1

PEOPLE VS LAUREL
FACTS:Anastacio Laurel filed a petition for habeas corpus contending that he cannot be prosecuted for the
crime of treason defined and penalized by the Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code on the grounds:
1. that the sovereignty of the legitimate government and the allegiance of Filipino citizens was
then suspended, and
2. that there was a change of sovereignty over the Philippines upon the proclamation of the
Philippine Republic.
ISSUE:

1Is the allegiance of the citizens may be suspended during Japanese occupation?
2 Is the petitioner subject to Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code?

HELD:No. a citizen or subject owes, not a qualified and temporary, but an absolute and permanent
allegiance, which consists in the obligation of fidelity and obedience to his government of sovereign. The
absolute and permanent allegiance of thei nhabitants 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 the occupier. There is no
such thing as suspended allegiance.
The petitioner is subject to the Revised Penal Code for the change of form of government does not affect
the prosecution of those charged with the crime of treason because it is an offense to the same
government and same sovereign people.
No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses at least to the same
overt act or on confession of the accused in open court
PEOPLE VS ANGAPANGAN
FACTS:The first two witnesses for the prosecution testified that they had seen the accused doing guard
duty in the Japanese garrison in Siniloan "many times," more than "ten times," but neither of them has
mentioned any specific time, day and hour. They were able to mention only years and months. There
is no way of concluding the two witnesses testified about the same overt act. The "many times" or more
than "ten times" mentioned by them may refer either to two different sets of moments, not one
instant of one set coinciding with any one of the other, or to only one and identical set of
instances or, although referring to two sets, some of the instances are the same in both. As
there is no basis on record upon which we may determine which, among the two alternatives, is the
correct one, the doubt must be decided by taking the first alternative, the one compatible with the
presumption of innocence stated in the fundamental law. The case for the prosecution is further
weakened by the fact that it is first two witnesses are contradicted by the third, who testified that
appellant did guard duty "many times," more than "ten times," in the Makapili garrison, located in the
Baybay Academy, one kilometer from the Intermediate School building, where the Japanese garrison was
located.
ISSUE: whether or not the accused is guilty of treason and shall be held liable?
HELD: no, he is not guilty and he shall not be liable of the crime of treason.

2
To meet the test under two-witness rule, it is necessary that, at least, two witnesses should testify as to
the perpetration of the same treasonous overt act, and the sameness must include not only identity of
kind and nature of the act, but as to the precise one which has actually been perpetrated. The treasonous
overt act of doing guard duty in the Japanese garrison on one specific date cannot be identified with the
doing of guard duty in the same garrison in a different date. Both overt acts, although of the same nature
and character, are two distinct and inconfusable acts, independent of each other, and either one, to serve
as a ground for conviction of an accused for treason, must be proved by two witnesses. That one witness
should testify as to one, and another as to the other, is not enough. Any number of witnesses may testify
against an accused for treason as to a long line of successive treasonous overt acts; but notwithstanding
the seriousness of the acts nor their number, not until two witnesses, at least, shall have testified as to
the perpetration of a single but the same and precise overt act, can conviction be entertained.
The Constitution provides that
"in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall be presumed to be innocent until the contrary is
proved." the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
PEOPLE V. PRIETO
FACTS:-Two witnesses gave evidence but their statements do not coincide in any single detail. The first
witness testified that the accused with other Filipino undercovers and Japanese soldiers
caught an American aviator and had the witness carry the American to town on a sled pulled
by a carabao. That on the way, the accused walked behind the sled and asked the prisoner if the sled
was faster than the airplane; that the American was taken to the Kempetai headquarters, after which he
did not know what happened to the flier.
MANIFESTED BY HIS ACTS:
tied and gives blow.tortured by placing red hot iron on his shoulders, legs and back
(Abraham Puno)
giving them first blows on the face and in other parts of the body
(Guillermo Ponce and Macario Ponce)
who were forthwith tied with a rope, tortured and detained for 6 days
(Damian Alilin and Santiago Alilin)
torture of Antonio Soco and the killing of Gil Soco for guerrilla activities.

ISSUES;
1.
Whether the two-witness rule was sufficiently complied.
2.
Whether the TC erred in ruling that the murders and physical injuries were crimes distinct from
treason.
HELD:NO, it was not sufficiently complied. The witnesses evidently referred to two different occasions.
The two witnesses failed to corroborate each other not only on the whole overt act but on any part of it.
No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses at least to the same
overt act or on confession of the accused in open court.

2.

3
The execution of some of the guerilla suspects mentioned and the infliction of physical injuries on
others are not offenses separate from treason. There must concur both adherence to the enemy
and giving him aid and comfort. One without the other does not make treason.
However, the brutality with the killing or physical injuries were carried out may be taken as an
aggravating circumstances. Thus, the use of torture and other atrocities on the victims instead of the
usual and less painful method of execution will be taken into account to increase the penalty.
PEOPLE V. PEREZ
FACTS:-Susano Perez alias Kid Perez was convicted of treason and was sentenced to death by
electrocution.
- the accused, together with the other Filipinos, recruited, apprehended and commandeered numerous
girls and women against their will for the purpose of using them, to satisfy the sexual desire of the
Japanese officers.
ISSUE: Whether the acts of the accused constituted the crime of treason.
HELD: NO. 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 US.

LEAVE 1PAGE(bautista case)

PEOPLE VS LOL LO vs SARAW
FACTS: Lol lo and saraw was prosecuted of the crime of piracy.
On or about June 30, 1920, two boats left matuta, a Dutch possession, for Peta, another Dutch possession. In one of the
boats was one individual, a Dutch subject, and in the other boat eleven men, women, and children, likewise subjects of
Holland. After a number of days of navigation, at about 7 o'clock in the evening, the second boat arrived between the
Islands of Buang and Bukid in the Dutch East Indies. There the boat was surrounded by sixvintas manned by twenty-four
Moros all armed. The Moros first asked for food, but once on the Dutch boat, too for themselves all of the cargo, attacked
some of the men, and brutally violated two of the women by methods too horrible to the described. All of the persons on
the Dutch boat, with the exception of the two young women, were again placed on it and holes were made in it, the idea
that it would submerge, although as a matter of fact, these people, after eleven days of hardship and privation, were
succored violating them, the Moros finally arrived at Maruro, a Dutch possession. Two of the Moro marauder were Lol-lo,
who also raped one of the women, and Saraw. At Maruro the two women were able to escape.
Lol-lo and Saraw later returned to their home in South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi, Sulu, Philippine Islands. There they were
arrested and were charged in the Court of First Instance of Sulu with the crime of piracy. A demurrer was interposed by
counsel de officio for the Moros, based on the grounds that the offense charged was not within the jurisdiction of the

