Criminal Law 2 Case Digests Title I Nati

ANASTACIO LAUREL, PETITIONER, VS.
ERIBERTO MISA,
RESPONDENT.[ G.R. No. 409, January 30, 1947 ] 77 Phil. 856
Facts:
Anastacio Laurel filed a petition for habeas corpus contending that a

Filipino citizen who adhered to the enemy giving the latter aid and comfort
during the Japanese occupation cannot be prosecuted for the crime of
treason defined and penalized by article 114 of the Revised Penal Code,
for the reason (1) that the sovereignty of the legitimate government in the
Philippines and, consequently, the correlative allegiance of Filipino
citizens thereto was then suspended; and (2) that there was a change of
sovereignty over these Islands upon the proclamation of the Philippine
Republic.
Issue:
Is Laurel’s contention correct?
Decision:
No. A citizen or subject owes, not a qualified and temporary, but an

absolute and permanent allegiance. The absolute and permanent
allegiance of the inhabitants of a territory occupied by the enemy to their
legitimate government or sovereign is not abrogated or severed by the
enemy occupation, because the sovereignty of the government or
sovereign de jure is not transferred thereby to the occupier.
Title I – CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAWS OF NATIONS Page 1 of 41
JOSE “JINGGOY” E. ESTRADA, PETITIONER, VS.SANDIGANBAYAN
(THIRD DIVISION), PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND OFFICE OF
THE OMBUDSMAN, RESPONDENTS.[ G.R. No. 148965, February 26,
2002 ]
Facts:
Petitioner invokes the equal protection clause of the Constitution in

his bid to be excluded from the charge of plunder under Republic Act No.
7080 filed against him by the respondent Ombudsman.
Issue:
Is the petitioner denied of the equal protection of the laws?
Decision:
No. Petitioner’s contention that R.A. No. 7080 is unconstitutional as

applied to him is principally perched on the premise that the Amended
Information charged him with only one act or one offense which cannot
constitute plunder is patently false. To insist that the Amended
Information charged the petitioner with the commission of only one act or
offense despite the phrase “several instances” is to indulge in a twisted,
nay, “pretzel” interpretation. It is too late in the day for the petitioner to
argue that the Ombudsman failed to establish any probable cause against
him for plunder. The respondent Sandiganbayan itself has found
probable cause against the petitioner for which reason it issued a warrant
of arrest against him. The time to assail the finding of probable cause by
the Ombudsman has long passed.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE,
VS.FRANCISCO M. ABAD (ALIAS PAQUITO), DEFENDANT AND
APPELLANT.[ G.R. No. L-430, July 30, 1947 ]78 Phil. 766
Facts:
Francisco Abad was found guilty on three counts of the complex

crime of treason with homicide. The information charged appellant of the
crime of treason by giving aid and comfort to the Empire of Japan and the
Japanese Imperial Forces. The first question raised by appellant is that
the lower court erred in finding the accused guilty on the first count,
notwithstanding the fact that only one witness testified to the overt act
alleged therein.
Issue:
Is the appellant correct?
Decision:
Yes. The two-witness rule must be adhered to as to each and every

one of all the external manifestations of the overt act in issue. Although
both overt acts are inter-related, it would be too much to strain the
imagination if they should be identified as a single act or even as different
manifestations, phases, or stages of the same overt act. Although both
acts may logically be presumed to have answered the same purpose, the
singleness of purpose is not enough to make one of two acts.
THE UNITED STATES, COMPLAINANT AND APPELLEE,
VS.DALMACIO LAGNASON, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.[ G.R.
No. 1582, March 28, 1904 ] 3 Phil. 472
Facts:
The defendant with this band made an attack 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:
Did the defendant commit treason?
Decision:
Yes. Act No. 292 of the Philippine Commission states that every
person, resident in the Philippine Islands, owing allegiance to the United
States, or the Government of the Philippine Islands, who levies war
against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort
within the Philippine Islands or elsewhere, is guilty of treason.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS.
MAXIMO BATE (ALIAS BORJA, ALIAS PATSO), DEFENDANT AND
APPELLANT. [ G.R. No. L-1547, January 28, 1949 ]82 Phil. 716
Facts:
Bate was found guilty on six counts of treason. On one count, the
appellant who was then armed and who was accompanied by several
undercover men arrested Francisca Bacalla and took her to Sgt. Yoshida,
chief of the Japanese Military Police, where she was investigated and
maltreated. As pointed out by the Solicitor General, only one witness
FelisaTaboado testified as to Bacalla's arrest by the appellant and only
one witness, ConradoBao, the cook of Sgt. Yoshida testified about her
investigation at Yoshida's house by the defendant.
Issue:
Can the appellant be held guilty of treason?
Decision:
Yes. Although not sufficient to prove the overt acts of which Bate is
accused, nevertheless, the evidence may be considered as proof of his
adherence to the enemy.
VS.LORENZO MORALES, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.[ G.R. No.
L-4533, May 28, 1952 ]91 Phil. 445
Facts:
Morales was charged with the crime of treason. He insists that his
mere presence is not sufficient to constitute treason.
Issue:
Decision:
Yes. Morales was carrying a firearm and was seen behaving as a

