G.R. No.

L-409

January 30, 1947

the intent to give aid and comfort feloniously and

treasonably lad, guide and accompany a patrol of
Japanese soldiers and Filipino undercovers for the
purpose of apprehending guerillas and locating their
hideouts.

ANASTACIO LAUREL, petitioner,

vs.
ERIBERTO MISA, respondent.

ISSUES;
FACTS:

1.

A petition for habeas corpus was filed by Anastacio

Laurel. He claims 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 the Article 114 of the Revised Penal
Code on the grounds that the sovereignty of the
legitimate government in the Philippines and
consequently the correlative allegiance of Filipino
citizen thereto were then suspended; and that there
was a change of sovereignty over these Islands
upon the proclamation of the Philippine Republic.
ISSUE: WHETHER THE PETITIONER
SUBJECT TO ARTICLE 114 OF THE REVISED
PENAL CODE.

IS

HELD:
YES. 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. (Art.
114. Treason. Any person who, owing allegiance
to (the United States or) the Government of the
Philippine Islands, not being a foreigner, levies war
against them or adheres to their enemies, giving
them aid or comfort within the Philippine Islands or
elsewhere, shall be punished by reclusion temporal
to death and shall pay a fine not to exceed P20,000
pesos.)
PEOPLE V. PRIETO
80 Phil 138
FACTS:
-The appellant was prosecuted for treason.
-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.
-The next witness, testified that he saw the accused
following an American and the accused were
Japanese and other Filipinos.
-Accused being a member of the Japanese Military
Police and acting as undercover man for the
Japanese forces with the purpose of giving and with

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:
1.

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.

2.

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.
People vs. Siyoh
GR. No. L- 57292
FACTS:
Julaide Siyoh and Omarkyam Kiram, together with
Namli Indanan and Andaw Jamahali were
accused of qualified piracy with triple murder and
frustrated murder.
On July 10, 1979, Antonio de Guzman together with
his friends who were also travelling merchants like
him
(Danilo
Hiolen.
Rodolfo
de
Castro
and Anastacio de Guzman) were on their way
to Pilas Island, Province of Basilan, to sell goods
they received from Alberto Aurea.
They left for Pilas Island at 2:00 p.m. of July 10,
1979 on a pump boat. They took their dinner and
slept that night in the house of Omar-kayam Kiram
at Pilas Island. Who also helped them from selling
their goods to different Islands near Pilas.>
Before the incident happened, Antonio, the lone
survivor saw that Kiram was talking with another
two persons that he can only recognize in their
faces somewhere near the house where they were
selling the goods> On July 14, 1979, When they
were heading back to Pilas Island from Baluk-Baluk
Island through riding a pump boat where Siyoh
positioned himself at the front while Kiram operated
the engine.>
On the way to Pilas Island, Antonio de Guzman saw
another pump boat painted red and green about
200meters away from their pump boat Shortly after"
Kiram turned off the engine of their pump boat.
Thereafter two shots were fired from the
other pumpboat as it moved towards them>

When the boat came close to them, Kiram threw a

rope to the other pumpboat which towed de
Guzman's pumpboat towards Mataja Island.> On
the way to Mataja Island, Antonio de Guzman and
his companions were divested of their money and
their goods by Kiram. Thereafter Kiram and his
companions ordered the group of de Guzman to
undress. Taking fancy on the pants of Antonio de
Guzman, Kiram put it on.>
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent-appellants
are guilty of qualified piracy?
HELD:
They were said to be guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of qualified piracy with triple murder and
frustrated homicide
RATIONALE
1. Number of persons killed on the occasion of
piracy, not material; Piracy, a special complex crime
punishable by deathbut the number of persons
killed on the occasion of piracy is not material.
PD532
considers
qualified
piracy
as
a
special complex
crime
punishable
by
death. Therefore, the guilt of respondent were
proven beyond reasonable doubt.
2. There was no other evidence presented on why
should the lone survivor tell lies and fabricate story
as to apprehend the accused.
3. Appellants claim that they were not the assailants
but also the victim and that the two persons
theyhave identified (Namli Indanan and Andaw
Jamahali) is baseless as view in the proven
conspiracy among the accused. The Conspiracy
was established through the testimony of the lone
witness and survivor- De Guzman
People vs Tulin
August 30, 2001
Facts:
MT Tabangao is a cargo vessel owned by PNOC. It
was
sailing near the coast of Mindoro loaded with
barrels of
kerosene, gasoline, and diesel oil with a total value
of
40.4M. The vessel was suddenly boarded by 7 fully
armed pirates (accused in the case Emilio
Changco, Cecilio Changco, Tulin, Loyola, Infante,
etc.). they detained and took control of the vessel.
The name MT Tabangao and the PNOC logo were
painted over with black. Then it was painted with the
name Galilee. The ship crew was forced to sail to
Singapore.
In Singapore, the ship was awaiting another vessel
that did not arrive. Instead, the ship went back to
Batangas Philippines and remained at sea. Days
later, it went back to Singapore. This time, another
vessel called the Navi Pride anchored beside it.
Another accused, Cheong San Hiong, supervised
the Navis crew and received the cargo on board
MT Tabangao/Galilee.
ISSUE: w/n the accused are guilty of qualified
piracy