4
Court of First Instance, nor of any court of the Philippine Islands, and that the facts did not constitute a public offense,
under the laws in force in the Philippine Islands.
ISSUE: whether or not the Philippine court has jurisdiction
Whether or not they committed piracy
whether or not the provisions of the Penal Code dealing with the crime of piracy are still in force
HELD:Yes.The proven facts are not disputed. 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
Yes. 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."
Yes. The general rules of public law recognized and acted on by the United States relating to the effect of a transfer of
territory from another State to the United States are well-known. The political law of the former sovereignty is necessarily
changed. The municipal law in so far as it is consistent with the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or the
characteristics and institutions of the government, remains in force. As a corollary to the main rules, laws subsisting at
the time of transfer, designed to secure good order and peace in the community, which are strictly of a municipal
character, continue until by direct action of the new government they are altered or repealed.
People vs. SiyohL- 57292FACTS>
Antonio de Guzman together with his friends(Danilo Hiolen, Rodolfo de Castro and Anastacio de Guzman ) who were
also travelling merchants like him, were on their way to Pilas Island, Province of Basilan, to sell the goods they
received from Alberto Aurea. Kiram and Julaide Siyoh helped them in selling the goods, kiram even let them to stay at
his house while on their journey to sell goods. (One night Kiram did not sleep in his house upon the inquiry of Antonio,
kiram told him that he slept in siyohs house. On july 13 1979, Antonio de guzman went to a place suggested by kiram and was
able to sell goods worth of 3000pesos. Kiram did not again sleep in his house.)
On the day of incident, they went again in the baluk baluk together with kiram and siyoh(who is armed with barong) to sell their
goods. Upon arriving, the two headed to a a house which is about 15meters away from the group, through which they were
seen talking to 2 unidentified person. After selling their goods they prepared to return to pilas. they rode on a pumpboat where
Siyoh positioned himself at the front while Kiram operated the engine. On the way to Pilas Island, Antonio de Guzman saw
another pumpboat painted red and green about 200 meters away from their pumpboat (pp. 55, tsn). Shortly after" Kiram turned
off the engine of their pumpboat. Thereafter two shots were fired from the other pumpboat as it moved towards them (pp. 5758, tsn). There were two persons on the other pumpboat who were armed with armantes. De Guzman recognized them to be
the same persons he saw Kiram conversing with in a house at Baluk-Baluk Island. 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 (pp. 59-61, tsn). 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 (pp. 62-65, tsn). But he was able to reach a mangrove
where he stayed till nightfall. When he left the mangrove, he saw the dead bodies of Anastacio de Guzman, Danilo Hiolen and

5
Rodolfo de Castro. He was picked up by a fishing boat and brought to the Philippine Army station at Maluso where he received
first aid treatment. Later he was brought to the J.S. Alano Memorial Hospital at Isabela, Basilan province.
1.That if they were the culprits they could have easily robbed their victims at the Kiram house or on any of the occasions when
they were travelling together.(DEFENSE) untenable if to do so will make kiram and his family an immediate suspect and
robbing and killing the victims while at sea and after they had sold all their goods was both timely and provided
safety from prying eyes.
2.That the accused immediately reported the incident to the PC. .(DEFENSE) untenable that the witness presented by the
defense are all from Pilas Island and friends of the accused. They claimed to be members of retrieving team for the
dead bodies but no PC soldiers were ever presented to attest this fact.
3.That the wives of the deceased state that Antonio de Guzman informed them shortly after the incident that their husbands
were killed by the companions of Siyoh and Kiram.(DEFENSE) untenable is baseless in the face of the proven conspiracy
an act of one is an act of all
4.That there is no evidence Anastacio de Guzman was killed together with Rodolfo de Castro and Danilo Hiolen because his
remains were never recovered. (DEFENSE) untenable There is no reason to suppose that Anastacio de Guzman is still
alive or that he died in a manner different from his companions.

( forgot the case name

Tuvera, a barrio captain, to have conspired with Cpl. Mendoza and Pat. Mangsat, who are members of the police force of
Manaoag, Pangasinan in detaining petitioner Valdez for about eleven (11) hours in the municipal jail without legal ground. No
doubt the last two elements of the crime are present.

The lower court ruled: in favor of Juan Tuvera, Sr. (he was not a public officer, therefore he cannot be charged with Arbitrary
Detention
issue : whether a barrio captain can be charged of arbitrary detention?
Whether or not motion to quash was validly granted?
HELD: 1yes he can be charged with arbitrary detention. He is a peace officer in the barrio considered under the law
as a person in authority. As such, he may make arrest and detain persons within legal limits
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. 22 A perusal of the powers and
function vested in mayors would show that they are similar to those of a barrio captain 23 except that in the case of the
latter, his territorial jurisdiction is smaller.
2NO. in resolving a motion to quash, cannot consider facts contrary to those alleged in the information or which do not
appear on the face of the information. This is because a motion to quash is a hypothetical admission of the facts
alleged in the information.28 Matters of defense cannot be proved during the hearing of such a motion, except where the
Rules expressly permit
a motion to quash on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense cannot allege new facts not only
different but diametrically opposed to those alleged in the complaint.

3 Respondent's contention holds no water. An order granting a motion to quash, unlike one of denial, is a final order. It
is not merely interlocutory and is therefore immediately appealable. The accused cannot claim double jeopardy as the
dismissal was secured not only with his consent but at his instance

