G.R. NO.

L-1231, January 30, 1947

MACARIO GUNABE, SULPPICIO GUNABE and MARGARITO DRILLON, petitioners, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS,
respondent.

Francisco Astilla for petitioners.

Assisstant Solocitor General Kapunan jr and Solicitor Maka siar for respondent

PARAS, J.:

FACTS:

The petitioners Macario Gunabe, Sulpicio Gunabe and Margarito Drillon more or less admit that in
November, 1942, they were be charged in criminal cases Nos. 988 and 1010 0f the Court of First Instance of Manila
with murder and frustrated murder and that, in virtue of said cases (continued as criminal cases 1838 and 1839)
which are still pending, the petitioners Macario Gunabe, Sulpicio Gunabe and Margarito Drillon had been detained
by the respondent Director of Prisons under proper commitment orders. However, in the present petition for the
writ of habeas corpus, the petitioners pray for their release on the ground that from one (1) to four (4) months after
their arrest, their detention was unlawful it was a brazen violation of their right to be delivered to the judicial
authorities within six hours following their arrest. According to the first ground they will not violate any rights of the
petitioner namely Macario Gunabe, Sulpicio Gunabe and Margarito Drillon for confinement it is delivered in due
process according by law. The court must give an order to and they are the one who give the judgement from them.
Based on the second ground that the accused want a speedy trial and it is accepted because it the right of the
petitioner but in every trial it must have a person witnessing the trial coming from the part of the petitioner and the
defendant, also it must have a judge who gives the final judgement to know who know who is the guilty or not.
These rights will be not acceptable if they give interruption when the trial is ongoing and if it is happening the court
will give another time/day to or another schedule for trial. On the third ground it said that is inadmissible the
petitioner Macario Gunabe, Sulpicio Gunabe and Margarito Drillon was not be given amnesty and it is the question
raise by the court. From the separate opinions the petitioners Macario Gunabe, Sulpicio Gunabe and Margarito
Drillon said that they liberty was not given from them since July 28, 1942 upon they arrest by the Japanese military
or kempetai because they said that the two case is already filed against them murder and frustrated murder. After a
month’s September 1943 which is the day of trial the prosecution was not give any solution to ignore the case until
the petition on the case was filed on December 1946. According to the facts that stated from the petitioner they
have the right to give liberty that they want from their petition. It proves that the three petitioners namely Macario
Gunabe, Sulpicio Gunabe and Margarito Drillon has unlawfully detained, arrest and they experience delay for their
judgement that the Japanese military violate from their rights.

Based on Article 125. Delay in delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities- the penalties
provided in the next proceeding 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 crime 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. In every case the persons detained shall be
informed of the cause of his detention and shall be allowed upon his request, to communicate and confer at any
time with his attorney or counsel (As amended by EO Nos. 59 and 272. November 7, 1986 and July 25, 1987
respectively. On the above mention the petitioners suffers this article 125 from the Japanese military or Kempetai in
arresting them and their failings from their judgement.

ISSUE: Whether or not Macario Gunabe, Sulpicio Gunabe and Margarito Drillon the petitioners were unlawfully,
detained as they were not delivered within six (6) hours of the following arrest.
G.R No. 152997, November 10,2004

SALVADOR MARZALADO, JR., petitioner vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent

QUISUMBING, J.:

Facts:

Cristina N. Albano was the resident of the unit in the house owned by the mother of the petitioner Salvador
Marzalado Jr. his mother filed an ejectment case against Albano. Judgement was exhibit against Albano, who was
ordered to leave the resident and to pay the unpaid rentals. Cristina N. Albano appealed to the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) during the delay of the appeal, the electricity supply of the unit was cut off due to non-payment of bills. As a
result, Cristina N. Albano transferred her children to her father’s house four houses away from her house leaving a
maid to sleep in the unit. Cristina N. Albano claims that she noticed that the lead pipe she used to hang clothes to
dry was missing. When she returned at the following day, she discovered the padlock of the main door changed,
preventing her from entering the premises. Cristina N. Albano went to see the petitioner Salvador Marzalado Jr. but
he was not around. On the next day she again returned to her unit. She spies through the window of jalousies to saw
that the place was already empty. She immediately reported the matter the barangay officials, who is in turn,
advised her to go to police. Thereafter, she filled a complaint for grave coercion, qualified trespass to dwelling and
theft against petitioner. 10 days after, Cristina N. Albano tried to see the accuse but again failed. This time she
noticed that the roofing of her unit had been removed and the main door locked from the inside. She was informed
that the petitioner and his female companion took her lead pipe and also took her personal belongings which
brought inside his house. Cristina N. Albano filed a suit for trespass to dwelling with McTC against Marzalado Jr.
witness named Raniedo, the owner of the house fronting Cristina N. Albano unit, testified that he saw the petitioner
Salvador Marzalado Jr. take the lead pipe and hand it to a woman waiting at the terrace of Salvador Marzalado Jr.
house. He further testified that he heard something when he was relaxing in from of his house. That is contradict
from the statement of the petitioner Salvador Marzalado Jr. he was on his way to home because he saw the water in
continuous streaming flowing of the unit and he went inside the unit he reported to the barangay officers and ask for
barangay tanods they went inside then they saw the faucet is open with water flooding the floor. He claimed that
Albano filed the criminal case of trespass to dwelling to harass him and to fightback against him and his family. Based
on the accusation of Cristina Albano to the petitioner Salvador Marzalado Jr. without any justifiable cause did then
and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously enter the dwelling place of Cristina Albano the accused was arraigned
and pleaded not guilty to the charge.

