Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 42

CASE 1 Dalmacio Lagnason lead a band of armed men in the province of

LAUREL v. MISA Occidental Negros campaigning through its Northern part against
77 PHIL 856 the United States Government. He was captures in a fight. 20 of his
men died. He and some of his men were captured. Rifles, bolos,
FACTS: daggers were confiscated from them. They wore black shirts, white
Laurel was charged with treason during the Japanese occupation. pantaloons and black caps.
He claims that he cannot be tried for treason since his allegiance to
the Philippines was suspended at that time. Also, he claims that he ISSUE: W/N the crime was treason?
cannot be tried under a change of sovereignty over the country
since his acts were against the Commonwealth which was replaced HELD:
already by the Republic.
YES. Engaging in a rebellion and giving it aid and comfort amounts
ISSUE: W/N absolute allegiance of the citizens suspended during Japanese to a levying of war within the meaning of section 1 of Act No. 292,
occupation? no matter how vain and futile the attempt. The crime of rebellion
and insurrection constitute treason, but when the treason consists
HELD/RATIO: in engaging in an insurrection or rebellion it is to be punished in
accordance with section 3 of Act No. 292.
Laurel was found guilty. A citizen owes absolute and permanent
allegiance to his government or sovereign. No transfer of DISSENTING:
sovereignty was made; hence, it is presumed that the Philippine
government still had the power. Moreover, sovereignty cannot be The crime of treason and the crime of rebellion are distinct and
suspended; it is either subsisting or eliminated and replaced. separate offenses; they are crimes of the same class, but differ in
Sovereignty per se wasnt suspended; rather, it was th e exercise magnitude and gravity. If the intention is to utterly overthrow the
of sovereignty that was suspended. Thus, there is no suspended Government the offense is treason, but if it is simply to obstruct
allegiance. Regarding the change of government, there is no such and resist the authority of the United States or the Government of
change since the sovereign the Filipino people is still the same. the Philippine Islands" the offense is rebellion or insurrection.
What happened was a mere change of name of government, from
Commonwealth to the Republic of the Philippines. CASE 3
PEOPLE VS. PEREZ
DISSENT: 83 PHIL 314

During the long period of Japanese occupation, all the political FACTS:
laws of the Philippines were suspended. Thus, treason under the Seven counts of treason were filed against Susano Perez aka Kid
Revised Penal Code cannot be punishable where the laws of the Perez, the accused, for recruiting, apprehending, and
land are momentarily halted. Regarding the change of sovereignty, commandeering women (Eriberta Ramo, Eduarda Daohog, Eutiquia
it is true that the Philippines werent sovereign at the time of the Lamay, and Flaviana Bonalos) against their will to satisfy the
Commonwealth since it was under the United States. Hence, the immoral purpose and sexual desire of Colonel Mini, and other
acts of treason done cannot carry over to the new Republic where Japanese of Officers.
the Philippines are now indeed sovereign.
ISSUE: W/N furnishing of woman for immoral purpose to enemy was
treason?
CASE 2
U.S. VS LAGNASON HELD:
3 PHIL 495 NO. The act of the accused of providing the enemies with women
and entertainment, boosting their (the enemies) morale and
FACTS: making their lives more pleasant, is not treason. Sexual and social
relations with the Japanese did not directly and materially tend to

1
improve their war efforts or weaken the power of the government.
Any favourable effect toward the Japanese that the accused might CASE 6
have made was trivial, imperceptible and unintentional. Intent of People vs. Alvero
disloyalty is a vital ingredient in the crime of treason, which in the G.R. L-820
absence of admission may be gathered from the nature and EN BANC
circumstances of each case. In this particular case, it was not
evident that the intent of the accused in providing the enemies with Facts:
women was to help them overthrow the government. Alvero on counts of Political, Economic, and Military collaboration
allegedly supported the Japanese campaign in the Philippines.
CASE 4 Alvero supplied motor and automobile equipments to the Japanese.
PEOPLE VS. ADRIANO Alvero adhered to the advocacy of the Japanese and even called
78 PHIL 560 himself their servant. Alvero was a major figurehead in the Makapili
TUASON, J.: group. He was convicted of treason by the Peoples Court.

Facts: Issue: Whether or not to affirm the conviction.