guard. During the Japanese occupation, nobody could carry a gun freely
in the presence of Japanese soldiers, unless he was an agent of or in
cahoots with the enemy. It is far-fetched to suppose that the defendant
happened to be in the place above mentioned as a mere spectator.
Openly carrying a firearm, while going with Japanese soldiers, can only
be reconciled with the idea that the man was in league with and had the
confidence of the enemy.
VS.PEDRO T. VILLANUEVA, DEFENDANT AND APPELALNT.[ G. R.
No. L-9529, August 30, 1958 ]104 Phil. 450
Facts:
The prosecution established that during the Japanese occupation,

appellant, who is a Filipino citizen, and owing allegiance to the United
States of America and the Commonwealth of the Philippines, gave the
enemy aid and comfort by rendering service with the Japanese Imperial
Army as secret agent, informer and spy, of its Detective Force in the
province of Iloilo. The appellant put up the defense of duress allegedly
exerted by the Japanese upon him for which he had to serve in the
detective force of the Japanese Army.
Issue:
Decision:
Except the lone and self-serving testimony of the appellant that he

was coerced to cooperate with and serve the Japanese soldiers, there is
not an iota of proof that he was in fact compelled or coerced by the
Japanese. Much less is there any evidence showing that the alleged
compulsion or coercion was grave and imminent.
VS.ANTONIO RACAZA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.[ G.R. No. L-
365, January 21, 1949 ]82 Phil. 623
Facts:
Racaza was found guilty on fourteen counts of treason. The trial

court found the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation,
superior strength, treachery and employment of means for adding
ignominy to the natural effects of the crime.
Issue:
Is the finding of the trial court proper as regards the aggravating

circumstances?
Decision:
No. Evident premeditation, superior strength, and treachery are, by

their nature, inherent in the offense of treason and may not be taken to
aggravate the penalty. Adherence and the giving of aid and comfort to the
enemy is a long, continued process requiringfixed, reflective and
persistent determination and planning. Treachery is merged in superior
strength. To overcome the opposition and wipe out resistance
movements, the use of a large force and equipment was necessary. The
enemy to whom the accused adhered was itself the personification of
brute, superior force, and it was this superior force which enabled him to
overrun the country and for a time subdue its inhabitants by his brutal
rule.
VS.ELEUTERIO ICARO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.[ G. R. No. L-
2956, May 23, 1951 ]89 Phil. 12
Facts:
Icaro was found guilty of treason. He denies that he was a Makapili.
Issue:
Decision:
Yes. The point becomes unnecessary, since adherence to the

enemy may be inferred from the overt acts of treason committed by the
appellant, consisting in the arrest of persons suspected of being guerrillas
who, with the exception of one Emilio Biscocho, were never seen again,
especially because the appellant was armed and in company with armed
Japanese soldiers and other Filipinos.
VS.GAUDENCIO ROBLE, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.[ G.R. No.
L-433, March 02, 1949 ]83 Phil. 1
Facts:
Charged with treason on three counts, the defendant pleaded guilty

and was sentenced to death by the First Division of the People's Court.
The court held that the facts alleged in the information is a complex crime
of treason with murders, with the result that the penalty provided for the
most serious offense was to be imposed on its maximum degree. It
opined that the killings were murders qualified by treachery and
aggravated by the circumstances of evident premeditation, superior
strength, cruelty, and an armed band.
Issue:
Is the penalty correct?
Decision:
No. As decided in People v. Racaza, evident premeditation, superior

strength, and treachery are, by their nature, inherent in the offense of
treason and may not be taken to aggravate the penalty. Considering all
the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant's spontaneous
plea of guilty is sufficient to entitle him to a penalty below the maximum.
The appealed decision is therefore modified and the sentence reduced to
reclusion perpetua.
VS.CAYETANO MANGAHAS AND MARIANO DE LOS SANTOS
MANGAHAS, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.[ G.R. Nos. L-5367 &
L-5368, June 09, 1953 ]
Facts:
The defendants were found guilty of the crime of treason. They claim
that there is no proof of adherence to the enemy.
Issue:
Can the defendants be held guilty of treason?
Decision:
Yes. The acts of arresting guerrillas, commandeering foodstuffs,