ASTORGA VS PEOPLE
Benito Astorga, Mayor of Daram, Samar, as well as a number of his men was charge of the crime of Arbitrary Detention:
Regional Special Operations Group (RSOG) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Office No. 8,
Tacloban City sent a team to the island of Daram, Western Samar to conduct intelligence gathering and forest protection
operations in line with the governments campaign against illegal logging. Escorted by SPO3 Andres B. Cinco, Jr. and SPO1
Rufo Capoquian
They stopped at brgy bagacay, where they saw two yacht-like boats being constructed. After consulting with the local barangay
officials, the team learned that the boats belonged to a certain Michael Figueroa. However, since Figueroa was not around at
the time, the team left Brgy. Bagacay.(not important)
At around 4:30-5:00 p.m., the team found two boats measuring 18 meters in length and 5 meters in breadth being constructed
at Barangay Locob-Locob. There they met petitioner Benito Astorga, the Mayor of Daram, who turned out to be the owner of
the boats. A heated altercation ensued between petitioner and the DENR team. Petitioner called for reinforcements and,
moments later, a boat bearing ten armed men, some wearing fatigues, arrived at the scene. The DENR team was then brought
to petitioners house in Daram, where they had dinner and drinks. They The team left at 2:00 a.m.
ISSUE: whether or not the mayor shall be liable for arbitrary detention
HELD: no. as defined in the RPC art 124
Arbitrary Detention is committed by any public officer or employee who, without legal grounds, detains a person. 30The elements
of the crime are:
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee. (he is a public officer)
2. That he detains a person. (the fear is inflicted to them)
3. That the detention is without legal grounds (present)
despite the lack of evidence to show that any physical restraint was employed upon the victim. However, because the
victim was a boy of tender age and he was warned not to leave until his godmother, the accused-appellant, had returned, he
was practically a captive in the sense that he could not leave because of his fear to violate such instruction
in establishing the intent to deprive the victim of his liberty, it is not necessary that the offended party be kept within an
enclosure to restrict her freedom of locomotion.
LEAVE 1PAGE (teztiza)
LEAVE 1PAGE CAYAO DELMUNDO

7
LEAVE 1PAGE Miranda
LEAVE 1PAGE manogote
LEAVE 1PAGE p Garcia
LEAVE 1PAGE sayo chief police

STONEHILL VS DIAKO
Facts: Respondents issued, on different dates, 42 search warrants against petitioners personally, and/or
corporations for which they are officers directing peace officers to search the persons of petitioners and premises
of their offices, warehouses and/or residences to search for personal properties:
books of accounts, financial records, vouchers, correspondence, receipts, ledgers, journals, portfolios, credit journals,
typewriters, and other documents showing all business transactions including disbursement receipts, balance sheets and profit
and loss statements and Bobbins(cigarettes) as the subject of the offense for violations of Central Bank Act, Tariff and Customs
Laws, Internal Revenue Code, and Revised Penal Code.
Petitioner Alleged, that the search warrants are null as it contradicts the constitution:
iSSUE: (1) whether the search warrants in question, and the searches and seizures made under the
authority thereof, are valid or not
(2) if the answer to the preceding question is in the negative,

HELD: (1) that no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the judge in the
manner set forth in said provision
(2) that the warrant shall particularly describe the things to be seized
None of these requirements has been complied with in the contested warrants. Indeed, the same were issued upon applications
stating that the natural and juridical person therein named had committed a "violation of Central Ban Laws, Tariff and Customs
Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code." In other words, no specific offense had been alleged in said
applications. The averments thereof with respect to the offense committed were abstract. As a consequence, it
was impossible for the judges who issued the warrants to have found the existence of probable cause, for the
same presupposes the introduction of competent proof that the party against whom it is sought has
performed particular acts, or committed specific omissions, violating a given provision of our criminal laws.
NO GENERAL SEARCH WARRANT CAN BE ISSUED. =because they place the sanctity of the domicile and the privacy
of the communication and correspondence at the mercy of the whims, caprice or passion of peace officers.
No search warrant shall issue for more than one specific offense
Illegally seized documents are inadmissible evidence to the court
The corporation being considered as a person exist only in contemplation of the law

8
TORRES VS GONZALES
FACTS: petitioner was convicted of the crime of estafa (2counts).a conditional pardon was granted to the petitioner by the
President of the Philippines on condition that petitioner would "not again violate any of the penal laws of the Philippines. Should
this condition be violated, he will be proceeded against in the manner prescribed by law.
The pardon was cancelled on the ground that the petitioner had been charged with twenty counts of estafa and had been
convicted of the crime of sedition.
The respondent Minister of Justice issued "by authority of the President" an Order of Arrest and Recommitment against petitioner.
The petitioner was accordingly arrested and confined in Muntinlupa to serve the unexpired portion of his sentence.
The petitioner now question the validity of the Order of Arrest and Recommitment. He claims that he did not violate his
conditional pardon since he has not been convicted by final judgment
Petitioner also contends that he was not given an opportunity to be heard before he was arrested and recommitted to prison, and
accordingly claims he has been deprived of his rights under the due process clause of the Constitution.
ISSUE: whether or not conviction of a crime by final judgment of a court is necessary before the petitioner can be validly
rearrested and recommitted for violation of the terms of his conditional pardon and accordingly to serve the balance of his
original sentence.
HELD: no. to grant to convicted prisoners reprieves or pardons, either plenary or partial, conditional or unconditional; to suspend
sentences without parole, remit fines, and order the discharge of any convicted person upon parole, subject to such conditions as
he may impose; and to authorize the arrest and recommitment of any such person who, in his judgment, shall fail to comply with
the condition or conditions, of his pardon, paroleor suspension of sentence

US vs VALLEJO
FACTS: A complaint of a public disturbance lodged by the Januario Duran with the police authorities of Polangui, in the province
of Albay, the city hall sent to municipal policemen, named Saravillo and Sabio to the place of the disturbance, (the house of
Salvador Vallejo).
NARRATION OF SABIO(of what occurred):
The guard said to us, "Go to San Diego and get the people who are making a scandal there." I immediately went following
Tranquilino, to the house of Salvador Vallejo. While we were still on the ground we heard the shouts of Vallejo. He was running
from one side to the other of his house. When I approach the house of Vallejo I heard the words in a loud voice, Matza, turco,
tesorero municipal secretaryo de . . . (using obscenity which it is unnecessary to quote). We were about five rods distant. When
he spoke those words he was upstairs in his house at the window. Tranquilino and I and a great many other people were near the
house. We were in front of the house looking and listening. There are other house there, but none immediately opposite. We
immediately went up the steps to arrest the accused Vallejo. On arriving on the top of the stairs I knocked on the door, we heard
Vallejo asked, "Who is it?," and I said, "municipal police." Thereupon Vallejo immediately came to the door to meet us, and as he
approached us he said ". . . (another obscene expression), policias municipales." He stopped inside the doorway and asked us,
"Have you any warrant to come in?" I replied that we had none, and then he immediately struck Tranquilino Saravillo with his fist,
and immediately afterwards he struck me also. When I felt him strike me here in the cheek and I dodged and stuck him with my
club. When he attempted to strike me again of his fist I caught his right hand. I said to Salvador Vallejo, "You are arrested". We
arrested because he did not come with us but resisted. Then Blas Ausina came out and threw his arms around Vallejo's body and
dragged him away from us, and immediately drew him inside and close the door.
In his defense(Vallejo)