Allegedly appellant was a member of the Makapili group during Held:
World War 2.The Makapili is an armed group of Filipinos which Yes as his diary and sales of equipment and among others heavily
sided with the Japanese and committed hostilities against their shows his guilt and his adherence to the Japanese.His denial holds
fellow countrymen. After the war, the Peoples Court convicted the no weight since it was unsubstantiated. The decision is affirmed.
appellant for treason.

Issue: Whether or not the conviction of the appellant for treason the CASE 8
Peoples Court made was correct. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JOSE Luis GODINEZ
[No. L895. December 81, 1947]
Held:
No. Absent two witnesses to testify this claim of treason in which FACTS:
the law strictly applies, the appellant was acquitted. 1. Jose Godinez was a shipmaster in the Philippine coastwise
trade before the Pacific War.
2. He rendered service to the Japanese Navy as their Pilor in
CASE 5 bringing their ships into harbor and otherwise performing work
PEOPLE VS. ROBLE connected with navigation. He was paid monthly salaries.
G.R. NO. L-433 3. The prosecution said that such acts gave aid and comfort
TUASON, J: to the enemies, but Godinez denied the allegation stating that he
was threaten by the Japanese that if he do not render his service
FACTS: he or his family could be killed.
Roble did allegedly 3 acts which justified his conviction in the lower 4. The prosecution, on the other hand, said that there was
court for complex crime of treason with murder. Lead a group of no imminent danger to his life because some of other merchant
Pro Japanese Filipinos and killed a guerrilla supporter. Lead a group officer succeeded in evading service to the Japanese and were not
to torture a guerrilla supporter which led to the latters death. molested.
Detained and killed an alleged member if the guerrilla 5. Moreover, he was accused of helping to the Japanese
Issue: Whether or not the conviction of complex crime of treason with together with criminal intention" to betray render him guilty of
murder is correct. treason.
Held:
No. It is not correct for murder is absorbed in the crime if
treason.Thus the court modifies this as treason with aggravating ISSUE: WON the prosecution is correct in asserting that Jose Godinez did
circumstance of ignominy. commit the crime of treason by rendering his service to the
Japanese.
2
RULING:
No. It was not demonstrated, however, that the other seamen
were surrounded by the same circumstances of herein indictee, as HELD:
to family members, means of evasion, personal relations or No. The execution of some of the guerrilla suspects mentioned in
conditions, etc., all of which necessarily affected any decision to these counts and the infliction of physical injuries on others are not
serve or not to serve. It may be that such marine officers were not offenses separate from treason. Under the Philippine treason law
pressed by the Japanese precisely because the herein accused and and under the United States continuation defining treason, after
others (Eduardo Gonzales, Marcelo Ayesa) had consented to render which the former was patterned, there must concur both
pilotage service. adherence to the enemy and giving him aid and comfort one
Those who refused to cooperate, in the face of danger, without the other does not make treason.
were patriotic citizens; but it does not follow that the faintheart, Where murder or physical injuries are charged as an
who gave in, were traitors. Moreover, Mere governmental work element of treason, they become identified with the latter crime
under the Japanese regimeand pilotage service may be and cannot be the subject of a separate punishment, or used in
considered in the same lightdoes not constitute per se indictable combination with treason to increase the penalty as article 48 of
disloyalty. Lastly, it is hard to believe appellant wished the defeat the Revised Penal Code provides. This rule would not, of course,
of our allies, because he had two sons in the guerrilla forces. preclude the punishment of murder or physical injuries as such if
the government should elect to prosecute the culprit specifically for
those crimes instead of relying on them as an element of treason.
CASE 9 It is where murder or physical injuries are charged as overt acts of
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EDUARDO PRIETO (alias EDDIE treason that they cannot be regarded separately under their
VALENCIA) general denomination.
JANUARY 29, 1948 The use of torture and other atrocities on the victims
instead of the usual and less painful method of execution will be
FACTS: taken into account to increase the penalty under the provision of
1. Eduardo Prieto pleaded guilty on counts 1, 2, 3, and 7 among the 7 article 14, paragraph 21, of the Revised Penal Code. However,
counts of treason that was filed against him in the Peoples Court. there being an aggravating circumstance and a mitigating
2. The lower court convicted him of the crime of treason complexed circumstance, the penalty to be imposed is reclusin perpetua.
by murder and physical injuries, with aggravating circumstances.
3. On counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 it was shown that Prieto aided the
Japanese soldiers when he acted as the Japanese soldiers CASE 10
informer and agent, when he accompanied them in apprehending PEOPLE VS LABRA
different guerrillas and when he participated in torturing and killing
the guerilla. FACTS: The evidence has conclusively shown that appellant Pablo Labra,
4. Prieto tortured and killed guerrilla in the following manner: (1) he being a Filipino citizen, in biolagion of his allegiance to the
tied the hands of Abraham Puno then gave him fist blows and Commonwealth of the Philippines, adhered to the empire of Japan
placed a red hot iron on his body; (2) he also gave fist blows on and gave it aid and comfort by acting as an agent of the Kempei
the face and other parts of the body to Mariano Ponce; (3) he also Tai, the Japanese Military Police. His main activity was arresting,
tied the hands of Damian Alilin and Santiago Alilin with rope, investigating and torturing guerillas. He took part in the arrest of
tortured and detained them, and thereafter he killed them with a one Tomas Abella, a guerilla suspect who was later beheaded and
bayonet; and (4) he tortured Antonio Soco and the killing of Gil one Nicolas Tudtud who was found dead in a seashore.
Soco for guerrilla activities. The lower court found appellant guilty of treason and of the murder
of Tomas Abella.