RULING:
YES! [only the important part for crim]
Hiong argues that he cannot be convicted under PD
534or Art 122 of the RPC as amended, since both
laws punish piracy committed in Philippine waters.
Hiong also contends that the court never acquired
jurisdiction over him since the crime was committed
outside Philippine waters.
Art. 122 of the RPC (piracy in general and mutiny in
the high seas) provided that piracy must be
committed in the high seas by any person not a
member of its complement nor a passenger thereof.
It was amended by RA 7659, which broadened the
law to include offenses committed in Philippine
waters. PD 532 on the other hand, embraces any
person, including a passenger or member of the
complement of said vessel in the Philippine waters.
Umil vs Ramos
187 SCRA 311
Facts: On 1 February 1988, military agents were
dispatched to the St. Agnes Hospital, Roosevelt
Avenue, Quezon City, to verify a confidential
information which was received by their office,
about a "sparrow man" (NPA
member) who had been admitted to the said
hospital with
a gunshot wound. That the wounded man in the
said hospital was among the five (5) male
"sparrows" who murdered two (2) Capcom mobile
patrols the day before,
or on 31 January 1988 at about 12:00 o'clock noon,
before a road hump along Macanining St., Bagong
Barrio,
Caloocan City. The wounded man's name was listed
by
the hospital management as "Ronnie Javellon,"
twenty two (22) years old of Block 10, Lot 4, South
City Homes,
Bian, Laguna however it was disclosed later that
the true name of the wounded man was Rolando
Dural. In view of this verification, Rolando Dural was
transferred to the Regional Medical Servicesof the
CAPCOM, for security reasons. While confined
thereat, he was positively identified by the
eyewitnesses as the one who murdered the 2
CAPCOM mobile patrols.
Issue: Whether or Not Rolando was lawfully
arrested.
Held:
Rolando Dural was arrested for being a
member of the NPA, an outlawed subversive
organization. Subversion being a continuing
offense, the arrest without warrant is justified as it
can be said that he was committing as offense
when arrested. The crimes rebellion, subversion,
conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and
crimes or offenses committed in furtherance
therefore in connection therewith constitute direct
assaults against the state and are in the nature of
continuing crimes.
PEOPLE VS BURGOS
144 SCRA 1

Facts:
According to the government, one Cesar
Masamlok surrendered to the authorities and
pointed accused Ruben Burgos as a member of the
NPA who threatened to kill him and his family if he
refused to join. The police then formed a task force
to arrest Burgos. They went to Burgos
residence where they saw him plowing his field.
They arrested him and recovered from his house a
caliber .38 revolver buried under the ground. The
arrest was made without any warrant or at least a
search warrant. He was also not reminded of his
constitutional rights.
However, according to accused Burgos, he
was not a member of the NPA. The gun was
actually buried by Masamlok himself a few days
before the arrest without the formers
knowledge since he was not in his house then. It
was only his wife who was present and she was
threatened by Masamlok not to report the gun to the
authorities. After his warrantless arrest, he
disclosed that he was tortured for days to admit the
ownership of the recovered revolver.
Issues: Whether or not the exceptions in arrest with
warrant can be liberally construed as in the case of
Burgos arrest
Ruling: No, the exceptions must be strictly
construed.
Ratio: The warrantless arrest of Ruben Burgos was
not justified We find no compelling reason for the
haste with which the arresting officers sought to
arrest the accused. We fail to see why they failed to
first go through the process of obtaining a warrant
of arrest, if indeed they had reasonable ground to
believe that the accused had truly committed a
crime. There is no showing that there was a real
apprehension that the accused was on the verge of
flight or escape. Likewise, there is no showing that
the whereabouts of the accused were unknown.
The basis for the action taken by the arresting
officer was the verbal report made by Masamlok
who was not required to subscribe his allegations
under oath. There was no compulsion for him to
state truthfully his charges under pain of criminal
prosecution.
MILO vs SALANGA
152 SCRA 113
FACTS: On October 12, 1972, an information for
Arbitrary Detention was filed against Juan Tuvera,
Sr., Tomas Mendoza and Rodolfo Mangsat, in the
Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. On April 4,
1973, Tuvera filed a motion to quash the information
on the ground that the facts charged do not
constitute an offense and that the proofs adduced at
the investigation are not sufficient to support the
filing of the information.

