criminal law ii digest (title 1 to 4)

7/25/2019 Criminal Law II Digest (Title 1 to 4)

1/29

TREASON

Laurel vs Misa

Facts: Laurel fled a petition or habeas corpus. He

contends that a person who aided and provided the

Japanese people comort during the Japanses

occupancy may not be prosecuted or treason because:

1) that the sovereignty o the legitimate government in

the Philippines and conse!uently the correlative

allegiance o "ilipino citi#ens thereto was thensuspended$ and %&) that there was a change o

sovereignty over these 'slands upon the proclamation

o the Philippine (epublic.

Issue: *+ persons who aided the Japanese people

during the Japanese occupancy may be prosecuted or

treason

Ruling:,-.

/ citi#en or sub0ect owes not a !ualifed and

temporary but an absolute and permanent allegiance

which consists in the obligation o fdelity and

obedience to his government or sovereign$ and that

this absolute and permanent allegiance should not be

conused with the !ualifed and temporary allegiance

which a oreigner owes to the government or sovereign

o the territory wherein he resides so long as he

remains there in return or the protection he receives

and which consists in the obedience to the laws o the

government or sovereign.

/bsolute and permanent allegiance o the inhabitants

o a territory occupied by the enemy o their legitimate

government or sovereign is not abrogated or severed

by the enemy occupation because the sovereignty o

the government or sovereign de 0ure is not transerred

thereby to the occupier and i it is not transerred to

the occupant it must necessarily remain vested in the

legitimate government.

-ven adopting the words temporarily allegiance

repudiated by *ppenheim and other publicists as

descriptive o the relations borne by the inhabitants o

the territory occupied by the enemy toward the

military government established over them such

allegiance may at most be considered similar to the

temporary allegiance which a oreigner owes to the

government or sovereign o the territory wherein he

resides in return or the protection he receives as

above described and does not do away with the

absolute and permanent allegiance which the citi#en

residing in a oreign country owes to his own

government or sovereign$ that 0ust as a citi#en or

sub0ect o a government or sovereign may be

prosecuted or and convicted o treason committed in a

oreign country in the same way an inhabitant o a

territory occupied by the military orces o the enemy

may commit treason against his own legitimate

government or sovereign i he adheres to the enemies

o the latter by giving them aid and comort$ and that i

the allegiance o a citi#en or sub0ect to his government

or sovereign is nothing more than obedience to its laws

in return or the protection he receives it would

necessarily ollow that a citi#en who resides in a

oreign country or state would on one hand ipso

acto ac!uire the citi#enship thereo since he has

enorce public order and regulate the social and

commercial lie in return or the protection he

receives and would on the other hand lose his

original citi#enship because he would not be bound toobey most o the laws o his own government o

sovereign and would not receive while in a oreign

country the protection he is entitled to in his own.

hile the o2enses against public order to be preserved

by the legitimate government were inapplicable as

o2enses against the invader or the reason above

stated unless adopted by him were also inoperative

as against the ousted government or the latter was

not responsible or the preservation o the public order

in the occupied territory yet article 113 o the said

(evised Penal 4ode was applicable to treason

committed against the national security o thelegitimate government because the inhabitants o the

occupied territory were still bound by their allegiance

to the latter during the enemy occupation.

5he preservation o the allegiance or the obligation o

fdelity and obedience o a citi#en or sub0ect to his

government or sovereign does not demand rom him a

positive action but only passive attitude o

orbearance rom adhering to the enemy by giving the

latter aid and comort the occupant has no power as a

corollary o the preceding consideration to repeal or

suspend the operation o the law o treason essentia

or the preservation o the allegiance owed by theinhabitants to their legitimate government or compe

them to adhere and give aid and comort to him.

5he adoption o the petitioner6s theory o suspended

allegiance would lead to disastrous conse!uences or

small and wea7 nations or states and would be

repugnant to the laws o humanity and re!uirements o

public conscience or it would allow invaders to legally

recruit or enlist the 8uisling inhabitants o the occupied

territory to fght against their own government without

the latter incurring the ris7 o being prosecuted or

treason and even compel those who are not aid them

in their military operation against the resisting enemyorces in order to completely subdue and con!uer the

whole nation and thus deprive them all o their own

independence or sovereignty 9 such theory would

sanction the action o invaders in orcing the people o

a ree and sovereign country to be a party in the

nearious tas7 o depriving themselves o their own

reedom and independence and repressing the eercise

by them o their own sovereignty$ in other words to

commit a political suicide.

5he change o our orm o government rom

4ommonwealth to (epublic does not a2ect the

1


2/29

prosecution o those charged with the crime o treason

committed during the 4ommonwealth because it is an

o2ense against the same government and the same

sovereign people.

People vs Perez

Facts: even counts o estaa were fled agaist usano

Pere#. *nly the 1 & 3 ; and < were sustained.

4ount 1 = recruited apprehended and commandeered

numerous girls and women against their will or the

purpose o using them as in act they were used to

satisy the immoral purpose and seual desire o

4olonel >ini. -riberta (amo testifed and recounted

how 4olonel >ili successully in having carnal

7nowledge with her and how she escaped rom said

4olonel.

4ount & = -riberta (amo and her sister were orced and

intimidated to dance and satisy 4olonel >ili?s carnal

apetite.

4ount 3 = two girls named -duardo . @aohog and

-uti!uia Lamay were brought to @r 5a7ibayas. Aeore

the girls were brought usano and his coBaccussed

raped -duardo and -ti!uia.

4ount ; = "eliciana Aonalos and her sister "laviana

Aonalos were also brought to the Japanese to satisy

their carnal aptite.

4ount < = that the accused together with his "ilipino

companion apprehended +atividad Aarcinas +icanora

(alameda and 5eotima Aarcinas nurses o the

provincial hospital were lured to the Japanese throughdance ban!uet invitations.

't is contended that the acts o usano did not

constitute treason. ' urnishing women or immoral

purposes to the enemies was treason because

women6s company 7ept up their morale so raterni#ing

with them entertaining them at parties selling them

ood and drin7s and 7indred acts would be treason.

Issue: *+ the acts constituted treason

Ruling: +*.

5he law o treason does not prescribe all 7inds osocial business and political intercourse between the

belligerent occupants o the invaded country and its

inhabitants. 'n the nature o things the occupation o a

country by the enemy is bound to create relations o all

sorts between the invaders and the natives. hat aid

and comort constitute treason must depend upon their

nature degree and purpose.

/s general rule to be treasonous the etent o the aid

and comort given to the enemies must be to render

assistance to them as enemies and not merely as

individuals and in addition be directly in urtherance o

the enemies6 hostile designs. 5o ma7e a simple

distinction: 5o lend or give money to an enemy as a

riend or out o charity to the benefciary so that he

may buy personal necessities is to assist him as

individual and is not technically traitorous. *n the

other hand to lend or give him money to enable him to

buy arms or ammunition to use in waging war against

the giver6s country enhance his strength and by same

count in0ures the interest o the government o the

giver. 5hat is treason.

/pplying these principles to the case at bar appellant6s

frst assignment o error is correct. His

commandeering o women to satisy the lust o

Japanese oCcers or men or to enliven the

entertainment held in their honor was not treason even

though the women and the entertainment helped to

ma7e lie more pleasant or the enemies and boost

their spirit$ he was not guilty any more than the women

themselves would have been i they voluntarily and

willingly had surrendered their bodies or organi#ed the

entertainment. eual and social relations with the

Japanese did not directly and materially tend toimprove their war e2orts or to wea7en the power o the

Dnited tate. 'ntent o disloyalty is a vital ingredient in

the crime o treason which in the absence o

admission may be gathered rom the nature and

circumstances o each particular case.

People vs Prieto

Facts: Prieto is prosecuted or treason on E counts

4ount 1 & F and E o the inormation alleged that

Prieto as a Japanese undercover along with othe

"ilipino undercovers lead the Japanese militaries to the

hideouts o the guerrillas. 5he accused severely beat

and tortured the guerrilla suspects and even

prosecuted some o them.

Issue: /re the torturous acts o accused considered a

separate crimeG

Ruling: +*. Aut it is considered an aggravating

circumstance.

'n the nature o things the giving o aid and comort

can only be accomplished by some 7ind o action. 'tsvery nature parta7es o a deed or physical activity as

opposed to a mental operation. %4ramer vs. D.. ante.

5his deed or physical activity may be and oten is in

itsel a criminal o2ense under another penal statute or

provision. -ven so when the deed is charged as an

element o treason it becomes identifed with the latte

crime and cannot be the sub0ect o a separate

punishment or used in combination with treason to

increase the penalty as article 3 o the (evised Pena

4ode provides.

&


3/29

5his rule would not o course preclude the

punishment o murder or physical in0uries as such i the

government should elect to prosecute the culprit

specifcally or those crimes instead on relying on them

as an element o treason. 't is where murder or

physical in0uries are charged as overt acts o treason

that they cannot be regarded separately under their

general denomination.