doing sentry work, drilling in the plaza, going around the town carrying
firearms, and the fact that before the outbreak of the war they were
members of the Ganap Party and in the latter period of the Japanese
occupation of the Makapili organization, are more than sufficient proofs of
adherence to the enemy.
VS.SUSANO PEREZ (ALIAS KID PEREZ), DEFENDANT AND
APPELLANT.[ G.R. No. L-856, April 18, 1949 ]83 Phil. 314
Facts:
Perez furnished women for immoral purposes to the enemies. He

was convicted of treason.
Issue:
Can Perez be held guilty of treason?
Decision:
No. The law of treason does not proscribe all kinds of social,
business and political intercourse between the belligerent occupants of
the invaded country and its inhabitants. What aid and comfort constitute
treason must depend upon their nature; degree and purpose. As a
general rule, to be treasonous the extent of the aid and comfort given to
the enemies must be to render assistance to them as enemies and not
merely as individuals, and, in addition, be directly in furtherance of the
enemies' hostile designs. Sexual and social relations with the Japanese
did not directly and materially tend to improve their war efforts or to
weaken the power of the United States.
VS.JOSE FERNANDO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.[ G.R. No. L-
1138, December 17, 1947 ] 79 Phil. 719
Facts:
Fernando was found guilty of the crime of treason. He claimed that

he was forced into the service of the Kempei-tai, the Japanese military
police organization.
Issue:
Decision:
Yes. It is incredible that, while appellant was undergoing detention

and maltreatment for his alleged connection with the resistance
movement, the Japanese should, without much ceremony, upon
appellant's show of willingness to abide by their order to serve them,
release him, provide him with firearms, and put under his charge a group
of Filipino informers in the service of the Kempei-tai. To place appellant in
such a responsible position, full of opportunity and means either of
helping the Japanese or sabotaging their military efforts, appellant must
beforehand have shown them strong evidence of adherence and loyalty
for the Japanese to trust him.
VS.FORTUNATO MUÑOZ (ALIAS FORTUNATO VIZCARRA),
DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.[ G.R. No. L-880, December 17,
1947 ]79 Phil. 702
Facts:
Muñoz was found guilty of treason. He alleged his presence at about

one hundred yards from the raided hideout was due not to his own will but
to the fact that the Japanese brought him to the place to carry foodstuffs,
with hands tied at his back.
Issue:
Decision:
No. The inherent inverisimilitude of appellant's testimony is evident.

There was no reason for the Japanese to carry foodstuffs not needed for
such a short expedition and it is inconceivable that they should let him
bring them on his shoulders with his hands tied and as prisoner, needing
to be guarded by soldiers who had to fight against the guerrillas. By said
testimony, it appears absolutely certain that appellant had voluntarily
rendered effective service as an agent of the Japanese. Even crediting to
him whatever benefits some individuals, including his witnesses, derived
from the help he rendered them, the fact that he was thus able to help
them shows his influence upon the Japanese, gained through his
usefulness to the latter.
VS.ARSENIA NUÑEZ, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.[ G.R. No. L-
2321, January 31, 1950 ] 85 Phil. 448
Facts:
Nuñez was convicted of the crime of treason and sentenced to suffer

the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The counsel for defendant pleaded the
attendance of the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority when she
committed those treasonable acts.
Issue:
Was the penalty proper?
Decision:
No. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, when the culprit is

over 15 and under 18 years of age, the penalty next lower than that
prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period, upon
this culprit. Treason is punished by reclusion temporal to death.
According to the rules for graduating penalties provided in Article 61 of
the Revised Penal Code, "when the penalty prescribed for the crime is
composed of two indivisible penalties, or of one or more divisible
penalties to be imposed to their full extent, the penalty next lower in
degree shall be that immediately following the lesser of the penalties
prescribed in the respective graduated scale." In this instance, the penalty
next lower in degree is prision mayor, to be imposed in its medium period,
on account of the absence of modifying circumstances.
VS.FLORENTINO CANIBAS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.[ G.R.
No. L-2193, February 01, 1950 ] 85 Phil. 469
Facts:
Canibas was found guilty of treason on two counts. The first count
has not been established by the oaths of at least two witnesses. There
are no two direct witnesses to any of the component parts that made up
the whole overt act of appellant's membership in the Makapili.
Issue:
Decision:
Yes. The testimony on this branch of the case is sufficient proof of