The public officers liable for Arbitrary Detention

must be vested with authority to detain or order the
detention of persons accused of a crime. Such
public officers are the policemen and other agents
of the law, the judges or mayors. He essentially
says that he is not a public officer.
It was asserted that if Armando Valdez was ever
jailed and detained more than six (6) hours, Tuvera
has nothing to do with it because he is not in any
way connected with the Police Force of Manaoag,
Pangasinan.
Granting that it was Tuvera, Sr., who ordered Valdez
arrested, it was not he who detained and jailed him
because he has no such authority vested in him as
a mere Barrio Captain of Barrio Baguinay,
Manaoag, Pangasinan.
ISSUE: Whether or not Tuvera, Sr., a barrio captain
is a public officer who can be liable for the crime of
Arbitrary Detention?
Ruling:
YES. Arbitrary Detention is committed by a
public officer who, without legal grounds, detains a
person. The elements of this crime are the
following: That the offender is a public officer or
employee, That he detains a person, That the
detention is without legal grounds. Long before
Presidential Decree 299 was signed into law, barrio
lieutenants (who were later named barrio captains
and now barangay captains) were recognized as
persons in authority. In various cases, this Court
deemed them as persons in authority, and convicted
them of Arbitrary Detention.
Jose Burgos vs. Chief of Staff
G.R. No L-64261
December 26, 1984
Facts:
Two warrants were issued against petitioners for the
search on the premises of Metropolitan Mail and
We Forum newspapers and the seizure of items
alleged to have been used in subversive activities.
Petitioners prayed that a writ of preliminary
mandatory and prohibitory injunction be issued for
the return of the seized articles, and that
respondents be enjoined from using the articles
thus seized as evidence against petitioner.
Petitioners questioned the warrants for the lack of
probable cause and that the two warrants issued
indicated only one and the same address. In
addition, the items seized subject to the warrant
were real properties.
Issue:
Whether or not the two warrants were valid to justify
seizure of the items
Ruling:

Finding that respondent Juan Tuvera, Sr. was not

a public officer who can be charged with Arbitrary
Detention, respondent Judge Salanga granted the
motion to quash. Tuvera contends that the elements
are lacking.

The defect in the indication of the same address in

the two warrants was held by the court as a
typographical error and immaterial in view of the
correct determination of the place sought to be

searched set forth in the application. The purpose

and intent to search two distinct premises was
evident in the issuance of the two warrant.

frustrated murder allegedly committed during the

period of the failed coup attempt from November 29
to
December
10,
1990.

As to the issue that the items seized were real

properties, the court applied the principle in the
case of Davao Sawmill Co. v. Castillo, ruling that
machinery which is movable by nature becomes
immobilized when placed by the owner of the
tenement, property or plant, but not so when placed
by a tenant, usufructuary, or any other person
having only a temporary right, unless such person
acted as the agent of the owner. In the case at bar,
petitioners did not claim to be the owners of the
land and/or building on which the machineries were
placed. This being the case, the machineries in
question, while in fact bolted to the ground remain
movable property susceptible to seizure under a
search warrant.

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.

People vs Baes
68 Phil 203

Issue:

