BUKIDNON

STATE UNIVERSITY

College of Law

Criminal Law II
JD-1B
2023-2024

CASE DIGEST

Arnie D. Andaya
Student

Judge Wilfredo G. Bibera, Jr.

Professor

LIST OF CASES
ON CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE – 16 Cases
• People of the Philippines vs. Rosa Aruta y Menguin | GR No. 120915 April 03, 1998
• People of the Philippines v. Aaron Flores @ "Ronito", Sulpecio Silpao y Ortega @
"Sulping" and Edgar Villeran y Magbanua | GR No. 116488 May 31, 2001
• Benito Astorga v. People of the Philippines | GR No. 154130 October 1, 2003
• Fernando Cayao v. Hon. Justiniano A. Del Mundo | A.M. No. MTJ-93-813 September 15,
1993
• Ramon S. Milo, in his capacity as Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Pangasinan, and
Armando Valdez v. Angelito C. Salanga, in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First
Instance of Pangasinan (Br. IV), and Juan Tuvera, Sr. | 152 SCRA 113 GR No. L-37007
July 20, 1987
• Melencio Sayo and Joaquin Mostero v. Chief of Police of Manila | 80 PHIL 859 GR No.
L-2128 May 12, 1948
• Jasper Agbay v. The Honorable Deputy Ombudsman for the Military, SPO4 Nemesio
Natividad, Jr. and SPO2 Eleazar M. Solomon | G.R. No. 134503 July 2, 1999
• Arnulfo B. Tauro v. Hon. Angel V. Colet, Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 8 |
A.M. No. RTJ-99-1434 Apr 29, 1999
• Adriano V. Albior v. Donato A. Auguis | AM No P-01-1472 June 26, 2003
• People of the Philippines v. Luisito Go y Ko “alias” King Louie | G.R. No. 116001 March
14, 2001
• Narciso Alvarez v. Court of First Instance of Tayabas and The Ant-usury Board | 64 PHIL
33 GR. No. L-45358 January 29, 1937
• Jose Burgos, Sr. v. Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines, et. al. | GR No.
L64261 December 26, 1984
• People of the Philippines v. Exequiel Alipit and Victorio D. Alemus | 44 PHIL 910 GR
No. L-18853 August 22, 1922
• People of the Philippines v. Mejica | CA-GR No. 12980-R, December 29, 1955
• Carlos Celdran y Pamintuan v. People of the Philippines | G.R. No.220127 March 21,
2018
• People of the Philippines v. Jose M. Baes | 68 Phil. 203 G.R. No. L-46000 May 25, 1939

CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS – 30 Cases

• United States v. Dalmacio Lagnason | 3 Phil 495 G.R. No. 1582 March 28, 1904
• People of the Philippines v. Teofilo Paar (alias Teofilo Pajar and Ben Pajar) | G.R. No.
L2318 March 31, 1950
• People of the Philippines v. Cayetano Mangahas and Mariano Mangahas | 93 Phil. 1113,
G.R. Nos. L-5367 & l-5368 June 9, 1953
• People of the Philippines v. Roque Badili | 84 Phil. 71 G.R. No. L-565 June 27, 1949
• United States v. Maximo Abad | 1 Phil 437 G.R. No. L-976 October 22, 1902
• People of the Philippines v. Fernando Martin | 86 Phil 204 G.R. No. L-2537 January 10,
1951
• People of the Philippines v. Joaquin Flavier | 89 Phil 15 G.R. No. L-2998 May 23, 1951
• People of the Philippines v. Pedro Marcaida | 79 Phil 283 G.R. No. L-953 September 18,,
1947
• United States v. Dalmacio Lagnason | GR No. 1582 March 28, 1904
• Anthony Cramer v. United States | 325 U.S. 1 (1945) April 23, 1945
• Hans Max Haupt v. United States | 330 U.S. 631 March 31, 1947
• People of the Philippines v. Francisco De Los Santos | G.R. No. L-1975 December 21,
1950
• People of the Philippines v. Matias Almazan | 88 Phil. 25 G.R. No. L-2323 January 9,
1951
• People of the Philippines v. Apolinar Adriano | G.R. No. L-477 June 30, 1947
 • People of the Philippines v. Aquilino Villanueva | G.R. No. L-5838 February 9, 1953
• People of the Philippines v. Jose Fernando |G.R. No. L-1138 December 17, 1947
• People of the Philippines v. Pedro Labra | G.R. No. L-857 October 19, 1948
• People of the Philippines v. Fortunato Muñoz (alias Fortunato Vizcarra) | 79 Phil. 702
G.R. No. L-880. December 17, 1947
• People of the Philippines v. Pedro T. Villanueva | 104 Phil. 450 G.R. No. L-9529 August
30, 1958
• People of the Philippines v. Doroteo Abatayo | 87 Phil. 794 G.R. No. L-2315 December
29, 1950
• People of the Philippines v. Jesus Campos | 105 Phil. 689 G.R. No. L-2331 May 13, 1959
• People of the Philippines v. Federico Cortes (alias Pedring Cortes) | 1 SCRA 1299 G.R.
No. L-14712 April 29, 1961
• People of the Philippines v. Alejandro Almazora | G.R. No. L-2954 November 16, 1950
• People of the Philippines v. Arsenia Nuñez | 85 Phil. 448 G.R. No. L-2321 January 31,
1950
• People of the Philippines v. Jose Luis Godinez | 79 Phil. 775 G.R. No. L-895 December
31, 1947
• People of the Philippines v. Troadio Butawan | 83 Phil. 440 G.R. No. L-855 April 28,
1949
• People of the Philippines v. Gaudencio Roble | 83 Phil. 1 G.R. No. L-433 March 2, 1949
• People of the Philippines v. Susano Perez (alias Kid Perez) | 83 Phil. 314 G.R. No. L-856
April 18, 1949
• People of the Philippines v. Dionisio Agoncillo | 80 Phil. 33 G.R. No. L-985 January 23,
1948
• People of the Philippines v. Eduardo Prieto (alias Eddie Valencia) | 80 Phil. 138 G.R. No.
L-399 January 29, 1948

CASES ON CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS – 10 Cases

• People of the Philippines v. Renato Tac-an y Hipos | G.R. No. 76338-39 February 26,
1990
• United States v. Gelasio Tabiana and Julian Canillas | G.R. No. L-11847 February 1, 1918
• People of the Philippines v. Pascual Baylon Rillorta, Wesley Rillorta and Wilson Rillorta |
G.R. No. 57415 December 15, 1989
• People of the Philippines v. Rolando Dural (also known as Ronnie Javelon) and Bernardo
Itucal, Jr., y Balderas | G.R. No. 84921 June 8, 1993
• Lydia C. Gelig v. People of the Philippines | G.R. No. 173150 July 28, 2010
• People of the Philippines v. Tiburcio Abalos | G.R. No. 88189 July 9, 1996
• United States v. Nicomedes Gumban | G.R. No. 13658 November 9, 1918
• People of the Philippines v. Reynaldo Villaseor y Cordero (alias Reny) | G.R. No. L28574
October 24, 1970
• El Pueblo de Filipinas (People of the Philippines) vs. Raymundo Rellin | G.R. Nos. 71-72
February 28, 1947
• Severino P. Justo v. The Court of Appeals | G.R. No. L-8611 June 28, 1956

***
ON CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE

People of the Philippines v. Rosa Aruta y Menguin

G.R. No. 120915 April 3, 1998

Facts:
• Rosa Aruta was arrested and convicted for violating Section 4, Article II of the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972.
• Aruta was arrested by NARCOM agents based on information from an informant that she
would be arriving from Baguio City with a large volume of marijuana.
• The agents approached Aruta, introduced themselves as NARCOM agents, and asked
about the contents of her bag.
• Aruta handed over her bag, which was found to contain dried marijuana leaves.
• Aruta filed a demurrer to evidence, arguing that the search and seizure of the marijuana
were illegal and violated her constitutional rights.
• The trial court denied the demurrer and convicted Aruta, sentencing her to life
imprisonment and a fine.

Issue:
Whether the search and seizure of Aruta's bag were illegal.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the trial court and acquitted Aruta.

The warrantless search and seizure of Aruta's bag were illegal because there was no
probable cause for her arrest. A search may only be conducted on the strength of a search warrant
validly issued by a judge. Articles obtained through unreasonable searches and seizures are
inadmissible as evidence.

Aruta's lack of objection to the search did not constitute consent, as there must be an
actual intention to relinquish the right for consent to be valid. Even if Aruta had entered a plea
and participated in the trial, it would not waive her objections to the illegal search and the
inadmissibility of the evidence obtained. The waiver would only apply to objections pertaining to
the illegality of the arrest, and the plea and participation in the trial would not cure the illegality
of the search.

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of constitutional rights and adherence to
probable cause and warrant requirements. Aruta was acquitted due to lack of evidence.
 People of the Philippines v. Aaron Flores @ "Ronito", Sulpecio Silpao y Ortega @
"Sulping" and Edgar Villeran y Magbanua
G.R. No. 116488 May 31, 2001

Facts:
• The accused-appellants were charged before the Regional Trial Court of Kabankalan,
Negros Occidental, Branch 61, with Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention.
• They allegedly by use of force, violence and intimidation forcefully held one Samson
Sayam. • They allegedly willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, kidnap, detain and
keep under guard.
• The accused-appellants pleaded not guilty of all accusations.
• Witnesses submit that after a drinking spree and an alleged argument between the one
missing person and the three accused-appellants, the three forcefully led Sayam to go out
of the store where they were drinking and walked towards the direction of the CARGU
camp. • Moments later, gunshots were heard from the direction of the Camp. Sayam was
never seen again.
• Based on the testimonies of the witnesses, the RTC held the three accusedappellants to be
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention
as defined and penalized in Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code and are each sentenced
to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua.

Issue:
Whether or not the accused-appellants are guilt of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code.

Ruling:
No. The Section 2 of Article 267, Kidnapping and serious illegal detention, clearly states
that for person to be guilty of kidnapping and serious illegal detention, they must be private
persons. That accused-appellants, however, were public officers. By the facts surrounding the
case, the accused-appellants are said to be on record members of the CAFG, an auxiliary force
under the Philippine Army. The Solicitor General recognized such errors.

The Prosecution, nevertheless, proceeded with the accusation against the

accusedappellants. The prosecution posit that the accused-appellants may still be convicted of
ARBITRARY DETENTION based on Article 124 of the Revised Penal Code. Arbitrary
detention is committed by any public officer or employee who, without legal grounds, detains a
person.

The Supreme Court, however, ruled that based on the evidences provided by the
prosecution, there is no sufficient evidences to prove that Samson Sayam was arbitrarily detained
by the accused-appellants. The fact that Samson Sayam has not been seen or heard from since he
was last seen with accused-appellants does not prove that he was detained and deprived of his
liberty. The testimonies of the witnesses also were sufficient to prove the allegations even on
circumstantial evidence grounds.
 For guilt to be proved, there must be at least two circumstantial testimonies supporting
the allegations. There is no proof that Sayam is being held arbitrarily in the CAFGU camp. The
original decision, therefore, of the Trial Court convicting the accused-appellants of Kidnapping
and serious illegal detention must be REVERSED and SET ASIDE. They are ACQUITTED of
all charges.

Benito Astorga v. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 154130 October 1, 2003

Facts:
• Benito Astorga, Mayor of Daram, Samar, as well as a number of his men were charged of
Arbitrary Detention for detaining DENR employees sent to the island of Daram to
conduct intelligence gathering and forest protection operations in line with the
government’s campaign against illegal logging.
• The complaint states that ten (10) men armed with M-16 and M14 rifles surrounded the
team with guns pointed at them, upon the order of Mayor Astorga. The team were then
brought to a house and were not allowed to leave until after nine (9) hours.

Issue:
Whether or not Mayor Astorga was guilty of Arbitrary Detention.

Ruling:
Yes. Mayor Astorga is guilty of Arbitrary Detention.

Arbitrary Detention is committed by any public officer or employee who, without legal
grounds, detains a person. In this case, that the offender is a public officer is undeniably present.
Also, the records are bereft of any allegation on the part of petitioner that his acts were spurred
by some legal purpose. On the contrary, he admitted that his acts were motivated by his “instinct
for self-preservation” and the feeling that he was being “singled out.” The detention was thus
without legal grounds.

