Title of the Case with GR Number: People Vs Cabrera G.R. No.

17748

Name of the Ponencia;

Synopsis;

On December 13, 1920, policemen of the city of Manila arrested a woman who was a member of
the household of a Constabulary soldier stationed at the Santa Lucia Barracks, the arrest started a
resentment between Philippine Constabulary and the Manila police department. On December
14, policeman Artemio Mojica, posted on Calle Real, had an encounter with various
Constabulary soldiers which resulted in the shooting and death of Private Macasinag of the
Constabulary. A deep feeling of resentment was converted into a desire for revenge against the
police force of the city of Manila. On December 15, 1920, a rumor spread among the soldiers
that Policeman Mojica was allowed to continue on duty on the streets of Intramuros. In the
evening of the same day, Corporal Ingles asked Nicolas Torio in charge of the fourth company to
let the soldiers out through the window of the quarters. Private Torio allow soldiers to escape
with rifles and ammunition under the command of their sergeants and corporals. These soldiers
were divided into groups to attack the city police force. The lower court convicted the defendants
with the crime of sedition, with the crimes of murder and serious physical injuries that were tried
separately.

Numbered (itemized) and brief presentation of facts;

1. On December 13, 1920, policemen of the city of Manila arrested a woman who was a
member of the household of a Constabulary soldier and was allegedly abused by the
police man.

2. December 14, policemen Artemio Mojica, had an encounter with various Constabulary
soldiers which resulted in the shooting and death of private Macasinag

3. December 15, 1920, a rumor spread among the soldiers in Santa Lucia Barracks to the
effect that policeman Mojica was allowed to continue on duty on the streets of Intramuros
after private Macasinag had died.

4. Corporal Ingles of the Fourth Company approached private Nicolas Torio that allow
soldiers to escape with rifles and ammunition under the command of their sergeants and
corporals. These soldiers divided into groups for attack upon the city police force.

5. The prosecution presented the defendants' confessions, as Exhibits C to C-76 that were
made freely and voluntarily without any promise of immunity. That such was the case
was corroborated by the attesting witnesses whose credibility has not been successfully
impeached.
 6. It is incontestable that all of the defendants were imbued with the same purpose, which
was to avenge themselves on the police force of the city of Manila. The trial court did not
err in declaring that there was a conspiracy between the accused.

7. In subdivison 3 of section 5 of the Treason and Sedition Law makes no distinction

between the persons to which it applies. The trial court did not err in convicting the
accused of the violation of section 5, paragraph 3, of Act No. 292 of the Philippine
Commission.

8. The court overruled the special defenses and found that the guilt of the accused had been
proved beyond a reasonable doubt. All of the defendants were sentenced to serve the
maximum imprisonment of ten years provided by section 6 of Act No. 292

f) Main Issues (Issues that specifically deal with human rights);

Whether or not there is a conspiracy between the accused?

Whether the accused should be convicted of sedition?

g) Ruling of the Supreme Court; and

Yes- Conspiracies are generally proved by a number of indefinite acts, conditions, and
circumstances which vary according to the purposes to be accomplished. It be proved that the
defendants pursued by their acts the same object, one performing one part and another part of the
same, so as to complete it. It is incontestable that all of the defendants were imbued with the
same purpose, which was to avenge themselves on the police force of the city of Manila. A
common feeling of resentment animated all. A common plan evolved from their military training
was followed.

Yes- Sedition, in its more general sense, is the raising of commotions or disturbances in the
State. Treason and Sedition Law makes no distinction between the persons to which it applies.
The Philippine law on the subject (Act No. 292) makes all persons guilty of sedition who rise
publicly and tumultuously in order to obtain by force or outside of legal methods any one of vie
objects, including that of inflicting any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of any
official or agent of the Insular Government or of Provincial or Municipal Government.

h) Important Doctrines that refer to human rights.

Title of the Case with GR Number: Morales Vs. Enrile G.R. No. L-61016, G.R. No. L-61107
Moncupa Vs. Enrile

Name of the Ponencia; Jose Conception Jr.

Synopsis;

On April 21, 1982, the petitioners were arrested by elements of Task Force Makabansa of the
AFP. Since then, they have been under detention. Both Petitioner Morales and Moncupa filed a
petition for habeas corpus with this Court. On July 20, 1982 petitioners, together with several
others, were charged with rebellion. Petitioners asked the Court to order the reinvestigation of
the charges against them as they claim they were arrested without any warrant of arrest; that their
constitutional rights were violated among them the right to counsel, the right to remain silent, the
right to a speedy and public trial, and the right to bail. Acting on such plea, the Court in a
resolution en banc dated July 22, 1982, ordered the City Fiscal of Quezon City to conduct such
reinvestigation. On September 28, 1982, the City Fiscal submitted his report on the
reinvestigation affirming the existence of a prima facie case for rebellion against petitioners and
several others. Indeed, therefore, petitioners were arrested without a warrant. But the group of
Morales were already under surveillance for some time before they were arrested and the
warrantless arrest done is valid and at the same time the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
was already suspended. And on February 8, 1983, he submitted to this Court the transcript of the
notes taken at the reception of the evidence on the charges of petitioners.