After the judgement to the petitioner a summary hearing followed with Albano and her witness Raniedo
who testified in the prosecution. He gives his statement saying that he sees the petitioner forcibly open the door of
the unit bring out the belongings of Albano and take it at his own house. The Mctc find the accused guilty for beyond
reasonable doubt of a qualified trespass to dwelling under the article 280 of the revised penal code and hereby
sentence the penalty of two (2) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor and to pay a fine of 500.00 and to pay the
cost. After the result of Mctc Salvador Marzalado Jr appeal to the judgement of Mctc to Regional Trial Court and rtc
said that the petitioner committed trespass to dwelling despite the glaring proof that his entry was justifiable under
paragraph 4, article 11 of the revised penal coded to prevent an imminent danger to property of Albano. He also said
that did it with the present of the barangay officers. When it performing the alleged trespass is not an essential
element of trespass it is still requiring upon the prosecution to establish the criminal intent and the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. On that day the barangay lupon Romulo E. Regaya testified that the petitioner
Salvador Marzalado Jr. forcibly opened the door because of the strong water pressure he only avoiding flooding to
damage the property of his mother. They find that the evidence is insufficient to hold the petitioner guilty of the
offense charged from him. Wherefore the petitioner acquitted from the accusation of Cristina Albano because of
insufficient evidence that may prove the guilt of the petitioner.

ISSUE: Whether or not Salvador Marzalado Jr. is hereby acquitted of the charge against him for lack of evidence to
sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

G.R. NO. L-1231, January 30, 1947

MACARIO GUNABE, SULPPICIO GUNABE and MARGARITO DRILLON, petitioners, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS,
respondent.

Francisco Astilla for petitioners.

Assisstant Solocitor General Kapunan jr and Solicitor Maka siar for respondent

PARAS, J.:

FACTS:

The petitioners Macario Gunabe, Sulpicio Gunabe and Margarito Drillon more or less admit that in
November, 1942, they were be charged in criminal cases Nos. 988 and 1010 0f the Court of First Instance of Manila
with murder and frustrated murder and that, in virtue of said cases (continued as criminal cases 1838 and 1839)
which are still pending, the petitioners Macario Gunabe, Sulpicio Gunabe and Margarito Drillon had been detained
by the respondent Director of Prisons under proper commitment orders. However, in the present petition for the
writ of habeas corpus, the petitioners pray for their release on the ground that from one (1) to four (4) months after
their arrest, their detention was unlawful it was a brazen violation of their right to be delivered to the judicial
authorities within six hours following their arrest. According to the first ground they will not violate any rights of the
petitioner namely Macario Gunabe, Sulpicio Gunabe and Margarito Drillon for confinement it is delivered in due
process according by law. The court must give an order to and they are the one who give the judgement from them.
Based on the second ground that the accused want a speedy trial and it is accepted because it the right of the
petitioner but in every trial it must have a person witnessing the trial coming from the part of the petitioner and the
defendant, also it must have a judge who gives the final judgement to know who know who is the guilty or not.
These rights will be not acceptable if they give interruption when the trial is ongoing and if it is happening the court
will give another time/day to or another schedule for trial. On the third ground it said that is inadmissible the
petitioner Macario Gunabe, Sulpicio Gunabe and Margarito Drillon was not be given amnesty and it is the question
raise by the court. From the separate opinions the petitioners Macario Gunabe, Sulpicio Gunabe and Margarito
Drillon said that they liberty was not given from them since July 28, 1942 upon they arrest by the Japanese military
or kempetai because they said that the two case is already filed against them murder and frustrated murder. After a
month’s September 1943 which is the day of trial the prosecution was not give any solution to ignore the case until
the petition on the case was filed on December 1946. According to the facts that stated from the petitioner they
have the right to give liberty that they want from their petition. It proves that the three petitioners namely Macario
Gunabe, Sulpicio Gunabe and Margarito Drillon has unlawfully detained, arrest and they experience delay for their
judgement that the Japanese military violate from their rights.

Based on Article 125. Delay in delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities- the penalties
provided in the next proceeding 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 crime 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. In every case the persons detained shall be
informed of the cause of his detention and shall be allowed upon his request, to communicate and confer at any
time with his attorney or counsel (As amended by EO Nos. 59 and 272. November 7, 1986 and July 25, 1987
respectively. On the above mention the petitioners suffers this article 125 from the Japanese military or Kempetai in
arresting them and their failings from their judgement.