9
That within his own house a man's person in sacred and he may conduct himself as he pleases.( It is clear
from the testimony that in this case the behavior of the defendant amounted to more than private misconduct and constituted a
public annoyance and a breach of the peace of the neighborhood.)
That the policemen had no right to arrest without a warrant and that in doing so they acted without
authority, so that resistance to them was lawful. (The law for municipalities in general gives the municipal council power to
establish, regulate, and maintain a police department to promote the prosperity, improve the morals, peace, good order, comfort,
and convenience of the township and inhabitants thereof, and to enforce obedience thereto with such lawful fines and penalties
as the council may prescribed.) (policeman was held empowered to arrest without warrant for breach of municipal ordinances
committed in his presence.)
the law looks to is the character of the duty to be discharged by the officer, rather than the name under
which he acts, and that all officers having the general attributes of constables may be inferred to be clothed with
their ordinary powers of arrest.
in the absence of the expressed legislative definition of the faculties of police officers, they must be assumed to possess
those powers necessary to the convenient exercise of the duties for which their offices were created.
The accused Vallejo, set us a further defense double jeopardy, alleging a former conviction under the Penal
code. (the act of resistance to the policeman, which characterizes the offense under the Penal Code did not necessarily enter
into the disorderly conduct of the defendants, which indeed preceded the appearance of the policeman, and was not therefore to
be considered as part of the same act.)
Guilty: resistance to public officers while executing their duty having been intoxicated without being an habitual drunkard,
he is entitled to that as one extenuating circumstance.
PEOPLE VS AMADO HERNANDEZ (99 PHIL 515)
1. What happened:
About March 15, 1945, Amado Hernandez and other appellants were accused of conspiring, confederating and cooperating with
each other, as well as with the thirty-one(31) defendants charged in the criminal cases of the Court of First Instance of Manila. Theywere accused
of being members of PKP Community Party of the Philippines which wasactively engaged in an armed rebellion against the government of
the Philippines. With the party of HUKBALAHAP (Hukbo ng Bayan Laban sa mga Hapon), they committed thecrime of rebellion causing
murder, pillage, looting plunder, etc., enumerated in 13 attackson government forces or civilians by HUKS.
2. Crime Committed:
Rebellion with multiple murder, arsons and robberies
3. Contention of the State:
The government, headed by the Solicitor General, argued that the gravity of thecrime committed required the denial of bail.
Moreover, the complex crime charged by
theg o v e r n m e n t a g a i n s t H e r n a n d e z h a s b e e n s u c c e s s f u l l y i m p o s e d w i t h o t h e r a r r e s t e d communist leaders
and was sentenced to life imprisonment.
4. Contention of the Accused:
An appeal prosecuted by the defendants regarding the judgment rendered by theCFI in Manila that rebellion cannot be a complex crime
with murder, arson or robbery.
5. Ruling:
The court ruled that murder, arson, and robbery are mere ingredient of the crime of rebellion as means necessary for the perpetration of the offense.
Such common offense isabsorbed or inherent of the crime of rebellion. Inasmuch as the acts specified in Article 135constitutes, one single crime it follows
that said acts offer no occasion for the application of Article 48 which requires therefore the commission of at least two crimes.***
HERNANDEZ DOCTRINE
: Rebellion cannot be complexed with common crimes such as killings, destruction of property, etc., committed on the occasion
and infurtherance thereof. The thinking is not anymore correct more so that there is no legal basisfor such rule now. Rebellion constitutes ONLY ONE
CRIME. *
ENRILE VS SALAZAR
Senator Enrile, his co-accused(the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio, and Gregorio Honasan) was charged of
the crime of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder allegedly committed during the period of the

10
failed coup.(attempt from November 29 to December 10, 1990.) Senator Enrile was taken to and held overnight at the
NBI headquarters on Taft Avenue, Manila, without bail, none having been recommended in the information and
none fixed in the arrest warrant. The following morning, February 28, 1990, he was brought to Camp Tomas Karingal in
Quezon City where he was given over to the custody of the Superintendent of the Northern Police District, Brig.
Gen. Edgardo Dula Torres.
Senator Enrile, through counsel, filed the petition for habeas corpusherein (which was followed by a supplemental
petition filed on March 2, 1990), alleging that he was deprived of his constitutional rights in being, or having been:
a) held to answer for criminal offense which does not exist in the statute books;
(b) charged with a criminal offense in an information for which no complaint was initially filed or preliminary
investigation was conducted, hence was denied due process;
(c) denied his right to bail; and
(d) arrested and detained on the strength of a warrant issued without the judge who issued it first having
personally determined the existence of probable cause.
They alleged that they cannot be liable for murder and multiple frustrated murder as it is absorbed in the crime of rebellion
ISSUE: whether or not it is a simple rebellion only?
HELD: yes, it is a simple rebellion;In accordance with HERNANDEZ DOCTRINE: Rebellion absorbed the crime of murder and
frustrated murder.
the Court reiterates that based on the doctrine enunciated in People vs. Hernandez, the questioned information filed against
petitioners Juan Ponce Enrile and the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio must be read as charging simple rebellion only, hence
said petitioners are entitled to bail, before final conviction, as a matter of right.
ENRILE VS AMIN
An information was charged against Senator Juan Ponce Enrile for having committed rebellion complexed with murder with the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Another information was subsequently filed with the Regional Trial Court 9of Makati, charging
the former with a violation of Presidential Decree No. 1829 for willfully and knowingly obstructing or delaying the apprehension of
Ex. Lt. Col. Gregorio Gringo Honasan.
Allegedly, Senator Enrile entertained and accommodated Col. Gringo Honasan by giving him food and comfort on December 1,
1989 in his house and not doing anything to have Honasan arrested or apprehended. It was the prosecutions contention that
harboring or concealing a fugitive is punishable under a special law while rebellion is based on Revised Penal Code; thus, the two
crimes can be separately punished.
Issue: Can a separate crime of a violation of PD 1829 be charged against the petitioner?
Ruling:
No. The Supreme Court used the doctrine that if a person cannot be charged with the complex crime of rebellion, he can neither
be charged separately for two different offenses, where one is a constitutive or component element or committed in furtherance
of rebellion.
It was also noted that petitioner was already facing charges of rebellion in conspiracy with Honasan. Being in conspiracy thereof,
the act of harboring or concealing Col. Honasan is clearly a mere component or ingredient of rebellion or an act done in
furtherance of rebellion. It cannot be made the basis of a separate charge.
Also, the High Court reiterated that in cases of rebellion, all crimes committed in furtherance thereof shall be absolved. Hence,
the other charge of rebellion complexed with murder cannot prosper. All crimes, whether punishable under a special law or
general law, which are mere components or ingredients, or committed in furtherance of rebellion, become absorbed and it cannot
be charged as separate crimes.