adherence to the enemy. Adherence, unlike overt acts, need not be
proved by two witnesses. Clear intent and knowledge may be gathered
from the testimony of one of the witnesses, or from the nature of the act
itself, or from the circumstances surrounding the act.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
FRANCISCO DE LOS SANTOS, defendant-appellant.G.R. No. L-1975
December 21, 1950
Facts:
Francisco de los Santos was charged with treason. He contends that

he did not participate in the killings of Castro de la Vega and there is no
evidence that he took part in the killing of the other three persons.
Issue:
Decision:
Yes. 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 companions which render each and everyone of the participants in the
unlawful acts perpetrated, no matter how minor or insignificant be his
part, responsible for all such acts.
VS.APOLINAR ADRIANO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.[ G.R. No.
L-477, June 30, 1947 ] 78 Phil. 561
Facts:
Adriano was convicted of treason. The prosecution did not introduce

any evidence to substantiate any of the facts alleged except that of
defendant's having joined the Makapili organization. Even 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.
Issue:
Decision:
No. Membership as a Makapili, as an overt act, must be established

by the deposition of two witnesses. Where two or more witnesses give
oaths to an overt act and only one of them is believed by the court or jury,
the defendant, it has been said and held, is entitled to discharge,
regardless of any moral conviction of the culprit's guilt as gauged and
tested by the ordinary and natural methods, with which we are familiar, of
finding the truth.
VS.FILEMON ESCLETO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.[ G.R. No. L-
1006, June 28, 1949 ] 84 Phil. 121
Facts:
Escleto was charged with treason on three counts. No two witnesses

testified in any specific act of the defendant. The People’s Court believed,
however, that the same evidence is sufficient to prove beyond question
defendant's adherence to the enemy.
Issue:
Decision:
No. As held in People v. Adriano, the authors of the two-witness

provision in the American Constitution, from which the Philippine treason
law was taken, purposely made it severely restrictive and conviction for
treason difficult. Each of the witnesses must testify to the whole overt act;
or if it is separable, there must be two witnesses to each part of the overt
act. Every action, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to
constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses.
THE UNITED STATES, COMPLAINANT AND APPELLEE, VS.SIMEON
MAGTIBAY, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.[ G.R. No. 1317,
November 23, 1903 ] 2 Phil. 703
Facts:
Magtibay was convicted of the crime of treason. There was no other

evidence in the case to show that he had ever joined the forces of
General Montalon, except the testimony of the inspector as to the
confession made when he was captured and the commission as second
lieutenant found upon his person.
Issue:
Decision:
No. There can be no conviction, unless two witnesses testify to the

same overt act of treason. There is no such testimony in this case. The
evidence of the Government related exclusively to the desertion of the
defendant and his capture.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROGER
P. TULIN, VIRGILIO I. LOYOLA, CECILIO O. CHANGCO, ANDRES C.
INFANTE, CHEONG SAN HIONG, AND JOHN DOES, ACCUSED-
APPELLANTS. [ G.R. No. 111709, August 30, 2001 ]
Facts:
Cheong San Hiong was found guilty as an accomplice to the crime

of piracy. He argues that he was convicted for acts done outside
Philippine waters or territory. For the State to have criminal jurisdiction,
the act must have been committed within its territory.
Issue:
Is the contention of the appellant correct?
Decision:
No. Suffice it to state that unquestionably, the attack on 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. And such transfer
was done under accused-appellant Hiong's direct supervision. 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.
EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, QUERELLANTE Y APELADO, CONTRA
PEDRO MARCAIDA, ACUSADO Y APELANTE. [ G.R. No. L-953,
September 18, 1947 ]79 Phil. 283
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:
Decision:
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.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
VS.EMILIANO CATANTAN Y TAYONG, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.[ G.R.
No. 118075, September 05, 1997 ] 344 Phil. 315
Facts:
Catantan was found guilty with violation of Presidential Decree No.