ISSUE: Whether or not Macario Gunabe, Sulpicio Gunabe and Margarito Drillon the petitioners were unlawfully,
detained as they were not delivered within six (6) hours of the following arrest.
G.R No. 152997, November 10,2004

SALVADOR MARZALADO, JR., petitioner vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent

QUISUMBING, J.:

Facts:

Cristina N. Albano was the resident of the unit in the house owned by the mother of the petitioner Salvador
Marzalado Jr. his mother filed an ejectment case against Albano. Judgement was exhibit against Albano, who was
ordered to leave the resident and to pay the unpaid rentals. Cristina N. Albano appealed to the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) during the delay of the appeal, the electricity supply of the unit was cut off due to non-payment of bills. As a
result, Cristina N. Albano transferred her children to her father’s house four houses away from her house leaving a
maid to sleep in the unit. Cristina N. Albano claims that she noticed that the lead pipe she used to hang clothes to
dry was missing. When she returned at the following day, she discovered the padlock of the main door changed,
preventing her from entering the premises. Cristina N. Albano went to see the petitioner Salvador Marzalado Jr. but
he was not around. On the next day she again returned to her unit. She spies through the window of jalousies to saw
that the place was already empty. She immediately reported the matter the barangay officials, who is in turn,
advised her to go to police. Thereafter, she filled a complaint for grave coercion, qualified trespass to dwelling and
theft against petitioner. 10 days after, Cristina N. Albano tried to see the accuse but again failed. This time she
noticed that the roofing of her unit had been removed and the main door locked from the inside. She was informed
that the petitioner and his female companion took her lead pipe and also took her personal belongings which
brought inside his house. Cristina N. Albano filed a suit for trespass to dwelling with McTC against Marzalado Jr.
witness named Raniedo, the owner of the house fronting Cristina N. Albano unit, testified that he saw the petitioner
Salvador Marzalado Jr. take the lead pipe and hand it to a woman waiting at the terrace of Salvador Marzalado Jr.
house. He further testified that he heard something when he was relaxing in from of his house. That is contradict
from the statement of the petitioner Salvador Marzalado Jr. he was on his way to home because he saw the water in
continuous streaming flowing of the unit and he went inside the unit he reported to the barangay officers and ask for
barangay tanods they went inside then they saw the faucet is open with water flooding the floor. He claimed that
Albano filed the criminal case of trespass to dwelling to harass him and to fightback against him and his family. Based
on the accusation of Cristina Albano to the petitioner Salvador Marzalado Jr. without any justifiable cause did then
and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously enter the dwelling place of Cristina Albano the accused was arraigned
and pleaded not guilty to the charge.

After the judgement to the petitioner a summary hearing followed with Albano and her witness Raniedo
who testified in the prosecution. He gives his statement saying that he sees the petitioner forcibly open the door of
the unit bring out the belongings of Albano and take it at his own house. The Mctc find the accused guilty for beyond
reasonable doubt of a qualified trespass to dwelling under the article 280 of the revised penal code and hereby
sentence the penalty of two (2) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor and to pay a fine of 500.00 and to pay the
cost. After the result of Mctc Salvador Marzalado Jr appeal to the judgement of Mctc to Regional Trial Court and rtc
said that the petitioner committed trespass to dwelling despite the glaring proof that his entry was justifiable under
paragraph 4, article 11 of the revised penal coded to prevent an imminent danger to property of Albano. He also said
that did it with the present of the barangay officers. When it performing the alleged trespass is not an essential
element of trespass it is still requiring upon the prosecution to establish the criminal intent and the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. On that day the barangay lupon Romulo E. Regaya testified that the petitioner
Salvador Marzalado Jr. forcibly opened the door because of the strong water pressure he only avoiding flooding to
damage the property of his mother. They find that the evidence is insufficient to hold the petitioner guilty of the
offense charged from him. Wherefore the petitioner acquitted from the accusation of Cristina Albano because of
insufficient evidence that may prove the guilt of the petitioner.

ISSUE: Whether or not Salvador Marzalado Jr. is hereby acquitted of the charge against him for lack of evidence to
sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

G.R No. 121572, March 31, 2000

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-appellee vs. JOEL ELAMPARO Y FONTANILLA, Accused-appellant.

CRIMINAL LAW: Republic Act No. 9165: Drugs is any substance (with exception of food and water) which taken into
the body, alters the body function either physically and/or psychologically. Drugs maybe legal (e.g. alcohol, caffeine
and tobacco) or illegal (e.g. cannabis, ecstasy, cocaine and heroin).

CRIMINAL LAW: Republic Act No. 9165: An act instituting the comprehensive dangerous drug act of 2002, repealing
Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the dangerous drugs act of 1972, as amended providing funds therefore
and other purposes.

Same Section 5 Article II of Republic Act No. 9165: Elements of drugs (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the
object of the sale and its consideration; (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment.