Furthermore, in the case at bar, the restraint resulting from fear is evident. Inspite of their
pleas, the witnesses and the complainants were not allowed by petitioner to go home. This refusal
was quickly followed by the call for and arrival of almost a dozen "reinforcements," all armed
with military-issued rifles, who proceeded to encircle the team, weapons pointed at the
complainants and the witnesses.
 Fernando Cayao v. Hon. Justiniano A. Del Mundo
A.M. No. MTJ-93-813 September 15, 1993 Facts:
• An administrative complaint filed by Fernando R. Cayao charging respondent Judge
Justiniano A. Del Mundo, MTC, Indang Cavite with abuse of authority.
• Based on the records, it appears that on or about October 22, 1992 at 9:25 a.m., while
traversing the stretch of Mataas na Lupa, Alulod, Indang, Cavite, complainant, as driver
of Donny's Transit Bus overtook a Sto. Niño Liner driven by one Arnel Ranes Muloy.
• At 3:30 p.m. of the same day, even before complainant could properly park his bus, he
was picked up by policemen of the Philippine National Police Station of Indang, Cavite at
the Indang Public Plaza and was immediately brought before the sala of respondent
judge.
• The complainant was confronted by respondent judge and accused by the latter of nearly
causing an accident that morning.
• Without giving complainant any opportunity to explain, respondent judge insisted that
complainant be punished for the incident. Whereupon, complainant was compelled by
respondent judge to choose from three (3) alternative punishments none of which is
pleasant, to wit: (a) to face a charge of multiple attempted homicide; (b) revocation of his
driver's license; or (c) to be put in jail for three (3) days.
• The complainant chose the third, i.e., confinement for three (3) days, as a consequence of
which he was forced to sign a "waiver of detention" by respondent judge.
• Thereafter, complainant was immediately escorted by policemen to the municipal jail.
Though not actually incarcerated, complainant remained in the premises of the municipal
jail for three (3) days, from October 22 up to October 25, 1992, by way of serving his
"sentence".
• On the third day, complainant was released by SPO1 Manolo Dilig to the custody of
Geronimo Cayao, complainant's co-driver and cousin.

Issue:
Whether or not the actuations of respondent Judge Justiniano A. Del Mundo constitute
abuse of authority and guilty of arbitrary detention.

Ruling:
Yes. As public servants, judges are appointed to the judiciary to serve as the visible
representation of the law, and more importantly, of justice. Furthermore, the reprehensible
conduct exhibited by respondent judge in the case at bar exposed his total disregard of, or
indifference to, or even ignorance of, the procedure prescribed by law.
 His act of intentionally violating the law and disregarding well-known legal procedures
can be characterized as gross misconduct, nay a criminal misconduct on his part. He used and
abused his position of authority in intimidating the complainant as well as the members of the
Indang police force into submitting to his excesses.

Likewise, he closed his eyes to the mandates of the Code of Judicial Conduct to always
conduct himself as to be beyond reproach and suspicion not only in the performance of his duties
but also outside his sala and as a private individual. It would be well to emphasize at this point
that the gravity of the misconduct of respondent is not alone centered on his order for the
detention of complainant. Rather, it is ingrained in the fact that complainant was so detained
without affording him his constitutional rights.

WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Justiniano A. Del Mundo of the Municipal Trial Court
of Indang, Cavite is hereby DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all benefits except
accrued leave credits with prejudice to reinstatement or reappointment to any public office
including government-owned or controlled corporations.

Ramon S. Milo, in his capacity as Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Pangasinan, and Armando
Valdez v. Angelito C. Salanga, in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of
Pangasinan (Br. IV), and Juan Tuvera, Sr. 152 SCRA 113 G.R. No. L-37007 July 20, 1987

Facts:
• Accused barrio captain Juan Tuvera Sr., together with some private individuals (Juan
Tuvera Jr., Bertili Bataoil, and Dianong), allegedly mistreated Amando Valdez by striking
him with their fists and the butts of their weapons on April 21, 1972, at around 10 p.m. in
Manaoag, Pangasinan.
• Immediately after, Tuvera kept Valdez for almost 11 hours inside the municipal jail
together with two officers of the police force (Cpl. Tomas Mendoza and Pat. Rodolfo
Mangsat), without a warrant.
• They were accused of arbitrary detention in accordance with RPC Art. 124.
• Tuvera filed a move to suppress the information on the grounds that the events alleged do
not constitute an offense and that there is insufficient evidence to warrant the
information's filing.
• Ramon S. Milo, a petitioner and assistant provincial fiscal, submitted an objection. But,
by finding that Tuvera was not a public officer, respondent Judge Angelito C. Salanga
granted the motion to quash.

Issue:
Whether or not a barrio captain is a public officer who can be charged with Arbitrary
Detention.

Ruling:
Yes. Under the law, the public officers liable for arbitrary detention must be vested with
authority to detain or order the detention of persons accused of a crime, but when they detain a
person, they have no legal grounds therefore.

Long before Presidential Decree 299 was signed into law, barrio lieutenants (who were
later named barrio captains and now barangay captains) were recognized as persons in authority.
One need not be a police officer to be chargeable with Arbitrary Detention. It is accepted that
other public officers like judges and mayors, who act with abuse of their functions, may be guilty
of this crime. A perusal of the powers and function vested in mayors would show that they are
similar to those of a barrio captain except that in the case of the latter, his territorial jurisdiction is
smaller.

Melencio Sayo and Joaquin Mostero v. Chief of Police of Manila

80 PHIL 859 G.R. No. L-2128 May 12, 1948 Facts:

• Upon complaint of Bernardino Malinao, charging the petitioners with having committed
the crime of robbery.
• Benjamin Dumlao, a policeman of the City of Manila, arrested the petitioners on April 2,
1948, and presented a complaint against them with the fiscal's office of Manila.
• Until April 7, 1948, when the petition for habeas corpus filed with this Court was heard,
the petitioners were still detained or under arrest, and the city fiscal had not yet released
or filed against them an information with the proper court’s justice.

Issue:
Whether or not the city fiscal of manila is a judicial authority within the meaning of the
provisions of article 125 of the Revised Penal Code

Ruling:
No. Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code provides that "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 six hours.

In this case, the judicial authority mentioned in section 125 of the Revised Penal Code
cannot be construed to include the fiscal of the City of Manila or any other city, because they
cannot issue a warrant of arrest or of commitment or temporary confinement of a person
surrendered to legalize the detention of a person arrested without warrant.
 Jasper Agbay v. The Honorable Deputy Ombudsman for the Military, SPO4 Nemesio
Natividad, Jr. and SPO2 Eleazar M. Solomon
G.R. No. 134503 July 2, 1999

Facts:
• On September 7, 1997, Petitioner Jasper Agbay, together with a certain Sherwin Jugalbot,
was arrested and detained at the Liloan Police Station, Metro Cebu for an alleged
violation of R.A. 7610, the "Special Protection of Children Against Child abuse,
Exploitation and Discrimination Act."
• The following day, or on September 8, 1997, a Complaint for violation of R.A. 7610 was
filed against petitioner and Jugalbot before the 7th Municipal Circuit Trial Court of
Liloan, Metro Cebu by one Joan Gicaraya for and in behalf of her daughter.
• Petitioner contends that the act of private complainant in filing the complaint before the
MCTC was for purposes of preliminary investigation as the MCTC has no jurisdiction to
try the offense.

Issue:
Whether or not the filing of the complaint with the Municipal Trial Court constitutes
delivery to a "proper judicial authority",

Ruling:
Yes. Under Article 25 of the RPC, 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 thirtysix (36) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by afflictive or capital
penalties, or their equivalent.

In the case at bar, private respondent filed a complaint on September 8, 1997 with the 7th
MCTC of Liloan-Compostela, barely 20 hours after the arrest on September 7, 199. While a
municipal court judge may conduct preliminary investigations as an exception to his normal
judicial duties, he still retains the authority to issue an order of release or commitment. As such,
upon the filing of the complaint with the MCTC, there was already compliance with the very
purpose and intent of Art. 125.Hence, the filing of the complaint with the Municipal Trial Court
constitutes delivery to a "proper judicial authority" as contemplated by Art. 125 of the Revised
Penal Code.

Arnulfo B. Tauro v. Hon. Angel V. Colet, Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 8
A.M. No. RTJ-99-1434 April 29, 1999 Facts:
• Complaint filed by Arnulfo B. Tauro against Judge Angel V. Colet of the Regional Trial
Court of Manila, Branch 8.
• Tauro accused Judge Colet of failing to decide three criminal cases within the 90-day
reglementary period.
• Cases were submitted for decision in 1995 but remained undecided for more than a year
and a half.
• Judge Colet was transferred to different stations, taking the records of the cases with him.

Issue:
Whether Judge Colet is guilty of gross inefficiency for failing to decide the three criminal
cases within the 90-day reglementary period.

Ruling:
Yes. Supreme Court affirmed the recommendation of the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) and found Judge Colet guilty of gross inefficiency. Judge Colet's failure to
decide the cases within the prescribed period violated Section 15, par. 1 of Article VIII of the
Constitution.
 Judges are expected to act within the demands of their position and should administer
justice impartially and without delay. Judge Colet never asked for an extension and forgot about
the pending cases. Claims of delay due to absence of transcripts of stenographic notes (TSN) and
transfer to other stations were rejected. Judges are required to take down notes and proceed in the
preparation of decisions, even without the TSNs. Absence or delay in the transcription of TSNs
cannot excuse a judge's failure to decide cases within the prescribed period.

Judge Colet was criticized for mismanagement of records and failure to adopt a system of
record management. Judge Colet was fined P10,000 for his gross inefficiencies.

Adriano V. Albior v. Donato A. Auguis

AM No P-01-1472 June 26, 2003 Facts:

• Two complaint of rape was files against Edilberto Albior beofre MCTC branch 4 in
Talibon Bohol.
• Respondent Donato Auguis, clerk of court, received and file the complaint.
• The following day respondent issued detention order to Bureau of Jail Management and
Penology for commitment of accussed Edilberto Albior, however the said order was
issued without preliminary investigation, without warrant of arrest, record of police
blotter of the arrest or his surrent, and failure of respondent to inform the Municipal
Judge regarding the filed complaint beofre his sala. ‘
• The counsel of the accused filed a motion to release but was not acted. Thereafter file a
petition of habeas corpus before regional trial court, respondent testified that it is not the
first time he issued detention order without a warrant of arrest, this request is upon the
request of Philippines national police chief for the reason that it was the best interest of
the detainees to be transferred from PNP to BJMP because PNP did not have meal
provision for detainees. ‘
 • After hearing RTC find that the accused was illegally restrained of his liberty and
ordering his immediate release.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent is liable for issuance of detention order that cause the
actual detention of the accused.

Ruling:
Under 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.

The court ruled that the respondent violate fundamental human right of the accused by
issuing detention order which is beyond duty as clerk of court, Article 125 provide that the
accused should be deliver to proper judicial authorities, in this case the detention order must
came from the Trial Court Judge. this deprived the accused of liberty without due process of law.

People of the Philippines v. Luisito Go y Ko (alias King Louie)

G.R. No. 116001 March 14, 2001

Facts:
• Members of the Intelligence and Follow-up Unit of the Calamba Police, received an
intelligence report from a police civilian that he saw Luisito Go also known as “King
Louie” with a gun tucked in his waist, entered the Flamingo Disco House. Together, the
three policemen proceeded to the said disco house. When they arrived at the Flamingo,
the police officers informed the owner that they were conducting an “Operation Bakal,”
whereby they search for illegally possessed firearms. The owner allowed them in and told
a waiter to accompany them. The police officers saw Go and his lady companions seated
at a table. They identified themselves and asked Go to stand up. When the latter did so,
the policemen saw the gun tucked in his waist. SPO1 Piamonte asked for the license of
the gun, but Go was unable to produce any. Instead, Go brought the driver’s license of a
 certain Tan Antonio Lerios. SPO1 Piamonte confiscated the gun, and invited Go to the
police precinct for questioning.

• On the way out of the disco, Go asked permission to bring his car, which was parked
outside. The police officers Go to his car. The police officers saw pieces of glass tooters
and tin foils on the backseat and floor of the car. They asked Go why he had these items,
but he did not say anything. Instead, Go suggested that they talk the matter over, and
intimated that he had money. SPO3 Liquido replied that they should talk at the police
headquarters. Go took out an attache case from the car and opened it. There were two
black clutch bags inside. Go opened the first bag, which contained shiny white substance
wrapped in cellophane. The second bag contained P120,000.00 in cash.

• The police officers brought Go to the police station. When they arrived at the precinct,
they turned over the attache case together with the two black clutch bags to the
investigator. The investigator found eight cellophane bags containing granules suspected
to be shabu in one of the clutch bags. When the attache case was opened, the police
officers found that it also contained three glass tooters, tin foils, an improvised burner,
magazines and newspapers.1

• Consequently, two Informations were filed against Go before the Regional Trial Court of
Calamba, Laguna, Branch 34. The first Information, charged accused-appellant with
violation of Article III of R.A. 6452 (Dangerous Drugs Act). The other Information,
charged Go with violation of P.D. 1866.

Issue:
Whether or not Go was lawfully arrested.

Ruling:
Yes. The constitutional proscription, that no person shall be arrested without any warrant
of arrest having been issued prior thereto, is not a hard-and-fast rule. The Rules of Court and
jurisprudence recognize exceptional cases where an arrest may be effected without a warrant.
Among these are when, in the presence of a peace officer, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; or when an offense has
in fact just been committed, and the arresting officer has personal knowledge of facts indicating
that the person to be arrested has committed it.

In this case, the police saw the gun tucked in Go’s waist when he stood up. The gun was
plainly visible. No search was conducted as none was necessary. Go could not show any license
for the firearm, whether at the time of his arrest or thereafter. Thus, he was in effect committing a
crime in the presence of the police officers. No warrant of arrest was necessary in such a
situation, it being one of.

