of the crime imputed against him. Hence, such
filing interrupted the period prescribed in Art.
125.
Delivery of Prisoners from Jail
ALBERTO and INTIA vs. HON. DE LA CRUZ and
ORBITA
G.R. No. L-31839
98 SCRA 406
June 30, 1980
FACTS: This is a petition for certiorari to annul
and set aside the order of the respondent Judge
directing petitioners to amend the information
filed in Criminal Case No. 9414 of the CFI of
Camarines Sur entitled, “People of the
Philippines versus Eligio Orbita”, so as to include
as defendants Governor Armando Cledera and
Assistant Provincial Warden Jose Esmeralda of
Camarines Sur. In said case, Orbita, a provincial
guard, was prosecuted for infidelity in the
custody of a prisoner for the escape of detention
prisoner, Pablo Denaque. In the course of the
trial, the defense alleged that Esmeralda received
a written note from Gov. Cledera asking him to
send in five prisoners which party included
Denaque, who was then under the custody of
Orbita, to his house in Taculod, Canaman,
Camarines Sur to work in the construction which
made Denaque’s escape possible, and thus,
Esmeralda and Gov. Cledera should be equally
guilty of the offense with Orbita.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Judge erred
in equally incriminating Gov. Cledera and
Esmeralda with Orbita for the escape of Pablo
Denaque.
 still, as citizens of the Philippines, entitled to the
HELD/DECISION: YES. Respondent Judge erred same rights, as stipulated in the Bill of Rights, as
in equally incriminating Gov. Cledera and every other citizen. Thei rchoice of profession
Esmeralda with Orbita for the escape of Pablo should not be a cause for discrimination. It may
Denaque. Decision annulled and set aside. make some, like Lukban, quite uncomfortable
Respondent Judge directed to proceed with the but it does not authorize anyone to compel said
trial of the case. prostitutes to isolate themselves from the rest of
the human race. These women have been
RATIO: The offense of delivering prisoners from deprived of their liberty by being exiled to Davao
jails as defined in Article 156 is usually without even being given the opportunity to
committed by an outsider who: (1) removes collect their belongings or, worse, without even
from jail any person therein confined or (2) consenting to being transported to Mindanao.
helps him escape. If the offender is a public For this, Lukban etal must be severely punished
officer who has custody or charge of the
prisoner, he is liable for infidelity in the custody
of prisoners defined and penalized under Article
223 of the Revised Penal Code. 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 of the
Revised Penal Code. There is likewise no
sufficient evidence to warrant their prosecution
for conniving with or consenting to evasion
under Art. 223, and Art. 224 which punishes
evasion through negligence.

ZACARIAS VILLAVICENCIO, ET AL.,

petitioners, vs. JUSTO LUKBAN, ET AL.,
respondents.
G.R. No. L-14639
March 25, 1919

FACTS: One hundred and seventy women were

isolated from society, and then at night, without
their consent and without any opportunity to
consult with friends or to defend their rights,
were forcibly hustled on board steamers for
transportation to regions unknown. Despite the
feeble attempt to prove that the women left
voluntarily and gladly, that such was not the case
is shown by the mere fact that the presence of
the police and the constabulary was deemed
necessary and that these officers of the law chose
the shades of night to cloak their secret and
stealthy acts. Indeed, this is a fact impossible to
refute and practically admitted by the
respondents.

ISSUE: WON Mayor Lukban has the right to

deport women with ill repute.

HELD: Law defines power. No official, no matter

how high, is above the law. Lukban committed a
grave abuse of discretion by deporting the
prostitutes to a new domicile against their will.
There is no law expressly authorizing his action.
On the contrary, there is a law punishing public
officials, not expressly authorized by law or
regulation, who compels any person to change
his residence Furthermore, the prostitutes are