11

Umil VS RAMOS
To hold that no criminal can, in any case, be arrested and searched for the evidence and tokens of his crime without a warrant,
would be to leave society, to a large extent, at the mercy of the shrewdest, the most expert, and the most depraved of criminals,
facilitating their escape in many instances.(RATIONALE BEHIND: lawful arrest without warrant)
The petitioners (8) were arrested without warrant of arrest. The petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus. They contended that their
detention is unlawful as their arrests were made without warrant and, that no preliminary investigation was first conducted, so
that the information filed against them are null and void.
The court said that:
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, as amended, which provides:
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the
person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he
is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred
from one confinement to another.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith
delivered to the nearest police station or jail, and he shall be proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112,
Section 7.

FACTS: The record of the instant cases would show that the persons in whose behalf these petitions for habeas corpus have been
filed, had freshly committed or were actually committing an offense, when apprehended, so that their arrests without a warrant
were clearly justified, and that they are, further, detained by virtue of valid information filed against them in court.

They were arrested in connection with the killing of 2 capcom soldiers

Dural was captured and identified 1 day after the incident because he needed medical care
FEB 6, 1988 petition for habeas corpus was filed with the court on behalf of Umil, Dural and Villanueva
FEB 26, 1988 Umil and Villanueva posted bail before RTC Pasay where charges for violation of the Anti-Subversion Act they
were released HC of Umil and Villanueva = moot and academic
Dural was not arrested DURING the shooting nor was he arrested JUST AFTER arrested a DAY AFTER = seemingly unjustified

BUT court said the Dural was arrested for being a member of the NPA an outlawed subversive organization
The crimes of rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and crimes or offenses committed in
furtherance thereof or in connection therewith constitute direct assaults against the State and are in the nature of continuing
crimes
Subversion is a continuing offense = arrest without warrant is justified
Furthermore evidence shows that the case against Dural was tried in court wherein they were found GUILTY = now serving
sentence = HC no longer available

LEAVE 1PAGE fugoso

12
PEOPLE VS LOVEDIORO
Facts:
Off-duty policeman SPO3 Jesus Lucilo was walking along Burgos St., away from the Daraga, Albay Public Market when a man
suddenly walked beside him, pulled a .45 caliber gun from his waist, aimed the gun at the policeman's right ear and fired. The
man who shot Lucilo had three other companions with him, one of whom shot the fallen policeman four times as he lay on the
ground. After taking the latter's gun, the man and his companions boarded a tricycle and fled.
The incident was witnessed from a distance of about nine meters by Nestor Armenta, a 25 year old welder from Pilar, Sorsogon,
who claimed that he knew both the victim and the man who fired the fatal shot. Armenta identified the man who fired at the
deceased as Elias Lovedioro y Castro, his nephew (appellant's father was his first cousin) and alleged that he knew the victim
from the fact that the latter was a resident of Bagumbayan.
Lucilo died on the same day of massive blood loss from multiple gunshot wounds on the face, the chest, and other parts of the
body. On autopsy, the municipal health officer established the cause of death as hypovolemic shock.
Issue: Whether or not accused-appellant committed Rebellion under Art. 134 and 135 or Murder under Article 248 of the RPC?
Held: NO.
rebellion is an armed public uprising against the government. 7 By its very nature, rebellion is essentially a crime of masses or
multitudes involving crowd action, which cannot be confined a priori within predetermined bounds
The attack delivered by appellant was sudden, and without warning of any kind. 41 The killing having been qualified by treachery,
the crime committed is murder under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code. In the absence of any mitigating and aggravating
circumstances, the trial court was correct in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua together with all the accessories provided
by law.

LEAVE 1 page (defensor)

JUSTO VS CA
Petitioner Severino P. Justo guilty of the crime of assault upon a person in authority.
The offended party Nemesio B. de la Cuesta is a duly appointed district supervisor of the Bureau of Public Schools, with station
at Sarrat, Ilocos Norte.
Between 9:c00 and 10:00 a.m. on October 16, 1950, he went to the division office in Laoag, Ilocos Norte, in answer to a call from
said office, in order to revise the plantilla of his district comprising the towns of Sarrat and Piddig.
At about 11:25 a.m., De la Cuesta was leaving the office in order to take his meal when he saw the Appellant conversing with
Severino Caridad, academic supervisor.
Appellant requested De la Cuesta to go with him and Caridad to the office of the latter. They did and in the office of Caridad, the
Appellant asked about the possibility of accommodating Miss Racela as a teacher in the district of De la Cuesta. Caridad said that
there was no vacancy, except that of the position of shop teacher.
Upon hearing Caridads answer, the Appellant sharply addressed the complainant thus:c Shet, you are a double crosser. One
who cannot keep his promise. The Appellant then grabbed a lead paper weight from the table of Caridad and challenged the
offended party to go out.
The Appellant left Caridads office, followed by De la Cuesta. When they were in front of the table of one Carlos Bueno, a clerk in
the division office, De la Cuesta asked the Appellant to put down the paper weight but instead the Appellant grabbed the neck
and collar of the polo shirt of the complainant which was torn. Carlos Bueno separated the protagonists, but not before the
complainant had boxed the Appellant several times.
ISSUE: whether or not the accused is liable of the crime of assault upon a person in authority.
HELD: Yes, he is guilty of the crime of assault upon a person in authority.