Narciso Alvarez v. Court of First Instance of Tayabas and The Ant-usury Board
64 PHIL 33 G.R. No. L-45358 January 29, 1937 Facts:
• The petitioner asks that the warrant of June 3, 1936, issued by the Court of First Instance
of Tayabas, ordering the search of his house and the seizure, at any time of the day or
night, of certain accounting books, documents and papers belonging to him in his
residence situated in Infanta, Province of Tayabas, as well as the order of a later date,
authorizing the agents of the Anti-Usury Board to retain the articles seized, be declared
illegal and set aside, and prays that all the articles in question be returned to him.
 • On the date above-mentioned, the chief of the secret service of the Anti-Usury Board, of
the Department of Justice, presented to Judge Eduardo Gutierrez David then presiding
over the Court of First Instance of Tayabas, an affidavit alleging that according to reliable
information, the petitioner kept in his house in Infanta, Tayabas, books, documents,
receipts, lists, chits and other papers used by him in connection with his activities as a
money-lender charging usurious rates of interest in violation of the law.
• In his oath at the end of the affidavit, the chief of the secret service stated that his answers
to the questions were correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. He did not swear to
the truth of his statements upon his own knowledge of the facts but upon the information
received by him from a reliable person.
• Upon the affidavit in question the Judge, on said date, issued the warrant, which is the
subject matter of the petition, ordering the search of the petitioner's house at any time of
the day or night, the seizure of the books and documents above-mentioned and the
immediate delivery thereof to him to be disposed of in accordance with the law.
• With said warrant, several agents of the Anti-Usury Board entered the petitioner's store
and residence at seven o'clock on the night of June 4, 1936, and seized and took
possession of the following articles: internal revenue licenses for the years 1933 to 1936,
one ledger, two journals, two cashbooks, nine books, four notebooks, four checks stubs,
two memorandums, three bankbooks, two contracts, four stubs, forty-eight stubs of
purchases of copra, two inventories, two bundles of bills of lading, one bundle of credit
receipts, one bundle of stubs of purchases of copra, two packages of correspondence, one
receipt book belonging to Luis Fernandez, fourteen bundles of invoices and other papers
many documents and loan contracts with security and promissory notes, 504 chits,
promissory notes and stubs of used checks of the Hongkong & Shanghai Banking
Corporation.
• The search for and a seizure of said articles were made with the opposition of the
petitioner who stated his protest below the inventories on the ground that the agents
seized even the originals of the documents. As the articles had not been brought
immediately to the judge who issued the search warrant, the petitioner, through his
attorney, filed a motion on June 8, 1936, praying that the agent Emilio L. Siongco, or any
other agent, be ordered immediately to deposit all the seized articles in the office of the
clerk of court and that said agent be declared guilty of contempt for having disobeyed the
order of the court.

Issue:
Whether or not the issued search warrant issued was maliciously obtained.

Ruling:
Yes. The issued search warrant was maliciously obtained. Under the law, any public
officer or employee who shall procure a search warrant without just cause or having legally
procured the same, shall exceed his authority or use unnecessary severity in executing the same
shall be held liable for damages.

In this case, the search warrant issued by the court is illegal because it has been based
upon the affidavit of agent Mariano G. Almeda in whose oath, he declared that he had no
personal knowledge of the facts which were to serve as a basis for the issuance of the warrant but
that he had knowledge thereof through mere information secured from a person whom he
considered reliable.

A search warrant shall not issue except for probable cause and upon application supported
by oath particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized. The
oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the petitioner
or his witnesses, because the purpose thereof is to convince the committing magistrate, not the
individual making the affidavit and seeking the issuance of the warrant, of the existence of
probable cause. The true test of sufficiency of an affidavit to warrant issuance of a search warrant
is whether it has been drawn in such a manner that perjury could be charged thereon and affiant
be held liable for damages caused.

Therefore, the warrant was maliciously obtained.

Facts:
•
Jose Burgos, Sr. v. Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines, et. al.
G.R. No. L-64261 December 26, 1984

Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari prohibition and mandamus with preliminary
mandatory and prohibitory injunction challenging the validity of two search warrants
issued on December 7, 1982 by Judge Ernani Cruz-Pano.
• The Solicitor General opposed petitioners' prayer for a writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction, but the Court took cognizance of the seriousness and urgency of the
constitutional issues raised, as well as the public interest generated by the search of the
"We Forum" offices. Petitioners' extrajudicial efforts negate the presumption that they
had abandoned their right to the possession of the property.
• Petitioners are seeking to nullify the search warrants in question due to the failure of
respondent judge Col. Abadilla to conduct an examination under oath or affirmation of
the applicant and his witnesses.
• Objection is interposed to the execution of Search Warrant No. 20-82 at the latter address
on the ground that the two search warrants pinpointed only one place where petitioner
Jose Burgos, Jr. was allegedly keeping and concealing articles listed therein.
• The most important details in this text are that a search warrant may be issued for the
search and seizure of the following personal property: property subject to the offense,
property stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the offense, and property
used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense.

Issue:
Whether or not the search warrants in question are valid.

Ruling:
No. The court held that probable cause for a search is defined as facts and circumstances
that would lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that
the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.

In this case, the broad statement in Col. Abadilla's application does not satisfy the
requirements of probable cause, and the joint affidavit of Alejandro M. Gutierrez and Pedro U.
Tango is insufficient as a basis for the determination of probable cause.

The Constitution requires no less than personal knowledge by the complainant or his
witnesses of the facts upon which the issuance of a search warrant may be justified. The search
warrants are in the nature of general warrants, and the articles sought to be seized include
printing equipment, paraphernalia, paper, ink, photo (equipment, typewriters, cabinets, tables,
communications/ recording equipment, tape recorders, dictaphone and the like), subversive
documents, pamphlets, leaflets, books, and other publication.

Therefore, the Search Warrants Nos. 20-82[a] and 20-82[b] issued by respondent judge on
December 7, 1982 are hereby declared null and void and are accordingly set aside.
Facts:
•

People of the Philippines v. Exequiel Alipit and Victorio D. Alemus 44

PHIL 910 G.R. No. L-18853 August 22, 1922

Exequiel Alipit and Victorio D. Alemus, being the municipal president and
the chief of police respectively. Exequiel Alipit had been elected municipal
president.
• The others petitioned the Executive Bureau not to confirm said election, because said
president-elect was a minor.
• For this reason, the municipal council of Cabuyao held a meeting presided over by the
vicepresident, Manuel Basa.
• Victorio Alemus entered the room, saying that he had an order from the president to arrest
vice-president Basa.
• A few minutes thereafter president Alipit arrived at the municipal building fired a shot in
the air, entered immediately the room where the meeting was being held and said in a
loud voice to the chief of police who was there: "Arrest him, arrest him”

Issue:
Whether or not that meeting of the council in which there was a quorum and which was
presided by the vice-president on account of the absence or inability of the municipal president
was a meeting the disturbance and interruption of which should be punished.

Ruling:
Yes. On the grounds that some council members were not given adequate notice, the
legitimacy of the meeting is contested. Nobody has the authority to violently dissolve a council
meeting if there is a legal problem that was not immediately obvious and needed to be
investigated in order to be identified. Any outsider must respect the municipal council meeting,
even if he is the mayor or the head of the local police force, and for the time being at least, there
is no reason to believe that there is a flaw that would make it unlawful.

The defendants had a right to this respect with regards to that municipal council meeting,
and the aforementioned presumption applied to them. Exequiel Alipit, the accused, did not
receive any notice of the meeting, so it should not be claimed that the presumption of legality did
not apply to him. The notification need only be left at the member of the council's home;
personal service is not required by the legislation (section 2220 of the Administrative Code).

Additionally, since alleged president Alipit had a personal stake in the subject at hand,
Dominador Delfino, the witness, said that the notification was given to him as if he were a party
responding. No one has the right to violently dissolve a council meeting at the present due to the
Facts:
•
existence of a legal defect that was not immediately apparent and that needed to be investigated
in order to be determined. Said accused Alipit was not permitted to participate in the decision-
making process as a council member.

Since the command the accused Victorio Alemus got from the coaccused was illegal,
there
is no legal justification for him to have acted in that manner.

People of the Philippines v. Mejica

CA-G.R. No. 12980-R, December 29, 1955

In a barrio chapel, a priestwas ready to conduct a mass and a number of barrio folks were
there to hear the mass. The barrio lieutenant made an actual threat on the life of the priest
should the latter persist in his intention to start the mass. As a result, the mass was not
celebrated and the people dispersed.

Issue:
Whether or not the barrio captain is guilty of violating Article 132 of the Revised Penal
Code.

Ruling:
Yes. The elements for Interruption of religious worship, pursuant to Art. 132 of the RPC
are as follows:
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee
2. That religious ceremonies or manifestation of any religion are about to
take place. 3. That the offender prevents or disturbs the same.

In the instant case the accused was a barrio lieutenant who was a public officer. The mass
was also about to be conducted which is a religious ceremony. Lastly, it was due to the actions of
the accused which prevented the religious ceremony. Clearly, all elements of the said provision
are attendant. Hence, Mejica is guilty.
Facts:
•

Carlos Celdran y Pamintuan v. People of the Philippines

G.R. No.220127 March 21, 2018

In the afternoon of September 30, 2010 mass of people mostly are catholic church high
rank officials immingle with those of different religions such as members of military,
police, media, non-Catholics, students, representatives of various religious organizations
flocked together in celebration of the second anniversary of the May They Be One
Campaign ( MBTC) and the launching of the Hand Written Bible.
• Around 3:00 pm. The petitioner entered the Manila Cathedral while Brother Edgar J. Tria
Tirona was reading a passage from the Bible and clad in a black suit and hat then went to
the center of the aisle, in front of the altar brought out a placard with the word
"DAMASO". Suddenly, the petitioner started shouting while inside the church saying
"bishops, stop involving yourself in politics," disrupting and showing disrespect to the
solemnity of the celebration.

Issue:
Whether or not Carlos Celdran y Pamintuan is guilty of the crime of Offending Religious
Feelings.
Facts:
•
Ruling:
Yes. Under the law, offending the religious feelings shall have the penalty of arresto
mayor in its maximum period to prison correctional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon
anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious
ceremony shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.

In this case, in order to determine whether the accused is guilty or not, the two essential
elements of the offense under Article 133 of the Revised Penal code should be considered as
follows: (1) That the acts complained of were performed in a place devoted to religious worship
or during the celebration of any religious ceremony; and (2) that the act or acts must be
notoriously offensive to those who are faithful in their religion.

The case at bar qualifies on the above-mentioned essential elements of the offense under
Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code wherein the incident happened inside and during the
celebration of the Religious Worship and there was an act of "notoriously offensive to those who
are faithful in their religion." Hence as held in the case of People v. Baes:

Whether or not the act complained of is offensive to the religious feelings of the
Catholics, is a question of fact which must be judged only according to the feelings of the
Catholics and not those of other faithful ones, for it is possible that certain acts may
offend the feelings of those who profess a certain religion, while not otherwise offensive
to the feelings of those professing another faith.

Thus, In the MeTC, in its Decision dated December 14, 2012, found petitioner guilty of
the crime of Offending Religious Feelings. Upon appeal to the RTC, the previous decision
affirmed petitioner conviction. Then in the CA, petitioner's motion for reconsideration was
denied.

People of the Philippines v. Jose M. Baes 68

Phil. 203 G.R. No. L-46000 May 25, 1939

Baes, the parish priest of the Roman Catholic Church of Lumban, Laguna, charged the
accused with an offense against religion for causing the funeral of a member of the
“Church of Christ” to pass through the churchyard fronting the Roman Catholic Church,
belonging to said church and devoted to the religious worship thereof. The parish priest
opposed this, but through force and threats of physical violence by the accused, was
compelled to allow the funeral to pass through the said churchyard.
Facts:
•
Issue:
Whether or not the act complained of is notoriously offensive to the religious feelings of
the Catholics, thereby violating Article 133 of the RPC.

Ruling:
The facts alleged in the complaint constitute the offense defined and penalized in article
133 of the Revised Penal Code, and should the fiscal file an information alleging the said facts
and a trial be thereafter held at which the said facts should be conclusively established, the court
may find the accused guilty of the offense complained of, or that of coercion, or that of trespass
under article 281 of the Revised Penal Code.

Whether or not the act complained of is offensive to the religious feelings of the
Catholics, is a question of fact which must be judged only according to the feelings of the
Catholic and not those of other faithful ones. Laurel dissent: Offense to religious feelings should
not be made to depend upon the more or less broad or narrow conception of any given particular
religion, but should be gauged having in view the nature of the acts committed and after scrutiny
of all the facts and circumstance which should be viewed through the mirror of an unbiased
judicial criterion. Otherwise, the gravity or leniency of the offense would hinge on the subjective
characterization of the act from the point of view of a given religious denomination or sect, and
in such a case, the application of the law would be partial and arbitrary, withal, dangerous,
especially in a country said to be "once the scene of religious intolerance and persecution.

Article 133, RPC: Offending the religious feelings. – The penalty of arresto mayor in its
maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon anyone
who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious
ceremoncy, shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.
CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS

United States v. Dalmacio Lagnason 3

Phil 495 G.R. No. 1582 March 28, 1904

Facts:
• The defendant with this band made an attach upon the pueblo of Murcia in the Province
of Occidental -Negros" but was driven off by the force of Constabulary there stationed.
During that night two inspectors of the Constabulary arrived with additional fortes 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 defendant was captured in the battle.

Issue:
Whether or not the defendant commit treason

Ruling:
Yes. The act of the Philippine Commission states that “A person who is a resident in the
Philippine Island 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
 People of the Philippines v. Teofilo Paar (alias Teofilo Pajar and Ben Pajar)
G.R. No. L-2318 March 31, 1950

Facts:
• Teofilo Paar, a former member of the Kempei Tai, is found guilty of treason for his
involvement in aiding the enemy and participating in the arrest and torture of Filipinos
suspected of underground activities during World War II.
• Teofilo Paar (alias Teofilo Pajar, alias Ben Pajar) was charged with treason in the now
defunct People's Court.
• The prosecution presented evidence to support the allegations made in the first, fourth,
seventh, and eighth counts.
• In the first count, it was established that between October 1944 and February 1945, Paar
worked for the Japanese Kempei Tai as an undercover man.
• Paar admitted to affiliating himself with the Military Police of Baguio and was seen
parading in the streets of Baguio with members of the Kempei Tai, dressed in their
uniform and carrying a .45 caliber pistol.
• Paar claimed that he joined the Kempei Tai without the intent of betraying his country
and people, and that his participation in the arrest of civilians on suspicion of
underground activities should not be considered treason.
• The prosecution also presented evidence for counts four, seven, and eight, which
involved Paar's direct participation in the arrest, detention, and torture of Filipinos
suspected of underground activities.

Issue:
Whether Paar's activities of giving information to the enemy constitute treasonable acts.

Ruling:
Paar is found guilty of treason and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, a fine of P10,000, and
costs. The judgment is modified, and Paar is sentenced to seventeen years, four months, and one
day of reclusion temporal.

Paar's activities of giving information to the enemy not only constitute giving aid and
comfort but also show adherence to the enemy. Even if Paar claims that he joined the Kempei Tai
without the intent of betraying his country, his overt acts evidenced his adherence to the enemy.
Paar's direct participation in the arrest, detention, and torture of his countrymen constitutes
treasonable overt acts in violation of article 114 of the Revised Penal Code.
Facts:
•

People of the Philippines v. Cayetano Mangahas and Mariano Mangahas 93

Phil. 1113, G.R. Nos. L-5367 & l-5368 June 9, 1953

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.

Ruling:
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 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, and 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 is affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Facts:
•
People of the Philippines v. Roque Badili
84 Phil. 71 G.R. No. L-565 June 27, 1949

Badili was found guilty of treason. He served the enemy as a secret agent to apprehend
members of the resistance movement, and that with the aid of two fellow agents he
captured Lt. Pacifico Rosales, who was a member of the Philippine Army and engaged in
the resistance movement; and that as a result of the treasonous acts of the accused and his
companions, Lieutenant Rosales was prevented from pursuing his patriotic activities.

Issue:
Whether or not the appellant guilty of treason.

Ruling:
Yes. The act of the accused in apprehending and preventing Lieutenant Rosales from
pursuing his activities as a member of the guerrilla forces constituted an aid to the enemy United
States v. Maximo Abad
1 Phil 437 G.R. No. L-976 October 22, 1902

Maximo Abad was charged with violation of oath of allegiance when he denied to an
officer of the United States Army the existence of certain rifles at the time of his
surrender in April 1901 when in fact, he was aware of the existence and whereabouts of
such rifles.
• Abad is a former insurgent officer and is entitled to the benefit of the proclamation of
amnesty if the offense is one of those to which the proclamation applies.
• The denying of the whereabouts of the rifles can be considered an act of treason, as being
an act of adhering to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort, the
offense in this particular case might, perhaps, be held to be covered by the amnesty as
being, in substance, treason though prosecuted under another name.

Issue:
Whether or not the offense of violation of oaths of allegiance falls under the category of
“treason and sedition.”

Ruling:
Yes. Treason is defined in section 1 of Act No. 292 to consist in levying war against the
United States or the Government of the Philippine Islands, or adhering to their enemies, giving
them aid and comfort within the Philippine Islands or elsewhere. Sedition is defined in section 5
of the same act as the rising publicly and tumultuously in order to obtain by force or outside of
legal methods certain enumerated objects of a political character.

The offense of violation of oaths of allegiance, being one of the political offenses defined
in Act No. 292, is included in the general words "treason and sedition," as used in the amnesty
proclamation of July 4, 1902.

The offenses listed in Act No. 292 include: treason, misprision of treason, insurrection,
conspiracy to commit treason or insurrection, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, seditious
words and libels, the formation of secret political societies, and violation of oaths of allegiance.
When the framer of the proclamation used the words "treason and sedition" to describe the purely
political offenses covered by the amnesty, we think it was his intention, without specially
enumerating the political offenses defined in Act No. 292, to include them all under the terms
“treason and sedition.”

People of the Philippines v. Fernando Martin

86 Phil 204 G.R. No. L-2537 January 10, 1951

Facts:
• Appellant Fernando Martin alias Vasquez is a native-born citizen of the Philippines, with
residence in Lopez, Quezon Province.
• He was accused before the Court First Instance of Batangas of treason, the information
containing four counts. Evidence presented by the prosecution established the facts of his
participation in aiding the Japanese against Fil-Am forces and the guerillas during the
Japanese occupation in the Philippines.
• During the trial, Count 4 was dismissed for lack of evidence.
• After the trial, the court found him guilty on three counts and sentenced him to death. He
appealed.

Issue:
Whether or not the appellant is guilty of the crime of treason.

Ruling:
Yes. The Supreme Court held that even though the defendant denied any participation in
the acts charged against him, his testimony, which is uncorroborated, cannot prevail over the
positive, direct, and straightforward testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution, some of
whom were victims who had survived the ordeal. There was no motive absolutely for said
witnesses to testify falsely against the accused. The defense of the appellant is a sort of alibi,
which is generally weak and more so in view of the circumstances of this case. The defendant
displayed too good a memory for dates to establish his uncorroborated alibi. In view of the fact
that eight Justices of the Court failed to reach a decision on it as provided for section 9 of
Republic Act No. 296, otherwise known as the Judiciary Act of 1948, the penalty of death was
reduced to the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The accessory penalties of the law, a fine of
P10,000, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency was also imposed.
Facts:
•
 People of the Philippines v. Joaquin Flavier
89 Phil 15 G.R. No. L-2998 May 23, 1951

Facts:
• Joaquin Flavier was accused of aiding the Japanese Imperial Forces and committing
various acts against guerrillas in Lopez, Tayabas.
• The court found that Flavier's Filipino citizenship was proven through official records
and witness testimony.
• He appealed the judgment finding him guilty of treason.
• The court affirmed the judgment, as the appellant's Filipino citizenship was proven and
the evidence supported his conviction on counts 2, 7, 8, and 10.
• While there was no direct proof of the appellant's involvement in killing three guerrillas,
his participation on the enemy's side made him liable.
• The arrests and subsequent torture of Florentino Salumbides, Gerundio Villanesa, and
Aniceto Iglesia were confirmed by the testimonies of the victims and other witnesses.

Issue: Whether or not Joaquin Flavier is guilty of treason.

Ruling: Yes. Joaquin Flavier is guilty of

treason.

The appellant's defense that he was not the one who made the arrests was deemed
insufficient. The court found that Flavier's Filipino citizenship was proven through official
records and witness testimony.

While one count was not proven, the court found Flavier guilty on the other counts. The
guilt was based on evidence provided by witnesses
 People of the Philippines v. Pedro Marcaida 79
Phil 283 G.R. No. L-953 September 18,, 1947

Facts:
• Marcaida was found guilty of treason. It appears that, although three witnesses testified, for
all legal purposes, it is the same as if no witness had testified at all. The second witness
contradicted the first one on very important facts, and the third contradicted both the first
and the second.

Issue:
Whether or not the appellant be held guilty of treason.

Ruling:
No. Each and every one of the three witnesses for the prosecution testified to the effect of
belying the testimonies of the other two, in such a way that it is not possible to accept the
testimony of one of them without rejecting at the same time the testimonies of the other two.
Even without the two-witness rule in treason cases, there is no legal basis to convict appellant
upon the testimony of any one of the three witnesses, as each one is belied by the other two
 United States v. Dalmacio Lagnason
GR No. 1582 March 28, 1904

Facts:
• Lagnason was charged under section 1 of Act No. 292 with the crime of treason, was
convicted and sentenced to death.
• From the time of the occupation of the Province of Occidental Negros by the American
troops, there had existed therein a band of men in arms against the Government of the
United States, which band was led by Lagnaso, in the southern part was another similar
band led by Dionisio Papa.
• On October 29, 1902, the Lagnason 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.
• Lagnason was captured in 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.

Issue:
Whether or not Lagnason is guilty of the crime of rebellion.

Ruling:
Yes. Acts of violence committed by an armed body of men with the purpose of
overthrowing the Government was levying war against the US, and therefore treason, regardless
of number of men.

The crime of rebellion and insurrection constitute treason, but when the treason consists
in engaging in an insurrection or rebellion it is to be punished in accordance with section 3 of Act
No. 292.
Facts:
•
Anthony Cramer v. United States
325 U.S. 1 April 23, 1945

The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the conviction of Anthony Cramer, a
German-born naturalized citizen, for treason.
• Anthony Cramer was born in Arnsberg, Germany on October 5, 1900. During World War
I, he was conscripted into the Imperial German Army. Moved to the United States in
1925, and was naturalized in 1936.
• He was a former member of the Friends of New Germany, a pro-Nazi organization based
in the United States, which was the predecessor German American Bund. Cramer left the
organization in 1935, believing it was a scam, and disliking some of their "radical
activities".
• Before the United States entered the war, Cramer had written letters to his friends and
family in Europe, strongly sympathizing with the Nazi regime. Before the attack on Pearl
Harbor, he'd strongly opposed any kind of participation in the war by the United States
against Nazi Germany. He expressed concern about the draft, which he said was part of
aggression against Germany. Cramer also listened to broadcasts by Nazi propagandists,
including William Joyce.
• Cramer had associated with two Germans, Werner Thiel and Edward Kerling during his
time living in the United States, one of whom he had prior business dealings with.
• Thiel, Kerling, and six other Germans, two of whom were dual nationals, were later
found to be in the United States for the purpose of sabotage, as part of Operation
Pastorius.
• In the aftermath of the failure of that operation, the Germans were tried as saboteurs by a
military tribunal. Six of them, including Thiel and Kerling, were executed. Sixteen
people, including Cramer, were arrested for aiding the saboteurs.
• In November 1942, he was convicted of treason by a civilian court on the basis of his
association with Thiel and Kerling. Judge Henry W. Goddard sentenced him to 45 years
in prison, along with a fine of $10,000. Goddard remarked that he only refrained from
imposing a death sentence due to Cramer's lack of full knowledge of the plot.
• Cramer appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where his
conviction was upheld. Appealing to the court of last resort, the Supreme Court, Cramer
was granted certiorari on November 8, 1943.

Issue: Whether or not Cramer is guilty of treason.

Ruling: No. Cramer is not guilty of

treason.

The Court decided five-to-four to overturn the jury verdict. The Constitution is clear in its
definition of treason, limited to the waging of war, or giving material assistance to an enemy. The
prosecution and its witnesses could demonstrate only an association and not that Cramer had
given "Aid and Comfort," as defined in Article Three. Jackson wrote that the jury had been given
no evidence that Cramer had "even paid for their drinks." As such, the majority opinion held, the
associations were insufficient to convict Cramer for treason, and the judgment of the Court of
Appeals was reversed.
Facts:
•

Hans Max Haupt v. United States

330 U.S. 631 March 31, 1947

The defendant harbored and sheltered his son who was an enemy spy and saboteur.
• Assisted his son in purchasing an automobile and obtaining employment in a defense plant.
• These were all acts that a father might naturally perform for a son.

Issue: Whether or not the father Haupt is of treason by giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Ruling: Yes, Haupt is of treason by giving aid and comfort to the

enemy.

The Court held that this fact did not necessarily relieve such acts of the treasonable
purpose of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Speaking for the Court, Justice Jackson said:
“No matter whether young Haupt’s mission was benign or traitorous, known or unknown to the
defendant, these acts were aid and comfort to him.” These acts, Justice Jackson continued, “were
more than casually useful; they were aids in steps essential to his design for treason.” Thus, “[i]f
proof be added that the defendant knew of his son’s instruction, preparation and plans, the
purpose to aid and comfort the enemy becomes clear.” The Court further held that conversation
and occurrences long prior to the indictment were admissible evidence on the question of
defendant’s intent. And more important, it held that the constitutional requirement of two
witnesses to the same overt act or confession in open court does not operate to exclude
confessions or admissions made out of court if such evidence is merely corroborative and where
a legal basis for the conviction has been laid by the testimony of two witnesses.

The Supreme Court sustained a conviction of treason, for the first time in its history, in 1947.
Facts:
•

People of the Philippines v. Francisco De Los Santos

G.R. No. L-1975 December 21, 1950

The appellant is a Filipino citizen and owed allegiance to the United States of America
and the Commonwealth of the Philippines.
• On January 23, 1945, together with Eligio Torres and twenty Japanese soldiers, they
raided a house in Zamboanga. They searched the house and interrogated the people inside
about guerrillas. When the people denied any knowledge, they were tied and maltreated.
• A woman, Liberata Cabaya Cruz, was ill-treated because she was suspected of being the
mother of a guerrilla.
• The appellant denied the unlawful acts committed by him and his companion.
• Francisco de los Santos was charged with treason. He was found guilty and sentenced to
death, a fine of P20,000, and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased persons.
• He has appealed from the judgment.
• The amended information filed in this case sets out six counts.
• The prosecution did not introduce evidence for the fifth and sixth counts.

Issue:
Whether or not the appellant, who is a Filipino citizen owing allegiance and loyalty to the
Commonwealth of the Philippines, is guilty of treason.

Ruling:
Yes. The appellant, who is a Filipino citizen owing allegiance and loyalty to the
Commonwealth of the Philippines, joined the enemy, giving him aid and comfort by actually
helping him in the arrest, investigation, and torture of his countrymen engaged in the resistance
movement, is guilty of treason.

The denial by appellant of the unlawful acts committed by him and his companion cannot
be believed because the testimony of the prosecuting witnesses as to his participation in the
torture and killing of the victims, is so convincing, each corroborating the others on essential
parts of the series of incidents witnessed and recounted by them, that one is led to the conclusion
Facts:
•
that the appellant participated in the arrest, investigation and torture of guerrilla suspects who
later on were killed. The evidence fails to disclose any motive on the part of the witnesses for the
prosecution which might have prompted them to impute to the appellant the perpetration of acts
he had not committed.

Although the appellant did not participate in the killing of one of the deceased and there
is no evidence that he took part in the killing of the three victims, yet his participation in the
apprehension, investigation and torture of the victims, makes him responsible for the acts of his
companions. There is evidence sufficient in law for a finding that there was conspiracy, common
purpose and concerted action by and between the appellant and his companion which render each
and every one of the participants in the unlawful acts perpetrated, no matter how minor or
insignificant be his part, responsible for all such acts

People of the Philippines v. Matias Almazan

88 Phil. 25 G.R. No. L-2323 January 9, 1951

Matias Almazan, a former member of subversive societies, who was found guilty of
treason for actively aiding the Japanese forces during the occupation of the Philippines.
The case was decided on January 9, 1951, by the Supreme Court of the Philippines, with
Justice Jugo as the ponente. Matias Almazan was accused before the People's Court of the
crime of treason on five counts. He was found guilty on the first four counts and
sentenced to reclusion perpetua, with a fine of P10,000 and costs. The evidence presented
by the prosecution established that Almazan was a member of the subversive societies
"Ganap" and "Sakdal" before the Japanese occupation. During the occupation, he became
a member of the society known as "Makapili," which was founded under the auspices of
the Japanese Imperial Army. Almazan received military training from the Japanese and
actively participated in the campaign against the resistance movement of the Fil-
American forces.

Issue:
Whether or not Almazan was guilty of treason for actively aiding the Japanese forces
during the occupation of the Philippines

Ruling:
The court ruled that Almazan was indeed guilty of treason based on the evidence
presented by the prosecution. The court found that Almazan's membership in the Makapili and
his active participation in the arrests of guerrilla suspects constituted treasonous acts.
Facts:
•

The court's ruling was based on the testimonies of witnesses who saw Almazan with the
Japanese soldiers during the arrests and his admission of being present during some of the
incidents. The court also considered the documentary evidence and the testimony of numerous
witnesses who established Almazan's membership in the Makapili and his active role in aiding
the Japanese forces. The court found no reason to doubt the credibility of the witnesses and
affirmed the judgment of the trial court, finding Almazan guilty of treason and sentencing him to
reclusion perpetua. The court emphasized that treason is a grave offense that undermines the
security and sovereignty of the nation. Almazan's actions in actively aiding the Japanese forces
during the occupation clearly demonstrated his disloyalty to his country and his willingness to
collaborate with the enemy. The court's decision serves as a reminder that acts of treason will be
met with severe punishment to preserve the integrity and independence of the Philippines.

People of the Philippines v. Apolinar Adriano

G.R. No. L-477 June 30, 1947

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction for treason by the People’s Court
sentencing the accused to life imprisonment, Php 10,000 fine, and the costs.
• That between January and April, 1945 or thereabout, during the occupation of the
Philippines by the Japanese Imperial Forces, in the Province of Nueva Ecija and in the
mountains in the Island of Luzon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Court,
the above-named accused, Apolinario Adriano, who is not a foreigner, but a Filipino
citizen owing allegiance to the United States and the Commonwealth of the Philippines,
in violation of said allegiance, did then and there willfully, criminally and treasonably
adhere to the Military Forces of Japan in the Philippines, against which the Philippines
and the United States were then at war, giving the said enemy aid and comfort as a
member of the Makapili, a military organization established and designed to assist and
Facts:
•
aid militarily the Japanese Imperial forces in the Philippines in the said enemy’s war
efforts and operations against the United States and the Philippines.
• The court said these acts had not been established by the testimony of two witnesses, and
so regarded them merely as evidence of adherence to the enemy.
• But the court did find established under the two-witness rule, so we infer, “that the
accused and other Makapilis had their headquarters in the enemy garrison at Gapan,
Nueva Ecija; that the accused was in Makapili military uniform; that he was armed with
rifle; and that he drilled with other Makapilis under a Japanese instructor; . . . that during
the same period, the accused in Makapili military uniform and with a rifle, performed
duties as sentry at the Japanese garrison and Makapili headquarters in Gapan, Nueva
Ecija;” “that upon the liberation of Gapan, Nueva Ecija, by the American forces, the
accused and other Makapilis retreated to the mountains with the enemy;” and that “the
accused, rifle in hand, later surrendered to the Americans.”

Issue:
Whether or not the two-witness rule is required in establishing the guilt of the accused in
the crime of treason.

Ruling:
Yes. The Philippine law on treason is of Anglo-American origin and so we have to look
for guidance from American sources on its meaning and scope – judicial interpretation has been
placed on the two-witness principle by American courts.

The two-witness rule required for conviction for treason is that no person shall be
convicted thereof unless on the testimony of two-witnesses to the same overt act. If the overt act
is separate, two (2) witnesses must also testify to each part of overt act for conviction.

In the case at bar, 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. Those who gave evidence that the accused took part in
raids and seizure of personal property, and performed sentry duties and military drills, referred to
acts allegedly committed on different dates without any two witnesses coinciding in any one
specified deed. There is only one item on which the witnesses agree: it is that the defendant was a
Makapili and was seen by them in Makapili uniform carrying arms. Yet, again, on this point it
cannot be said that one witness is corroborated by another if corroboration means that two
witnesses have seen the accused doing at least one particular thing, it a routine military chore, or
just walking or eating.

By extension, the lawmakers who introduced that provision into the Philippine statute
books must be understood to have intended that the law should operate with the same
inflexibility and rigidity as the American forefathers meant. The judgment is reversed and the
appellant acquitted with costs charged de oficio.
People of the Philippines v. Aquilino Villanueva
G.R. No. L-5838 February 9, 1953

Aquilino Villanueva, a Filipino, was accused of treason.

• On December 24, 1944, Villanueva, armed with a pistol, accompanied Japanese soldiers
who were equipped with rifles. They arrested and detained individuals named Pablo
Facts:
•
Parungao, Eugenio Maliwat, and Jose Maliwat, who were members of the neighborhood
association in Talavera, Nueva Ecija.
• The Japanese soldiers took Parungao and Maliwat to the Japanese garrison in Talavera,
where they were detained for forty-eight hours. It was later revealed that Villanueva
formed a unit of the Makapili organization, of which he was the chief.
• This unit patrolled the town, looking for guerrillas and individuals suspected of aiding the
underground movement against the Japanese. Some members of the unit wore uniforms
similar to those used by the Japanese and arm bands with Japanese characters, which
entitled them to the respect and protection of the local authorities. Villanueva was
wearing one of these arm bands at the time of the arrest.

Issue: Whether or not the acts committed by Villanueva constitute treason.

Ruling: Yes. The court ruled that the acts committed by Villanueva do constitute
treason.

The court based its decision on the fact that Villanueva, armed with a pistol, accompanied
Japanese soldiers in arresting and detaining individuals suspected of aiding the underground
movement against the Japanese.

Additionally, Villanueva formed a unit of the Makapili organization, which patrolled the
town and looked for guerrillas and individuals suspected of helping the underground movement.
The court held that these acts amounted to treason.

The court also noted that Villanueva was wearing an arm band with Japanese characters,
which symbolized membership in the Makapili organization and entitled him to the respect and
protection of the local authorities.

People of the Philippines v. Jose Fernando

G.R. No. L-1138 December 17, 1947

Defendant Jose Fernando was found guilty of treason for his involvement in the enemy's
efforts to suppress the underground resistance movement during the occupation of the
Philippines by the Imperial Government of Japan.
• Fernando, a Filipino citizen, served as an informer and active member of the Kempei-tai,
the Japanese military police organization.
Facts:
•
• He was responsible for the arrest, investigation, and torture of several individuals suspected
of being guerrillas or having connections to guerrilla activities.

Issue:
Whether or not Fernando's claim of being forced into the service of the Kempei-tai by the
enemy is a valid defense for treason.

Ruling:
No. Fernando's claim of being forced into the service of the Kempei-tai by the enemy is
not a valid defense for treason.

The court rejected Fernando's claim of being forced into the service of the Kempei-tai by
the enemy. The court found that Fernando had not provided any explanation for his failure to take
advantage of the freedom granted to him during his service in the Kempei-tai to join the guerrilla
forces or sabotage the Japanese military efforts. The court also found his claim of stealing zoning
maps to be flimsy and lacking evidence.

The court ruled that even if Fernando's claim of involuntary induction into the Kempei-tai
and approval by guerrilla leaders was proven, it would not exculpate him from criminal
responsibility for his actions.

The court emphasized that Fernando's arrests, investigations, and infliction of

punishments and tortures on guerrilla suspects and their relatives had helped the military
purposes of the enemy and showed his adherence and support to the Japanese cause.

The court held that Fernando's actions constituted treason as defined and penalized by
article 114 of the Revised Penal Code.

People of the Philippines v. Pedro Labra

G.R. No. L-857 October 19, 1948

On September 4, 1944, a sailboat carrying Concepcion Erado and her daughter Erlinda
was stopped by a Japanese transport near Catmon, Cebu.
• Pedro Labra was on board the sailboat along with three Japanese individuals. Labra
accused Concepcion Erado of having connections with the guerrillas and maltreated her
and the crew of the sailboat. He also took away their money and jewelry. They were then
Facts:
•
transferred to a Japanese vessel where they were further maltreated and investigated by
Labra. After three days, they were released.
• On August 16, 1944, Labra accompanied by several armed Japanese soldiers, entered the
house of Arcadio Abella in Cebu City. Labra questioned Arcadio about the whereabouts
of his son who was a sergeant in the guerrilla. Labra demanded a gun that was allegedly
given to Arcadio by his son. When Arcadio denied any knowledge of the gun, Labra beat
him up with a pestle, causing injuries that took three months to heal.
• Labra was also involved in the arrest and torture of individuals in Mambaling and Duljo,
Cebu City.

Issue:
Whether or not the accused, Pedro Labra, is guilty of treason based on the evidence
presented.

Ruling: Yes. The court affirms the lower court's decision finding Pedro Labra guilty of
treason.

Labra's defense primarily relied on mere negations and an attempt to show the existence
of another person with the same name. However, these arguments were deemed unconvincing
and weak. Labra insinuated that the witnesses for the prosecution might have mistaken him for
the other person with the same name, but this insinuation was not enough to overthrow the
positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.

The court found that the positive testimonies pointing to Labra as the real author of the
acts in question were more credible than his defense. The witnesses presented by Labra did not
provide much help to his case.

People of the Philippines v. Fortunato Muñoz (alias Fortunato Vizcarra)

79 Phil. 702 G.R. No. L-880. December 17, 1947

Fortunato Muñoz, a Filipino citizen, was found guilty of treason for aiding the Japanese
army in a raid during World War II.
• Muñoz, along with a group of Japanese soldiers, constabulary men, and Filipino spies,
raided a guerrilla hideout on September 3, 1943, in Tapuak, Bamban. Lieutenant J.H. was
killed during the raid, and an American named Z and A.V., the wife of Captain A.B., were
taken prisoners and brought to the Japanese garrison in Bamban and Capas.
Facts:
•
• Muñoz admitted in open court that he was in the service of the Japanese army as an agent
and spy at the time of the raid.

Issue: Whether or not Muñoz is guilty of treason for his participation in the raid.

Ruling: Yes, Muñoz is guilty of

treason.

The evidence presented during the trial conclusively showed that Muñoz willingly
participated in the raid to give aid and comfort to the enemy. Muñoz's claim that he was forced
by the Japanese to carry foodstuffs with his hands tied was contradicted by the testimonies of
witnesses.

Witnesses, including Adelaida Villareyes and Jose Raagas, supported the prosecution's
case and contradicted Muñoz's claim. Muñoz's defense of duress was found untenable as the
evidence showed that he voluntarily rendered effective service as an agent of the Japanese.

Muñoz's actions were not solely motivated by fear for his family's safety but also by his
usefulness to the Japanese.

People of the Philippines v. Pedro T. Villanueva

104 Phil. 450 G.R. No. L-9529 August 30, 1958

Pedro T. Villanueva was a Filipino citizen accused of treason and multiple counts of
murder. He was accused of actively participating in punitive expeditions and committing
various crimes in collaboration with the Japanese forces.
• The prosecution presented evidence that Villanueva served as a secret agent, informer,
and spy for the Japanese Imperial Army's Detective Force in the province of Iloilo. He
actively participated in the punitive expeditions made by the Japanese forces in guerrilla-
infested areas and committed robberies, arson, and mass murders.
Facts:
•
• The amended information filed before the People's Court accused Villanueva of treason
on ten counts, but evidence was presented only for seven of them.

Issue:
Whether or not Villanueva was guilty of treason for his collaboration with the Japanese
forces during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines.

Ruling: Yes, Villanueva is guilty of the crime of

treason.

The evidence presented by the prosecution established that Villanueva actively

participated in the punitive expeditions made by the Japanese forces and committed various
crimes in collaboration with them. The court found that Villanueva's defense of duress, claiming
that he was compelled to serve in the detective force of the Japanese Army, was not credible.

There was no proof that he was coerced or compelled by the Japanese, and his lone
testimony was insufficient to support his defense of duress.

The court held that Villanueva's active participation in the punitive expeditions and his
commission of various crimes in collaboration with the Japanese forces constituted treason. It
emphasized that mere denial by the accused cannot prevail over the positive assertion of
witnesses for the government.

The defense of duress must be supported by evidence of grave and imminent compulsion
or coercion, which was lacking in Villanueva's case.

People of the Philippines v. Doroteo Abatayo

87 Phil. 794 G.R. No. L-2315 December 29, 1950

Doroteo Abatayo was accused of treason for aiding the enemy during World War II.
• On December 6, 1944, in Minglanilla, Cebu, Philippines, more than two hundred
Japanese soldiers, accompanied by armed Filipinos in Japanese uniform, including the
appellant, went to the house of Jose and Pedro Abellanosa, to suppress the resistance
movement.
• Appellant, armed with a rifle and wearing a Japanese military uniform and cap, was
known as a Japanese undercover man. The group searched the house and maltreated the
occupants, including slapping Teotima Abellanosa, the mother of Pedro and Jose.
Facts:
•
• Appellant identified as one of the individuals who tied the hands of Teotima and her
husband, Santos Rodriguez, and threatened them to reveal the whereabouts of Pedro and
Jose. The soldiers, along with the appellant, were able to extract the information from a
neighbor.
• Pedro and Jose were arrested and taken away by the patrol. Teotima and Gloria, another
family member, saw Pedro and Jose for the last time the next day, being led by the armed
forces, including the appellant, along the road to Minglanilla.
• Pedro and Jose were never seen again and later reported to have been killed.

Issue:
Whether or not the appellant, Doroteo Abatayo, is guilty of treason for his participation in
the arrest and capture of guerrilla men during World War II which resulted to the disappearance
of two indoviduals.

Ruling:
Yes. The appellant, Doroteo Abatayo, is guilty of treason

The identity of the appellant was established beyond reasonable doubt. Witnesses,
Teotima Abellanosa and Gloria Abellanosa, recognized the appellant among the numerous
Filipinos wearing Japanese uniforms during the incident.

Appellant was called by a Japanese using his full name, fixing the attention of the
witnesses on him. Witnesses saw the appellant multiple times during the incident, including when
Pedro and Jose were captured and when they were led away by the armed forces.

There was no mistake as to the identity of the appellant. Appellant's actions constituted
treason under article 114 of the Revised Penal Code. Appellant actively participated in the
investigation, threatening, and arrest of guerrilla men in collaboration with the enemy, the
purpose of which was to have the guerrilla men liquidated

Pedro and Jose were never seen again after their capture, supporting the conclusion that the
appellant's actions were treasonable.

People of the Philippines v. Jesus Campos

105 Phil. 689 G.R. No. L-2331 May 13, 1959

Jesus Campos, a Filipino citizen, was charged with treason for his actions during the
Japanese occupation of the Philippines.
• The amended information filed with the Fifth Division of the People's Court in Cebu City
accused Campos of committing treason in five different counts.
• The specific acts included confiscating firearms, arresting individuals, and participating in
acts of violence. Witnesses testified to support the charges in each count.

Issue:
Facts:
•
Whether or not Campos is guilty of treason for adhering to the enemy and giving aid and
comfort during the Japanese occupation.

Ruling: Yes. The court found Campos guilty of treason in all five
counts.

The court determined that Campos, as a Filipino citizen owing allegiance to the
Government of the United States of America and the Philippines, adhered to the enemy by
confiscating firearms, arresting individuals, and participating in acts of violence.

The court emphasized that the testimony of at least two witnesses on the same overt acts
supported the verdict of guilt. The court rejected the appellant's motion for a new trial, as the
recantation of a previous testimony is not a valid ground for a new trial.

People of the Philippines v. Federico Cortes (alias Pedring Cortes) 1

SCRA 1299 G.R. No. L-14712 April 29, 1961

Defendant-appellant Federico Cortes was a former member of the puppet Cebu Police
Force and Bureau of Constabulary.
• He was found guilty of treason for acting as a spy and informant for the Japanese Kempei
Tai and participating in the arrest of guerrillas during the Japanese occupation of the
Philippines, but the Supreme Court rules that the evidence presented was insufficient to
prove all charges, resulting in a conviction on one count of treason.
• The case was appealed to the Court of Appeals but was forwarded to the Supreme Court
because the crime proved is punishable by life imprisonment.
• The trial court found Cortes guilty on count 7 of the information.
Facts:
•

Issue:
Whether or not the evidence presented is sufficient to prove the charges of treason against
Cortes.

Ruling:
Yes. The evidence presented is sufficient to prove the charge of treason against Cortes in
count No. 7.

The evidence presented proved that Cortes was a member of the Japanese Kempei Tai and
engaged in spying on suspected persons and helping secure labor for Japanese defense works.

The evidence presented to prove count No. 7, which involved the arrest and apprehension
of Fernando Macasero, was proved beyond reasonable doubt by two competent witnesses to the
same overt act.

People of the Philippines v. Alejandro Almazora

G.R. No. L-2954 November 16, 1950

The appellant, Alejandro Almazora, was charged with treason under five counts. The first
count accused him of being an informer or agent of the Japanese forces, participating in
their raids, and joining the organization "Makabayang Katipunan Ng Mga Pilipino"
(Makapili).
• Three witnesses testified that a Makapili chapter was established in Calauan, Laguna, and
that the accused became a member of the organization. They stated that the accused,
along with other Makapilis, armed with rifles, accompanied Japanese soldiers in raids
against guerrillas and arrested suspected guerrillas.
• The second count accused the appellant of taking part in the arrest of Norberto
Ungkiatco, a suspected guerrilla, and his subsequent confinement and torture by the
Facts:
•
Japanese. Witnesses testified that the appellant, along with other Makapilis, arrested
Ungkiatco and took him to a Japanese garrison where he was tortured.
• The third count accused the appellant of the arrest of Andres Ramos, who was never
heard from again. Witnesses testified that the appellant, along with other Makapilis,
armed with rifles and accompanied by Japanese soldiers, went to the house of Aurora
Azucena and ordered Ramos to come down.
• Ramos was struck on the back of the head and taken away by the group, and he was never
seen again.

Issue:
Whether or not the appellant is guilty of treason based on the charges and evidence
presented.

Ruling: Yes. The appellant is found guilty of

treason.

The court held that appointment to enemy forces does not need to be proven by
enlistment or appointment, but can be inferred from circumstances. The… appointment to enemy
forces can be inferred from the accused's acts and conduct.

In this case, the court found that the appellant's frequent presence at the Makapili
headquarters, association with known Makapili.

People of the Philippines v. Arsenia Nuñez 85

Phil. 448 G.R. No. L-2321 January 31, 1950

Arsenia Nuñez is convicted of treason for aiding the Japanese during the occupation of
the Philippines, as she actively participated in identifying and facilitating the arrest of
individuals who subsequently disappeared.
• She was convicted for her role as a "finger woman" for the Japanese during the Japanese
occupation of the Philippines from December 8, 1941, to March 1945. Nuñez was
accused of pointing out and facilitating the arrest of several individuals who were never
seen again.

Issue:
Facts:
•
Whether or not the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that Nuñez
committed treason by aiding and cooperating with the Japanese during the war.

Ruling: Yes.

The prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that Nuñez committed treason by
aiding and cooperating with the Japanese during the war. The court ruled that Nuñez is guilty of
treason.

The evidence presented by the prosecution, including testimonies from witnesses,

established that Nuñez actively participated in the zoning activities of the Japanese. She pointed
out individuals to the Japanese soldiers, accusing them of being guerrillas, which led to their
arrest, detention, and disappearance.

Although the prosecution did not directly hold Nuñez responsible for the disappearance
and possible killing of these individuals, her actions greatly contributed to their fate. The court
based its decision on the fact that Nuñez willingly participated in the zoning activities of the
Japanese and pointed out individuals to be arrested. This active cooperation with the enemy, even
if not directly causing the disappearance or death of the individuals, was considered treasonable.

The court also noted that Nuñez's admission of pointing out and causing the arrest of
several individuals further supported the prosecution's case. Additionally, the court considered
the testimonies of witnesses, which were consistent and credible, as further evidence of Nuñez's
guilt.

People of the Philippines v. Jose Luis Godinez

79 Phil. 775 G.R. No. L-895 December 31, 1947

A shipmaster in the Philippine coastwise trade is prosecuted for treason for rendering
services to the Japanese Navy, but is ultimately acquitted due to lack of evidence of
disloyalty beyond reasonable doubt.
• The case involves the prosecution of Jose Luis Godinez, a shipmaster in the Philippine
coastwise trade, for treason. Godinez rendered services to the Japanese Navy as a pilot in
the Port of Cebu from May 1942 to June 1943, and again from May 1943 to October
1944. He was paid monthly salaries for his services.
• The prosecution argued that Godinez's cooperation with the Japanese demonstrated
treasonable adherence to the enemy.
Facts:
•

Issue: Whether or not Godinez's actions constitute treason.

Ruling: No. Godinez's actions constitute

treason.

The court absolved Godinez of the charge of treason due to lack of evidence of disloyalty
beyond reasonable doubt. Mere governmental work under the Japanese regime and pilotage
service does not automatically constitute indictable disloyalty.

Each case should be examined impartially and decided on its own merits. President
Osmeña's statement categorized public officials who served under the enemy occupation into
three categories: those motivated by a desire to protect the people, those actuated by fear of
enemy reprisals, and those motivated by disloyalty.

The motives and conduct of the accused while in office should be the criteria for
judgment. The court found that the prosecution did not prove Godinez's traitorous intent. The
first point, where Godinez allegedly expressed pro-Japanese sentiments, was dismissed as mere
speculation and not indicative of adherence to the enemy.

The second point, regarding a Japanese flag on a car, was deemed irrelevant since there
was no evidence that the car belonged to Godinez. Godinez's explanation for surrendering his
pistol to the Japanese authorities was accepted, as it was a common directive during the
occupation. The display of the Japanese flag on Godinez's house was attributed to compliance
with a Japanese order, which should not be held against him. The credibility of the witness who
testified about Godinez's insulting statements against American aviators was questioned, as the
witness had a grudge against Godinez.

Godinez's disloyal heart or treacherous mind had not been established beyond reasonable
doubt, leading to his acquittal.

People of the Philippines v. Troadio Butawan

83 Phil. 440 G.R. No. L-855 April 28, 1949

Troadio Butawan, a detachment commander of the Bureau of Constabulary, is convicted

of treason for his involvement in the murder and illegal detention of guerrilla members
during the Japanese occupation. The information charged Butawan with eight counts, but
evidence was only presented for counts 1, 5, and 6.
• Count 1 accused Butawan of adhering to the enemy by serving as a detachment
commander of the Bureau of Constabulary under the Japanese Military Forces.
• Count 5 charged him with shooting and killing a member of the guerrilla organization
known as the "Bolo Battalion."
• Count 6 accused him of apprehending, maltreating, and torturing three other members of
the same organization.
Facts:
•
Issue:
Whether or not Butawan was guilty of treason for his involvement in the murder and
illegal detention of guerrilla members during the Japanese occupation.

Ruling:
Yes, Butawan was guilty of treason for his involvement in the murder and illegal
detention of guerrilla members during the Japanese occupation.

The court found Butawan guilty of treason. Although, mere membership in the Bureau of
Constabulary, without more, did not constitute treason, he went beyond his duty of pacification
work and committed overt acts of shooting and killing a guerrilla member and apprehending and
maltreating other guerrilla members.

Adherence to the enemy was inferred from the fact that these acts were committed while
Butawan was in the company of Japanese soldiers and constabulary patrols, and the victims were
guerrillas. His claim that he was not responsible for the acts and that they were committed by the
Japanese was rejected.

Butawan's actions constituted treason, and since murder and illegal detention were
elements of treason, they were not complexed offenses. His overt acts of shooting and killing a
guerrilla member and apprehending and maltreating other guerrilla members, while in the
company of Japanese soldiers and constabulary patrols, constituted treason.

People of the Philippines v. Gaudencio Roble

83 Phil. 1 G.R. No. L-433 March 2, 1949

Defendant, Gaudencio Roble was charged with treason for acts of torture and murder
during World War II. The court held that the tortures and murders committed by the
defendant were merged in and formed part of the offense of treason.

Issue:
Whether or not tortures and murders committed by the defendant formed part of the offense
of treason.

Ruling:
Yes. The court concluded that the defendant's acts of torture and murder were merged in
and formed part of the offense of treason. Without these acts of torture and murder, the defendant
would not be guilty of treason.
Facts:
•

The court noted that the defendant made a spontaneous plea of guilty. It concluded that
this spontaneous plea of guilty should entitle the defendant to a penalty below the maximum.

People of the Philippines v. Susano Perez (alias Kid Perez)

83 Phil. 314 G.R. No. L-856 April 18, 1949

Susano Perez, also known as Kid Perez, was convicted of treason by the People's Court in
Cebu City.
• He was found guilty of recruiting and commanding women to satisfy the sexual desires of
Japanese officers, as well as other acts of collaboration with the enemy.
Facts:
•
• The defendant was charged with treason for collaborating with the Japanese during World
War II.

Issue:
Whether or not the defendant’s actions of providing women for the entertainment of
Japanese officers and soldiers constitute treason.

Ruling:
No. The court ruled that his actions of providing women for the entertainment of Japanese
officers and soldiers did not constitute treason. The court reasoned that these actions did not
directly aid the enemy's war efforts or weaken the United States. The court determined that these
actions did not directly and materially contribute to the Japanese war effort or weaken the power
of the United States. The defendant's collaboration was deemed trivial, imperceptible, and
unintentional.

However, the defendant was found guilty of four separate crimes of rape and sentenced
accordingly. The court upheld the constitutionality of a provision that allows for conviction of
crimes other than treason if supported by evidence. This means that even if the defendant's
actions did not meet the criteria for treason, he could still be convicted of other crimes if there
was sufficient evidence.

In a broad sense, the law of treason does not prescribe all kinds of social, business and
political intercourse between the belligerent occupants of the invaded country and its inhabitants.
In the nature of things, the occupation of a country by the enemy is bound to create relations of
all sorts between the invaders and the natives. What aid and comfort constitute treason must
depend upon their nature, degree and purpose. To draw a line between treasonable and
untreasonable assistance is not always easy. The scope of adherence to the enemy is
comprehensive, its requirement indeterminate.
Facts:
•
People of the Philippines v. Dionisio Agoncillo
80 Phil. 33 G.R. No. L-985 January 23, 1948

Dionisio Agoncillo was charged with treason for allegedly selling war materials to the
enemy during World War II. The information stated that from February 1944 to March
1945, Agoncillo consistently trafficked in war materials and sold them to the enemy.
• The People's Court found him guilty based solely on the first count, as the second count
of joining and serving the enemy as an informer, agent, and spy was not proven.
• The prosecution presented evidence that Agoncillo's adherence to the enemy could be
inferred from various alleged facts, such as the discovery of his identification card written
in Japanese and Chinese characters, his association with Japanese undercovers, and his
alleged overt acts of aiding and providing comfort to the enemy.

Issue:
Whether or not the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that Agoncillo
committed treason by selling war materials to the enemy.

Ruling:
No. The prosecution has not proven beyond reasonable doubt that Agoncillo committed
treason by selling war materials to the enemy.

The court reversed the judgment of the People's Court and acquitted Agoncillo of the
treason charges. The court found that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to
prove Agoncillo's guilt.

The testimony of the prosecution witness regarding the price of the sale of 300 kilos of
alum crystals was not corroborated by any other witness. The alleged sale of 100 pieces of water
pipes did not have a known price, thus an essential part of the overt act charged in the
information was lacking.

The court emphasized that the sale of alum crystals and water pipes to the enemy does not
per se constitute treason as these materials were not exclusively for war purposes. The sale of
these materials does not necessarily indicate an intention to adhere to the enemy. The alleged acts
of adherence to the enemy occurred after the overt act in question, and it is possible that
Agoncillo's motive for the sale was purely personal gain, unrelated to any benefit for the enemy.

In cases where two probabilities arise from the evidence, the court will adopt the one
compatible with the presumption of innocence. Since the prosecution failed to prove Agoncillo's
guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the court reversed the judgment and acquitted him of the charges.
Facts:
•

People of the Philippines v. Eduardo Prieto (alias Eddie Valencia) 80

Phil. 138 G.R. No. L-399 January 29, 1948

Defendant Eduardo Prieto, also known as Eddie Valencia, was charged with treason and
murder.
• The case was heard in the People's Court. He pleaded not guilty to some counts but
entered a guilty plea to others.
• The special prosecutor presented evidence for one count, while stating that there was
insufficient evidence for two other counts.
• The defendant was found guilty on the counts he pleaded guilty to, as well as on the
count for which evidence was presented. • He was sentenced to death and ordered to pay
a fine.

Issue: Whether or not the defendant is guilty of treason and murder.

Ruling:
Yes. The defendant was found not guilty of the count for which evidence was presented.
He was found guilty of treason on the counts he pleaded guilty to. The court modified the
judgment to find the defendant guilty on certain counts.

The court applied the two-witness principle, which requires that two witnesses
corroborate each other not only on the whole overt act but on any part of it. In this case, the two
witnesses did not corroborate each other on any single detail, failing to satisfy the two-witness
principle.

The court clarified that murder or physical injuries charged as an element of treason
cannot be punished separately or used in combination with treason to increase the penalty. The
court compared this to the principle that one cannot be punished for possessing a drug in a
prosecution for smoking the same drug, or for being guilty of coercion or trespass to a dwelling
in a prosecution for robbery.

However, the court noted that the brutality with which the killings or physical injuries
were carried out could be considered as an aggravating circumstance. The court considered the
mitigating circumstance of the defendant's plea of guilty to some counts.

The defendant pleaded not guilty to some counts, but those counts were not established or
were abandoned.

In conclusion, the court found the defendant guilty of treason on certain counts and
modified the judgment to impose the penalty of reclusion perpetua
Facts:
•
CASES ON CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS

People of the Philippines v. Renato Tac-an y Hipos

G.R. No. 76338-39 February 26, 1990

Facts:
• Renato Tac-an was convicted of Illegal Possession of a Firearms and Murder. He claimed
that he acted in self-defense when he shot the victim.
• The court rejected Renato's claim of self-defense due to lack of evidence of unlawful
aggression.
• The court found that Francis' alleged threats in a classroom cannot be considered as
unlawful aggression.
• The court found that the killing of Francis was carried out with treachery and evident
premeditation.
• The court rejected the claim that Renato acted under the influence of drugs, as there was
no sufficient evidence to support this claim. It further ruled that Renato's surrender was
not voluntary and that he did not surrender himself but was arrested by the authorities.
• The court clarified that a teacher or professor is not considered a "public authority"
within the meaning of the law.

Issues:
1. Whether or not Renato acted in self-defense when he shot Francis.
2. Whether or not the filing of a case for unlawful possession of a firearm bars the filing of a
separate case for murder.
3. Whether or not the use of an unlicensed firearm can be considered as an aggravating
circumstance in murder.
4. Whether or not the killing of Francis was carried out with treachery and evident
premeditation.
5. Whether or not Renato acted under the influence of drugs. 6. Whether or not Renato's
surrender was voluntary.

Rulings:
1. The court rejected Renato's claim of self-defense due to lack of evidence of unlawful
aggression. According to the court, because there was no evidence of unlawful
aggression. The alleged threats made by Francis in a classroom were not considered as
unlawful aggression.
2. The court ruled that the filing of a case for unlawful possession of a firearm does not bar
the filing of a separate case for murder. Unlawful possession of a firearm and murder are
two different offenses and do not constitute double jeopardy.
3. The court clarified that the use of an unlicensed firearm cannot be considered as an
aggravating circumstance in murder.
4. The court found that the killing of Francis was carried out with treachery and evident
premeditation based on the evidence presented.
5. The court rejected the claim that Renato acted under the influence of drugs, as there was
no sufficient evidence to support this claim.
 6. The court ruled that Renato's surrender was not voluntary and that he did not surrender
himself but was arrested by the authorities.

United States v. Gelasio Tabiana and Julian Canillas

G.R. No. L-11847 February 1, 1918

Facts:
• Defendants Gelasio Tabiana and Julian Canillas were accused of assaulting police officers
in the municipality of Leon, Iloilo on February 23, 1915.
• Tabiana, a respected citizen and member of the municipal council, had a warrant for his
arrest on a charge of trespassing.
• The defendants were convicted by the Court of First Instance of the Province of Iloilo for
attack upon agents of public authority, in violation of article 249 of the Penal Code.

Issue:
Whether or not the defendants should be convicted of assault upon persons in authority or
resistance and serious disobedience to public authority.

Ruling:
No. The court found that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to prove the
defendants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court determined that the defendants' actions
were more properly classified as resistance and serious disobedience under article 252 of the
Penal Code, rather than assault upon persons in authority under article 249.

Inconsistent testimonies further weakened the prosecution's case. The court explained that
the offense of assault upon persons in authority requires a more serious level of force and
aggression, which was not present in the defendants' actions. Their actions were more indicative
of resistance and serious disobedience.

The court also noted that the justice of the peace, who issued the warrant of arrest, had no
right to interfere with the legitimate action of the police officers. The justice of the peace may
have been guilty of an offense under articles 249-252 of the Penal Code.

A person who at the moment when a policeman comes to arrest him refuses to obey the
command of the latter and strikes him with the first may be adjudged guilty of simple resistance
and serious disobedience under article 252, Penal Code, instead of serious resistance under article
249. The mere fact that some force is used does not necessarily bring the case under the latter
article; and it is for the court to determine under all the circumstances whether the act falls under
the one provision or the other.

The court acquitted the defendants and classified their actions as resistance and serious
disobedience rather than assault upon persons in authority.

People of the Philippines v. Pascual Baylon Rillorta, Wesley Rillorta and Wilson Rillorta
G.R. No. 57415 December 15, 1989
Facts:
• Three defendants are found guilty of the complex crime of homicide with assault upon a
person in authority after killing a barangay captain, with the court ruling that treachery
did not attend the assault and dismissing claims of legitimate defense and alibi, resulting
in an indeterminate penalty and an order to indemnify the heirs of the deceased.
• Pascual Baylon Rillorta, Wesley Rillorta, and Wilson Rillorta were charged with the
complex crime of direct assault with murder.
• The prosecution's evidence included witness testimonies, the recovery of weapons, and a
written statement from Wesley Rillorta admitting his involvement in the killing.

Issues:
1. Whether or not treachery attended the commission of the crime.
2. Whether or not Wesley Rillorta acted in legitimate defense of his father.
3. Whether or not the witnesses for the prosecution should be given more credit than the
defense witnesses.

Rulings:
1. No. The court ruled that treachery did not attend the assault on the deceased because it
was preceded by a heated exchange of words between the appellants and the deceased.

Therefore, the killing was classified as homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal
Code, not murder. However, the crime was considered a complex one of homicide with
assault upon a person in authority under Articles 249 and 148 of the Revised Penal Code
because Doton was discharging his duty as barangay captain to protect life and property
and enforce law and order in his barrio.

2. No. The court also rejected Wesley Rillorta's claim of legitimate defense as the deceased
had not committed any unlawful aggression against his father. The testimonies and the
nature of the deceased's wounds indicated that the appellants were the aggressors.

3. Yes. In terms of the credibility of witnesses, the court gave more weight to the
prosecution witnesses who positively identified the appellants as the assailants. The
defense witnesses, on the other hand, were found to have inconsistencies and
contradictions in their testimonies.

The court dismissed the appellants' contention that the wound in Pascual's left little finger
proves that he was attacked by the deceased. The prosecution witness testified that the deceased's
hands were held by Pascual's sons, Wesley and Wilson, while Pascual hacked the victim. The
court concluded that the injury to Pascual's finger must have been either self-inflicted or inflicted
by Wesley Rillorta, who joined his father in the attack.

The court applied the penalty for the complex crime of homicide with assault upon a
person in authority, which is the maximum period of the penalty for the more serious crime of
homicide. The maximum penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. Under the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, each of the accused was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty, with the maximum
term within the prescribed penalty of reclusion temporal and the minimum term within the range
of the next lower penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period.
 People of the Philippines v. Rolando Dural (also known as Ronnie Javelon) and Bernardo
Itucal, Jr., y Balderas
G.R. No. 84921 June 8, 1993

Facts:
• Accused Rolando Dural is found guilty of Double Murder with Assault Upon Agents of
Persons In Authority, while co-accused Bernardo Itucal, Jr. is acquitted due to lack of
evidence, in a case where the court establishes conspiracy based on the accused's
coordinated actions and positive identification by witnesses.
• Accused Rolando Dural and Bernardo Itucal, Jr. were charged with Double Murder with
Assault Upon Agents of Persons In Authority. The incident occurred on January 31, 1988,
in Caloocan City, Metro Manila, Philippines.
• The accused were alleged to have conspired together to attack and kill TSGT Carlos
Pabon and CIC Renato Mangligot, who were members of the Philippine Constabulary.
• The accused were said to have shot the victims, causing their death.
• The trial court found both accused guilty of the crime and sentenced them to double
reclusion perpetua. Itucal was later acquitted due to lack of evidence.

Issues:
1. Whether or not Dural and Itucal were guilty of Double Murder with Assault Upon Agents
of Persons in Authority.
2. Whether or not there was conspiracy among the accused.

Rulings:
1. Dural was guilty of Double Murder with Assault Upon Agents of Persons In Authority.
However, Itucal was acquitted due to lack of evidence.

2. No. Conspiracy can be proven by acts and circumstances from which the existence of a
common design among the accused to commit the crime can be inferred.

In this case, the accused arrived together, positioned themselves at pre-assigned spots,
and fled together after the shooting. This showed a deliberate and carefully executed plan.
The court found that Dural's guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt based on the positive
identification by the prosecution witnesses.

However, Itucal's participation in the conspiracy was not sufficiently proven, as there was
no clear evidence that he was a lookout or armed. Therefore, the court acquitted him due to
reasonable doubt.
Facts:
•
Lydia C. Gelig v. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 173150 July 28, 2010

Lydia Gelig was convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for committing the
complex crime of direct assault with unintentional abortion.
• The incident occurred on July 17, 1981, at Nailon Elementary School in Cebu,
Philippines. Lydia confronted Gemma Micarsos, a fellow teacher, after learning that
Gemma called her son a "sissy" in class.
• Lydia slapped and pushed Gemma, causing her to fall and hit a wall divider. As a result,
Gemma suffered a contusion and later experienced abdominal pains and bleeding, leading
to an incomplete abortion.
• Lydia pleaded not guilty and claimed that she only approached Gemma to ask her to
refrain from name-calling her son.

Issue:
Whether or not Lydia can be held liable for slight physical injuries instead of direct
assault with unintentional abortion.

Ruling:
No. The CA's decision to find Lydia guilty only of slight physical injuries is reversed, and
she is instead found guilty of direct assault.

The crime of direct assault can be committed by any person who attacks, employs force,
seriously intimidates, or resists a person in authority or his agent while engaged in the
performance of official duties.

In this case, Gemma, as a public-school teacher, was considered a person in authority.

Lydia's assault on Gemma occurred while she was performing her official duties, and Lydia knew
that Gemma was a person in authority.

However, there is no evidence to establish a direct link between Lydia's assault and
Gemma's abortion. The medical certificate presented in court did not prove that the abortion was
a direct consequence of the assault.

Additionally, the interval of time between the incident and Gemma's admission to the
hospital for incomplete abortion was too lengthy to establish causation. Therefore, Lydia cannot
be held liable for unintentional abortion.

Since Lydia is a public-school teacher and laid her hands on a person in authority, she
falls under this penalty. The court imposes an indeterminate prison term of one (1) year and one
(1) day to three (3) years, six (6) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional, and a
fine of P1,000.00.
Facts:
•

The proper penalty is an indeterminate prison term and a fine.

People of the Philippines v. Tiburcio Abalos

G.R. No. 88189 July 9, 1996

Tiburcio Abalos is convicted for the complex crime of direct assault with murder during a
barangay fiesta celebration, based on the credible and positive testimony of a lone
eyewitness, despite his claims of mistaken belief and lack of corroboration.
• The incident occurred during a barangay fiesta celebration in Catbalogan, Samar. The
sole eyewitness, Felipe Basal, testified that he observed Abalos assault and kill Pfc.
Sofronio Labine, a member of the Integrated National Police.
• Basal's testimony was found to be credible and positive by the court, and there was no
evidence to suggest any ulterior motive for his testimony.
• Abalos claimed that he mistakenly believed his father was being attacked by a member of
the New People's Army.

Issues:
1. Whether or not the crime of direct assault can be complexed with the crime of murder.
2. Whether or not the testimony of a lone eyewitness is sufficient to convict an accused if it
is credible and positive.
3. Whether or not the witness' testimony should be corroborated by the woman who shouted
for assistance.
4. Whether or not there was sufficient visibility at the time of the incident for the witness to
have a clear view of the events. 5. Whether or not Abalos' claim of mistaken belief is
valid.

Rulings:
1. The court affirmed the conviction of Abalos for the complex crime of direct assault with
murder. The court modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua, as the death penalty was
prohibited at the time. The court increased the death indemnity to P50,000.
2. The court ruled that the testimony of a lone eyewitness is sufficient to convict an accused
if it is credible and positive.
3. The court rejected Abalos' argument that the witness' testimony should be corroborated
by the woman who shouted for assistance, as there was no compelling reason to suspect
the witness of prevarication or inaccurate observations.
4. The court found that there was sufficient visibility at the time of the incident for the
witness to have a clear view of the events.
Facts:
•
5. Abalos' claim of mistaken belief was deemed absurd and self-serving by the court. The
court concluded that Abalos committed the second form of assault, which is aggravated
when a weapon is employed in the attack or the offender is a public officer.

The killing of Labine constituted the felony of murder qualified by treachery.

United States v. Nicomedes Gumban

G.R. No. 13658 November 9, 1918

Nicomedes Gumban was accused of assaulting Petronilo Gumban, the municipal

president of Jaro, Iloilo, in the Philippines. The incident occurred on August 13, 1917, in
the municipality of Jaro, Province of Iloilo.
• Petronilo Gumban was inspecting the quarantine of animals in the barrio of Pavia when
Nicomedes Gumban, along with his brothers, arrived and protested that their brother's
carabao was taken to Pavia, which was within the quarantine zone.
• In response, Nicomedes insulted the municipal president and slapped him on the face,
hitting his left ear.

Issue:
Whether or not Nicomedes Gumban should be found guilty of assault upon an agent of
authority or assault upon a person in authority.

Ruling:
Yes. Nicomedes Gumban should be found guilty of assault upon a person in authority.
The lower court had initially found him guilty of assault upon an agent of authority. The Supreme
Court clarified that the qualification given by the fiscal does not determine the crime, but rather
the facts stated in the information.

The information filed against Nicomedes Gumban alleged that he assaulted Petronilo
Gumban, who was a municipal president and therefore a person in authority. Based on this
information, the Supreme Court concluded that Nicomedes Gumban should be convicted of the
crime of assault upon a person in authority.

The Supreme Court based its decision on the provisions of the Penal Code. Article 249
defines the offense of assault, and Article 250 specifies the penalties for assaults committed
against persons in authority. For the crime of assault upon a person in authority to exist, it is
sufficient for there to be an assault upon a person in authority by laying hands upon them.
Previous decisions have established that a municipal president is considered a person in
authority.

Therefore, the facts of the case, where Nicomedes Gumban slapped the municipal
president while he was performing his official duties, constituted the crime of assault upon a
person in authority.
Facts:
•

People of the Philippines v. Reynaldo Villaseor y Cordero (alias Reny)

G.R. No. L-28574 October 24, 1970

Reynaldo Villaseñor is found guilty of direct assault upon an agent of a person in

authority with murder after he suddenly appears in front of police sergeant Alfonso Madla
and fires four shots at him, resulting in his death, but the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender is considered in his favor.
• On April 26, 1964, Villaseñor suddenly appeared in front of police sergeant Alfonso
Madla and fired four shots at him, resulting in his death.
• Villaseñor was a special agent of the Provincial Governor of Marinduque at the time and
was issued a .38 caliber pistol.
• The incident took place in Boac, Marinduque, in the evening, while Madla was on duty
patrolling the market place with two other policemen.
• Villaseñor asked Madla if he was still mad at him before shooting him.
• After the incident, Villaseñor fled towards the municipality of Mogpog.

Issue:
Whether or not Villaseñor is guilty of direct assault upon an agent of a person in authority
with murder.

Ruling:
Yes. Villaseñor is guilty of murder, qualified by treachery, but mitigated by voluntary
surrender. Positive identification of Villaseñor as the murderer rendered unnecessary any proof of
motive on his part. Non-presentation of an eyewitness, patrolman Jimena, was not considered a
reversible error since he was merely a corroborative witness and the defense had the opportunity
to present him if they wished.

Circumstances surrounding the frontal attack made by Villaseñor on Madla demonstrated

treachery: Suddenness of the attack; Villaseñor appearing with a drawn gun pointed directly at
Facts:
•
the victim; Firing four successive shots at close range; and ensuring the victim could not defend
himself.

Mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was considered in favor of Villaseñor since

the warrant for his arrest had not been served on him at the time of the incident.

The Crime of direct assault upon an agent of a person in authority had not been
established beyond reasonable doubt since there was no proof that Villaseñor knew Madla was
performing his official functions as a police sergeant.

Aggravating circumstance of nocturnity was deemed absorbed in treachery.

El Pueblo de Filipinas (People of the Philippines) vs. Raymundo Rellin G.R.

Nos. 71-72 February 28, 1947

Raymundo Rellin is accused of assaulting and killing Graciano Rodas, but the court finds
that Rellin did not have knowledge that Rodas was an authority figure, leading to a
conviction of simple homicide instead of assault against a person in authority.
• He was accused of two crimes: (a) direct assault against an agent of authority with
homicide and (b) direct assault against an agent of authority. The accused pleaded not
guilty to both charges. After the trial, the lower court found the accused guilty of simple
homicide and sentenced him to a prison term. The court also found him guilty of
resistance to an agent of authority and imposed a separate penalty for that charge.
• The incident occurred when Rellin encountered three suspicious individuals while
walking on Tavera Street in Marinduque. Rellin, who was designated to inspect the
neighborhood guards that night, questioned the individuals. One of them, Graciano
Rodas, attacked Rellin, and a fight ensued. Rellin eventually overpowered Rodas, who
later died due to the injuries sustained during the fight.

Issue: Whether or not Rellin is guilty of direct assault against an agent of authority.

Ruling:
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision to convict Rellin of simple
homicide instead of direct assault against an agent of authority. The court found that Rellin did
not have knowledge that Rodas was an agent of authority at the time of the incident. The court
also held that Rellin should be held responsible for the consequences of his actions, including the
death of Rodas.
Facts:
•

To establish the crime of direct assault against an agent of authority, it is necessary to

prove that the accused had knowledge that the victim was an authority or agent of authority in the
exercise of their duties or on the occasion thereof. Without this knowledge, the essential element
of the crime is lacking. The person who inflicts harm is responsible for the consequences of their
actions unless it can be proven that the result was caused by an isolated act or event completely
unrelated to the criminal agent.

In this case, there is no evidence that Rellin knew that Rodas was a municipal police
officer or that Rodas was performing his duties at the time of the incident. Rellin questioned the
individuals he encountered because he was designated to inspect the neighborhood guards that
night. Rodas's response did not indicate that he was a municipal police officer. Additionally,
Rodas and his companions did not have their batons with them, and Rodas was not wearing a
police uniform. Therefore, Rellin had no opportunity to recognize Rodas before the altercation.

The defense argued that Rodas's death was caused by a pre-existing heart condition and
not solely by Rellin's punches. However, the court held that Rellin should be held responsible for
the death as the punches caused traumatic injuries that resulted in hemorrhage, which was the
immediate cause of death.

Severino P. Justo v. The Court of Appeals

G.R. No. L-8611 June 28, 1956

October 16, 1950, in Laoag, Ilocos Norte, Nemesio B. de la Cuesta, a district supervisor
of the Bureau of Public Schools, went to the division office to revise the plantilla of his
district. Justo approached De la Cuesta and Severino Caridad, an academic supervisor,
and asked about the possibility of accommodating a certain Miss Racela as a teacher in
De la Cuesta's district.
• Caridad informed Justo that there was no vacancy except for the position of a shop
teacher. Justo insulted and accused de la Cuesta of being a double-crosser. Justo grabbed
a lead paperweight from Caridad's table and challenged De la Cuesta to go outside.
• de la Cuesta followed Justo and asked him to put down the paperweight, but Justo
grabbed de la Cuesta's collar and tore his shirt. He retaliated by punching Justo several
times.
• Severino P. Justo was convicted of the case and appeals the guilty verdict for assaulting a
person in authority.

Issue:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals is correct in affirming the judgment of the Court of
First Instance of Ilocos Norte, finding Justo guilty of the crime of assault upon a person in
authority.
Facts:
•
Ruling:
Yes. The Court of Appeals is correct in affirming the judgment of the Court of First
Instance of Ilocos Norte, finding Justo guilty of the crime of assault upon a person in authority.
The court concludes that there is no reversible error in the decision and affirms the guilty verdict
against Justo.

The character of a person in authority is not assumed or laid off at will but attaches to a
public official until they cease to be in office. The crime of assault upon a person in authority can
still exist if the impelling motive of the attack is the performance of official duty, even if the
complainant was not actually performing their official duties at the time of the assault.

Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code penalizes attacks upon persons in authority "while
engaged in the performance of official duties or on occasion of such performance." The phrase
"on occasion" signifies that the attack is motivated by the past performance of official duty, even
if no official duty is being discharged at the time of the assault.

In cases of mutual agreement to fight, an aggression ahead of the stipulated time and
place would be unlawful. Accepting the challenge to fight does not place the offended party
under the burden of preparing to meet an assault at any time before reaching the agreed
encounter location. Any aggression before reaching the appointed place for the fight is
considered illegal. In this case, the challenge was to fight outside the building, and it would not
be logical to hold the fight inside the office building in plain view of subordinate employees.

Therefore, Justo's aggression towards De la Cuesta before reaching the agreed encounter
location was unlawful. Based on these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed Justo's guilty
verdict for assault upon a person in authority. Even if De la Cuesta was not actively performing
his duties at the time of the assault, as long as the impelling motive of the attack is the
performance of official duty, the crime of assault upon a person in authority still exists.