FACTS: Baes, the parish priest of the Roman

Catholic Church of Lumban, Laguna, charged the
accused with an offense against religion for causing
the funeral of a member of the Church of Christ to
pass through the churchyard fronting the Roman
Catholic Church, belonging to said church and
devoted to the religious worship thereof. The parish
priest opposed this, but through force and threats of
physical violence by the accused, was compelled to
allow the funeral to pass through the said
churchyard.
ISSUE: Whether or not the act complained of is
notoriously offensive to the religious feelings of the
Catholics, thereby violating Article 133 of the RPC.
Ruling: The facts alleged in the complaint
constitute the offense defined and penalized in
article 133 of the Revised Penal Code, and should
the fiscal file an information alleging the said facts
and a trial be thereafter held at which the said facts
should be conclusively established, the court may
find the accused guilty of the offense complained of,
or that of coercion, or that of trespass under article
281 of the Revised Penal Code.
Enrile vs Salazar
186 SCRA 287
Facts:
In the afternoon of February 27, 1990, Senate
Minority Floor Leader Juan Ponce Enrile was
arrested by law enforcement officers led by Director
Alfredo Lim of the National Bureau of Investigation
on the strength of a warrant issued by Hon. Jaime
Salazar of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City
Branch 103, in Criminal Case No. 9010941.
The warrant had issued on an information signed
and earlier that day filed by a panel of prosecutors
composed of Senior State Prosecutor Aurelio C.
Trampe, State Prosecutor Ferdinand R. Abesamis
and Assistant City Prosecutor Eulogio Mananquil,
Jr., charging Senator Enrile, the spouses Rebecco
and Erlinda Panlilio, and Gregorio Honasan with the
crime of rebellion with murder and multiple

On the same date of February 28, 1990, Senator

Enrile, through counsel, filed the petition for habeas
corpus herein (which was followed by a
supplemental petition filed on March 2, 1990),
alleging that he was deprived of his constitutional
rights.

(a) Whether the petitioner has committed complex

crimes (delito compleio) arising from an offense
being a necessary means for committing another,
which is referred to in the second clause of Article
48
of
the
Revised
Penal
Code?
Ruling:
No. If murder were not complexed with rebellion,
and the two crimes were punished separately
(assuming that this could be done), the following
penalties would be imposable upon the movant,
namely: (1) for the crime of rebellion, a fine not
exceeding P20,000 and prision mayor, in the
corresponding period, depending upon the
modifying circumstances present, but never
exceeding 12 years of prision mayor, and (2) for the
crime of murder, reclusion temporal in its maximum
period to death, depending upon the modifying
circumstances present. In other words, in the
absence of aggravating circumstances, the extreme
penalty could not be imposed upon him. However,
under Article 48 said penalty would have to be
meted out to him, even in the absence of a single
aggravating circumstance. Thus, said provision, if
construed in conformity with the theory of the
prosecution, would be unfavorable to the movant.
Enrile vs Amin
189 SCRA 573
Facts:
Together with the filing of an information charging
Senator Juan Ponce Enrile as having committed
rebellion complexed with murder with the Rtc of
Quezon City, government prosecutors filed another
information charging him for violation of P.d. No.
1829, for obstructing and impeding the
Apprehension of ex. Lt. Col. Gringo honasan by
concealing him in his house. Enrile assails this,
stating that: The alleged harboring or concealing of
Col. Honasan in a supposed meeting on 1
December 1989 is absorbed in, or is a component
element of, the "complexed" rebellion presently
charged against Sen. Enrile as alleged
coconspirator of Col. Honasan on the basis of the
same meeting on 1 December 1989. (it was alleged
that Honasan and some 100 rebel soldiers attended

the mass and birthday party held at the residence of

the petitioner in that evening) .
Issue: whether or not the petitioner could be
separately charged for violation of PD No. 1829
notwithstanding the rebellion case earlier filed
against him.(considering that such presidential
decree is a special law)
Ruling:
Yes. Judge enjoined from holding further
proceedings against Enrile. Offense mentioned in
PD
1829 abZZZorbed in rebellion!

The extra-judicial confession of appellant was

signed by him on every page thereof with the first
page containing a certification likewise signed by
him. However, Dasig contends that the procedure
by which his extra-judicial confession was taken
was legally defective, and contrary to his
Constitutional rights. He further contends that
assuming he conspired in the killing of Pfc.
Manatad, he should be convicted at most of simple
rebellion and not murder with direct assault.
Appellant also claims that the custodial interrogation
was done while he was still very sick and
consequently, he could not have fully appreciated
the wisdom of admitting such a serious offense.
Issue:

Ratio: as the Hernandez case states: The rejection

of both options shapes and determines the primary
ruling of the Court, which that Hernandez remains
binding doctrine operating to prohibit the
complexing of rebellion with any other offense
committed on the occasion thereof, either as a
means to its commission or as an unintended effect
of an activity that commutes rebellion.
People vs Dasig
221 SCRA 549

Whether or not the accused-appellant is liable for

extra-judicial killing of the deceased and
participated in the act ofrebellion?
Ruling:
Yes. Accused Rogelio Dasig is found guilty of
participating in an act of rebellion beyond
reasonable doubt and is hereby sentenced to suffer
the penalty of imprisonment of eight (8) years of
prision mayor, and to pay the heirs of Pfc.
Redempto Manatad, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.