QUISUMBING, J.:

FACTS:

On February 12, 1995, at about 5:00 in the morning, prosecution witness Police Officer Romeo Baldonado
while attending to his duties as supervising policeman of the Kalookan Police Station, received a report from an
informant that some people are selling shabu and marijuana somewhere in Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. Thus,
Police officer Baldonado make a buy-bust operation team with himself as team leader and Police Officers Ernesto
Andala, Ronielo Reantillo and Bismark Gaviola as members. The team proceeded to the area reported to ta Progreso
P.Gomez, Bagong Barrio, Kalookan City at around 5:45 in the morning of the same day. Upon arrival the area,
prosecution witness Gaviola together with the informant or asset stood at the corner of P Gomez Street, Bagong
Barrio, Kalookan City, since the said spot was identified to be the market or where the buyers of marijuana await a
runner (seller). Thereafter, a runner later identified to be Erwin Spencer approached the poseur-buyer, Gaviola, who
was asked “Iiskor ba kayo” then they answered “Iiskor kami” Spencer then left and returned after five minutes with
the marijuana. Gaviola handed over the marked money and arrested Spencer but, who freed himself and ran.
 The buy-bust team pursued Spencer, who ran inside a bungalow-type house with steel gate having trapped
Spencer inside the house, the Police officers search him and recovered the marked money. The police officers
likewise found appellant repacking five (5) bricks of marijuana wrapped in a newspaper on top of the round table
inside the house’s sala. Appellant was then arrested and he confessed that source of the ‘marijuana’ was Benguet.
Spencer and appellant were later taken delivered to the inquest fiscal for further investigation the arresting officer
executed an affidavit on the incident and made a request for the National Bureau of investigation to conduct
examination of the drugs seized. The NBI report confirmed that the drugs seized to be ‘marijuana’ weighing five (5)
kilos.

Rtc declares that the appellant Joel Elamparo Y Fontanilla is guilty beyond reasonable doubts of the crime of illegal
possession of drugs and hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day of
prision mayor as minimum and seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and 0ne (1) day of reclusion temporal as
maximum.

ISSUE: Whether or not the appellant Joel Elamparo Y Fontanilla is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
illegal possession of drugs.

RULLING: AFFIRMATIVE

The Elements of drugs

1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration;

2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment.

Applying the foregoing element of drugs. First is the identity of the buyer and the seller, object of the sale
and its consideration it is clear and observe in the statement that the police officer was have a runner that he is the
one who first saw the situation and they help to make a buy bust operation. Also, they get the full identity and
transaction of the user. Next is the delivery of the thing sold and the payment it was successfully delivered because
they get the user of drugs in the right way of doing arrest.
G.R. No. 93335 September 13, 1990

JUAN PONCE ENRILE, petitioner, vs. OMAR U. AMIN, Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 135,
HON. IGNACIO M. CAPULONG, Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 134, Pairing Judge, SPECIAL
COMPOSITE TEAM OF Senior State Prosecutor AURELIO TRAMPE, State Prosecutor FERDINAND ABESAMIS and Asst.
City Prosecutor EULOGIO MANANQUIL; and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

AURELIO TRAMPE, State Prosecutor FERDINAND ABESAMIS and Asst. City Prosecutor EULOGIO MANANQUIL; and
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

Criminal Law; Presidential Decree No.1829: Obstruction of Justice which refers to apprehension and prosecution of
criminal offender, private or public who commits the acts enumerated below may be charged.

Same Presidential Decree No.1829 Section 2: If any of the foregoing act is committed by a public official or
employee, he shall in addition to the penalties provided thereunder suffer perpetual disqualification from holding a
public.

Criminal Law; Article 134 Rebellion or Insurrection: Rebellion or Insurrection is committed by rising publicly and
taking arms against the Government for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Government or its laws,
the territory of the Republic of the Philippines or any part thereof, of anybody of land, naval or other armed forces,
or depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially of any of their powers or prerogatives.

Elements of Article 134. Rebellion or Insurrection: (1) There is a public upraising or taking arms against government
(2) the purpose of the uprising or movement is: (a) to remove from allegiance to said government or its laws, the
territory of the Republic of the Philippines or any part of thereof , anybody of land naval, or other armed forces or
(b) to deprive the chief executive or the legislatures wholly or partially of any of their powers or prerogative.

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:

FACTS:

That on or about the 1st day of December 1989 at Dasmarinas Village, Makati, Metro Manila and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable court, the above named accused, having appropriate basis to believe or suspect that
Ex-Col. Gregorio “Gringo” Honasan has committed a crime did then and there unlawfully, feloniously, willfully and
knowingly obstruct, impede, frustrate or delay the apprehension of said Ex-Col Gregorio “Gringo” Honasan by the
harboring or concealing him in his house.