However the brutality with which the 7illing or physicalin0uries were carried out may be ta7en as an

aggravating circumstance. 5hus the use o torture and

other atrocities on the victims instead o the usual and

less painul method o eecution will be ta7en into

account to increase the penalty under the provision o

article 13 paragraph &1 o the (evised Penal 4ode

since they as in this case augmented the su2erings o

the o2ended parties unnecessarily to the attainment o

the criminal ob0ective.

US vs Bautista

Facts: @uring the latter part o the year 1IF

a 0unta was organi#ed and a conspiracy entered into by

a number o "ilipinos resident in the city o Hong7ong

or the purpose o overthrowing the Kovernment o the

Dnited tates in the Philippine 'slands by orce o arms

and establishing in its stead a government to be 7nown

as the (epublica Dniversal @emocratica "ilipina.

Prim (ui# was recogni#ed as the titular head o this

conspiracy and one /rtemio (icarte as chie o the

military orces. (icarte came to >anila and held severalmeetings.

Pu#on allegedly held several meetings where they were

planning or the upcoming insurrection. 'n said

meetings the group planned on a brigandage and

Pu#on was assigned as brigaderBgeneral o the signal

corps.

4onspirators too7 the feld and o2ered armed

resistance to the constituted authorities in the

Philippines only ailing in their design o overthrowing

the Kovernment because o their ailure to combatsuccessully with the oCcers o the law who were sent

against them and o the ailure o the people to rise en

masse in response to their propaganda.

Puon denied any cooperation with the conspirators.

He also contended that he had accepted the

appointment as brigadierBgeneral o the signal corps o

the revolutionary orces with no intention o ever

ta7ing any urther action in the matter and merely

because he did not wish to ve his riend >uo# by

reusing to do so.

Issue: 's Pu#on guilty o treason or accepting the

appointmentG

Ruling: +*. Aut he is guilty o conspiracy to commi

treason.

't is contended that the acceptance or possession o an

appointment as an oCcer o the military orces o the

conspiracy should not be considered as evidence

against him in the light o the decisions o this court in

the cases o the Dnited tates vs./ntonio de los(eyes1%& *2. Ka#. Fanalo et al.3%3 *2

Ka#. ;E). Aut the case at bar is to be distinguished

rom these and li7e cases by the act that the record

clearly disclose that the accused actually and

voluntarily accepted the apppointment in !uestion and

in doing so assumed all the obligations implied by such

acceptance and that the charge in this case is that o

conspiracy and the act that the accused accepted the

appointment is ta7en into consideration merely as

evidence o his criminal relations with the conspirators.

Dnited tates vs.@e los (eyes 9 the accused was

charged with treason and the court ound that the

mere acceptance o a commission by the deendant

nothing else being done either by himsel or by his

companions was not an overt act o treason within

the meaning o the law but the court urther epressly

held that 9

5hat state o a2airs disclosed body o

evidence . . . the playing o the game o

government li7e children the secretaries

colonels and captains the pictures o Mags and

seals and commission all on proper or the

purpose o duping and misleading the ignorant

and the visionary . . . should not be dignifed by

the name o treason.

4ounsel or appellants contend that the constitutiona

provision re!uiring the testimony o at least two

witnesses to the same overt act or conession in open

court to support a conviction or the crime o treason

should be applied in this case but this court has

always held in conormance with the decisions o the

"ederal courts o the Dnited tates that the crime o

conspiring to commit treason is a separate and distinct

o2ense rom the crime o treason and that this

constitutional provision is not applicable in such cases.

PIRA!

People vs Lol"lo # Sara$

Facts: 5wo boats o @utch possession were on thei

way to Peta rom >atuta. hen the second boat %with

11 men women and children) arrived between the

F


4/29

'slands o Auang and Au7id the boat was surround by

si vintas.

/board in the si vintas are >oros two o which are the

accused LolBlo and araw. 5he >oros frst as7 or ood

but once on the boat they attac7ed some o the men

and raped some o the women.

5hey were charged with piracy upon returning to ulu

by 4"' ulu.

5he counsel or the accused argued that the 4"' ulu

has no 0urisdiction to try the case.

Issue: *+ LolBlo and araw may be convicted even

though 4"' ulu has no 0ursidiction

Ruling: ,-.

Pirates are in law hostes humani generis. Piracy is a

crime not against any particular state but against all

man7ind. 't may be punished in the competent tribunal

o any country where the o2ender may be ound or into

which he may be carried. 5he 0urisdiction o piracy

unli7e all other crimes has no territorial limits. /s it isagainst all so may it be punished by all. +or does it

matter that the crime was committed within the

0urisdictional FBmile limit o a oreign state or those

limits though neutral to war are not neutral to

crimes.

People vs Ro%riguez

Facts: >NO +oria let Jolo or Lauban. /ter two to three

hours o its departure a commotion occurred in one o

the cabins o its vessel.

5he accused %Jaime @ario (ico and Peter) were crew

members o >NO +oria Ear7et in the

province o Aasilan. /ntonio de Ku#man together with

his riends %/nastacio (odolo and @anilo) who were

also travelling merchants li7e him were on their way to

Pilas 'sland Province o Aasilan to sell the goods they

received rom /lberto /urea.

5hey too7 their dinner and slept that night in the house

o *marB7ayam iram at Pilas 'sland. 5hey sold the

goods in Aula7bula7. 5he ollowing day group again

went to Aalu7BAalu7 accompanied by iram and iyoh.

*n their way bac7 to Pilas ater selling the goods

another pumpboat approached them. iram threw a

rope to the other pumpboat which towed de Ku#man6s

pumpboat towards >ata0a 'sland. *n the way to >ata0a

'sland /ntonio de Ku#man and his companions were

divested o their money and their goods by iram

5hey were also as7ed to undress. iram with his group

7illed /ntonio?s companions but /ntonio survived theincident.

Issue: /re the accused guilty beyond reasonable

doubt o piracyG

Ruling:,-.

1. 5hat i they were the culprits they could have easily

robbed their victims at the iram house or on any o

the occasions when they were travelling together

uCce it to say that robbing the victims at iram6s

house would ma7e iram and his amily immediately

3


5/29

suspect and robbing the victims beore they had sold

all their goods would be premature. However robbing

and 7illing the victims while at sea and ater they had

sold all their goods was both timely and provided

saety rom prying eyes.

&. 5hat the accused immediately reported the incident

to the P4. 5he record does not support this assertion.

"or as the prosecution stated: 't is o important

conse!uence to mention that the witness presented bythe deense are all rom Pilas 'sland and riends o the

accused. 5hey claimed to be members o retrieving

team or the dead bodies but no P4 soldiers were ever

presented to attest this act. 5he deense may counter

why the prosecution also ailed to present the >aluso

Police @aily -vent boo7G 5his matter has been brought

by /ntonio not to the attention o the P4 or Police but

to an army detachment. 5he /rmy is 7nown to have no

doc7et boo7 so why ta7e the pain in locating the army

soldiers with whom the report was madeG

%Memorandum p. E.) /nd Judge (asul also ma7es this

observation: ... this 4ourt is pu##led assuming the

version o the deense to be true why the lone survivor/ntonio de Ku#man as having been allegedly helped by

the accused testifed against them. 'ndeed no

evidence was presented and nothing can be inerred

rom the evidence o the deense so ar presented

showing reason why the lone survivor should pervert

the truth or abricate or manuacture such heinous

crime as !ualifed piracy with triple murders and

rustrated murderG 5he point which ma7es us doubt

the version o the deense is the role ta7en by the P4

to whom the report was allegedly made by the accused

immediately ater the commission o the o2ense.

'nstead o helping the accused the P4 law

enorcement agency in 'sabela perhaps not crediting

the report o the accused or believing in the version o

the report made by the lone survivor /ntonio de

Ku#man acted consistently with the latter6s report and

placed the accused under detention or investigation.

%Expediente,pp. 1&EB1&.)

F. 5hat the aCdavits o @olores de Ku#man wie o the

deceased /nastacio de Ku#man and Primitiva de

4astro wie o the deceased (odolo de 4astro state

that /ntonio de Ku#man inormed them shortly ater

the incident that their husbands were 7illed by the

companions o iyoh and iram. 5he thrust o theappellants6 claim thereore is that +amli 'ndanan and

/ndaw Jamahali were the 7illers and not the ormer.

Aut this claim is baseless in the ace o the proven

conspiracy among the accused or as Judge (asul has

stated:

't is believed that conspiracy as alleged in the

inormation is suCciently proved in this case.