Facts:
Appellants Rodrigo Dasig, Edwin Nuez and 6
others were charged together of shooting
Redempto Manatad, a police officer, as he died
while performing duties. Upon arraignment,
appellant and Edwin Nues entered a plea of "not
guilty." However, after the prosecution had
presented its first witness, accused Nues changed
his plea of "not guilty" to "guilty." Hence, the lower
court held in abeyance the promulgation of a
judgment against said accused until the prosecution
had finished presenting its evidence. While trial was
still ongoing, Nuez died on March 10, 1989,
thereby extinguishing his criminal liability.
At about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon, Pfc.
Catamora noticed eight (8) persons, one of whom
he identified as Edwin Nuez, acting suspiciously.
He noticed one of them giving instructions to two of
the men to approach Pfc. Manatad. On August 16,
1987, two teams of police officers were tasked to
conduct surveillance on a suspected safehouse of
members of the sparrow unit located in Peace
Valley, Cebu City. Upon reaching the place, the
group saw Rodrigo Dasig and Edwin Nues trying
to escape. The team of Capt. Antonio Gorre
captured Nues and confiscated a .45 caliber
revolver with 3 magazines and ammunitions, while
the group of Sgt. Ronald Arnejo pursued Dasig, who
threw a grenade at his pursuers, but was shot on
his left upper arm and subsequently apprehended
while a .38 caliber revolver with 17 live ammunitions
were confiscated from him. Thereafter, Dasig was
brought to the hospital for treatment, while Nues
was turned over to the Metrodiscom for
investigation. Dasig confessed that he and the
group of Edwin Nues killed Pfc. Manatad. He
likewise admitted that he and Nues were members
of the sparrow unit and the their aliases were
"Armand" and "Mabi," respectively.

As to the proper imposable penalty, the

Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable to
persons convicted of rebellion (Sec. 2, R.A. 4203),
contrary to the insinuation of the Solicitor General.
Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code imposes the
penalty of prision mayor and a fine not exceeding
P20,000.00 to any person who promotes,
maintains, or heads a rebellion. However, in the
case at bar, there is no evidence to prove that
appellant Dasig headed the crime committed. As a
matter of fact he was not specifically pinpointed by
Pfc. Catamora as the person giving instructions to
the group which attacked Pfc. Manatad.
PEOPLE vs CABRERA
GR No. 17748
FACTS:
(1) On December 13, 1920, a Manila police arrested a
woman who is a member of the household of a constabulary
soldier and was allegedly abused by the said policeman.
(2) Private Macasinag of the Constabulary was shot by a
Manila police and was mortally wounded. A day after the
incident, a rumor spread among the Constabulary that the
Police who shot Macasinag was back to hisoriginal duties
while Macasinag was declared dead.
There were also rumors that the said shooting was ordered.
On the night of December 15 some members of the
Constabulary escaped their barracks through a window (the
saw out the window bars). They had rifles and ammunitions
and were organized in groups under the command of their
sergeants and corporals.
They attacked some Manila policemen in these specific
instances:
(1) On Calle Real, Intramuros, a group of the Constabulary
shot and killed an American Policeman and his friend.

(2) The Constabulary indiscriminately shot at a

passer-by, causing a death and wounding most of t
he passengers.(3) While riding a motorcycle driven by
policeman
Saplala, Captain William E. Wichman (asst. chief of police
in Manila) was shot and killed together withSaplala
ISSUES (1) Is there connivance/conspiracy between the
accusedYES
(2) Are the accused properly convicted of a violation of the
Treason and Sedition LawYES
RULING:
(1) Conspiracies are generally proved by a number of
indefinite acts, conditions, and circumstances which vary
according to the purposes to be accomplished. If it

be proved that the defendants pursued by their acts

the same object, one performing one part and another
another part of the same, so as to complete it, with a view to
the attainment of the same object, one will
be justified in the conclusion
that they were engaged in a conspiracy to the effect that
object. It is incontestable that all of the defendants were
imbued with the same purpose, which was to avenge
themselves on the police force of Manila. A common
feeling of resentment animated all.(2) Sedition, in its more
general sense, is the raising of commotions or disturbances in
the State. The Philippine law on the subject makes all persons
guilty of sedition who rise publicly and tumultuously in
order to obtain by force of outside of legal methods any
one of five objects, including that of inflicting any act of hate or
revenge upon the person or property of any official or
agent of the Insular government or of a provincial or
municipal government