Petitioner Juan Ponce Enrile filled a motion for reconsideration and to Quash/Dismiss the information
(second information) on the ground that the pending charge of rebellion complexed with murder and frustrated
murder against Enrile as supposed co-conspirator of Col. Honasan, on the basis of their alleged meeting on
December 1, 1989 prevent the prosecution of the Senator for harboring or concealing the Colonel on the same
occasion under PD 1829. But this motion was denied.
 Together with the filing of an information charging Juan Ponce Enrile as having committed rebellion
complexed with murder, government prosecutors filed another information charging him for violation of PD No.
1829.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner could be separately charged for violation of PD No. 1829 notwithstanding the
rebellion case earlier filled against him.

RULING: NEGATIVE

No, Juan Ponce Enrile could not be separately charged for violation of PD No. 1829. The rejection of both
options determines of primary ruling of the court which that Hernandez remains permanent principle operating to
disallow the complexing of rebellion with any offense committed on the occasion thereof, either as means to its
commission or as unintended effect of an activity that commutes rebellion.

The crime of rebellion consists of many acts. It described as broad movement of men and complex of
interest jurisprudence tell us act committed in promotion of the rebellion through crimes in themselves are
considered absorbed in the one single crime of rebellion. In this case the act of harboring or concealing Col.
Honasan is clearly mere component or ingredient of rebellion or an act done in furtherance of the rebellion. It
cannot therefore be made the basis of a separate charge.

G. No. 21049, December 22, 1923

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff and appellee, vs. ISAAC PEREZ, defendant and appellant.
Criminal Law; Act No.292; An act defining the crimes of treason, insurrection, sedition, conspiracies to commit such
crimes, seditious utterances, whether written or spoken, the formation of secret political societies, the administering
or taking of oaths to commit crimes, or to prevent the discovering of the same, and the violation of oaths of
allegiance, and prescribing the punishment therefore.

Same Act No.292 Section 8: Every person who shall utter seditious word or speeches, write, publish, or circulate
scurrilous libels against the Government of the United States or the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands, or
which tend to instigate others to cabal or meet together unlawful purposes, or which suggest or incite rebellious
conspiracies or riots or which tend to stir up the people against the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of the
community, the safety and order of the Government, or who shall knowingly conceal such evil practices, shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding two years or both, in the
discretion of the court.

MALCOLM, J.:

FACTS:

On or about April 1, 1992 in the Municipality of Pilar, Province of Sorsogon, Philippine Islands, the accused
Isaac Perez while holding a discussion with several persons on political matters, did criminally, unlawfully and
willfully knowledge that Honorable Leonard Wood was the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands and his
discharge of his functions as such authority, insult by word, without his presence, said Governor-General uttering in a
loud voice and in the presence of many persons, and in a public place, the following phrases: ‘Asin an 'Asin an
mangña filipinos na caparejo co, maninigong gumamit nin sundang asin haleon an payo ni Wood huli can saiyang
recomendacion sa pag raot can Filipinas,' which in English, is as follows: 'And the Filipinos, like myself, must use
bolos for cutting off Wood's head for having recommended a bad thing for the Philippines.'

Rtc declares that the defendant and appellant Isaac Perez is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime Section 8 of
Act No. 292 and the defendant shall suffer two (2) months and 1 (1) day imprisonment and pay the cost.

ISSUE: Whether or not the defendant and appellant Isaac Perez is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Section 8 No. 292.

RULLING: AFFIRMATIVE

The accused was guilty in the violation of Act 292 of section 8 in which in this law it said that a person
instigate, seditious word or speeches that against the people or government is liable from these.

Based on the situation defendant and appellant Isaac Perez is committed an Act of 292 Section 8 in which he
insults by word in the presence of many people that is against in the will of the person who is Governor General
Wood because everyone has a reputation and dignity that we give importance on it. We all known that we have a
freedom of speech that we can express our feelings but in this case the defendant and appellant Isaac Perez is
insulting Governor General Wood in the public.
G.R. NO. 154130: August 20, 2004

BENITO ASTORGA, petitioner vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents

Criminal Law Article 124 Arbitrary Detention: Any public officer or employee who, without legal grounds, detain a
person, shall suffer; (1)The penalty of arresto mayor, in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum
period, if the detention has not exceeded three days; (2)The penalty prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods, if the detention has continued more than three but not more than fifteen days; (3)The penalty of
prision mayor, if the detention has continued for more than fifteen days but not more than six months; and (4) That
of reclusion temporal, if the detention shall have exceeded six months.

Same Article 124 Arbitrary Detention: Elements (1) That the offender is a public officer or employee (2) that he
detains a person (3) that the detention is without legal grounds.

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

FACTS:

On September 1, 1997 a team was sent to the Island of Daram, Western Samar to conduct intelligence
gathering and forest protection operations in line with the government’s campaigns against illegal logging. Upon
investigation of the group Mayor Astorga was found to be the owner of two boats. A heated altercation ensued and
Mayor Astorga called for reinforcements. Ten armed men arrived the scene. The offended parties were then brought
to Mayor Astorga’s house where they had dinner and drinks and left at 2:30 am. SPO1 Capoquian were allowed to go
down from the house but not leave the barangay. On the other hand, SPO3 Cinco and the rest just sat in the house
until 2:00 am when the team was finally allowed to leave.