'n act the ollowing acts appear to have been

established to show clearly conspiracy: /) *n

July 13 1IEI while peddling the survivorB

witness 5ony de Ku#man noticed that near the

window o a dilapidated house both accused

were tal7ing to two %&) armed strangeBloo7ing

men at Aalu7BAalu7 'sland$ A) hen the

pumpboat was chased and overta7en the

survivorBwitness 5ony de Ku#man recogni#ed

their captors to be the same two %&) armed

strangers to whom the two accused tal7ed in

Aalu7B Aalu7 'sland near the dilapidated house

4) 5he two accused without order rom the twoarmed strangers transerred the unsold goods

to the captors6 banca$ @) 5hat 5ony de Ku#man

and companion peddlers were divested o their

0ewelries and cash and undressed while the

two accused remained unharmed or not

molested. 5hese concerted actions on thei

part prove conspiracy and ma7e them e!ually

liable or the same crime %People vs. Pedro 1asamlo7 led the

authorities to suspect that the accused had committed

a crime. 5hey were still fshing or evidence o a crime

not yet ascertained. 5he subse!uent recovery o the

sub0ect frearm on the basis o inormation rom the lips

o a rightened wie cannot ma7e the arrest lawul ' an

arrest without warrant is unlawul at the moment it is

made generally nothing that happened or is

discovered aterwards can ma7e it lawul. 5he ruit o a

poisoned tree is necessarily also tainted.

E+PULSION

,illavicencio vs Lu-.an

Facts: /bout midnight o *ctober &; the police acting

pursuant to orders rom the chie o police and the

>ayor o the city o >anila descended upon the

houses hustled some 1E inmates into patrol wagons

and placed them aboard the steamers that awaited

their arrival. 5he women were given no opportunity to

collect their belongings and apparently were under the

impression that they were being ta7en to a police

station or an investigation. 5hey had no 7nowledge

that they were destined or a lie in >indanao.

5he women were landed and receipted or as laborers

by "rancisco ales provincial governor o @avao and

by "eliciano ,igo and (aael 4astillo. 5he governo

and the hacendero,igo who appear as parties in the

case had no previous notifcation that the women were

prostitutes who had been epelled rom the city o

>anila.

E


8/29

5he attorney or the relatives and riends o a

considerable number o the deportees presented an

application orhabeas corpusto a member o the

upreme 4ourt.

Issue: 4an the mayor and chie o police epel these

womenG

Ruling: +*.

/lien prostitutes can be epelled rom the Philippine'slands in conormity with an /ct o congress. Aut one

can search in vain or any law order or regulation

which even hints at the right o the >ayor o the city o

>anila or the chie o police o that city to orce citi#ens

o the Philippine 'slands( and these women despite

their being in a sense lepers o society are

nevertheless not chattels but Philippine citi#ens

protected by the same constitutional guaranties as are

other citi#ens( to change their domicile rom >anila

to another locality. *n the contrary Philippine penal

law specifcally punishes any public oCcer who not

being epressly authori#ed by law or regulation

compels any person to change his residence.

' these oCcials can ta7e to themselves such power

then any other oCcial can do the same. /nd i any

oCcial can eercise the power then all persons would

have 0ust as much right to do so. /nd i a prostitute

could be sent against her wishes and under no law

rom one locality to another within the country then

oCcialdom can hold the same club over the head o

any citi#en.

/s to criminal responsibility it is true that the Penal

4ode in orce in these 'slands provides:

/ny public oCcer not thereunto authori#ed by

law or by regulations o a general character in

orce in the Philippines who shall banish any

person to a place more than two hundred

7ilometers distant rom his domicile ecept it

be by virtue o the 0udgment o a court shall

be punished by a fne o not less than three

hundred and twentyBfve and not more than

three thousand two hundred and fty pesetas.

/ny public oCcer not thereunto epressly

authori#ed by law or by regulation o a generalcharacter in orce in the Philippines who shall

compel any person to change his domicile or

residence shall su2er the penalty o destierro

and a fne o not less than si hundred and

twentyBfve and not more than si thousand

two hundred and ftypesetas. %/rt. &11.)

SEAR/ 0ARRANT MALIIOUSL! OBTAINE(

Stone'ill vs (io-no

Facts: 3& search warrants were issued against

petitioners herein3andNor the corporations o which

they were oCcers or violation o 4entral Aan Laws

5ari2 and 4ustoms Laws 'nternal (evenue %4ode) and

(evised Penal 4ode to search their persons andNor the

premises o their oCces warehouses andNoresidences and to sei#e and ta7e possession o the

ollowing personal property to wit:

Aoo7s o accounts fnancial records vouchers

correspondence receipts ledgers 0ournals

portolios credit 0ournals typewriters and

other documents andNor papers showing al

business transactions including disbursements

receipts balance sheets and proft and loss

statements and Aobbins %cigarette wrappers).

/lleging that the aorementioned search warrants arenull and void as contravening the 4onstitution and the

(ules o 4ourt 9 because inter alia: %1) they do not

describe with particularity the documents boo7s and

things to be sei#ed$ %&) cash money not mentioned in

the warrants were actually sei#ed$ %F) the warrants

were issued to fsh evidence against the

aorementioned petitioners in deportation cases fled

against them$ %3) the searches and sei#ures were made

in an illegal manner$ and %;) the documents papers

and cash money sei#ed were not delivered to the

courts that issued the warrants

'n their answer respondentsBprosecutors alleged


9/29

4entral Aan Laws 5ari2 and 4ustoms Laws 'nternal

(evenue %4ode) and (evised Penal 4ode. 'n other

words nospecifc o2ense had been alleged in said

applications. 5he averments thereo with respect to the

o2ense committed were abstract. /s a conse!uence it

was impossible or the 0udges who issued the warrants

to have ound the eistence o probable cause or the

same presupposes the introduction o competent proo

that the party against whom it is sought has

perormed particular acts orcommitted specifc omissions violating a given

provision o our criminal laws.

5hus the warrants authori#ed the search or and

sei#ure o records pertaining to all business

transactions o petitioners herein regardless o

whether the transactions were legal or illegal. 5he

warrants sanctioned the sei#ure o all records o the

petitioners and the aorementioned corporations

whatever their nature thus openly contravening the

eplicit command o our Aill o (ights 9 that the things

to be sei#ed be particularly described 9 as well as

tending to deeat its ma0or ob0ective: the eliminationo general warrants.

(elying upon >oncado vs. People6s 4ourt % Phil. 1)

(espondentsBProsecutors maintain that even i the

searches and sei#ures under consideration were

unconstitutional the documents papers and things

thus sei#ed are admissible in evidence against

petitioners herein. Dpon mature deliberation however

we are unanimously o the opinion that the position

ta7en in the >oncado case must be abandoned.

4iting >app vs *hio = e can no longer permit it to berevocable at the whim o any police oCcer who in the

name o law enorcement itsel chooses to suspend its

en0oyment. *ur decision ounded on reason and truth

gives to the individual no more than that which the

4onstitution guarantees him to the police oCcer no

less than that to which honest law enorcement is

entitled and to the courts that 0udicial integrity so

necessary in the true administration o 0ustice.

e hold thereore that the doctrine adopted in the

>oncado case must be as it is hereby abandoned$

that the warrants or the search o three %F) residences

o herein petitioners as specifed in the (esolution o

June &I 1I


10/29

fnding o the eistence o probable cause said

allegation cannot serve as basis or the issuance o a

search warrant and it was a grave error or respondent

0udge to have done so.

'n mandating that no warrant shall issue ecept upon

probable cause to be determined by the 0udge ... ater

eamination under oath or aCrmation o the

complainant and the witnesses he may produce$ the

4onstitution re!uires no less than personal 7nowledgeby the complainant or his witnesses o the acts upon

which the issuance o a search warrant may be

0ustifed.

/nother actor which ma7es the search warrants under

consideration constitutionally ob0ectionable is that they

are in the nature o general warrants.

@irections to sei#e any evidence in connection with

the violation o @4 1FBFEF or otherwise have been

held too general and that portion o a search warrant

which authori#ed the sei#ure o any paraphernalia

which could be used to violate ec. ;3B1IE o the

4onnecticut Keneral tatutes Qthe statute dealing with

the crime o conspiracyR was held to be a general

warrant and thereore invalid. 5he description o the

articles sought to be sei#ed under the search warrants

in !uestion cannot be characteri#ed di2erently.

OFFEN(IN3 RELI3IOUS FEELIN3S

People vs Baes

Facts: 5heaccused while holding the uneral o one

who in lie was called /ntonio >acabigtas in

accordance with the rites o religious sect 7nown as the

4hurch o 4hrist willully unlawully and criminally

caused the uneral to pass as it in act passed through

the chruchyard ronting the (oman 4atholic 4hurch

which churchyard belongs to the said 4hurch which

churchyard belongs to the said 4hurch and is devoted

to the religious worship thereo against the opposition

o the undersigned complainant who through orce

and threats o physical violence by the accused was

compelled to allow the uneral to pass through the saidchurchyard. /n act committed in grave proanation o

the place in open disregard o the religious eelings o

the 4atholics o this municipality and in violation o

article 1FF o the (evised Penal 4ode.

Issue: *+ the acts o the accused is o2ensive to

religious eelings

Ruling:,-

5he fscal in his aoresaid motion denies that the

unlawul act committed by the accused had o2ended

the religious eelings o the 4atholics o the

municipality in which the act complained o too7 place

e believe that such ground o the motion is

indeensible. /s the fscal was discussing the

suCciency o the acts alleged in the complaint he

cannot deny any o them but must admit them

although hypothetically as they are alleged. 5he

motion raises a !uestion o law not one o act.