532 otherwise known as the Anti-Piracy and Highway Robbery Law of
1974. He contends that the trial court erred in convicting him of piracy as
the facts proved only constitute grave coercion. He further argues that in
order that piracy may be committed it is essential that there be an attack
on or seizure of a vessel.
Issue:
Is the contention of Catantan correct?
Decision:
No. Under the definition of piracy in PD No. 532 as well as grave

coercion as penalized in Art. 286 of the Revised Penal Code, this case
falls squarely within the purview of piracy. While it may be true that
victims were compelled to go elsewhere other than their place of
destination, such compulsion was obviously part of the act of seizing their
boat. The testimony of one of the victims shows that the appellant actually
seized the vessel through force and intimidation.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND
APPELLEE, VS.LOL-LO AND SARAW, DEFENDANTS AND
APPELLANTS.[ G. R. No. 17958, February 27, 1922 ] 43 Phil. 19
Facts:
Lol-lo and Saraw were charged with the crime of piracy. They
demurred that based on the grounds that the offense charged was not
within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, nor of any court of the
Philippine Islands.
Issue:
Is the contention of the appellants correct?
Decision:
No. It cannot be contended with any degree of force as was done in

the lower court and as is again done in this court, that the Court of First
Instance was without jurisdiction of the case. Piracy is a crime not against
any particular state but against all mankind. 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 unlike all other
crimes 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.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
VS.LAURO TOLENTINO AND VIDAL TOLENTINO, DEFENDANTS,
VIDAL TOLENTINO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.[ G.R. No. L-29419,
August 31, 1971 ] 148-B Phil. 430
Facts:
Tolentino was found guilty of the crime of murder. He contends that

there was no conspiracy, as it was through sheer chance that he made
his appearance at the scene of the crime when the combatants were
confronting each other and that all he did was to hold the deceased by
the collar with the intention of pacifying them.
Issue:
Is the contention of Tolentino correct?
Decision:
Yes. What was done by him did not entail the responsibility that the
law imposes on a principal. His criminal liability amounts at most to that of
accomplice. Lack of complete evidence of conspiracy creates the doubt
whether he had acted as principal or accomplice in the perpetration of the
offense, which resolves the question in his favor, by holding that he was
guilty of the milder form of responsibility,that is guilty as a mere
accomplice.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DANILO
CORBES Y OLAZO, MANUEL, VERGEL Y PASCUAL, AND SIX (6)
JOHN DOES, ACCUSED. DANILO CORBES Y OLAZO AND MANUEL
VERGEL Y PASCUAL, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.[ G.R. No. 113470,
March 26, 1997 ] 337 Phil. 190
Facts:
Corbes was found guilty as principals by conspiracy of the crime of

robbery with homicide. He contends that conspiracy was not sufficiently
proved since it cannot be inferred solely from his mere presence at the
crime scene.
Issue:
Decision:
Yes. The evidence failed to meet the quantum of proof required by

law to establish conspiracy which jurisprudence dictates must be shown
to exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the crime itself.
No less than proof beyond reasonable doubt is required. Where the
quantum of proof required to establish conspiracy is lacking, the doubt
created as to whether accused acted as principal or accomplice will
always be resolved in favor of the milder form of liability, that of a mere
accomplice.
VS.DOMINGO ELEFAÑO, JR., ET AL., DEFENDANTS, ALFREDO
ELEFAÑO ALIAS “BOBBY”, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.[ G.R. No. L-
32573, November 25, 1983 ] 211 Phil. 50
Facts:
Elefaño was convicted of murder. He contends that the prosecution

failed to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. Hence
the claim that the lower court failed to heed the constitutional mandate as
to the standard that must be satisfied, namely, proof beyond reasonable
doubt before such constitutional presumption can be overcome.
Issue:
Decision:
No. As the trial judge had the opportunity to observe the witnesses
testify concerning the events that did take place, the conclusion arrived at
is entitled to full respect, unless, of course, it could be demonstrated that
he failed to appreciate the significance of a relevant fact or circumstance
or, what is worse, that it was ignored.
CO KIM CHAM (alias CO KIM CHAM), petitioner, vs. EUSEBIO
VALDEZ TAN KEH and ARSENIO P. DIZON, Judge of First Instance
of Manila, respondents. G.R. No. L-5 September 17, 1945
Facts:
Petitioner filed a petition for mandamus that the respondent judge of

the lower court be ordered to continue the proceedings in a civil of said
court, which were initiated under the regime of the so-called Republic of
the Philippines established during the Japanese military occupation of
these Islands.The respondent judge refused to take cognizance of and
continue the proceedings in said case on the ground that the
proclamation issued by General Douglas MacArthur had the effect of
invalidating and nullifying all judicial proceedings and judgments of the
court of the Philippines under the Philippine Executive Commission and
the Republic of the Philippines established during the Japanese military
occupation, and that, furthermore, the lower courts have no jurisdiction to
take cognizance of and continue judicial proceedings pending in the
courts of the defunct Republic of the Philippines in the absence of an
enabling law granting such authority.
Issue:
Is the contention of the respondent correct?
Decision:
No. The governments by the Philippine Executive Commission and