Rtc declares that Benito Astorga is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime arbitrary detention and
sentencing him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) months of arresto mayor as minimum, to one (1) year
and eight (8) months of prision correctional as maximum.

ISSUE: Whether or not Mayor Astorga is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime arbitrary detention.

RULING: AFFIRMATIVE

Yes, Mayor Astorga is guilty for arbitrary detention. Arbitrary detention is committed by any of the public officer or
employee who, without legal grounds to detain a person.

The elements of the crime are:

That the offender is a public officer or employee.

That he detains a person

That the detention is without legal grounds.

In the case the restraint resulting from fear is evident. In malice of their pleas, the witnesses and complaints were
not allowed by the petitioner Benito Astorga to go home. This refusal was quickly followed by the call for and arrival
of almost twelve ‘reinforcements”, all armed with military-issue rifles who proceeded to encircle the team, weapons
pointed at complaints and witnesses. Given such circumstances we give credence to SPO1 capoquian’s statement
that it was not ‘safe’ to reuse Mayor Astorga’s orders. It was not just the presence of the armed men, but also
evident effect these gun men had on the actions of the thing which proves that fear was in fact instilled in the minds
of the team members, to the extent that they felt compelled to stay in Barangay Lucob-lucob. The intent to prevent
the departure on the complainants and witness against their will is thus clear.
G.R. No. L-19069, October 29, 1968

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AMADEO PERALTA, ET AL, defendants, ANDRES FACTORA,
LEONARDO DOSAL, ANGEL PARUMOG, AMADEO PERALTA, FLORENCIO LUNA and GERVASIO LARITA, defendants-
review.

Assistant Solicitors General Vicente A. Torres and Antonio Ibarra for plaintiff-appelle. J.R Nuguid for defendants-
review.

Criminal Law: Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code; Murder Any person who not falling within the provision of
article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death if
committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: (1) with treachery, taking advantage of superior
strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or
persons to insure or afford impunity. (2) In consideration of a price, reward or promise. (3) By means of inundation,
fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, or by
means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin. (4) On occasion of any
of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive
cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity. (5) With evident premeditation. (6) With cruelty, by deliberately and
inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.

Same: Element of Murder: The Elements of Murder (1) that person was killed (2) that the accused kill him (3) that
the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Art.248 (4) that the killing is not
parricide or infanticide.

PER CURIAM:

FACTS:

On February 1958 Peralta out of other inmates of New Bilibid Prisons, plan and mutually helped one
another, with evident premeditation and treachery, armed with deadly weapons, feloniously killed Jose Carriego,
Eugenio Barbosa and Santos Cruz, also convicts confined in the New Bilibid Prison by hitting, stabbing and striking
them with ice picks, clubs and other improvised weapons, pointed and sharpened therefore inflicting u pon the
victims multiple serious injuries which directly caused their deaths. Aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism is
present because the crime was committed while the offenders were convicted by final judgement.

Lying on the motion of fiscal before trial, the lower court dismissed the charge against one of the accused for
lack of evidence. After the prosecution of the case, the charge against six (6) accused were dismissed for failure to
establish a prima facie case against them. After the trial the one defendant died and eight (8) of the accused were
also acquitted.

Rtc declares that Amadeo Peralta, Andres Factora, Leonardo Dosal, Angel Parumog, Gervasio Larita and
Florencio Luna are each pronounced guilty of three separate and distinct crimes of murder, and are each sentenced
to death penalties; all of them shall, together and separately, reimburse the heirs of each three deceased victims in
the sum of P12,000.00 each will pay one-sixth (1/6) of the costs.

ISSUE: Whether or not the defendants Amadeo Peralta, Andres Factora, Leonardo Dosal, Angel Parumog, Gervasio
Larita, and Florencio Luna are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the three separate and distinct crimes of murder.

RULLING: AFFIRMATIVE

The Elements of Murder:

1) that person was killed

2) that the accused kill him

3) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Art.248

4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide.

Applying the foregoing element of murder. The person was killed by the accused Amadeo Peralta, Andres
Factora, Leonardo Dosal, Angel Parumog, Gervasio Larita and Florencio Luna by hitting, stabbing and striking them
with ice picks, clubs and other improvised weapons, pointed and sharpened therefore inflicting upon the victim’s
multiple serious injuries which directly caused their deaths.

RULLING: NEGATIVE

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code; Murder at paragraph 4. It is not present in the crime because the killing was
not parricide or infanticide.
G.R. No. L-14639, March 25, 1919

ZACARIAS VILLAVICENCIO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. JUSTO LUKBAN, ET AL., respondents.

Alfonso Mendoza for petitioner

City Fiscal Diaz for respondents.

Criminal Law: Article 127 of the Revised Penal Code Expulsion; The penalty of prision correctional shall be imposed
upon any public officer or employee who not being, thereunto authorized by law, shall expel any person from the
Philippine Islands or shall compel such person to change his residence.