'n the second place whether or o the act complained

o is o2ensive to the religious eelings o the 4atholics

is a !uestion o act which must be 0udged only

according to the eelings o the 4atholics and not those

o other aithul ones or it is possible that certain acts

may o2end the eelings o those who proess a certain

religion while not otherwise o2ensive to the eelings o

those proessing another aith. e thereore ta7e the

view that the acts alleged in the complaint constitute

the o2ense defned and penali#ed in article 1FF o the

(evised Penal 4ode and should the fscal fle an

inormation alleging the said acts and a trial bethereater held at which the said acts should be

conclusively established the court may fnd the

accused guilty o the o2ense complained o or that o

coercion or that o trespass under article &1 o the

(evised Penal 4ode as may be proper pursuant to

section &I o Keneral *rders +o. ;.

REBELLION

People vs /ernan%ez

Facts: /bout >arch 1; 1I3; /mado Hernande# and

other appellants were accused o conspiring

conederating and cooperating with each other as wel

as with the thirtyBone %F1) deendants charged in the

criminal cases o the 4ourt o "irst 'nstance o >anila

5hey were accused o being members o PP

4ommunity Party o the Philippines which was actively

engaged in an armed rebellion against the government

o the Philippines. ith the party o HDA/L/H/P

%Hu7bo ng Aayan Laban sa mga Hapon) they

committed the crime o rebellion causing murder

pillage looting plunder etc. enumerated in 1F attac7s

on government orces or civilians by HD.

5he government headed by the olicitor Keneral

argued that the gravity o the crime committed

re!uired the denial o bail. >oreover the comple

crime charged by the government against Hernande#

has been successully imposed with other arrested

communist leaders and was sentenced to lie

imprisonment.

1


11/29

/n appeal prosecuted by the deendants regarding the

0udgment rendered by the 4"' in >anila that rebellion

cannot be a comple crime with murder arson or

robbery.

Issue: hether or not rebellion can be compleed with

murder arson or robbery

Ruling: +*.

5he court ruled that Tmurder arson and robbery are

mere ingredient o the crime o rebellion as means

TnecessaryU or the perpetration o the o2ense. uch

common o2ense is absorbed or inherent o the crime o

rebellion. 'nasmuch as the acts specifed in /rticle 1F;

constitutes one single crime it ollows that said acts

o2er no occasion or the application o /rticle 3 which

re!uires thereore the commission o at least two

crimes.

VVV /ernan%ez %octrine: (ebellion cannot be

compleed with common crimes such as 7illings

destruction o property etc. committed on theoccasion and in urtherance thereo. 5he thin7ing is not

anymore correct more so that there is no legal basis or

such rule now. (ebellion constitutes *+L, *+- 4('>-.

VVV

Enrile vs Salazar

Facts: enate >inority "loor Leader Juan Ponce -nrile

was arrested by law enorcement oCcers led by

@irector /lredo Lim o the +ational Aureau o

'nvestigation on the strength o a warrant 'D-d by

Hon. Jaime ala#ar.

5hey charged enator -nrile the spouses (ebecco and

-rlinda Panlilio and Kregorio Honasan with the crime

o rebellion with murder and multiple rustrated murder

allegedly committed during the period o the ailed

coup attempt rom +ovember &I to @ecember 1

1II.

5he olicitor Keneral insists that petitioners? case don?t

all within Hernande# (DL'+K because inormation in

Hernande# charged murders and other common crimescommitted as necessary means or the commission o

rebellion whereas the inormation against petitioners

charged murder and rustrated murder committed on

occasion but not in urtherance o rebellion.

Issue: hether or not the Hernande# (DL'+K shall

apply

Ruling:,-.

5here is one other reason and a undamental one at

that why /rticle 3 o the Penal 4ode cannot be applied

in the case at bar. ' murder were not compleed with

rebellion and the two crimes were punished separately

%assuming that this could be done) the ollowing

penalties would be imposable upon the movant

namely: %1) or the crime o rebellion a fne not

eceeding P& and prision mayor in the

corresponding period depending upon the modiying

circumstances present but never eceeding 1& yearso prision mayor and %&) or the crime o murder

reclusion temporal in its maimum period to death

depending upon the modiying circumstances present

'n other words in the absence o aggravating

circumstances the etreme penalty could not be

imposed upon him. However under /rticle 3 said

penalty would have to be meted out to him even in

the absence o a single aggravating circumstance

5hus said provision i construed in conormity with the

theory o the prosecution would be unavorable to the

movant.

5he 4ourt reiterates that based on the doctrineenunciated in People vs. Hernande# the !uestioned

inormation fled against petitioners Juan Ponce -nrile

and the spouses (ebecco and -rlinda Panlilio must be

read as charging simple rebellion only hence said

petitioners are entitled to bail beore fnal conviction

as a matter o right. 5he 4ourt6s earlier grant o bail to

petitioners being merely provisional in character the

proceedings in both cases are ordered remanded to the

respondent Judge to f the amount o bail to be posted

by the petitioners. *nce bail is fed by said

respondent or any o the petitioners the

corresponding bail bond Mied with this 4ourt shal

become unctus ofcio. +o pronouncement as to costs.

Enrile vs A)in

Facts: /n inormation was charged against enato

Juan Ponce -nrile or having committed rebellion

compleed with murder with the (egional 5rial 4ourt o

8ue#on 4ity. /nother inormation was subse!uently

fled with the (egional 5rial 4ourt Io >a7ati charging

the ormer with a violation o Presidential @ecree +o

1&I or willully and 7nowingly obstructing or delayingthe apprehension o -. Lt. 4ol. Kregorio TKringoU

Honasan.

/llegedly enator -nrile entertained and

accommodated 4ol. Kringo Honasan by giving him

ood and comort on @ecember 1 1II in his house

and not doing anything to have Honasan arrested or

apprehended. 't was the prosecution?s contention that

harboring or concealing a ugitive is punishable under

a special law while rebellion is based on (evised Pena

4ode$ thus the two crimes can be separately punished

11


12/29

Issue: 4an a separate crime o a violation o P@ 1&I

be charged against the petitionerG

Ruling: +*.

5he upreme 4ourt used the doctrine that i a person

cannot be charged with the comple crime o rebellion

he can neither be charged separately or two di2erent

o2enses where one is a constitutive or component

element or committed in urtherance o rebellion.

't was also noted that petitioner was already acing

charges o rebellion in conspiracy with Honasan. Aeing

in conspiracy thereo the act o harboring or

concealing 4ol. Honasan is clearly a mere component

or ingredient o rebellion or an act done in urtherance

o rebellion. 't cannot be made the basis o a separate

charge.

/lso the High 4ourt reiterated that in cases o

rebellion all crimes committed in urtherance thereo

shall be absolved. Hence the other charge o rebellion

compleed with murder cannot prosper. /ll crimeswhether punishable under a special law or general law

which are mere components or ingredients or

committed in urtherance o rebellion become

absorbed and it cannot be charged as separate crimes.

Oca)po vs A.an%o

Facts: *n &< /ugust &ar7et when accused suddenly wal7ed beside

him pulled a .3; caliber gun rom his waist aimed the

gun at the policeman6s right ear and fred. 5he man

who shot Lucilo had three other companions with him

one o whom shot the allen policeman our times as he

lay on the ground. /ter ta7ing the latter6s gun the

man and his companions boarded a tricycle and Med.

1&


13/29

Issue: hether or not rebellion is the proper charge

and not murder

Ruling: +o.

@ivested o its common compleion thereore any

ordinary act however grave assumes a di2erent color

by being absorbed in the crime o rebellion which

carries a lighter penalty than the crime o murder. 'n

deciding i the crime committed is rebellion notmurder it becomes imperative or our courts to

ascertain whether or not the act was done in

urtherance o a political end. 5he political motive o

the act should be conclusively demonstrated. 't is not

enough that the overt acts o rebellion are duly proven.

Aoth purpose and overt acts are essential components

o the crime. ith either o these elements wanting

the crime o rebellion legally does not eist. 'n act

even in cases where the act complained o were

committed simultaneously with or in the course o the

rebellion i the 7illing robbing or etc. were

accomplished or private purposes or proft without

any political motivation it has been (DL'+K that thecrime would be separately punishable as a common

crime and would not be absorbed by the crime

rebellion.

People vs U)ali

Facts:5he comple crime o which appellants +arciso

Dmali et. al were ound guilty was said to have been

committed during the raid staged in the town o

5iaong 8ue#on between : and I: in the evening

o +ovember 13 1I;1 by armed men. 5he raid too7

place resulting in the burning down and complete

destruction o the house o >ayor >arcial Pun#alan

including its content valued at P&3&F$ the house o

Oalentin (obles valued at P1 and the house o

one >ortega the death o Patrolman @omingo Pisigan

and civilians Oicente oriano and Leocadio Dntalan

and the wounding o Patrolman Pedro Lacorte and fve

civilians.

@uring and ater the burning o the houses some o

the raiders engaged in looting robbing one house and

two 4hinese stores$ and that the raiders were fnallydispersed and driven rom the town by the Philippine

/rmy soldiers stationed in the town led by 4aptain

/l#ate.