the Republic of the Philippines during the Japanese military occupation
being de facto governments, it necessarily follows that the judicial acts
and proceedings of the courts of justice of those governments, which are
not of a political complexion, were good and valid, and, by virtue of the
well-known principle of postliminy in international law, remained good and
valid after the liberation or reoccupation of the Philippines by the
American and Filipino forces under the leadership of General Douglas
MacArthur.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHIUPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE,
VS.LAMBERTO SAN JUAN, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.[ G. R.
No. L-2997, June 29, 1951 ] 89 Phil. 359
Facts:
San Juan was found guilty of treason on eleven counts. He insists

that there is a discrepancy in the testimony of the witnesses.
Issue:
Decision:
Yes. Although the other counts have not been proven in accordance
with the two-witness rule, the first count is sufficient to support a
conviction, his adherence to the enemy being implied from the overt acts
charged and established thereunder, and confirmed by his admission.
VS.CARMELITO VICTORIA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.[ G.R.
No. 369, March 13, 1947 ] 78 Phil. 122
Facts:
Victoria was sentenced to the supreme penalty of death for

committing treason and that the commission of the acts was attended by
the aggravating circumstances of treachery, the aid of armed persons to
insure or afford impunity, and deliberately augmenting the crimes by
causing other wrongs not necessary in the commission thereof.
Issue:
Is the penalty proper?
Decision:
No. The circumstances in question are essential elements of the

treason he has committed. The crime is of such a nature that it may be
committed by one single act, by a series of acts, or by several series
thereof, not only in a single time, but in different times, it being a
continuous crime, so much so that there are some accused of treason for
just one count and there are others for several counts, their number not
changing the nature of the offense committed.
VS.CucufateAdlawan, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.[ G.R. No. L-
456, March 29, 1949 ] 83 Phil. 194
Facts:
Adlawan was convicted of the complex crime of treason with murder,

robbery, and rape. He contends that the court erred holding that the crime
committed is a complex crime of treason with murder, rape and robbery.
Issue:
Decision:
Yes. The killings, robbery, and raping mentioned in the information

are therein alleged not as specific offenses but as mere elements of the
crime of treason for which the accused is being prosecuted. Being
merged in and identified with the general charge, they cannot be used in
combination with treason to increase the penalty under article 48 of the
Revised Penal Code. Appellant should, therefore, be held guilty of
treason only.
VS.EDUARDO PRIETO (ALIAS EDDIE VALENCIA), DEFENDANT AND
APPELLANT.[ G.R. No. L-399, January 29, 1948 ] 80 Phil. 138
Facts:
Prieto was found guilty of the crime of treason complexed by murder

and physical injuries.
Issue:
Is the finding of the lower court proper?
Decision:
No. In the nature of things, the giving of aid and comfort can only be
accomplished by some kind of action. Its very nature partakes of a deed
or physical activity as opposed to a mental operation. This deed or
physical activity may be, and often is, in itself a criminal offense under
another penal statute or provision. Even so, when the deed is charged as
an element of treason it becomes identified with the latter crime and
cannot be the subject of a separate punishment, or used in combination
with treason to increase the penalty as Article 48 of the Revised Penal
Code provides. So a defendant may not be made liable for murder as a
separate crime or in conjunction with another offense where, as in this
case, it is averred as a constitutive ingredient of treason.
VS.ILDEFONSO DE CASTRO, JR., DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
[ G.R. No. L-3025, August 16, 1949 ] 84 Phil. 306
Facts:
On or about December 26, 1945, De Castro was caught in

possession of a Japanese pistol. He was charged with illegal possession
of firearm. He admitted the allegations but invokes the provisions of
Proclamation No. 1 of the President of the Philippines, dated July 20,
1946, as exempting him from criminal liability.
Issue:
Is the claim of the appellant correct?
Decision:
No. Proclamation No. 1 fixed the period within which any person in
possession of firearms might, without incurring any criminal liability,
surrender the same. Provided, that it shall not in any way affect any case
pending in court, on the date of the passage of this Act, for violation of
section twenty-six hundred and ninety-two of the Revised Administrative
Code. Since the present case was already pending in court when
Proclamation No. 1 was issued, the accused was not exempted from
criminal liability.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE,
VS.ROQUE BADILI, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.[ G.R. No. L-565,
June 27, 1949 ] 84 Phil. 71
Facts:
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:
Is the appellant guilty of treason?
Decision:
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.
THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS.FRANCISCO
BAUTISTA ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.[ G.R. No.
2189, November 03, 1906 ] 6 Phil. 581
Facts:
Appellants were convicted of the crime of conspiracy to overthrow,