ISSUE: WON the lower court is correct is convicting Eduardo Prieto of the Issue: whether or not appellant was guilty of murder
crime of treason complexed by murder and physical injuries, with
aggravating circumstances. Held: No. The lower court erred in finding appellant guilty of the murder
of Tomas Abella. The arrest and killing of Tomas Abella is alleged in
3
court three of the information, as one of the elements of the crime men and Japanese soldiers in the 'zonification' of the different
of treason for which appellant is prosecuted. Such element barrios in search of guerilla suspects. The accused and his
constitutes a part of the legal basis upon which appellant stands companions arrested about 267 male residents, suspected of being
convicted of treason. The killing of Tomas Abella cannot be guerrillas, and herded them together in a place which was
considered as legal ground for convicting appellant of any crime afterwards surrounded by armed men and Japanese soldiers, and
other than treason. having thus confined the 267 guerrilla suspects and illegally and
arbitrarily having deprived them of their freedom, carried out the
CASE 11 purpose and plans of the enemy.
PEOPLE VS ALBANO
The only question of fact presented in the appeal is the
Facts: Benjamin Albano, at that time a sergeant in the Bureau of participation of the appellants in the "zoning" above described.
Constabulary of the puppet government, was charged with treason.
There is enough evidence, in accordance with the two-witness rule As to the participation of Leon Gutierrez the witness Julita Gregorio
that the accused together with his men, arrested some suspects of testified that she saw the said appellant between 6 and 7 o'clock in
being involve in the guerillas. The suspects denied such allegations the morning of December 1, 1944, arresting and driving the male
but the accused was charged with treason but he contended that residents towards Tipas and that he was among those who went to
he was merely following orders and that the prosecution failed to her store that morning and took her husband along. No one,
establish adherence to the enemy and rendering of aid and however, corroborated this testimony.
comfort.

Issue: whether or not Albano is guilty of treason The same defect is to be noted in the testimony of the witnesses
against the appellant Felipe. Maria Umali Ramos testified that this
Held: Yes. The contention of Albano is without merit because the words appellant was one of those who took her husband from their
and deeds of appellant clearly eXhibit such adherence and house. But no one corroborated her on this point.
assistance to the toe. Possibly, under certain circumstances,
members of the police force during the occupation who merely ISSUE: Whether of not the accused should be convicted of treason absent
urged guerillas to keep the peace and stop their activities did not the corroboration to a witness testimony
commit treason; but when it is shown by evidence that said officer
were not content to render lip service to the enemy in making pleas
for public orders, but went further and torture their own HELD:
countrymen who were guerillas, a verdict of guilt must inevitably
be returned. No. The rule is that every act, movement, deed and word of the
defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the
testimony of two witnesses. The two-witness rule must be adhered
CASE NO. 14 to as to each and every one of all the external manifestations of
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FELIPE REYES the overt act in issue and each of the two- witnesses must testify
No. L-1624 January 18, 1950 to the whole of the overt act; or if it is. Separable, there must be
REYES, J. two witnesses to each part of the overt act.