Dmali and Pun#alan were old time riends who became

political rivals. Dmali thru Pasumbal contacted the

Hu7s to 7ill Pun#alan. 't would seem that Dmali and

Pasumbal had a eeling that Pun#alan was going to win

in the elections the net day and that his death was

the surest way to eliminate him rom the electoral

fght.

Issue: /re the accused liable o comple crime o

rebellion with multiple murder rustrated murder

arson and robberyG

Ruling:+*.

e are convinced that the principal and main tho not

necessarily the most serious crime committed here

was not rebellion but rather that o sedition. 5he

purpose o the raid and the act o the raiders in risingpublicly and ta7ing up arms was not eactly against

the Kovernment and or the purpose o doing the

things defned in /rticle 1F3 o the (evised Penal code

under rebellion. 5he raiders did not even attac7 the

Presidencia the seat o local Kovernment. (ather the

ob0ect was to attain by means o orce intimidation

etc. one ob0ect to wit to inMict an act o hate o

revenge upon the person or property o a public

oCcial namely Pun#alan was then >ayor o 5iaong

Dnder /rticle 1FI o the same 4ode this was suCcient

to constitute sedition. /s regards the crime o robbery

with which appellants were charged and o which they

were convicted we are also o the opinion that it wasnot one o the purposes o the raid which was mainly

to 7idnap or 7ill Pun#alan and destroy his house. 5he

robberies were actually committed by only some o the

raiders presumably dissidents as an aterthought

because o the opportunity o2ered by the conusion

and disorder resulting rom the shooting and the

burning o the three houses the articles being

intended presumably to replenish the supplies o the

dissidents in the mountains. "or these robberies only

those who actually too7 part therein are responsible

and not the three appellants herein. ith respect to the

crime o multiple rustrated murder while the assault

upon policeman Pedro Lacorte with a hand grenade

causing him in0uries resulting in his blindness in one

eye may be regarded as rustrated murder$ the

wounding o *rtega /nselo (ivano Karcia and Lector

should be considered as mere physical in0uries. 5he

crimes committed are thereore those o sedition

multiple murder arson rustrated murder and physica

in0uries.

SE(ITION

People vs a.rera

Facts: *n @ecember 1F 1I& policemen o the city o

>anila arrested a woman who was a member o the

household o a 4onstabulary soldier stationed at the

anta Lucia Aarrac7s in this city. 5he arrest o the

woman was considered by some o the 4onstabulary

soldiers as an outrage committed by the policemen

and it instantly gave rise to riction between members

o >anila police department and member o the

Philippine 4onstabulary.

1F


14/29

5he net day @ecember 13 at about sunset a

policemen named /rtemio >o0ica posted on 4alle (eal

in the @istrict o 'ntramuros city o >anila had an

encounter with various 4onstabulary soldiers which

resulted in the shooting o private >acasinag o the

4onstabulary. Private >acasinag was seriously and as

aterwards appeared mortally wounded.

*ne platoon o 4onstabulary soldiers apparently

numbering about ten or twelve on 4alle (eal'ntramuros fred in the direction o the intersection o

4alles (eal and 4abildo where an /merican policeman

named @ris7ill was stationed and was ta7ing with a

riend named Jacumin a feld cler7 in the Dnited tates

/rmy. 5hese two men were shot and died soon

aterwards.

/nother platoon o the 4onstabulary between thirty

and orty in number had in the meantime arranged

themselves in a fring line on the un7en Kradens on

the east side o 4alle Keneral Luna opposite the

/!uarium. "rom this advantageous position the

4onstabulary fred upon the motorcycle occupied byergeant /rmada and driven by policeman Policarpio

who with companions were passing along 4alle Keneral

Luna in ront o the /!uarium going in the direction o

4alle (eal 'ntramuros.

Issue: @id the accused commit seditionG

Ruling:,-.

edition in its more general sense is the raising o

commotions or disturbances in the tate. 5he

Philippine law on the sub0ect %/ct +o. &I&) ma7es all

persons guilty o sedition who rise publicly and

tumultuously in order to obtain by orce or outside o

legal methods any one o vie ob0ects including that o

inMicting any act o hate or revenge upon the person or

property o any oCcial or agent o the 'nsular

Kovernment or o Provincial or >unicipal Kovernment.

5he trial court ound that the crime o sedition as

defned and punished by the law had been committed

and we believe that such fnding is correct. 5he ob0ect

o the uprising was to inMict an act o hate or revenge

upon the persons o the policemen who were public

oCcers or employees.

Question:oes sedition absorb common crimes) NO4

Aoth in the cases o Dmali and 4abrera the accused

were ound guilty o sedition and other crimes.

US vs Tolentino

Facts:/urelio 5olentino the appellant in this case was

convicted upon an inormation charging him with the

crime o uttering seditious words and writings

publishing and circulating scurrilous libels against the

Kovernment o the Dnited tates and the 'nsula

Kovernment o the Philippine 'slands.

5olentino wrote and directed a theatrical wor7 which

was presented at the 5eatro Libertad entitled

ahapon +gayon at Au7as.

't was proven at the trial beyond a reasonable doubt

that the accused did in act write the drama and theannouncement thereo substantially as set out in the

inormation and did with other members o a

theatrical company o which he was director utter and

publish the same substantially in manner and orm as

charged.

Issue:hether in writing publishing and uttering the

drama the accused was in act guilty o seditionG

Ruling:,-.

5he maniest unmista7able tendency o the play in

view o the time place and manner o its presentationwas to inculcate a spirit o hatred and enmity against

the /merican people and the Kovernment o the Dnited

tates in the Philippines and we are satisfed that the

principal ob0ect and intent o its author was to incite

the people o the Philippine 'slands to open and armed

resistance to the constituted authorities and to induce

them to conspire together or the secret organi#ation o

armed orces to be used when the opportunity

presented itsel or the purpose o overthrowing the

present Kovernment and setting up another in its

stead.

5his contention cannot be maintained. 5he public

presentation o the drama too7 place in the month o

>ay 1IF less than two years ater the establishment

o the 4ivil Kovernment. 5he smouldering embers o a

wideBspread and dangerous insurrection were not yet

entirely etinguished and here and there throughout

the 'slands occasional outbrea7s still re!uired the use

o the armed orces o the Kovernment or thei

suppression. / 0unta in the city o Hong7ong composed

o persons whose announced purpose and ob0ect in

organi#ing was the overthrow o the presen

Kovernment was actively engaged in the endeavor to

7eep the people o these 'slands rom peaceablyaccepting the authority o that Kovernment and this

0unta acting with conederates in the Philippines was

still able to 7eep alive a certain spirit o unrest and

uncertainty which it hoped to an into open revolt and

rebellion at the frst avorable opportunity.

5he manner and orm in which the drama was

presented at such a time and under such conditions

renders absurd the pretense that it was merely or even

principally a literary or artistic production and the

clumsy devices the allegorical fgures the apparent

13


15/29

remoteness past and uture o the events portrayed

could not and in act were not intended to leave the

audience in doubt as to its present and immediate

application nor should they blind this court to the true

purpose and intent o the author and director o the

play.

5he play tended to instigate others to cabal and meet

together or unlawul purposes and to stir up people

against the lawul authorities and to disturb the peaceo the community and the saety and order o the

gov?t.

Espuelas vs People

Facts:*scar -spuelas had his picture ta7en ma7ing it

to appear as i he were hanging lieless at the end o a

piece o rope suspended orm the limb o the tree

when in truth and in act he was merely standing on a

barrel. /ter securing copies o his photograph

-spuelas sent copies o same to several newspapersand wee7lies o general circulation not only in the

Province o Aohol but also throughout the Philippines

and abroad or their publication with a suicide note or

letter wherein he made to appear that it was written

by a fctitious suicide /lberto (eveniera and addressed

to the latter6s supposed wie. 5he note contained words

that he committed suicide because he was not pleased

with tthe administration o Pres (oas$ and that our

gov6t is inested with many Hitlers and >ussolinis or

which reason he cannot hold high brows to the world

with this dirty gov6t. He instructed his children to burn

pictures o (oas i and when they come across them.

-spuelas was ound to be guilty o writing publish or

circulating scurrilous libels against the Kovernment o

the Philippines or any o the duly constituted

authorities thereo or which suggest or incite rebellious

conspiracies or riots or which tend to stir up the people

againts the lawul authorities or to disturb the peace o

the community.

Issue: ere the acts o -spuelas considered as

scurrilous libelG

Ruling:,-.

5he latter is a scurrilous libel against the Kovernment.

't calls our government one o croo7s and dishonest

persons %dirty) inested with +a#is and a "ascistis i.e.

dictators. ritings which tend to overthrow or

undermine the security o the government or to

wea7en the confdence o the people in the

government are against the public peace and are

criminal not only because they tend to incite to a

breach o the peace but because they are conducive to

the destruction o the very government itsel.

+ot to be restrained is the privilege o any citi#en to

critici#e his government oCcials and to submit his

criticism to the ree trade o ideas and to plead or its

acceptance in the competition o the mar7et.

