CRIMINAL LAW 2 DIGEST

TITLE 1: CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS

1. ANASTACIO LAUREL, petitioner,

vs.
ERIBERTO MISA, respondent.
G.R. No. L-409 January 30, 1947

FACTS:
Anastacio filed a petition for habeas corpus based on the theory that a Filipino
citizen who adhered to the enemy giving the latter aid and comfort during the Japanese
occupation cannot be prosecuted for the crime of treason defined and penalized by
article 114 of the Revised Penal Code, for the reason (1) that the sovereignty of the
legitimate government in the Philippines and, consequently, the correlative allegiance of
Filipino citizens thereto was then suspended; and (2) that there was a change of
sovereignty over these Islands upon the proclamation of the Philippine Republic.
ISSUE:
Whether the petitioner can be prosecuted for the crime of treason by giving aid
and support to the enemy during the Japanese occupation.

RULING:
Yes, the petitioner can be prosecuted for the crime of treason by giving aid and
support to the enemy during the Japanese occupation.
Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code was applicable to treason committed
against the national security of the legitimate government because the inhabitants of the
occupied territory were still bound by their allegiance to the latter during the enemy‘s
occupation. Just as a citizen or subject of a government or sovereign may be
prosecuted for and convicted of treason committed in a foreign country, in the same way
a inhabitant of a territory occupied by the military forces of the enemy may commit
treason against his own legitimate or sovereign if he adheres to the enemies of the
latter by giving them aid and comfort.
Hence, the petitioner can be prosecuted for the crime of treason by giving aid
and support to the enemy during the Japanese occupation.
 CRIMINAL LAW 2 DIGEST

2. JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA, petitioner,

vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN (Third Division) and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
respondents.
G.R. No. 148560 November 19, 2001

FACTS:
As an offshoot of the impeachment proceedings against Joseph Estrada, five criminal
complaints against the former President and members of his family, his associates,
friends and conspirators were filed with the Ombudsman. One of the charges was for
plunder and among the respondents was petitioner Jinggoy Estrada, then mayor of San
Juan, Metro Manila. Estrada filed several motions (motion to quash and suspend, very
urgent omnibus motion) which were all denied. Estrada claims that respondent
Sandiganbayan acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in: 1) not declaring that R.A. No. 7080 as
applied to him was in denial of his right to the equal protection of the laws; 2) not
holding that the Plunder Law does not provide complete and sufficient standards; 3)
sustaining the charge against petitioner for alleged offenses, and with alleged
conspirators, with which and with whom he is not even remotely connected - contrary to
the dictum that criminal liability is personal, not vicarious -results in the denial of
substantive due process;
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner is denied of the equal protection of the laws.
RULING:
No. Petitioner’s contention that R.A. No. 7080is unconstitutional as applied to him
is principally perched on the premise that the Amended Information charged him with
only one act or one offense which cannot constitute plunder is patently false. To insist
that the Amended Information charged the petitioner with the commission of only one
act or offense despite the phrase “several instances” is to indulge in a twisted, nay,
“pretzel” interpretation. It is too late in the day for the petitioner to argue that the
Ombudsman failed to establish any probable cause against him for plunder. The
respondent Sandiganbayan itself has found probable cause against the petitioner for
which reason it issued a warrant of arrest against him. The time to assail the finding of
probable cause by the Ombudsman has long passed.
 CRIMINAL LAW 2 DIGEST

3. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
FRANCISCO M. ABAD (alias PAQUITO), defendant-appellant.
G.R. No. L-430 July 30, 1947

FACTS:
Francisco Abad was found guilty on three counts of the complex crime of treason
with homicide. The information charged appellant of the crime of treason by giving aid
and comfort to the Empire of Japan and the Japanese Imperial Forces. The first
question raised by appellant is that the lower court erred in finding the accused guilty on
the first count, notwithstanding the fact that only one witness testified to the overt act
alleged therein.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of the first count of treason knowing full-well
that only one witness testified to the overt act alleged therein.
RULING:
No. The two-witness rule must be adhered to as to each and every one of all the
external manifestations of the overt act in issue. Although both overt acts are inter-
related, it would be too much to strain the imagination if they should be identified as a
single act or even as different manifestations, phases, or stages of the same overt act.
Although both acts may logically be presumed to have answered the same purpose, the
singleness of purpose is not enough to make one of two acts.

4. THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee,

vs.
DALMACIO LAGNASON, defendant-appellant.
G.R. No. 1582 March 28, 1904

FACTS:
On October 29, 1902, the defendant with this band made an attack upon the
pueblo of Murcia in said province, but was driven off by the force of Constabulary there
stationed. During that night two inspectors of the Constabulary arrived with additional
forces and early in the morning they left the pueblo in search of the defendant. He was
encountered with his party about three kilometers from the pueblo and was attacked by
the Constabulary. The fight lasted an hour and a half. The defendant was captured in
 CRIMINAL LAW 2 DIGEST

the battle and about twenty of his men were killed. On the side of the Constabulary were
killed two policemen of the vicinity who were acting as guides. The defendant's band
consisted of between seventy and eighty men. They had for arms five or ten rifles,
bolos, daggers, and one small cannon. The defendant when captured was armed with a
rifle, a revolver, and a bolo Most of his men wore black shirts, white pantaloons, and
black caps They camed no banners, but did carry two large wooden crosses which were
captured, together with the cannon.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the defendant is guilty of treason.
RULING:
Yes. Act No. 292 of the Philippine Commission states that every person, resident
in the Philippine Islands, owing allegiance to the United States, or the Government of
the Philippine Islands, who levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving
them aid and comfort within the Philippine Islands or elsewhere, is guilty of treason.

5. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
MAXIMO BATE (alias BORJA, alias PATSO), defendant-appellant.
G.R. No. L-1547 January 28, 1949

FACTS:
Bate was found guilty on six counts of treason. On one count, the appellant who
was then armed and who was accompanied by several undercover men arrested
Francisca Bacalla and took her to Sgt. Yoshida, chief of the Japanese Military Police,
where she was investigated and maltreated. As pointed out by the Solicitor General,
only one witness Felisa Taboado testified as to Bacalla's arrest by the appellant and
only one witness, Conrado Bao, the cook of Sgt. Yoshida testified about her
investigation at Yoshida's house by the defendant.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of treason.
RULING:
Yes. Although not sufficient to prove the overt acts of which Bate is accused,
nevertheless, the evidence may be considered as proof of his adherence to the enemy.
 CRIMINAL LAW 2 DIGEST

6. DDD

7. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
LORENZO MORALES, Defendant-Appellant.
G.R. No. L-4533. May 28, 1952

FACTS:

The defendant, Lorenzo Morales, was charged with the crime of treason in a two-
count information, count one of which was abandoned by the prosecution.

After trial, the Court of First Instance of Bulacan rendered a decision finding the
defendant guilty as charged, and sentencing him to imprisonment for 20 years,
reclusion temporal, and to a fine of P10,000, plus the costs. From this decision, the
defendant appealed.

The facts as found by the trial court and supported by the evidence for the
prosecution are briefly as follows: In a raid made by a group of Japanese and Makapili
in the early morning of December 12, 1944, in Santa Lucia, San Miguel, Bulacan,
Ricardo Velayo and Rufino Velayo, brothers were arrested from their house. During the
raid, the appellant, armed with a gun, remained downstairs as a guard. At about 10:00
o'clock in the same morning Ricardo and Rufino Velayo, together with Fermin Chico,
Alejo Velayo, Arsenio Pacheco, Maximo Ramos, Bonifacio de Jesus and Salvador
Eusebio, also arrested from other places in Santa Lucia, were taken near the house of
Rosalina de Guzman where they were tortured to death, with the exception of Bonifacio
de Jesus, Maximo Ramos, and Salvador Eusebio. The dead bodies were buried near
the place of the torture, but those of Ricardo Velayo and Rufino Velayo were later
exhumed and buried in Gapan, Nueva Ecija. The appellant, however, though present on
the occasion when the victims were tortured, did not actually take part in the fatal
ceremony. All those thus apprehended and killed were guerrillas.
 CRIMINAL LAW 2 DIGEST

ISSUE:
Whether or not the appellant can be held guilty for treason for his mere presence.