FACTS:
CASE NO. 15
December 1, 1944, in the different barrios of the Municipality of PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. TIBURCIO ALITAGTAG
Taguig, Rizal the accused, acting as informer or agent of the NO. L-924. AUGUST 30, 1947
Japanese Forces in the Philippines, for the purpose of giving and
with the intent to give aid and/or comfort to the enemy, with the FACTS:
aid of a group of armed men and Japanese soldiers who afforded
him (them) impunity, guided and accompanied a group of armed
4
Tiburcio Alitagtag was prosecuted in the People's Court charged that its aims were as stated in the preamble and purposes of its by-
with treason on three counts. Briefly it is alleged (1) that on laws, Exhibit A-1; that it was a body of men recruited and armed
February 4, 1945, in Santa Rosa, Laguna, the accused participated chiefly for the purpose of warfare and placed itself at the disposal
in the arrest and execution of Augusto Ramirez, a guerrilla suspect; of the enemy; that it received military training and instruction from
(2) that on the same day the accused took part in the arrest of one Japanese military personnel and was equipped by the invaders for-
Canuto Velandres and two others who are still unknown; and (3) combat; that Filipinos joined that association and rendered service
that in the month of December, 1944, the accused enlisted and in furtherance of the above objectives, fighting side by side with
served as a member of the Makapilis and retreated with Japanese the Japanese, commandeering supplies for the latter, and in many
troops upon the approach of the American and guerrilla forces. instances excelling their overlords in the commission of atrocities
against their own countrymen in a campaign to suppress what they
The Peoples Court declared that the overt acts described in counts and the Japanese regarded as subversive acts.
2 and 3 had not been duly proven. However, the court considered
the evidence adduced on the third countthat the defendant was a APPOINTMENT OR ENLISTMENT IN MAKAPILI ORGANIZATION,
Makapiliproof of adherence to the enemy. How PROVED.Appointment or enlistment in that organization
need not be established by direct testimony. It may be inferred
(There is clear evidence that the defendant's associates were from the surrounding circumstances. A person who acted as and
Makapilis, and two witnesses, Dichoso and Perez, swore that the was actually engaged in the work of a Makapili, bearing arm,
accused was also a Makapili. Although the statements of these wearing Makapili or Japanese uniform, drilling under Japanese
witnesses do not tally as to the occasion when they saw the military officers, taking part in the rounding up and execution of
defendant render service or perform duties as a Makapili, and guerrillas, joining the Japanese in their retreat, and the like, such
though the statements do not meet the two-witness requirement as person is presumed to have been regularly inducted. It is presumed
proof of giving aid and comfort to the enemy, they nevertheless are that things have happened according to the ordinary course of
competent and sufficient proofs of adherence. nature and the ordinary habits of life.

Adherence, unlike overt acts, need not be proved by the oaths of


two witnesses. Criminal intent and knowledge may be gathered CASE NO. 16
from the testimony of one witness, or from the nature of the act or PEOPLE VS. ROSAS
from the circumstances surrounding the act. ) NO. L-2958
TUASON, J.:
ISSUE: Whether or not the appellant could be convicted absent the two
witness testimony regarding his adherence to give aid to the Facts:
enemy. 1. Patricio Rosas was found guilty for 3counts of treason for which he
was sentenced to life imprisonment.
2. Counts 1 and 3 are general allegations of the same overt acts
HELD: averred in count 5, except as to the charge of looting and arson,
which is laid in count 3 but not in count 5, hence, these three
Yes. Adherence, unlike overt acts, need not be proved by the oaths counts may still be reduced to one.
of two witnesses. Criminal intent and knowledge may be gathered 3. Two witnesses, Dionisia Igamin and Maria Empalmado, testified
from the testimony of one witness, or from the nature of the act or count 5, the rest of the prosecution witnesses' testimony having
from the circumstances surrounding the act. reference to counts 1 and 3.