However let such criticism be specifc and thereore

constructive reasoned or tempered and not a

contemptuous condemnation o the entire government

setBup. uch wholesale attac7 is nothing less than an

invitation to disloyalty to the government. 'n the article

now under eamination one will fnd no particularob0ectionable actuation o the government. 't is called

dirty it is called a dictatorship it is called shameul

but no particular omissions or commissions are se

orth. 'nstead the article drip with maleBviolence and

hate towards the constituted authorities. 't tries to

arouse animosity towards all public servants headed by

President (oas whose pictures this appellant would

burn and would teach the younger generation to

destroy.

/naly#ed or meaning and weighed in its conse!uences

the article cannot ail to impress thin7ing persons that

it see7s to sow the seeds o sedition and strie. 5heinuriating language is not a sincere e2ort to persuade

what with the writer6s simulated suicide and alse claim

to martyrdom and what with is ailure to particulari#e

hen the use irritating language centers not on

persuading the readers but on creating disturbances

the rationable o ree speech cannot apply and the

spea7er or writer is removed rom the protection o the

constitutional guaranty.

' it be argued that the article does not discredit the

entire governmental structure but only President (oas

and his men the reply is that article 13& punishes not

only all libels against the Kovernment but also libels

against any o the duly constituted authorities thereo.

5he (oas people in the Kovernment obviously reer

o least to the President his 4abinet and the ma0ority

o legislators to whom the ad0ectives dirty Hitlers and

>ussolinis were naturally directed. *n this score alone

the conviction could be up(DL'+K.

Question* e+ne scurrilous) currilous means low

vulgar mean or oul.

ARREST

Martinez vs Mor1e

Facts: 5he !uestion raised in these certiorar

proceedings one to which no authoritative answer has

been yielded by past decisions is the scope to be

accorded the constitutional immunity o senators and

representatives rom arrest during their attendance at

the sessions o 4ongress and in going to and returning

rom the same ecept in cases o treason elony and

1;


16/29

breach o the peace. >artine# and Aautista are

delegates o the 4onsitutional 4onvention.

5hey are both acing criminal charges. >artine# or

alsifcation o a public document and Aautista or two

inos or violation o the (evised -lection 4ode.

Petitioners invo7e their parliamentary immunity under

/rt. 13; o the (P4 or under the 4onstitutional

4onvention /ct delegates are entitled to the

parliamentary immunities o a senator or arepresentative.

hat is thus sought by petitioners >artine# y "estin

and Aautista r. is that the respective warrants o

arrest 'D-d against them be !uashed on the claim

that by virtue o the parliamentary immunity they

en0oy as delegates ultimately traceable to ection 1;

o /rticle O' o the 4onstitution as construed together

with /rticle 13; o the (evised Penal 4ode they are

immune rom arrest. 'n the case o petitioner >artine#

y "estin he is proceeded against or alsifcation o a

public document punishable by prision mayor. 1& /s or

petitioner Aautista r. the penalty that could beimposed or each o the (evised -lection 4ode o2ense

o which he is charged is not higher than prision

mayor.

Issue:/re >artine# and Aautista immune rom arrestG

Ruling:+o. 5here is to be sure a ull recognition o

the necessity to have members o 4ongress and

li7ewise delegates to the 4onstitutional 4onvention.

5hey are accorded the constitutional immunity o

senators and representatives rom arrest during their

attendance at the sessions o 4ongress and in going to

and returning rom the same ecept in cases o

treason elony and breach o the peace. 'n the case at

bar the crimes or which >artine# and Aautista were

arrested all under the category Tbreach o peaceU.

Areach o the peace covers any o2ense whether

defned by the (evised Penal 4ode or any special

statute. 5hereore >artine# and Aautista cannot invo7e

the privilege rom arrest provision o the 4onstitution.

5he above conclusion reached by this 4ourt is

bolstered and ortifed by policy considerations. 5here

is to be sure a ull recognition o the necessity to have

members o 4ongress and li7ewise delegates to the4onstitutional 4onvention entitled to the utmost

reedom to enable them to discharge their vital

responsibilities bowing to no other orce ecept the

dictates o their conscience. +ecessarily the utmost

latitude in ree speech should be accorded them. hen

it comes to reedom rom arrest however it would

amount to the creation o a privileged class without

0ustifcation in reason i notwithstanding their liability

or a criminal o2ense they would be considered

immune during their attendance in 4ongress and in

going to and returning rom the same. 5here is li7ely to

be no dissent rom the proposition that a legislator or a

delegate can perorm his unctions eCciently and well

without the need or any transgression o the crimina

law. hould such an unortunate event come to pass

he is to be treated li7e any other citi#en considering

that there is a strong public interest in seeing to it that

crime should not go unpunished.

(IRET ASSAULT

People vs Beltran

Facts: /ccusedBappellants @elfno Aeltran (ogelio

Augarin 4resencio ia#on >anuel Pu#on @omingo

Hernande# and 4eerino Aeltran were indicted o

murder and double attempted murder with direc

assault in the then 4ourt o "irst 'nstance o 4agayan.

'n the evening o January 11 1IE& -rnesto /lvarado

was bringing 4alito Drbi home in a 0eep. Passing by

the Pu#on 4ompound @elfno Aeltran shouted at them*7i ni inayo %Oulva o your mother). /ter /lvarado

had brought Drbi to his house he went to the house o

>ayor Aienvenido 8uirolgico and reported the matter

5he newly elected >ayor told the 4hie o Police that

something should be done about it.

5hey decided to go to the Pu#on 4ompound with the

intention to tal7 to @elfno Aeltran and his companions

to surrender. hen they came near the compound

they saw appellants @elfno Aeltran (ogelio Augarin

and @omingo Hernande# and suddenly there was a

simultaneous discharge o gunfre 5he mayor6s son

Oicente was hit. >ayor 8uirolgico and Patrolman

(olando 5olentino also su2ered in0uries. hen the fring

had stopped they decided to bring Oicente to the

hospital. /s the 0eep let the compound three %F) men

came out o the Pu#on 4ompound and fred at the

Meeing vehicle. 5hey were 4resencio ia#on 4eerino

Aeltran and +oling Pu#on. Li7ewise @omingo

Hernande# and >inong Aeltran and Aoy Augarin tried

to give chase. /ter a while all the si men returned

inside the compound.

/n hour ater admission to the hospital Oicente

8uirolgico died.

Issue: 's the fnding o the appellants guilty o double

attempted murder with direct assault on >ayo

8uirolgico and Patrolman (olando 5olentino correctG

Ruling: ,-.

4onsidering that >ayor 8uirolgico is a person in

authority and Pat. (olando 5olentino is a policeman

who at the time was in his uniorm and both were

perorming their oCcial duties to maintain peace and

1


17/29

order in the community the fnding o the trial court

that appellants are guilty o attempted murder with

direct assault on the persons o >ayor 8uirolgico and

Pat. 5olentino is correct.

People vs (ollantes

Facts: @ue to the approaching festa o Argy. >aglihe

5ayasan +egros *riental a dance was (DL'+K on the

evening o /pril &1 1IF. hile Argy. 4aptain >arcos

Kabutero was delivering a speech to start the dance

the accused Pedro @ollantes went to the middle o the

dancing Moor ma7ing a dance movement 7nown in the

visayan as nag7orantsa brandishing his 7nie and

challenging everyone as to who was brave among the

people present. 5he Argy. 4aptain approached Pedro

@ollantes and admonished him to 7eep !uiet and not todisturb the dance. However the accused instead o

heeding to the advice o the Aarangay 4aptain

stabbed the latter on the let arm. 'mmediately

thereater accused Hamlet @ollantes who rushed

towards the Argy. 4aptain stabbed him at the bac7 and

the other coBaccused also too7 turns in stabbing the

Argy. 4aptain who at that time was not armed. hen

the Argy. 4aptain ell to the ground and died the

accused in this case too7 turns in 7ic7ing his dead body

and were dancing around said dead body. He su2ered

eleven %11) wounds in the di2erent parts o his body

two o which happened to be at the bac7 o his dead

body. /ccording to the attending physician @r. (ogelio

ho who eamined the body o the deceased the

victim died o evere hemorrhage and cardiac

tamponade due to stab wounds.

5he accused Pedro @ollantes Hamlet @ollantes /lredo

@ollantes Lauro @ollantes >onico @ollantes idrito

Lo7esia >erlando @ollantes Hugo Krengia @anny

-steban and Leonilo Oillaester guilty o the comple

crime o assault upon a person in authority resulting in

murder.

Issue: 's the fnding o the accused guilty o the crimecharged correctG

Ruling: ,-.

5he records show that the Aarangay 4aptain was in the

act o trying to paciy Pedro @ollantes who was ma7ing

trouble in the dance hall when he was stabbed to

death. He was thereore 7illed while in the perormance

o his duties.