Numbered (itemized) and brief presentation of facts;

1. Petitioners were arrested on April 21, 1982 by elements of Task Force Makabansa of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines. Since their arrest, they have been under detention.
2. Petitioner Morales filed his petition for habeas corpus with the Court on July 9, 1982,
while petitioner Moncupa filed his on July 19, 1982.
3. On July 20, 1982 petitioners, together with several others, were charged with rebellion
4. The trial of the case has yet to be terminated. The continued detention of petitioners to
answer for the offense charged is therefore legal.
5. Petitioners asked the Court to order the reinvestigation of the charges against them, and
claim that they were arrested without any warrant of arrest; that their constitutional rights
were violated. Court in a resolution en banc dated July 22, 1982 ordered the City Fiscal
of Quezon City to conduct such reinvestigation.
6. On September 28, 1982, the City Fiscal submitted his report on the reinvestigation
affirming the existence of a prima facie case for rebellion against petitioners and several
others.
7. February 8, 1983 he submitted to this Court the transcript of the notes taken at the
reception of the evidence on the charges of petitioners.
 8. Although martial law was terminated on January 17, 1981, by virtue of Proclamation No.
2045 of the President of the Philippines, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
continues to be suspended in the two autonomous regions in Mindanao and in all other
places with respect to certain offenses.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners were legally arrested

g) Ruling of the Supreme Court; ands:

The petitioner was indeed arrested without any warrant of arrest and the issuance of a
Presidential Arrest and Commitment Order, was approved by the President only on April 23,
1982. However, months before their arrest, petitioners were already under surveillance on
suspicion of committing rebellion. From the results of the said surveillance, the evidence then at
hand, and the documents seized from them at the time of their arrest, it would appear that they
had committed or were actually committing the offense of rebellion. Their arrest without a
warrant for the said offense is therefore clearly justified under the section 6 rule 113 which
provides that a warrantless arrest can be made in some instances

h) Important Doctrines that refer to human rights.

Title of the Case with GR Number: People vs. Galit GR No. 51770

Name of the Ponencia;

Synopsis;

On August 23, 1977, Mrs. Natividad Fernando was found dead in her bedroom, as a result of 7
wounds inflicted upon different parts of her body by a blunt instrument. More than 2 weeks
thereafter, the police authorities picked up defendant-appellant, Francisco Galit on suspicion of
the murder on the occasion of a robbery. On September 8, 1977, the case was referred to the
NBI, and NBI Agent Flores conducted a preliminary interview of the suspect who allegedly gave
evasive answers. The following day, Francisco Galit allegedly voluntarily executed a “Salaysay”
admitting his participation in the commission of the crime and implicating two other persons as
his companions. The accused, denied participation in the commission of the crime, and Galit had
been detained and interrogated almost continuously for 5 days, but he had consistently
maintained his innocence. There was no evidence linked to him to the crime except the alleged
confession in which the investigating officers maul and torture him physically to acquire
confession. Galit admitted what the investigating officers wanted him to admit and he signed the
confession they prepared. He also posed for a picture directed by the investigator as a re-
enactment. Galit was charged with the Crime of Robbery with Homicide and was found guilty
with the sentence of death penalty.

Numbered (itemized) and brief presentation of facts;

1. On August 23, 1977, Mrs. Natividad Fernando was found dead in her bedroom, as a
result of 7 wounds inflicted upon different parts of her body by a blunt instrument.
2. Police authorities picked up defendant-appellant, Francisco Galit on suspicion of the
murder on the occasion of a robbery.
3. On September 8, 1977, the case was referred to the NBI, and NBI Agent Flores
conducted a preliminary interview of the suspect.
4. On September 9, 1977, Francisco Galit allegedly voluntarily executed a “Salaysay”
admitting his participation in the commission of the crime and implicating Juling Dulay
and Pabling Dulay as his companions in the crime.
5. Galit was charged with the Crime of Robbery with Homicide and was found guilty with
the sentence of death penalty.
6. The principal prosecution witness, Florentino Valentino merely testified that he and the
accused were living together in one house in Marikina, Rizal, and heard accused
Francisco Galit and his wife having an argument in connection with the robbery and
 killing of the victim, Natividad Fernando. The evidence presented by the prosecution
does not support a conviction.
7. There were no eyewitnesses, no property recovered from the accused, no state witnesses,
and not even fingerprints of the accused at the scene of the crime. The only evidence
against the accused is his alleged confession.
8. The alleged confession and the pictures of the supposed re-enactment are inadmissible as
evidence because they were obtained in a manner contrary to the law.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused was informed of his constitutional rights

g) Ruling of the Supreme Court; ands:

Such a long question followed by a monosyllabic answer does not satisfy the requirements of the
law that the accused be informed of his rights under the Constitution and our laws.Instead there
should be several short and clear questions and every right explained in simple words in a dialect
or language known to the person under investigation. Accused is from Samar and there is no
showing that he understands Tagalog. Moreover, at the time of his arrest, accused was not
permitted to communicate with his lawyer, a relative, or a friend. His statement does not even
contain any waiver of right to counsel and yet during the investigation he was not assisted by
one. At the supposed re-enactment, again accused was not assisted by counsel of his choice.
These constitute gross violations of his rights. WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from
should be, as it is hereby, SET ASIDE, and another one entered ACQUITTING the accused
Francisco Galit of the crime charged.

h) Important Doctrines that refer to human rights.

At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to inform him of the
reason for the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest, if any. He shall be informed of
his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel, and that any statement he might make
could be used against him. The person arrested shall have the right to communicate with his
lawyer, a relative, or anyone he. No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the
presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested, by any person on his behalf, or appointed by
the court upon petition either of the detainee himself or by anyone on his behalf. The right to
counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of
counsel.