Same Article 127 of the Revised Penal Code Expulsion Elements; (1) that the offender is a public officer or employee
(2) that he expels any person from the Philippines, or compels a person to change his residence (3) that the offender
is not authorized to do so by law

FACTS:

Justo Lukban is a Mayor of Manila City who wants to do with end the vices ordered segregated district for
women together with Anton Hohmann who is the cities chief of police took custody of about 170 women beyond the
latter’s consent and knowledge. Afterwards they were shipped in Mindanao specially in Davao where they were
signed as laborers. The women were seemingly inmates of the houses of prostitution situated in Gardenia Street in
Sampaloc. They were under the premise that they were being transported to another police station. The haciendero
from Davao, where the women were placed, had no idea that the people sent to him was prostitutes. The suppliant
filed a petition for habeas corpus or is a recourse in law through which a person can report an unlawful detention or
imprisonment to a court and request that the court order the custodian of a person, usually a person official, to bring
the prisoner to court to determine whether the detention is lawful. The appellant moved to dismiss the case and
hold that those women were already out of their jurisdiction and that it should be filed in the city of Davao. During
the trial, it came out that as a matter fact the women were deported without their consent in effect Justo Luckban
forcibly allocate them in a new domicile.

ISSUE: Whether or not Justo Lucban had the authority to deport the women to Davao and the City of Manila has
jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus to Davao.

RULLING: AFFIRMATIVE

The Elements of Expulsion are;

1.That the offender is a public officer or employee

2.That he expels any person from the Philippines, or compels a person to change his residence

3. That the offender is not authorized to do so by law

Applying the foregoing element of expulsion, it is given that the respondents is a public officer or employee who is
Mayor Justo Lucban he did such acts which violate the liberty and the rights of a prostitute. Next is he expels the
person from the Philippines or compels a person to change his residence without permission or knowing of the
prostitutes. Last is the respondent is not authorized to do so by law even he is a mayor he has no rights to do this in
the prostitute because only the president of the Philippines can do this action.

G.R. No. 17958, February 27, 1922

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLAND, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LOL-LO and SARAW, defendants-appellants.

Thos. D. Aitken for appellants.

Acting Attorney

Criminal Law Piracy: Piracy is robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas, without lawful authority and done
animo furandi, and in the spirit and intention of universal hostility.

Same Piracy: Elements (1) the vessel is on the high seas or Philippine waters. (2) Offenders are neither members of
the complement nor passengers of the vessel (3) offenders either (a) attack or seize that vessel or (b) seize the whole
or part of its cargo, its equipment or personal belongings of its complement or passengers (4) there is intent to gain.

MALCOLM, J.:
FACTS:

On or about June 30, 1920 the two (2) boats of Dutch left in matuta in the one (1) boat was one (1) individual
who is a Dutch in the other boat it has 11, men, women and children subject of Holland. The second (2nd) boat
arrived between the Island of Buang and Bukid in the Dutch of East Indies. On this the boat was bordering by six (6)
vintas manned by twenty-four (24) Moros that is all armed. The first Moros asked for food but once on the Dutch
boat too for themselves all of the cargo attacked some of the men and brutally violated the two (2) women. All of
the people on the Dutch boat except the two (2) young women were again placed on it and holes were made on it
the idea that it would be submerge. The Moros was finally arrived at Maruro a Dutch possession two (2) of the Moro
marauders were Lol-lo who also raped one of the women and Saraw. At Maruro the two (2) women were able to
escape Lol-lo and Saraw late returned to their home in South Ubian, Tawi- Tawi Sulu Philippine Islands.

Rtc declares that the defendant and appellant Lol-Lo and Saraw is found guilty beyong reasonable doubt of
the crime piracy and is sentenced to be hung until dead and shall pay a one-half (1/2) part of the cost both instances.

ISSUE: Whether or not the defendant and appellant Lol-lo and Saraw is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
piracy.

RULLING: AFFIRMATIVE:

Applying the foregoing Elements:

1) the vessel is on the high seas or Philippine waters.

2) Offenders are neither members of the complement nor passengers of the vessel

3) offenders either (a) attack or seize that vessel or (b) seize the whole or part of its cargo, its equipment or personal
belongings of its complement or passengers

4) there is intent to gain.

Applying the foregoing first it was happened in the high seas or part of the Philippine waters were in the boat was
there and the action that they commit was inside the property of the Philippines next is the offender is member of
the complement nor passengers of the vessel in the crime Lol-lo and Saraw is in the vessel wherein the action was
happened and the offenders attack the boat and get something equipment from the boat and they rape the women
that cause of her death that’s why the rtc declared that the defendant and appellant Lol-lo and Saraw is sentencing
death to be hung.
A.M. No. P-01-1472, June 26, 2003

ADRIANO ALBIOR, complainant vs. DONATO A. AUGUIS, Clerk of Court II, 4th Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC),
Talibon-Getafe, Bohol, Respondent.