'n the case o People v. Hecto %1F; 4(/ 11F) this

4ourt ruled that /s the barangay captain it was his

duty to enorce the laws and ordinances within the

barangay. ' in the enorcement thereo he incurs the

enmity o his people who thereater treacherously slew

him the crime committed is murder with assault upon a

person in authority.

5usto vs A

Facts: 5he o2ended party +emesio de la 4uesta is a

duly appointed district supervisor o the Aureau o

Public chools. *n *ctober 1iss (acela as a teache

in the district o @e la 4uesta. 4aridad said that there

was no vacancy ecept that o the position o shop

teacher. Dpon hearing 4aridad?s answer

the /ppellant sharply addressed the complainant thus

Thet you are a double crosser. *ne who cannot 7eep

his promise.U

5he /ppellant then grabbed a lead paper weight rom

the table o 4aridad and challenged the o2ended party

to go out. /ppellant let 4aridad?s oCce and was

ollowed by @e la 4uesta. @e la 4uesta as7ed

the /ppellant to put down the paper weight but instead

the /ppellant grabbed the nec7 and collar o the polo

shirt o the complainant which was torn. 4ler7 4arlos

Aueno was able to separate them but not beore the

complainant had boed the /ppellant several times.

5he 4ourt o "irst 'nstance o 'locos +orte

ound Petitioner everino Justo guilty o the crime o

assault upon a person in authority which the 4ourt o

/ppeals aCrmed.

Issue: Has complainant disrobed himsel o the mantle

o authority and waived the privilege o protection as a

person in authority when he accepted the appelant?s

challenge to fght outside and ollowed the appellant

out o the room o >r. 4aridadG

Ruling: +*.

5he character o person in authority is not assumed or

laid o2 at will but attaches to a public oCcial until he

ceases to be in oCce. /ssuming that the complainant

1E


18/29

was not actually perorming the duties o his oCce

when assaulted this act does not bar the eistence o

the crime o assault upon a person in authority$ so long

as the impelling motive o the attac7 is the

perormance o oCcial duty. 5his is apparent rom the

phraseology o /rticle 13 o our (evised Penal 4ode

in penali#ing attac7s upon person in authority Twhile

engaged in the perormance o oCcial duties or on

occasion o such perormanceU the words Ton

occasionU signiying TbecauseU or Tby reasonU o thepast perormance o oCcial duty even i at the very

time o the assault no oCcial duty was being

discharged.

+o other construction is compatible with the evident

purpose o the law that public oCcials and their agents

should be able to discharge their oCcial duties without

being haunted by the ear o being assaulted or in0ured

by reason thereo.

(ELI,ER! OF PRISONERS FROM 5AIL

Al.erto vs (ela ruz

Facts: 'n 4riminal 4ase +o. I313 o the 4ourt o "irst

'nstance o 4amarines ur -ligio *rbita a Provincial

guard is prosecuted or the crime o 'nfdelity in the

4ustody o Prisoner defned and punished under

/rticle &&3 o the (evised Penal 4ode committed as

ollows:

*n eptember 1& 1Ienor and the

eecution o sentence was deerred to "eb. 1& 1I


19/29

but on this date she did not show up in court and her

arrest was ordered.

Aut she was never arrested and then on @ec. 1 1Ianila or attempted robbery

He evaded the service o said sentence by going

beyond the limits made against him and commit

vagrancy.

ISSUE: hether the lower court erred in imposing a

penalty on the accused under article 1;E o the

(evised Penal 4ode which does not cover evasion o

service o destierro.

Ruling:+*.

't is clear that the word imprisonment used in the

-nglish tet is a wrong or erroneous translation o the

phrase suriendo privacion de libertad used in the

panish tet. 't is e!ually clear that although the

olicitor Keneral impliedly admits destierro as not

constituting imprisonment it is a deprivation o liberty

though partial in the sense that as in the present case

the appellant by his sentence o destierro was deprived

o the liberty to enter the 4ity o >anila. Dnder the

case o People vs. amonte as !uoted in the brie o

the olicitor Keneral that it is clear t'at a person

un%er sentence o1 %estierro is su2ering

%eprivation o1 'is li.ert& an% escapes 1ro) t'e

restrictions o1 t'e penalt& $'en 'e enters t'e

pro'i.ite% area.

Torres vs 3onzales

Facts: 'n 1IEI ilredo . 5orres was convicted o the

crime o estaa %two counts) and was sentenced to an

aggregate prison term and to pay an indemnity.

*n 1 /pril 1IEI a conditional pardon was granted by

the President o the Philippines on condition that

petitioner would not again violate any o the pena

laws o the Philippines. hould this condition be

violated he will be proceeded against in the manner

prescribed by law. Petitioner accepted the conditiona

pardon and was conse!uently released rom

confnement.

5he Aoard resolved to recommend to the President to

cancel the conditional parole. 't showed that & counts

o -staa had been charged against petitioner which

cases were hen TP-+@'+KU trial beore (54. (ecord

also showed that petitioner was convicted o sedition

but this conviction was then TP-+@'+KU appeal beore

'ntermediate /ppellate 4ourt.

5he President cancelled the conditional pardon

Petitioner was then arrested and confned in

>untinlupa to serve unepired portion o his sentence.

Petitioner 4L/'>: that he did not violate his

conditional pardon since he has not been convicted by

"'+/L JD@K->-+5 o & counts o -staa nor edition

/lso that he was deprived o his right o due process.

Issue: hether or not 5orres violated the condition o

his pardon

Ruling: +*.

/ convict granted conditional pardon li7e the

petitioner who is recommitted >D5 A- 4*+O'45-@

A, "'+/L JD@K>-+5 o a court o the subse!uent crimecharged to him beore the criminal penalty can be

imposed upon him.

5he parolee or convict who is prosecuted as having

violated the provisions thereo must be charged

prosecuted and convicted by fnal 0udgment beore he

can be made to su2er penalty prescribed in /rticle

1;I.

1I


20/29

7UASI"REI(I,ISM

People vs (ioso

Facts: 5he & respondents /barca and @ioso having

been previously convicted by fnal 0udgment o a crime

o homicide and robbery respectively committed again

a crime while they were serving their sentence.

@ioso and /barca were members o TAatang >indanaoUgang while victims (eyno and Kome# belonged to a

group 7nown as THappy Ko Luc7yU. *ne o the bloody

clashes o these rival actions resulted in the death o

Aalerio member o Aatang >indanao.

uspecting that (eyno and Kome# had authored the

slaying the respondents decided to avenge his death.

hile the victims were sic7 and confned in prison

hospital they pretended to be sic7 and went to the

hospital to see7 admission as a patient.

5hen accused suddenly drew out their improvised

7nives and stabbed the victims.

5he 5rial 4ourt imposed death penalty upon them. 5he

accused see7 attenuationNreduction o death sentence

imposed by 54 invo7ing the circumstances o voluntary

surrender and plea o guilty.

Issue: *+ the mitigating circumstances be

considered to lower the penalty imposed

Ruling: +*.

4 ruled that it is not necessary to discuss the e2ects

o such mitigating circumstances on penalty imposed

uCce it is to say that the accused are 8D/'B

(-4'@'O'5 having committed the crime charged while

serving sentence or a prior o2ense.

/s such the maimum penalty prescribed or the new

elony is death regardless o the presence or absence

mitigatingNaggravating circumstance %alevosia) or the

complete absence thereo.

FOR3ER!

(el Rosario vs People

Facts: /ccused /polinario del (osario showed

complainant Philippine oneBpeso bills and induced

complainant to believe that the same were countereit

paper money manuactured by them although in act

they were genuine treasury notes o the Philippine

Kovernment one o the digits o each o which had

been altered and changed. Ay virtue o the

inducement /polinario succeeded in obtaining rom

complainant P1E. or the avowed purpose o

fnancing the manuacture o more countereit treasury

notes o the Philippines.

Issue:hether possession o the altered onepeso bills

constitute a violation o /rticle 1ayo

agreed to employ her. Later she was appointed cler7

to the >unicipal ecretary by the accused

/ccompanying her appointment is the certifcation o

the availability o unds issued by the accused.

't turned out however that no such und is available

and that the position o 4ler7 to the >unicipa

ecretary is not available. Aecause o this complainant

did not receive any salary. he instituted a complaint

or alsifcation.

/ccused however alleged that the statements he made

in the certifcation are conclusions o law and not

narration o acts. >oreover he had no intent to in0ure

any person and as such he cannot be held criminally

liable.

Issue: hether or not the eistence o a wrongu

intent is necessary in the case at bar

Ruling: +*.

5he eistence o a wrongul intent to in0ure a third

person is not necessary when the alsifed document is

a public document.

5he rationale or this principal distinction between

alsifcation o public and private documents has been

stated by the 4ourt in this wise: 'n the alsifcation o

public or oCcial documents whether by public oCcials

&


21/29

or private persons it is unnecessary that there be

present the 'dea o gain or the intent to in0ure a third

person or the reason that in contradistinction to

private documents the principal thing punished is the

violation o the public aith and the destruction o truth

as therein solemnly proclaimed QPeople v. Po Kio7 5o

supra at I1 citing People v. Pacana 3E Phil. 3

%1I&3)R. 'n alsifcation o public documents thereore

the controlling consideration is the public character o

a document and the eistence o any pre0udice causedto third persons or at least the intent to cause such

damage becomes immaterial QPeople v. Pacana supraR.