put down, and destroy by force the Government of the United States in
the Philippine Islands and the Government of the Philippine Islands, as
defined and penalized in Section 4 of Act No. 292 of the Philippine
Commission. Counsel for appellants contend that the constitutional
provision requiring the testimony of at least two witnesses to the same
overt act, or confession in open court, to support a conviction for the
crime of treason should be applied in this case.
Issue:
Decision:
No. In consonance with the decisions of the Federal courts of the

United States, the crime of conspiring to commit treason is a separate
and distinct offense from the crime of treason, and this constitutional
provision is not applicable in such cases.
THE UNITED STATES, COMPLAINANT AND APPELLEE,
VS.APOLONIO CABALLEROS ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND
APPELLANTS.[ G.R. No. 1352, March 29, 1905 ] 4 Phil. 350
Facts:
The defendants have been sentenced as accessories after the fact

in the crime of assassination or murder perpetrated on the persons of
American school-teachers because, without having taken part in the said
crime as principal or accomplices, they took part in the burial of the
corpses of the victims in order to conceal the crime. One of the motives
for the conviction which the lower court took into consideration in his
judgment is the fact of the defendants not reporting to the authorities the
perpetration of the crime.
Issue:
Is the finding of the lower court correct?
Decision:
No. The fact of the defendants not reporting to the authorities the
perpetration of the crime is not punished by the Penal Code and therefore
that cannot render the defendants criminally liable according to law. Thus,
defendants and appellants are acquitted.
GO TIAN SEK SANTOS, PETITIONER, VS. ERIBERTO MISA,
DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, RESPONDENT. [ G.R. No. L-319, March 28,
1946 ] 76 Phil 415
Facts:
The petitioner avers he is a Chinese citizen apprehended in

February, 1945, by the Counter Intelligence Corps of the United States
Army, turned over last September, to the Commonwealth Government,
and since then detained by the respondent as a political prisoner. Such
detention, he claims, is illegal, because he has not been charged before,
nor convicted by, the judge of a competent court, and because he may
not be confined under Act No. 682, as he owes allegiance neither to the
United States nor to the Commonwealth of the Philippines.
Issue:
Is the contention of the petitioner correct?
Decision:
No. Petitioner’s foreign status does not exclude him ipso facto from
the scope of Commonwealth Act No. 682. As stated by the Solicitor-
General, he might be prosecuted for espionage, a crime not conditioned
by the citizenship of the offender, and considered as an offense against
national security.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JAIME
RODRIGUEZ ALIAS JIMMY ALIAS WILFRED DE LARA Y MEDRANO
AND RICO LOPEZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS. [ G.R. No. 60100,
March 20, 1985 ] 220 Phil. 162
Facts:
Appellants were convicted of the crime of piracy and were

sentenced to suffer the extreme penalty of death. They contend that the
trial court erred in imposing the death penalty despite their plea of guilty.
Issue:
Is the contention of the appellants correct?
Decision:
No. Presidential Decree No. 532 amending Article 134 of the

Revised Penal Code, provides that if rape, murder or homicide is
committed as a result or on the occasion of piracy, or when the offenders
abandoned the victims without means of saving themselves, or when the
seizure is accomplished by firing upon or boarding a vessel, the
mandatory penalty of death shall be imposed. Further, Article 63 of the
same Code provides that in all cases in which the law prescribes a single
indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any
mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the
commission of the deed.
EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, QUERELLANTE Y APELANTE, CONTRA
ANG CHO KIO, ALIAS KI WA, ALIAS LUCIO LEE, ALIAS PHILIP ANG,
ALIAS MR. ANG, ALIAS GO ONG, Y ALIAS MR. ONG, AEUSADO Y
APELADO. [ G.R. Nos. L-6687 y L-6688, July 29, 1954 ] 95 Phil. 475
Facts:
The accused, then a passenger of Philippine Airlines plane en route