13
The character of person in authority is not assumed or laid off at will, but attaches to a public official until he ceases to be in
office. Assuming that the complainant was not actually performing the duties of his office when assaulted, this fact does not bar
the existence of the crime of assault upon a person in authority; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryso long as the impelling motive of the
attack is the performance of official duty. This is apparent from the phraseology of Article 148 of our Revised Penal Code, in
penalizing attacks upon person in authority while engaged in the performance of official duties or on occasion of such
performance, the words on occasion signifying because or by reason of the past performance of official duty, even if at the
very time of the assault no official duty was being discharged
The argument that the offended party, De la Cuesta, cannot claim to have been unlawfully attacked because he had accepted the
accuseds challenge to fight, overlooks the circumstance that as found by the Court of Appeals, the challenge was to go out,
i.e., to fight outside the building, it not being logical that the fight should be held inside the office building in the plain view of
subordinate employees. Even applying the rules in duelling cases, it is manifest that an aggression ahead of the stipulated time
and place for the encounter would be unlawful; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryto hold otherwise would be to sanction unexpected
assaults contrary to all sense of loyalty and fair play. In the present case, assuming that De la Cuesta accepted the challenge of
the accused, the facts clearly indicate that he was merely on his way out to fight the accused when the latter violently lay hands
upon him. The acceptance of the challenge did not place on the offended party the burden of preparing to meet an assault at any
time even before reaching the appointed place for the agreed encounter, and any such aggression was patently illegal.

PEOPLE VS ACIERTO
FACTS:At about 10 o'clock on the morning of March 2, 1931, while the offended party, Hipolito Velasco, duly appointed postmaster
for the municipality of Bacarra, Province of Ilocos Norte, was in his office situated in the municipal building, counting two rolls of
twenty-peso bills amounting in all to P4,000, the accused, Leon Acierto, entered the office without the postmaster's noticing it,
and stood behind him. Without saying a word, the accused took one of the rolls, but the postmaster caught hold of his hand and
took away the money, saying: "Get out of here, Lawyer, because we have plenty of work". The defendant moved away towards
the north, and the postmaster, believing he had gone, began to count the money again; but the accused came back to his side,
and as he did not want to be disturbed, he put the money in the safe, took the key to the office, and as he was going towards the
door, said to the accused: "Be so good as to leave now, Lawyer". The other answered: "I don't want to. You may close it". He said
this with his hands in his trouser's pockets, and was walking about the room. When he came to the door of the office, the
postmaster again told the accused: "Be so good as to leave now, Lawyer". The accused gave the same answer. For the third time
the offended party said to the defendant: "Go away now," and the latter answered: "I don't want to leave." Displeased with this
answer, the offended party approached the defendant quietly, and took hold of his left hand to conduct him outside. Whereupon
the lawyer hit him in the right eye with his fist, leaving him stunned, and making him lose his balance. When he recovered, the
accused again hit him, first in the right frontal region, and then below the left eye. The offended party shouted for help, and a
member of the municipal police, as well as his office companions, came up. As a result of the blows he had sustained, the
offended party suffered an ecchymosis in the orbit of the left eye, and another in the frontal region, which took seven days to
heal completely.
ISSUE: whether or not a postmaster is an agent in authority?
HELD: yes.The postmaster of a municipality is an agent of the Director of Posts, and as such is in charge of the custody of the
Government funds that come into his hands by virtue of the transactions with the public in postal matters, telegrams, savings
bank, and so forth, and like a municipal treasurer is an agent of a person in authority in addition to being a public officer,
inasmuch as the Director of Posts is a person in authority who by law exercises jurisdiction of his own in postal and telegraphic
matters.
The same offense is punished in article 148 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty fixed being that of prision correccional in the
minimum degree, and a fine not exceeding P500 which is less severe than the penalty prescribed by the old Penal Code for the
same crime, and in accordance with article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, and the accused not being an habitual criminal, the
penalty provided by article 148 above-mentioned must be imposed.

LEAVE 1 PAGE regalla

14
LEAVE 1 PAGEa rumayrat
PEOPLE VS TACAN
FACTS: Tac an and escano III were classmates and belong to the same gang(BRONX). Tac-an had been
to the house of Escano III, her mother notice that Tac an carries a handgun and advise his son(Escano)
to distance himself to TacAn. Escano the withdrew from the gang and the relationship between the two
turned sour.
(quarreled and was brought to the principal; Tac an together with other members looking for Escano to beat
him; theres a graffiti in the wall and armchair deprecating the Bronx gang and describing Renato as
"bayot" (homosexual))
On the day of the incident, around 2 oclock, Renato attended his English class, he placed his
scrapbook in the armchair and approach his teacher to raise a question. When he returned to his chair
he saw francis seating on his scrapbook. Angered by this he kicked the chair, a fist fight would have
occurred were if not for the intervention of his classmate and teacher. (both seated on opposite side{last
row})
After the class resumed Tacan slipped out and went to his house to get his gun and was back 15 mins
later.
Around 3 oclock, the mathematics class had just started, Tac an, holding a revolver, burst into the room
and looking for Escano(shut the door and with both hands raised, holding a revolver, shouted "Where is Francis?")
1. Upon sighting Francis seated behind and to the light of student Ruel Ungab, Renato fired at Francis, hitting a
notebook, a geometry book and the armrest of Ruel's chair. Francis and Ruel jumped up and with several of their
classmates rushed forward towards the teacher's platform to seek protection from their teacher.
2. Renato fired a second time, this time hitting the blackboard in front of the class. Francis and the other students
rushed back towards the rear of the room.
3. Renato walked towards the center of the classroom and fired a third time at Francis, hitting the concrete wall of
the classroom. Francis and a number of his classmates rushed towards the door, the only door to and from Room 15.
4. Renato proceeded to the teacher, s platform nearest the door and for the fourth time fired at Francis as the latter
was rushing towards the door.this time, Francis was hit on the head and he fell on the back of Ruel and both fell to
the floor. Ruel was pulled out of the room by a friend; Francis remained sprawled on the floor bleeding profusely.
5. Renato then went out of Room 15, and paced between Rooms 14 and 15. A teacher, Mr. Pablo Baluma, apparently
unaware that it was Renato who had gunned down Francis, approached Renato and asked him to help Francis as the
latter was still alive inside the room. Renato thereupon re-entered Room 15, closed the door behind him, saying: "So,
he is still alive. Where is his chest?" Standing over Francis sprawled face down on the classroom floor, Renato aimed
at the chest of Francis and fired once more. The bullet entered Francis' back below the right shoulder, and exited on
his front chest just above the right nipple.