RULING:

The trial court was correct in finding the appellant guilty. The two witness-rule
was fully met. Counsel for appellant doubts the veracity of Salvador Eusebio, because
the latter was not mentioned in the information as one of the victims.

Appellant also insists that his mere presence is not sufficient to constitute
treason. It appears, however, that he was carrying a firearm and was seen behaving as
a guard. During the Japanese occupation, nobody could carry a a gun freely in the
presence of Japanese soldiers, unless he was an agent of or in cahoots with the enemy.

8. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
AQUILINO VILLANUEVA, defendant-appellant.
G.R. No. L-5838 February 9, 1953

FACTS:
At about midnight of December 24, 1944, the defendant accompanied eight or
nine Japanese soldiers to the place where Pablo Parungao, Eugenio Maliwat and Jose
Maliwat were doing guard duty as members of the neighborhood association in
Talavera, Nueva Ecija. The Japanese soldiers arrested Jose Maliwat and carried him
away. They came back and also arrested Pablo Parungao. Parungao and Maliwat were
taken to the Japanese garrison in the poblacion of Talavera, where they were detained
for forty-eight hours until they were released upon request of the Mayor of Talavera,
Jose B. David. In said garrison two other persons, Manuel Corpus and Francisco
Payoyo were already detained. This fact was testified to by Pablo Parungao and
Eugenio Maliwat, brother of Jose. Late in December, 1944, the appellant formed a unit
of the "Makapili" organization, with himself as chief, with the rank of captain. Said unit
was engaged in patrolling the town and looking for guerrillas and persons suspected of
helping the underground movement against the Japanese. Some of the members were
wearing uniforms similar to those used by the Japanese soldiers and arm bands with
Japanese characters which, according to the Japanese commander, were the symbol of
membership in the "Makapili organization, and those wearing said arm bands were
entitled to the respect and protection of the local authorities, and the people were
 CRIMINAL LAW 2 DIGEST

obliged to bow to them. At the time of the arrest of the Filipino guards, the defendant
was wearing said arm band. These facts were testified to by the Mayor and other
witnesses for the prosecution. The defendant testified in his own behalf to the effect that
he was the head of the "Gana" a religious organization in Talavera, where they had a
temple that he moved to Cabanatuan in other to escape from the Japanese, staying
there from June 12, 1942 to January 6, 1945, engaged in the business of a tinsmith and
that he never took part in the arrest of any person.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the defendant-appellant is guilty of treason.
RULING:
Yes, the defendant-appellant is guilty of treason. The trial court did not give
credence to this testimony of the defendant which consisted of a mere denial of the
charges, nor did it give any weight to his alleged alibi. We see reason for distributing
this finding,
Inasmuch as it has not been established by the prosecution that the appellant
participated directly or indirectly in the killing or disappearance of any person, the
judgment appealed from should not be modified.

9. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
ANTONIO RACAZA, defendant-appellant.
G.R. No. L-365 January 21, 1949

FACTS:
Racaza was convicted guilty of treason on 14 charges. The trial court determined
that the aggravating factors were clear premeditation, superior strength, treachery, and
employment of means for adding ignominy to the natural effects of the crime.
ISSUE:
Whether or not superior strength, treachery, and ignominy aggravates treason.
RULING:
No, superior strength, treachery, and ignominy aggravates treason. 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 requiring fixed,
reflective and persistent determination and planning. Treachery is merged in superior
 CRIMINAL LAW 2 DIGEST

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.

10. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
ELEUTERIO ICARO, defendant-appellant.
G.R. No. L-2956 May 23, 1951

FACTS:
The appellant was convicted by the trial court of treason and are stated in the
appealed decision as follows: "The evidence clearly shows that, during the latter part of
1944, and early in 1945, while the United States of America, the Philippines, and the
Allied nations were at war with the Japanese Empire, defendant herein, Eleuterio Icaro,
a Filipino citizen, owing faith and allegiance to both America and the Commonwealth of
the Philippines, openly adhered to the enemy, and gave it aid and comfort. Armed with a
rifle, and in company with other Filipinos and Japanese soldiers, also armed, he took
part in raids against guerrilla suspects, and in their arrest. Among these arrested,
because of their underground activities, by the defendant and his companions, were
Norberto Ungkiatco, on December 23, 1944, Emilio Biscocho, Santiago Nipal, Victor
Vergara, Valentin Vergara and Vicente Ele, on January 15, 1945. With the exception of
Emilio Biscocho, none of the other persons mentioned above has been seen again."
The appellant denies that he was a Makapili.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the appellant be held guilty of treason.
RULING:
Yes, the appellant is guilty of treason. The trial courts found that there is no direct
and conclusive proof that the appellant was a Makapili, and this finding is assailed by
the Solicitor General on the ground that while there is no documentary evidence to
show that appellant had joined the Makapili organization, the witnesses for the
prosecution are unanimous in alleging that appellant was in fact a Makapili. The point
becomes unnecessary, since adherence to the enemy may be inferred from the overt
acts of treason committed by the appellant, consisting in the arrest of persons
suspected of being guerrillas who, with the exception of one Emilio Biscocho, were
 CRIMINAL LAW 2 DIGEST

never seen again, especially because the appellant was armed and in company with
armed Japanese soldiers and other Filipinos.

11. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

VS.
GAUDENCIO ROBLE, defendant-appellant
G.R. No. L-433 March 02, 1949

FACTS:
Charged with treason on three counts, the defendant pleaded guilty and was
sentenced to death by the First Division of the People's Court. The court held that the
facts alleged in the information is a complex crime of treason with murders, with the
result that the penalty provided for the most serious offense was to be imposed on its
maximum degree. It opined that the killings were murders qualified by treachery and
aggravated by the circumstances of evident premeditation, superior strength, cruelty,
and an armed band.

12. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

VS.
CAYETANO MANGAHAS AND MARIANO DE LOS SANTOS MANGAHAS,
defendant-appellant
G.R. Nos. L-5367 & L-5368, June 09, 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
 CRIMINAL LAW 2 DIGEST

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 are guilty of treason.
RULING:
Yes, the defendants are guilty of treason. 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.

13. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
ISAAC PEREZ, defendant-appellant.
G.R. No. L-21049 December 22, 1923

FACTS:
Seven counts of treason were filed against SusanoPerez aka Kid Perez, the
accused, for recruiting,apprehending, and commandeering women (Eriberta Ramo,
 CRIMINAL LAW 2 DIGEST

Eduarda Daohog, Eutiquia Lamay, and Flaviana Bonalos) against their will to satisfy the
immoral purpose and sexual desire of Colonel Mini, and other Japanese of Officers.
Only counts 1,2,4,5,6 were substantiated. In the 4th and5th counts, the accused
personally assaulted and abused two of the offended girls.Susano Perez was convicted
of treason and sentenced to death by electrocution by the People’s Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the defendant is guilty of treason.
RULING:
No, the defendant is guilty of treason. The law of treason does not proscribe all
kinds of social, business and political intercourse between the belligerent occupants of
the invaded country and its inhabitants. What aid and comfort constitute treason must
depend upon their nature; degree and purpose. As a 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. 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 States.

14. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
MELQUIADES FERNANDEZ alias "Moding", and FEDERICO CONRADO,
defendants-appellants.
G.R. No. L-62116 March 22, 1990

FACTS: