Case Digest Title 1

TREASON
LAUREL VS. MISA (1947)

Facts:

Anastasio Laurel filed a petition for habeas corpus based on the theory that a Filipino citizen who adhered to the
enemy by giving him aid and comfort during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines cannot be prosecuted for
the crime of treason, because:
(1) The sovereignty of the legitimate government in the Philippines was then suspended, and
(2) There was a change of sovereignty over the Philippines upon the proclamation of the Philippine Republic.

Issue: Whether a Filipino citizen adhering to the enemy by giving him aid and comfort during the Japanese
occupation cannot be prosecuted for the crime of treason for the aforementioned reasons.

Ruling:

Laurel’s petition will not prosper.

(1) A citizen or subject owes not a qualified and temporary, but an absolute and permanent allegiance to his
government or sovereign. Sovereignty of the government is not transferred to the enemy by mere
occupation. Thus, the absolute and permanent allegiance of the citizen or subject is also not abrogated or
severed by the enemy occupation. In an occupation, what is merely suspended is the exercise of the
rights of sovereignty, which means the control and government of the territory.

The sovereignty itself is not suspended and subsists during the occupation, the allegiance of the
inhabitants to their legitimate government or sovereign subsists, and therefore there is no such thing as
suspended allegiance.

(2) The change of our form of government from Commonwealth to Republic does not affect the prosecution
of those charged with the crime of treason committed during the Commonwealth, because it is an offense
against the same government and the same sovereign people. This is reinforced in Article 18 of the then
1935 Constitution which provides that “The Commonwealth of the Philippines shall thenceforth be known
as the Republic of the Philippines.”

PEOPLE VS. EDUARDO PRIETO (1948)

Facts:

The accused, Eduardo Prieto, from October to November 1944 was a member of the Japanese Military Police and
acted as undercover man for the Japanese forces with the intent to give aid and comfort to the enemy. He led
Japanese soldiers and Filipino undercovers to barrios in the municipality of Mandaue, Cebu to apprehend guerillas
and locate their hideouts.

First, they apprehended Abraham Puno, severely tortured him by placing red hot iron on his body parts. Next they
apprehended Guillermo and Macario Ponce, tied their hands and gave them fist blows. They also apprehended
Damian and Santiago Alinin, tied them with rope and tortured them. Lastly, they tortured Antonio Soco and killed
Gil Soco. Prieto and his companions detained all of the apprehended guerillas after their torture.

Issue: Whether Prieto’s crimes committed in furtherance of the crime of treason can be considered crimes
separate from treason.

Ruling:

No. The common crimes committed in furtherance of treason are the overt acts of aid and comfort in favor of the
enemy and are therefore inseparable from treason itself*. They become an element of treason. These deeds
become identified with treason and cannot be subject of a separate punishment or combined with treason to
increase the penalty.

However, if the prosecution decides to prosecute the culprit specifically for these crimes instead of relying on them
as elements of treason, then punishment for these common crimes is not precluded.
Further, the brutality with which the killing or physical injuries were carried out may be taken as aggravating
circumstance. In this case, the torture and brutal killings carried out by Prieto against the guerillas were taken as
an aggravating circumstance. The Court argued that these augmented the sufferings of the offended parties
unnecessarily to attain the criminal objective of detaining them.

Thus, Prieto was found guilty of treason and there being an aggravating circumstance, his penalty is reclusion
perpetua.

Note from Atty. Juyo: *“Hernandez Doctrine” Treason is a continuing offense. Even if you committed a crime last
week, but you are considered a traitor, you can still be arrested this week (same as rebellion). However, there still
needs to be determination of the motive of the offender if his act is an element of treason.

PEOPLE VS. ISAAC PEREZ (1923)

Facts:

7 counts of treason were filed against Susano Perez for recruiting, apprehending, and commandeering women
(Ramo, Daohog, Lamay, and Bonalos) against their will to satisfy the immoral purpose and sexual desire of
Colonel Mini and other Japanese officers.

Issue: Whether or not the acts of Perez constituted treason.

Ruling:

No. As a general rule, acts providing aid and comfort to the enemies are treasonable when the aid and comfort
rendered are directed to them as enemies and not as mere individuals. Sexual and social relations of the
Japanese did not directly and materially tend to improve their war efforts nor weaken the power of the government.

PEOPLE VS. ALUNAN (1947)

Facts:

Rafael Alunan accepted appointments in the Philippine Executive Commission, the Japanese government in the
Philippines. The functions he performed and the positions he held were as follows:
 Minister of Agriculture and Commerce
 Member of the Preparatory Commission on Philippine Independence
 Minister of Agriculture and Natural Recourse
 Went on a gratitude mission to Tokyo
 Voted in favor of declaration of war against the Allied Powers in WW2 (Great Britain, France, Soviet
Union, USA, and China)

Issue: Whether or not Alunan is guilty of treason for accepting these appointments.

Ruling:

No. Mere acceptance of public office and performance of duties connected to such office under the Philippine
Executive Commission do not constitute treason per se, unless such office was accepted as an aid and for the
comfort of the enemy and the person who accepted the office adheres to the enemy.

Here, there was no sufficient proof that Alunan adhered to the enemy. The acts he performed were executed in the
performance of his official duties, by reason of the public office that played under abnormal circumstances, and
therefore cannot be estimated as acts that give support and comfort to the enemy.

PEOPLE VS. MANAYAO (1947)

Facts:

In January 1945, guerillas raided the Japanese in Sitio Pulong Tindahan in Bulacan. In reprisal, Japanese soldiers
and Filipinos affiliated with the Makapili (militant group giving military aid to the Imperial Japanese Army), including
Pedro Manayao, gathered 60 to 70 residents of Banaban behind the barrio chapel. The group set their houses on
fire and butchered all the persons except small children. Manayao alone bayoneted to death two women for being
wives of guerillas.

Manayao was tried for the crime of Treason, but he argued that he was a member of the Armed Forces of Japan,
and was subject to military law and not to the jurisdiction of the People’s Court. He also argued that he had lost his
Philippine citizenship and was therefore not amenable to the Philippine law of treason.

Issue:

1. Whether or not Manayao was a member of the Armed Forces of Japan

2. Whether or not Manayao had lost his Philippine citizenship and was therefore not amenable to the
Philippine law of treason.

Held:

1. No. The Makaipili, although organized to render military aid to the Japanese Army in the Philippines, was
not part of the said army. It is simply an organization of Filipino traitors. There is no evidence that
Manayao has subscribed to an oath of allegiance to support the constitution or laws of Japan. Makapili
members could have sworn to help Japan in the war without necessarily swearing to support her
constitution and laws. Neither is there any showing that Manayao accepted a commission in the military
of Japan.

2. No. Manayao cannot divest himself of his Philippine citizenship and place himself beyond the arm of our
treason law. If this contention would be sustained, the very crime of his treasonous acts would be the
shield that would protect him from punishment.

PEOPLE VS. ADRIANO (1947)

Facts:

Apolinario Adriano is accused of treason for joining the Makapili organization. However, the prosecution did not
introduce any evidence to substantiate any other fact except that of Adriano joining the Makapili organization.

Specifically, the prosecution had not been able to establish this by the testimony of two witnesses that Adriano
participated with Japanese soldiers in certain raids and in confiscation of personal property.

No two witnesses also testified to a single one of the various acts of treason that they claim Adriano had
committed. Those who gave evidence that Adriano took part in raids and seizure of personal property, and
performed military drills, referred to acts committed on different dates without any two witnesses coinciding in any
one specified deed.

The only point that the witnesses agreed on was seeing Adriano in a Makapili uniform carrying arms. Still, the two
witnesses have seen the Adriano doing at least one particular thing: a routine military chore, or just walking or
eating.

Issue: Whether or not Adriano may be accused of treason.

Ruling:

No. An overt act must be established by the deposition of two witnesses. Each witness must testify to the whole of
the overt act, or if it is separable, there must be two witnesses to each part of the overt act.

Merely joining Makapili is evidence of both adherence to the enemy and giving him aid and comfort. At the same
time, being a Makapili is in itself constitutive of an overt act. Thus, membership as a Makapili as an overt act, must
be established by the deposition of two witnesses.

Here, no two witnesses were able to testify to the whole of the overt act of Adriano joining Makapili and committing
various acts of treason.

The authors of our treason law purposely made conviction for treason difficult, and the two-witness rule is severely
restrictive. Thus, Adriano is acquitted.
ESPIONAGE
SANTOS VS. MISA (1946)

Facts:

Go Tian Sek Santos was apprehended by the Counter Intelligence Corps of the US Army for the crime of
espionage. Santos avers that he is a Chinese citizen, thus his detention is illegal as he owes allegiance neither to
the US nor to the Commonwealth of the Philippines.

Issue: Is allegiance to the US or the Commonwealth of the Philippines material in the crime of espionage?

Ruling:

No. Espionage is a crime is an offense against national security, and it is not conditioned by the citizenship of the
offender.

The foreign status of Santos does not exclude him from the scope of the provisions on espionage. Thus, he may
be prosecuted for such.

COMMONWEALTH ACT 616 (1941)

Other acts of Espionage that are punishable under CA 616:

1. Unlawfully obtaining or permitting to be obtained information affecting national defense.

2. Unlawful disclosing of information affecting national defense.

3. Disloyal acts or words in time of peace.

4. Disloyal acts or words in time of war.

5. Conspiracy to violate preceding acts.

6. Harboring or concealing violators of law.

7. Photographing from aircraft of vital military information.

PIRACY AND MUTINY

PEOPLE VS. LOL-LO AND SARAW (1922)

Facts:

In June 1920, two Dutch boats left Matuta. The second one arrived between the Islands of Buang and Bukid in the
Dutch East Indies. There, the second boat was surrounded by 6 vintas manned by 24 Moros, all armed. The
Moros first asked for food, but one they were on the Dutch boat, they attacked some of the men, raped two of the
women, and left holes on the boat so that it would submerge.

Two young women were taken by the Moros, raped by Lol-lo and Saraw, and were subsequently able to escape.

Lol-lo and Saraw later returned to Tawi-Tawi where they were arrested and charged in the Court of First Instance
of Sulu with the crime of piracy. Their consel de officio argued that the offense of piracy was not within the
jurisdiction of the CFI, nor of any of the court of the Philippine Islands, and that the facts did not constitute a public
offence under the laws of the Philippine Islands.

Issue:

1. Did Lol-lo and Saraw commit piracy?

2. Does the CFI have jurisdiction over the case?
Ruling:

1. Yes. All of the elements of the crime of piracy are present. Piracy is robbery or forcible depredation on the
high seas, without lawful authority and done animo furandi, and in the spirit and intention of universal
hostility.

2. Yes. The CFI has jurisdiction of the case. Piracy is a crime not against any particular state, but against all
mankind. As such, it may be punished in the competent tribunal of any country where the offender may
be found or into which he may be carried. The jurisdiction of piracy has no territorial limits. As it is against
all, so may it be punished by all. Nor does it matter that the crime was committed within the jurisdictional
3-mile limit of a foreign state, for those limits, though neutral to war, are not neutral to crimes.

UNITED STATES VS. DASAL (1903)

Facts:

In September 1902, 35 persons were charged with the crime of murder. They belonged to the crew of the Steamer
Dos Hermanos, an American steamer duly registered in the Philippine Islands. The information against them
alleged that in August 1902, the defendants were aboard Dos Hermanos, which itself less than one mile from the
town of Virac in Albay. The defendants conspired together to overcome the rest of the crew and kill the captain
and officers of Dos Hermanos, with the intention of seizing the vessel and its contents and with it leaving for parts
unknown.

The outbreak resulted in the death of the first engineer, Antonio Agudo, the steward, Amellategui, and the Chinese
carpenter, Chuen, and in the wounding of Captain Morales, First Mate Zabala, Second Engineer Rendon, and
passenger Tremoya.

The killing of the first engineer Antonio Agudo must be classified as murder, as the defendants acted with evident
premeditation and after reflection concerning the perpetration of the crime, which they had conspired to commit.

Issue:

1. Whether or not the CFI has jurisdiction over a mutiny case.

2. Whether the object of prosecution is for mutiny or murder.

Ruling:

1. Yes. The court of First Instance of the port where, after the commission of the crime, a ship licensed in
the Philippines put in, has jurisdiction of a crime committed aboard the ship, to the exclusion of all the
other courts of the Archipelago.
2. The object of the prosecution is murder, and not that of piracy. Thus, the decision must be limited solely
to the crime of the murder of Antonio Agudo.

With respect to some of the accused, the record contains no evidence whatever that they took part in the
crime herein prosecuted. A large portion of the crew did not take any part in the mutiny and had nothing
to do with the crime committed by the mutineers. It is error to hold that all of the members of the
steamer’s crew should be regarded as co-principals of the crime in question. The record does not
disclose evidence of guilt of all the defendants, but only for some of them, and the degree of guilt of these
varies.

Only a portion of the crew participated in the mutiny and in the attack upon the captain and other officers,
and more especially upon the first engineer. The presumption that some 10 or 14 men took part in that
attack is based upon the fact that in order to effect in so short a time the various acts performed, many
men must have acted together, although not necessarily the 41 who composed the crew.

P.D. 532 (1974)

ANTI-PIRACY AND ANTI-HIGHWAY ROBBERY LAW OF 1974

 This law prohibited piracy in Philippine waters.

 Before the passage of RA 7659, there was a need to distinguish whether piracy is committed under RPC
or PD 532. If it is committed in the high seas, it is punishable by the RPC; If it is committed in Philippine
waters, it is punishable under by PD 532.

 Piracy here can be committed by any person, including the vessel’s complement, or the passengers of
the vessel.

 PD 532 covers any person while Art. 122 as amended covers only persons who are not passengers of
members of its complement.

RA 7659

AN ACT TO IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY ON CERTAIN HEINOUS CRIMES, AMENDING FOR THAT
PURPOSE THE REVISED PENAL LAWS, AS AMENDED, OTHER SPECIAL PENAL LAWS, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES

Art. 122. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine waters. – The penalty of reclusion perpetua
shall be inflicted upon any person who, on the high seas, or in Philippine waters, shall attack or seize a vessel or,
not being a member of its complement nor a passenger, shall seize the whole or part of the cargo of said vessel,
its equipment or passengers.

The same penalty shall be inflicted in case of mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine waters.

Art. 123. Qualified piracy. – The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed upon those who commit
any of the crimes referred to in the preceding article, under any of the following circumstances:

1. Whenever they have seized a vessel by boarding or firing upon the same;

2. Whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims without means of saving themselves or;

3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape.

4. With evident premeditation.

5. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his
person or corpse.

 This law amended Art. 122.

 After the passage of RA 7659, the act of piracy and mutiny, whether committed in Philippine waters or in
the high seas is now punishable under Art. 122 of the RPC. RA 7659 incorporated mutiny in Philippine
waters and the high seas, as well as piracy in Philippine waters and the high seas.

PEOPLE VS. ROGER TULIN (2001)

Facts:

In March 1991, M/T Tabangao, a cargo vessel owned by the Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC) Shipping
and Transportation Corporation, loaded with kerosene, gasoline, and diesel was boarded by 7 fully armed pirates
including Roger Tulin. The vessel was directed to sail to Singapore’s shoreline for the transfer of the products to
another vessel called Navi Pride, under the supervision of the accused Cheong San Hiong. Afterwards, M/T
Tabangao returned to the Philippines.

A series of arrests was made and an information was filed, charging all the accused with qualified piracy or
violation of Presidential Decree No. 532 (Piracy in Philippine Waters).

They were convicted of the crime charged and the matter was elevated to the CA. Meanwhile, accused Cheong
San Hiong argued that the court erred in convicting him as an accomplice to the crime when the acts which he
committed was done outside of Philippine waters and territory. He argued that the court has no jurisdiction to hold
him for trial.

Issue: Whether or not the accused Cheong San Hiong can be tried under Philippine courts for the crime which he
committed outside Philippine waters and territory?

Held:

Yes. The attack and seizure of M/T Tabangao and its cargo were committed in Philippine waters, although the
captive vessel was later brought by the pirates to Singapore where its cargo was off-loaded, transferred, and sold.
Althoug PD 532 requires that the attack and seizure of the vessel and its cargo be committed in Philippine waters,
the disposition by the pirates of the vessel and its cargo is still deemed part of the act of piracy, hence, the same
need not be committed in Philippine waters.

Moreover, piracy falls under Title One of Book Two of the Revised Penal Code. As such, it is an exception to the
rule on territoriality in criminal law. The same principle applies even if Hiong, in the instant case, were charged, not
with a violation of qualified piracy under the penal code but under a special law, PD 532, which penalizes piracy in
Philippine waters.

RA 7659 neither superseded nor amended the provisions on piracy under PD 532. There is no contradiction
between the two laws. There is likewise no ambiguity and hence, there is no need to construe or interpret the law.
All the presidential decree did was to widen the coverage of the law, in keeping with the intent to protect the
citizenry as well as neighboring states from crimes against the law of nations.

QUALIFIED PIRACY
PEOPLE VS. SIYOH (1986)

Facts:

Julaide Siyoh and Omarkyam Kiram, together with Namli Indanan and Andaw Jamahali were accused of qualified
piracy with triple murder and frustrated murder. In 1979, Antonio de Guzman together with his friends who were
also travelling merchants like him were on their way to Pilas Island, Province of Basilan, to sell goods they
received from Alberto Aurea. On the way to Pilas Island, Antonio de Guzman saw another pumpboat painted red
and green about 200 meters away from their pumpboat. Shortly after, Kiram turned off the engine of their
pumpboat. Thereafter two shots were fired from the other pumpboat as it moved towards them. When the boat
came close to them, Kiram threw a rope to the other pumpboat which towed de Guzman's pumpboat towards
Mataja Island. On the way to Mataja Island, Antonio de Guzman and his companions were divested of their money
and their goods by Kiram. Thereafter Kiram and his companions ordered the group of de Guzman to undress.
Taking fancy on the pants of Antonio de Guzman, Kiram put it on. With everybody undressed, Kiram said 'It was
good to kill all of you'. After that remark, Siyoh hacked Danilo Hiolen while Kiram hacked Rodolfo de Castro.
Antonio de Guzman jumped into the water. As he was swimming away from the pumpboat, the two companions of
Kiram fired at him, injuring his back. But he was able to reach a mangrove where he stayed till nightfall. He was
picked up by a fishing boat and brought to the Philippine Army station at Maluso where he received first aid
treatment. Respondents contend that their guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt since the prosecution
did not present evidence that they were also the one who killed Anastacio de Guzman, as his remains were never
recovered.
Issue: Whether or not the respondents are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified piracy.

Ruling:

Yes. The number of persons killed on the occasion of piracy is not material. PD 532 considers qualified piracy as a
special complex crime punishable by death, regardless of the number of victims. Therefore, the guilt of respondent
were proven beyond reasonable doubt.

PEOPLE VS. ANG CHO KIO (1954)

Facts:

The accused was passenger of a flight in the Mountain Province in 1952. While en route from Laoag to Aparri,
accused compelled the pilot to change the course of the airplane to Amoy instead. In not complying with such
illegal requirement, accused discharged various revolver shots, killing the pilot instantly.

Issue:

Whether or not accused is guilty of qualified piracy.

Held:

No. The attack took place in a plane and not a ship. The crime here is murder. However, if RA 6235 had already
been in effect, the same principle applies that the crime of the accused cannot be treated as a separate crime from
piracy. The crime would therefore have been qualified piracy.

RA 6235 (1971)

ANTI-HIJACKING LAW

Four acts prohibited under RA 6235:

1. For any person to compel a change in the course or destination of an aircraft of Philippine registry, or to
seize or usurp the control thereof, while it is in flight.
2. For any person to compel an aircraft of foreign registry to land in Philippine territory or to seize or usurp
the control thereof while it is within the said territory.
3. For any person to commit such violation under any of the following circumstances:
 Whenever he has fired upon the pilot, member of the crew, or passenger of the aircraft.
 Whenever he has exploded or attempted to explode any bomb or explosive to destroy the
aircraft.
 Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, serious physical injuries, or rape.
4. For any person, natural or juridical, to ship, load, or carry in any passenger aircraft operating as a public
utility within the Philippines, any explosive, flammable, corrosive, or poisonous substance or material.

When is an aircraft considered in flight?

 If it is of Philippine registry, when its external doors are closed.
 If it is of foreign registry, even if the external doors are open, it is still considered in flight if it is in transit as
it still has to move out.

Are attempted and frustrated hijacking punishable by RA 6235?

 An attempted or frustrated hijacking is not punishable in the anti-hijacking law.
 General rule: If it is not specifically written in a special law that the attempted and frustrated stages of a
crime are punishable, then they are not punishable.

Prohibited Goods
 Private aircrafts are not subject to RA 6235 in carrying prohibited goods.
 Carrying prohibited goods in a passenger aircraft is absolutely prohibited.
 Carrying prohibited goods in a cargo aircraft must be done in accordance to the rules and regulations
 prescribed by the Air Transport Office (ATO). Otherwise, it is prohibited.

Note: There is no hijacking with murder. The crime is pure and simple hijacking, only qualified by the presence of
murder or homicide.