5his essential element o alsifcation o a public

document by public oCcer re!uires that the o2ender

abuse his oCce or use the inMuences prestige or

ascendancy which his oCce gives him in committing

the crime QD.. v. (odrigue# 1I Phil. 1; %1I11)R.

/buse o public oCce is considered present when the

o2ender alsifes a document in connection with the

duties o his oCce which consist o either ma7ing or

preparing or otherwise intervening in the preparation

o a document QD.. v. 'nosanto & Phil. FE< %1I11)$People v. antiago Dy 11 Phil. 1;I %1I;E)R as in the

case o petitioner who was charged with the duty o

issuing the certifcation necessary or the appointment

o Jesusa 4arreon.

People vs ,illalon

Facts: /ccused "ederico de Ku#man was able to

procure a loan rom a ban7. 'n order to get the loan

accused mortgage a property owned in e!ual shares by

the complainant >ariano 4arrera and his brother byvirtue o a notari#ed special power o attorney

allegedly eecuted in "ebruary ; 1I


22/29

document was their ratifcation o its contents in the

presence o said notary beore whom the said married

couple appeared. 5he deendant 4apule ehibited said

document later although he had been assured that it

was alse in a trial beore the 0ustice o the peace o

that town in the attempt to sustain his alleged right to

the said piece o land.

5he owners sold portions o the same land to two other

people. 4apule claiming to be the owners accused theowners o thet.

/niceto >aghirang denies that he sold the said land to

+icasio 4apule or that he eecuted in his avor any

document o sale stating that he had conerred a

power o attorney upon him so that he might represent

himsel and his wie who later died in a suit they had

with >aimino (eyes because o the absolute

confdence they had in the deendant 0ust as it was the

latter himsel who drew up the document that was later

signed in his stead by -ulogio *rtega because he

could not read or write$ but he denied that he or his

wie had ever been in the house o the notary 'nocente

>artine# to eecute or ratiy any document or that he

and his wie 'sabel Pili when she was alive had told

the deendant 4apule that they wished to sell the said

land and that he had o2ered to buy it.

Issue: @id 4apule commit alsifcationG

Ruling:,-.

't thereore appears to be plainly proven that the crime

o alsifcation o a document has been committed

because the deendant eecuted upon said notarialdocument o an oCcial character acts constituting

alsifcation by countereiting therein the intervention

o the married couple /niceto >aghirang and 'sabel

Pili to whom he ascribed statements di2erent rom

what they had made to him and by perverting the truth

in the narration o acts getting two persons to sign in

the name o said married couple through deceit ater

giving them to understand that the document

contained a commission or power o attorney when in

act it was a deed o sale o a piece o land the

legitimate owners whereo had never intended or

consented to its alienation.

+one o the persons who appear to have signed said

document and seem to have been present at its

eecution were inormed o its true contents because

they all confded with the greatest good aith in the

alse and deceitul statements o the deendant

believing what he said to the e2ect that said

instrument was a commission voluntarily conerred

upon him by the couple eecuting it who never

intended to eecute any document o sale o their

property to the deendant who went to the etreme o

getting a notary to certiy to its ratifcation beore him

made apparently by the alleged vendors in the

contents o the said alse document.

People vs Manansala

Facts: "eli >anansala was apprehended by 4orpora

del (osario or driving his 0eepney outside o his route.(e!uired to present his driver6s license >anansala

showed a duplicate o his 5raCc Oiolation (eport which

was previously issued to him on account o his third

traCc violation. +oticing that the 5O( had been

altered del (osario brought >anansala to the police

station or investigation.

5he alterations were ound to consist in erasing the

originally written fgure ''' and the word three and

superimposed thereon was the fgure ' and the word

one. 5he alterations made thus changed the meaning

o the said oCcial document because it was made toappear in said duplicate 5O( that >anansala only had

one pending case o traCc violation instead o three.

>anansala admitted having made the alterations in

!uestion in order to hide his pending traCc violation

cases. /t the hearing however he denied having

admitted responsibility or such alterations claiming he

did not 7now the contents o the conession but only

signed the same in order that he may be released.

Issue: 's the possessor o a alsifed document

presumed to be the author o the sameG

Ruling: ,-.

5he accused is guilty o alsifcation o a public

document mainly on the proposition that the only

person who could have made the erasure and the

superimpositions is the one who will be benefted by

the alterations this made and that he alone could

have the motive or ma7ing such alterations. Aesides

accused had a suCcient and strong motive to commit

the alsifcation. 5he policy and practice o the >P@

was proved to be to arrest a driver who commits a 3th

traCc violation instead o merely issuing to him a 5O(as is usually done or the 1st &md and Frd violation

Hence >anansala had the strongest temptation to

erase the F violation in the 5O( in !uestion and ma7e it

appear thereon that he only had committed one

violation in order to escape arrest in case o a 3th

inraction.

>anansala6s eclusive possession opportunity and

motive to alsiy the 5O( in !uestion constitute

circumstantial evidence 0ustiying the inerence

&&


23/29

%presumption o act) that the orger was himsel in the

absence o ade!uate eplanation.

USE OF FALSIFIE( (OUMENTS

US vs astillo

Facts: Pio 4astillo is one o the F cler7s in heri2

James at7in6s oCce. at7in6s blan7 chec7boo7 was

7ept in a drawer in gis o2cie and 4astillo was let alone

in the oCce he having loc7ed the same ater all the

cler7s have gone.

*n the morning o @ec & 1I; Pio 4astillo presented a

chec7 or the ;< pesos Philippine currency to 4hinese

merchant named Lim Ponso. 5he said chec7 was made

payable to bearer and purported to be drawn by one

James J. at7ins. at7ins6 signature upon said chec7

was a orgery made in imitation o the genuine

signature o James J. at7ins sheri2 o the city o 'loiloand that in act the said James J. at7ins never signed

or issued the said chec7. 4astillo was paid the su o

money5he blan7 upon which the chec7 was written

was stolen rom a boo7 o blan7 chec7s.

5he trial court ound 4astillo not guilty o alsifcation

but guilty o the crime o 7nowingly using with intent to

gain a alsifed mercantile document.

Issue: @oes the uttering o a orged document prove

that the utterer is author o the sameG

Ruling:,-.

' the utterance o such document is uneplained it is

strong evidence that the utterer himsel orged the

instrument or caused it to be orged. 5he 4 held that

4astillo is guilty o alsifcation as charged.

"or the purposes o this case it is not necessary to

hold and we do not hold that the mere act that the

accused uttered the chec7 in !uestion is proo o the

act that he also orged it or caused it to be orged but

we do hold that the utterance o such an instrument

when uneplained is strong evidence tending to

establish the act that the utterer either himsel orged

the instrument or caused it to be orged and that this

evidence ta7en together with the urther evidence set

out above and brought out on the trial o the case

establishes the guilt o the accused o the crime with

which he was charged beyond a reasonable doubt.

5he uttering may be so closely connection with the

orgers that it becomes when so accomplished

probable proo o complicity in the orgery.

't has been decided nevertheless that possession o

a orged instrument by a person claiming under it is

strong evidence tending to prove that he orged it or

caused it to be orged. 'n several 0urisdiction it has

been held that one ound in the possession o a orged

order issued in his own avor is presumed either to

have orged it or procured it to be orged.

%+*5 '+ 5H- 4/- AD5 D+@-( /(5. 1E&) -lements

which would @--> the utterer as the author:

1.) 5he use was so closely connected in time with the

alsifcation$

&.) 5he user had the capacity o alsiying the

document.

'n the case at bar 4astillo was in J. at7in6s oCce on

the night o @ec 1 and early in the morning o @ec &

5he orged mercantile document was presented on the

morning o @ec &. 4astillo was also one o the F cler7s

assigned by at7ins and was the one who loc7ed thedoor on the night o @ec 1. /s the uttering o the chec7

was so closely connected in time with the orging

4astillo should be considered the orger thereo.

People vs4 (ava

Facts:*n *ctober 1I 1IE; while driving a car along

haw Aoulevard >andaluyong (i#al petitione

>ichael 5. @ava then holder o nonBproessiona

driver6s license +o. 13E33&E 1 with oCcial receipt +o

E&FFE bumped pedestrians Aernadette (oas

4lamor and @olores -. (oas causing death to the

ormer and physical in0uries to the latter.

@ava6s driver6s license was confscated and submitted

to the fscal6s oCce in Pasig (i#al.

*n /pril 1& 1IE /ntonio (oas the brother o

Aernadette and the ather o @olores saw @ava driving

a maroon Ool7swagen %beetleBtype) car. nowing that

@ava6s driver6s license was used as an ehibit in court

and that no traCc violation receipt had been issued to

@ava (oas sought the help o then >inister o

@eense Juan Ponce -nrile in apprehending @av

criminal law ii digest (title 1 to 4)

Documents