Renato left her room, some teachers and students came to rescue Escano but could not open the door which Tacan
had locked behind him. One of the student entered the room by climbing(window) and open the door. Escano was
brought to a hospital(|by PC Soldier Celestino)

15
Upon investigation the revolver that the empty cartridge cases had been fired from the revolver recovered from
Renato.
ISSUE:Whether or not the crime was committed in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities.?
HELD: We believe the trial court erred in so finding the presence of a generic aggravating circumstance. Article 152
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 1978 and Presidential Decree No. 299, provides as
follows:
Art. 152. Persons in authority and agents of persons in authority. Who shall be deemed as such.
In applying the provisions of the preceding and other articles of this Code, any person directly vested
with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of some court or government corporation,
board, or commission, shall be deemed a person in authority. A barrio captain and a barangay
chairman shall also be deemed a person in authority.
In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 of this Code, teachers, professors and persons
charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges and universities,
and lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the occasion of such
performance, shall be deemed persons in authority.
," such teacher or professor is so deemed only for purposes of application of Articles 148 (direct assault
upon a person in authority), and 151 (resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the
agents of such person) of the Revised Penal Code.

US VS TABIANA
FACTS: a warrant of arrest was issued, Callado and Cabilitasan found the dependant around 4pm.
Instead of coming he told the policemen that he would come in later and report at the municipal building with
his herdsman, the other defendant named in the warrant.
At around 6pm, the defendant not having appeared, the policemen were directed by the chief of police
too find him. They found him at his house with his friends. The policemen announced their errand
tabiana showed further resentment over the idea of arrest but yielded and started to the municipal
bldg with the two. In passing the market detached himself from the custody of the policemen without
the consent and entered the market.
The police men wait for about half an hour, and then later went into the market and found tabiana with
some friends. The defendant(tabiana) asked for a warrant, callado then drew the warrant the
defendant took, looked and put it into his pocket. After that he said come along and gave the
policeman a push, as did also by his friends.
When they arrived at the municipal the chief of police and other officials were gone. This angered tabian, tabiana
and his friends left the municipal saying that they would find the justice of the peace.(one is looking for chief of
police)
The chief of police arrived at the municipal bldg. and learning what happened he order the two policeman together
with Cajilig to find and bring tabiana back and to procure the return of warrant of arrest. Upon finding tabiana, in his
tienda with his friends, he denied having taken the warrant. One of his friend shouted that "If he has no warrant send
him up for a beating." Tabiana then approached callado and hit him in the breast with his hand/fist, at which instance
seized him. The policeman started to carry him, when two bystander interfered and took him away from the
policeman. Justice of the peace Julian canillas then arrived on the scene and hit callado in the back.

16
Mean-while Tabiana seems to have retired to his apartment, and Julian Canillas directing himself to the policeman
said, "Go back to the municipal building and to-morrow you will take those clothes off," referring to the uniforms
worn by the policemen.
The policemen then went away, which may be attributed not only to the command of the justice of the peace but
also to the fact that some of Tabiana's friends indicated a determination to fight if the policemen should persist in
their purpose of arresting Tabiana.
HELD: Yes he is liable. Based on the proofs of records the defendant clearly shows resistance and grave
disobedience. that everything done by Tabiana upon this occasion is properly referable to the idea of resistance and
grave disobedience. We discern in his conduct no such aggression as accompanies the determination to defy the law
and its representative at all hazards. Upon the previous occasions of his contact with the policemen on this day,
Tabiana yielded, though with bad grace; and it is evident that he would upon this occasion, have gone to the police
station again if it had not been for the acts of others in rescuing him, and for the intervention of the justice of the
peace, who ordered the policemen to desist.

PEOPLE VS RILLORTA
FACTS: Romy Ramos, a thresher operator, recounted that while they were threshing the palay stock near the premises of the
victim, the accused Pascual Baylon Rillorta accosted Ramos and threatened him with a gun saying "Damn you, you better go
home or I'll kill you here" (p. 7, t.s.n., December 19, 1979). Rillorta resented the threshing of palay in his barrio by the Ramos'
threshing party, whom he regarded as outsiders, because he wanted the palay stocks in his barrio to be threshed in his own
thresher.
On their way home to Bo. Calapugan, Ramos and his companions, Romy Elizaga and Ceferino Facon, aboard their thresher, were
stopped by the three accused. Pascual Rillorta, who was armed with a bolo, warned them not to return to thresh palay in barrio
Barangobong. Barangay Captain Doton, who was following behind Ramos' group, advised the accused to let the threshing party
pass. The three (3) accused chased Doton. Upon overtaking him, they surrounded him and pushed him toward the creek. Pascual
Rillorta hacked him with a bolo while his sons (co-accused Wesley and Wilson) held Doton's hands. Doton yelled "I'm going to die,
they are going to kill me." (Patayendacon in Ilocano.)

ISSUE: wheter or not the defendant committed assault upon a persin in authority?

YES. when Doton intervened to prevent a violent encounter between the accused and Ramos' group he was
discharging his duty as barangay captain to protect life and property and enforce law and order in his barrio.
Under Article 152 of the Revised Penal Code and P.D. 299, a barangay captain (formerly a "barrio lieutenant") is a
person in authority

PEOPLE VS DURAL
FACTS:"At about 12 o'clock in the afternoon of January 31, 1988 both of them (prosecution witnesses Rener Ramos and Dennis Santos) were at
the Macaneneng Street in Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City as they were supposed to go a (sic) "tupadahan" however, they were not able to arrive at

17
the tupadahan because while on their way or from a distance of twelve (12) arms-length they heard successive gunfires (sic) so they run (sic) and
hid themselves in a concrete fence near a store; from the place they were hiding or from a distance of ten (10) arms-length they saw three (3) men
each of them armed with .45 (sic) pistol, firing upon at (sic) the two Capcom soldiers on board a Capcom mobile car which was then on a full stop
although its engine was still running; two of the gunmen positioned themselves beside each of the side of the mobile car while the third gunman
whom they identified as accused Rolando Dural otherwise known as Ronnie Javelon (Dural for brevity) claimed the hood of the mobile car and
positioned himself in front of the car; after the two Capcom soldiers were immobilized, the gunman standing near the driver's seat opened the left
front door of the car and got the .45 (sic) service pistol and armalite of the Capcom soldiers; thereafter, the three gunmen left; during the shooting
incident they also noticed the presence of two persons, one was inside an owner jeep while the other one whom they identified as accused
Bernardo Itucal, Jr. (Itucal for brevity) was standing near the scene of the incident with one of his arm (sic) raised while one of his hand (sic) was
holding a .45 caliber pistol; immediately after the three (gunmen) who fired at the Capcom soldiers left; (sic) the man who was riding on the owner
jeep told accused Itucal that he was leaving and instructed Itucal to take care of everything; witness Dennis Santos even quoted the very word (sic)
of the man on board the owner jeep Pare, bahala ka na diyan; after that, the accused Itucal walked away; two days after the incident or on February
3, 1988 eyewitnesses Ramos and Santos voluntarily went at (sic) the Capcom headquarters at Dagat-Dagatan, Caloocan City to narrate what they
have witnessed, consequently the investigator brought them at (sic) the Capcom headquarters at Bicutan then at (sic) Camp Panopio Hospital; at
the said hospital, they saw one of the three gunmen (referring to accused Dural) who shot the two Capcom soldiers; then they went back at (sic)
Bicutan headquarters where they gave their respective statements (Exhs. "D" and "E")

ISSUE: w/n they committed direct assult?