Criminal Law Article 125: Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities. - The penalties
provided in the next preceding articles 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.

Criminal Law Grave Misconduct: It is defined as the transgression of some established and definite rule of action,
more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer coupled with elements of corruption,
willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules.

PER CURIAM:

FACTS:

On January 25, 1999 MCTC, Branch 4 in Talibon-Getafe, Talibon Bohol filed two complaints for rape
against Edilberto Albior. As clerk of court of the said court Donato Auguis who is the respondent received and filed a
complaint which were schedule as a Criminal Case Nos. 9144 and 9145. Day after respondent issued a detention
order to the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) in San Jose, Talibon, Bohol, for the commitment of the
accused Edilberto Albior. On January 27, 1999, the BJMP duly issued a receipt of detainee for the person of the
accused. According to complainant, said order was issued without a prior preliminary investigation and without a
warrant of arrest. Neither was there any record in the Police Blotter of the accused’s apprehension, or of his
surrender. Nor was there proof that he signed a waiver for his detention. What’s more, the respondent failed to
inform Acting Municipal Judge Avelino Puracan regarding the filing of the complaints for rape before his sala. On
February 23, 1999, counsel for the accused then filed an urgent motion to release the accused.Two days later,
respondent issued a subpoena, directing the accused to submit counter-affidavits for the preliminary investigation of
the charges of rape. But no further action was taken by the court. Accused through counsel filed a second motion7
on March 1, 1999. Again, the motion was not acted upon.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent Donato Auguis, Clerk of Court II, MCTC, Branch 4 at Talibon-Getafe, Talibon,
Bohol is found administratively liable for issuing the assailed detention order without lawful authority, as well as
failing to inform the presiding judge of the court regarding such order, thus committing grave misconduct in the
discharge of official functions. Donato Auguis is hereby dismissed from the service, with forfeiture of all benefits and
privileges except earned leave credits if any and with prejudice to reemployment in the government including
government owned and controlled corporations.

RULLING: AFFIRMATIVE:

On this case the respondent Donato Auguis, violate the rights of Edilberto Albior who is suffer delayed in
detaining and by getting a fake warrant of arrest without issuing of a court. We all known that in arresting a person it
must in due process and it should not violate any rights of the person. Donato Auguis must charge of grave
misconduct because of wrong things that he did to Edilberto Albior he violates the rules of the Philippines and also
the rights of the victim.
G.R. No. 8608, September 26, 1913

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee vs. PAULINO CABALLERO, defendant-appellant.

Filemon Sotto for appellant

Office of Solicitor-General Harvey for appelle.

Criminal Law: RA 3815 Of Revised Penal Code Article 293 of Robbery: Any person who, with intent to gain, shall take
any personal property belonging to another, by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or using
force upon anything, shall be guilty of robbery.

Same; Article 293, Robbery: The Elements of robbery are the following: (1) the subject is personal property or
belonging to another (2) there is unlawful of taking of that property (3) the taking is the intent to gain (4) there is a
violence or intimidation of any person or use force upon things

ARELLANO, C.J.

FACTS:

In or about the Month of May, 1912 the accused Paulino Caballero being as the municipal president of the
municipality of Badian Province of Cebu availing himself of his office did with intent to obtain gain through the
employment of force and intimidation upon the person of Macario Pellire who seize a cow valued at P35 belonging
to the said Macario against the will of its owner. January 21, 1913 the complaint was signed and filed by the
provincial fiscal of judicial district. The result of preliminary examination held before the justice court of Badian on
June 12, 1912 which the record proceeds on June 19, 1912 to the office of the provincial fiscal and they received on
the 25th of the same month and year. There was a delay about seven months in preparing the complaint within the
province itself. The information was presented to the justice of the peace court on June 12, 1912. The criminal act
charged against the accused consist in that when Macario Pellire go in front of the house of Paulino Caballero
leading a cow by the halter the accused came down out of the house offered him P4.50 for the animal and offer the
money.

ISSUE: Whether or not the defendant-appellant Paulino Caballero is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
robbery.

RULLING: AFFIRMATIVE:

We all known that robbery is the intent to gain by taking a personal property by means of violence against
any person using force and that is present base on the case of Paulino Caballero vs. US.

The Elements of robbery are the following:

1) the subject is personal property or belonging to another

2) there is unlawful of taking of that property

3) the taking is the intent to gain

4) there is a violence or intimidation of any person or use force upon things

Applying the foregoing element, it is all present in the case of Paulino Caballero vs. US because in the first
element the subject or personal property from the case is the cow that is ownership of Macario Pelire that against
on his will. Next is it is unlawful because the accused get the cow unlawfully and forcibly to the victim without his
rights. Third is the accused take the cow with the intent to gain because it is his job to get profit by forcing the
people in his province. Last is there is a violence because he did not respect the rights of Macario Pellire who is the
victim in the case to decide because he forcibly buy his cow to the owner.