PEOPLE vs. AQUILINO VILLANUEVA! G.R. No. L-5838 !February 9, 1953!

FACTS!Aquilino Villanueva was accused of treason before the People's Court of three
counts. He accompanied eight or nine Japanese soldiers to the place where Pablo
Parungao, Eugenio Maliwat and Jose Maliwat were doing guard duty as members of the
neighborhood association in Talavera, Nueva Ecija. The Japanese soldiers arrested Jose
Maliwat and carried him away. They came back and also arrested Pablo Parungao.
Parungao and Maliwat were taken to the Japanese garrison in the poblacion of Talavera,
where they were detained for forty-eight hours until they were released upon request of
the Mayor of Talavera, Jose B. David. Appellant formed a unit of the "Makapili"
organization, engaged in patrolling the town and looking for guerrillas and persons
suspected of helping the underground movement against the Japanese. At the time of the
arrest of the Filipino guards, the defendant was wearing arm band and was entitled to the
respect and protection of the local authorities.!!

ISSUE!Should the defendant be held liable for treason?!!

HELD!Yes. Inasmuch as it has not been established by the prosecution that the appellant
participated directly or indirectly in the killing or disappearance of any person, he should
be liable for the crime of treason. The court did not give credence to this testimony of the
defendant which consisted of a mere denial of the charges, nor did it give any weight to
his alleged alibi.
People vs. Lol-lo and Saraw

G.R. No. 17958 February 27, 1922

Facts:On or about June 30, 1920, two boats left Matuta, a Dutch possession, for Peta.
After a number of days of navigation, the boat was surrounded by six vintas manned by
twenty four Moros all armed. The Moros first asked for food but once on the Dutch boat,
took themselves all of the cargo, attacked some of the men, and brutally violated two of
the women. All of the persons on the boat, with the exception of the two young women,
were again placed on it and holes were made in it. Taking the two women and repeatedly
violating them, the Moros finally arrived at Maruro, a Dutch possession. Two of the
Moros were Lol-lo, who also raped one of the women, and Saraw. Lol-lo and Saraw later
returned to their home in South Ubian, Tawi-tawi, Sulu. There they were arrested and
were charged with piracy.

Issue: Could Lol-lo and Saraw be convicted of piracy in the Philippine courts?

Ruling: Yes. All of the elements of the crime of piracy are present. Piracy is robbery or
forcible depredation on the high seas, without lawful authority and is done animo furandi,
and in the spirit and intention of universal hostility. Piracy is not a crime against a
particular state but against all mankind. It may be punished in the competent tribunal in
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.

PEOPLE vs. PEDRO T. VILLANUEVA! G.R. No. L-9529 !August 30, 1958!

FACTS!Appellant Pedro T. Villanueva was sentenced to death for the crime of treason.
Appellant was accused of treason on ten counts, but the prosecution adduced evidence
only on seven of them, namely, Counts 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. The lower court found that
Counts 1 and 2 were not proven, and convicted the accused on Counts 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
The prosecution established that during the Japanese occupation, appellant, who is a
Filipino citizen, and owing allegiance to the United States of America and the
Commonwealth of the Philippines, gave the enemy aid and comfort by rendering service
with the Japanese Imperial Army as secret agent, informer and spy, of its Detective Force
in the province of Iloilo, and that in the performance of such service, he participated
actively and directly in the punitive expeditions periodically made by the Japanese forces
in the guerilla-infested areas of the province of Iloilo, and committed robberies, arson and
m!ass-murders.!

ISSUE!W! hether appellant should be held liable for the crime of treason!

HELD!Yes. Appellant not only participated actively in the punitive raids made by the
Japanese soldiers and in arresting and killing Filipino Guerrillas, but personally
manhandled Gloria Escorido, a girl barely 16 years of age at the time (Count 10), and
killed in cold blood Cosme Calacasan by bayoneting him three times (Count 8), Julia
Cabilitasan by likewise bayoneting her three times, with the added ignominy of stripping
her stark naked moments before killing her (Count 9), and Sofia Tambirao (Count 10.)
These specific overt acts of appellant as testified to by eyewitnesses who have survived
the harrowing massacres, speak eloquently that his adherence to the enemy in giving it
aid and comfort, was accompanied by cruelty and ruthlessness, in wanton disregard of the
feelings and decency of his fellow citizens.

Evangelista vs Earnshaw
G.R. No. 36453. September 28, 1932
Ponente: Ostrand, J.

FACTS: Crisanto Evangelista, plaintiff, is the president of the Communist Party in

the Philippine Islands (CPP) which is a political group seeking the speedy granting of
independence and redemption of the proletariat. On March 2, 1931, plaintiff requested the
necessary permission to hold a popular meeting at Plaza Moriones in the City of Manila
followed by a parade through certain streets. However, Mayor Tomas Earnshaw denied
the plaintiffs petition and instructed that all kinds of meetings held by the Communist
Party throughout the city be prohibited alleging that CPP is an illegal association, which
having for its principal object to incite the revolt of the laboring class. Thus, this action of
mandamus brought against defendant Mayor of the City of Manila alleging that the
defendant Mayor deprived the Communist Party of a constitutional right.

ISSUE: Did Mayor Tomas Earnshaw violate the Constitutional right to peaceful
assemblage?

HELD: No. The doctrines and principles advocated and urged in the constitution
and by-laws of the Communist Party of the Philippines, and the speeches uttered,
delivered and made by its members in their previous public meetings or gatherings
referred to in the decisions were highly seditious in that suggested and incited rebellious
conspiracies and disturbed and obstructed the lawful authorities in their duties.

At any rate the right to peaceful assemblage is not an absolute one. When
the intention and effect of the act is seditious, the constitutional guaranties of freedom of
speech and press and assembly and petition must yield to punitive measures designed to
maintain the prestige of constituted authority, the supremacy of the constitution and the
laws, and the existence of the state.