from Laoag to Aparri, compelled the pilot to change the route of the plane
and when the pilot failed to comply immediately with said order, he shot
the pilot. The lower court sentenced him to life imprisonment. The
Attorney General maintains in its allegation that the lower court committed
error in not declaring that the accused committed the complex crime of
grave coercion with murder.
Issue:
Is the contention of the Attorney General correct?
Decision:
No. Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code provides that in the event
that a single fact constitutes two or more offenses or when one of them is
necessary means for committing the other, the penalty is for the most
serious crime, applying it in its maximum degree. The accused ran two
different facts, and not just one; therefore, these two successive acts
cannot constitute the complex crime of coercion with murder. If the pilot
had followed the order of the accused, this would not have felt the need to
kill him; the pilot was put in the hard choice to comply with the order, or
die.
VS.JULAIDE SIYOH, OMARKAYAM KIRAM, NAMLI INDANAN AND
ANDAW JAMAHALI, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.[ G.R. No. 57292,
February 18, 1986 ] 225 Phil. 313
Facts:
Appellants were found guilty of the crime of qualified piracy with

triple murder and frustrated murder. They contend that the lower court
erred in finding that their guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue:
Is the contention correct?
Decision:
No. As can be seen from the lone assignment of error, the issue is
the credibility of witnesses. The trial court which had the opportunity of
observing the demeanor of the witnesses and how they testified assigned
credibility to the former and an examination of the record does not reveal
any fact or circumstance of weight and influence which was overlooked or
the significance of which was misinterpreted as would justify a reversal of
the trial court's determination. Additionally, the claims of the appellants
are not convincing.

Criminal Law 2 Case Digests Title I Nati

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law 2 Case Digests Title I Nati

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law 2 Case Digests Title I Nati

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANASTACIO LAUREL, PETITIONER, VS.

Anastacio Laurel filed a petition for habeas corpus contending that a

Is Laurel’s contention correct?

No. A citizen or subject owes, not a qualified and temporary, but an

Petitioner invokes the equal protection clause of the Constitution in

Is the petitioner denied of the equal protection of the laws?

No. Petitioner’s contention that R.A. No. 7080 is unconstitutional as

Francisco Abad was found guilty on three counts of the complex

Is the appellant correct?

Yes. The two-witness rule must be adhered to as to each and every

Did the defendant commit treason?

Can the appellant be held guilty of treason?

Can the appellant be held guilty of treason?

Yes. Morales was carrying a firearm and was seen behaving as a

The prosecution established that during the Japanese occupation,

Can the appellant be held guilty of treason?

Except the lone and self-serving testimony of the appellant that he

Racaza was found guilty on fourteen counts of treason. The trial

Is the finding of the trial court proper as regards the aggravating

No. Evident premeditation, superior strength, and treachery are, by

Icaro was found guilty of treason. He denies that he was a Makapili.

Can the appellant be held guilty of treason?

Yes. The point becomes unnecessary, since adherence to the

Charged with treason on three counts, the defendant pleaded guilty

Is the penalty correct?

No. As decided in People v. Racaza, evident premeditation, superior

Can the defendants be held guilty of treason?

Yes. The acts of arresting guerrillas, commandeering foodstuffs,

Perez furnished women for immoral purposes to the enemies. He

Can Perez be held guilty of treason?

Fernando was found guilty of the crime of treason. He claimed that

Can the appellant be held guilty of treason?

Yes. It is incredible that, while appellant was undergoing detention

Muñoz was found guilty of treason. He alleged his presence at about

Can the appellant be held guilty of treason?

No. The inherent inverisimilitude of appellant's testimony is evident.

Nuñez was convicted of the crime of treason and sentenced to suffer

Was the penalty proper?

No. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, when the culprit is

Can the appellant be held guilty of treason?

Yes. The testimony on this branch of the case is sufficient proof of

Francisco de los Santos was charged with treason. He contends that

Can the appellant be held guilty of treason?

Yes. His participation in the apprehension, investigation and torture

Adriano was convicted of treason. The prosecution did not introduce

Can the appellant be held guilty of treason?

No. Membership as a Makapili, as an overt act, must be established

Escleto was charged with treason on three counts. No two witnesses

Can the appellant be held guilty of treason?

No. As held in People v. Adriano, the authors of the two-witness

Magtibay was convicted of the crime of treason. There was no other

Can the appellant be held guilty of treason?

No. There can be no conviction, unless two witnesses testify to the

Cheong San Hiong was found guilty as an accomplice to the crime

Is the contention of the appellant correct?

No. Suffice it to state that unquestionably, the attack on and seizure

Marcaida was found guilty of treason. It appears that, although three

Can the appellant be held guilty of treason?

Catantan was found guilty with violation of Presidential Decree No.

Is the contention of Catantan correct?