YES. appellant Dural and the two (2) other gunmen knew that the victims, T/Sgt. Carlos Pabon and CIC Renato Mangligot, were members of the
Philippine Constabulary detailed with the CAPCOM as they were then in uniform and riding an official CAPCOM car. The victims, who were agents
of persons in authority, were in the performance of official duty as peace officers and law enforcers. For having assaulted and killed the said victims,
in conspiracy with the other two (2) gunmen, appellant Dural also committed direct assault under Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code. The crimes
he committed, therefore, are two (2) complex crimes of murder with direct assault upon an agent of a person in authority. Pursuant then to Article 48
of the Revised Penal Code, the maximum of the penalty for the more serious crime which is murder, should be imposed. The maximum of the
penalty prescribed for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is death penalty
A conspiracy exists when two (2) or more persons to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. 14 Direct proof is
not essential to prove conspiracy, it may be shown by acts and circumstances from which may be logically inferred the existence of a common
design among the accused to commit the crime charged. 15 It is sufficient that the malefactors shall have acted in concert pursuant to the same
objective. 16 Confederacy was established beyond cavil in this case among appellant Rolando Dural, a.k.a. Ronnie Javelon, and the two (2) other
gunmen. Armed with deadly weapons, they arrived together, each proceeding directly to a pre-assigned spot from where they suddenly and
unexpectedly shot their victims. They then fled together toward
the same direction after divesting the victims of their firearms. All these acts are eloquent proof of a common plan and design deliberately and
carefully executed with precision through coordinated action.
(2) ACQUITTING, on the ground of reasonable doubt, accused-appellant BERNARDO ITUCAL, JR.; and
The 2 witness admitted on cross-examination that he saw Itucal for the first time only after the gunmen had left the scene

18

GELIG VS PEOPLE
FACTS: Lydia and private complainant Gemma B. Micarsos (Gemma), were public school teachers at the Nailon Elementary
School, in Nailon, Bogo, Cebu. Lydias son, Roseller, was a student of Gemma at the time material to this case.
On July 17, 1981, at around 10:00 oclock in the morning, Lydia confronted Gemma after learning from Roseller that Gemma
called him a "sissy" while in class. Lydia slapped Gemma in the cheek and pushed her, thereby causing her to fall and hit a wall
divider. As a result of Lydias violent assault, Gemma suffered a contusion in her "maxillary area", as shown by a medical
certificate5 issued by a doctor in the Bogo General Hospital. However, Gemma continued to experience abdominal pains and
started bleeding two days after the incident. On August 28, 1981, she was admitted in the Southern Islands Hospital and was
diagnosed, to her surprise, to have suffered incomplete abortion. Accordingly, a medical certificate 6 was issued.

ISSUE: whether or not accused commited direct assault?

HELD: yes. Art. 148. Direct assaults. - Any person or persons who, without a public uprising, shall employ force or intimidation for
the attainment of any of the purposes enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and sedition, or shall attack, employ force,
or seriously intimidate or resist any person in authority or any of his agents, while engaged in the performance of official duties,
or on occasion of such performance, shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a
fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos, when the assault is committed with a weapon or when the offender is a public officer or
employee, or when the offender lays hands upon a person in authority. If none of these circumstances be present, the penalty of
prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed.1avvphi1
It is clear from the foregoing provision that direct assault is an offense against public order that may be committed in two
ways: first, by any person or persons who, without a public uprising, shall employ force or intimidation for the attainment of any
of the purposes enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and sedition; and second, by any person or persons who, without a
public uprising, shall attack, employ force, or seriously intimidate or resist any person in authority or any of his agents, while
engaged in the performance of official duties, or on occasion of such performance. 14
The case of Lydia falls under the second mode, which is the more common form of assault. Its elements are:
1. That the offender (a) makes an attack, (b) employs force, (c) makes a serious intimidation, or (d) makes a serious resistance.
2. That the person assaulted is a person in authority or his agent.
3. That at the time of the assault the person in authority or his agent (a) is engaged in the actual performance of official duties, or
[b] that he is assaulted by reason of the past performance of official duties.
4. That the offender knows that the one he is assaulting is a person in authority or his agent in the exercise of his duties.
4. That there is no public uprising.

LEAVE 1page(rivera case)

19

ABALOS CASE

Facts: around 8pm while accused Tiburcio Abalos and his father, Police Major Cecilio Abalos, were having
a heated argument(because of the berating his employees and his son talked to him not to scold his
employees as they would go to a festival), a woman shouted Police officer, help us! Somebodys making
trouble here. The victim, P/Pfc. Labine, then appeared at the scene and asked Major Abalos, What is it,
sir? The victim saluted Abalos when the latter turned around to face him. As Major Abalos leveled his
carbine at Labine, accused hurriedly left and procured a piece of wood, about two inches thick, three
inches wide and three feet long, from a nearby Ford Fiera vehicle. He then swiftly returned and
unceremoniously swung with that wooden piece at Labine from behind, hitting the policeman at the back
of the right side of his head. Labine collapsed unconscious in a heap, and he later expired from the severe
skull fracture he sustained from that blow. The trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the complex crime of direct assault with murder
ISSUE: w/n the accused committed direct assault?
HELD: yes. Labine was a duly appointed member of the then INP in Catbalogan, Samar and, thus, was an
agent of a person in authority pursuant to Article 152 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. There is
also no dispute that he was in the actual performance of his duties when assaulted by appellant, that is,
he was maintaining peace and order during the fiesta in Barangay Canlapwas. Appellant himself testified
that he personally knew Labine to be a policeman and, in fact, Labine was then wearing his
uniform. These facts should have sufficiently deterred appellant from attacking him, and his defiant
conduct clearly demonstrates that he really had the criminal intent to assault and injure an agent of the
law.