JUDICIAL NOTICE OF MAKAPILI ORGANIZATION AND ITS Issue: Whether or not the two-witness rule has been complied with in this
PURPOSES.Judicial notice may be taken of the existence and case?
purposes of the Makapili organization as matters of public notoriety
and interest and as part of contemporary history. The courts knew Ruling:
as historical facts that the Makapili association was organized under
the sponsorship. direction and supervision of the Japanese army;
5
No. The evidence on the charge that the appellant was a Makapili
has not been proved by the requisite two-witnesses rule. The CASE 18
witnesses have corroborated each other on the material points of PEOPLE VS. LOL-LO AND SARAW
this feature of the accusation. The trial judge himself states that
the evidence presented to show that the defendant joined and
enlisted in the Makapili organization "falls short, strictly speaking, Facts:
of the necessary legal requirement." Nevertheless, the testimony is Two boats left Matuta and Peta, a dutch possession. On their way,
valid and sufficient proof of adherence to the enemy. their boat has been surrounded by six vintas manned by 24 moros
all armed. They get all the cargos in the boats and attach some of
CASE NO. 17 the men and brutally violated the women by methods too horrible
US VS FRANCISCO BAUTISTA, ET.AL. to describe. The moros including Lol-lo and Saraw take the women
NOV. 3, 1906 who were brutally violated. Upon arriving at their destination, the
CARSON, J.: women were able to escape. When Lol-lo and Saraw returned
home, they were arrested and charged with the crime of piracy.
Facts:
Issue: Whether or not Lol-lo and Saraw were guilty as charged
1. Francisco Bautista, Aniceto de Guzman, and Toms Puzon were
convicted of the crime of conspiracy to overthrow, put down, and Held:
destroy the government. Yes, Lol-lo and Saraw are guilty as charged. The proven facts
2. Evidence shows that a junta was organized and a conspiracy cannot be disputed. All of the elements of the crime of piracy are
entered into by a number of Filipinos for the purpose of present. Piracy is robbery or forcible defredation on the high seas,
overthrowing the government by force of arms and establishing without lawful authority and done animo furendi and in the spirit
Repblica Universal Democrtica Filipina. and intention of universal hostility. In the given case, the crime of
3. Francisco Bautista is an intimate friend of Artemio Ricarte, the chief piracy us proven. Hence, death penalty was imposed to Lol-lo for
of the military forces to be organized; that Ricarte wrote and the crime committed with aggravating circumstance and life
notified Bautista of his coming in Manila; and that Bautista took imprisonment is sentenced to Saraw.
part and was present in several meetingswhereat the plans of the
conspirators were discussed.
CASE 19
4. Tomas Puzon had an agency with the prime leader of the SANTOS VS. MISA
movement; that Puzon held several conferences with such prime GR NO. L-319, MARCH 28, 1946
leader; that Puzon accepted the commission and voluntarily united
himself and undertook to do his part in organizing. Facts:
The petitioner Go Tian Tek Santos, is a Chinese citizen who was
Issue: Whether or not Bautista, de Guzman, and Puzon is in conspiracy to apprehended by the Counter Intelligence Corps of the US Army and
overthrow the government? was turned over to the Commonwealth Government and was
thereafter, detained. He is claiming that such detention was illegal
Ruling: as he owes allegiance neither to the United States nor to the
Commonwealth Government of the Philippines. Hence, the present
No. The fact that the accused accepted the appointment is taken petition.
into consideration merely as evidence of his criminal relations with
the conspirators. In the first of these cases the United States vs. Issue: whether or not Go Tian Tek Santos is guilty of the crime espionage
De los Reyes the accused was charged with treason, and the
court found that the mere acceptance of a commission by the Held:
defendant, nothing else being done either by himself or by his Yes. Go Tian Sek Santos is guilty of the crime espionage. As the
companions, was not an "overt act" of treason within the meaning record states, the petitioner must be deemed a Chinese subject.
of the law. The Commitment Order No. 291 issued by the US Army authorities

6
describes him as such. But he is not entitled to liberty now. His On February 17, 2000, he went to Buenas Market, Manggahan
foreign state does not exclude him ipso facto from the scope of the Pasig with his neighbor, Marlon David, to talk to Raymundo Reyes who
said law. As stated by the OSG, he might be prosecuted for was to pay his indebtedness. While in the parking space, several armed
espionage, a crime not conditioned by the citizenship of the men suddenly appeared and shouting at them to open the door of the
offender and considered as an offense against national security. vehicle. He and his neighbor were forced out of the vehicle with one of
the armed men bringing out a plastic shopping bag of SM and asking
CASE 24 them where the bag did, containing shabu came from. When he
People vs. Rolando Delos Reyes and Raymundo Reyes answered hindi ko alam they were blind folded and forcibly taken to
GR. No. 174774 the groups vehicle and continuously asked who the source of shabu
August 31, 2011 was. When delos Reyes blindfold was removed he found himself at
Camp Bagong Diwa.
Leonardo-De Castro, J.:
He claims that he was arrested in Brgy. Manggahan, Pasig City and
Facts: not in the Whistletop Restaurant and Bar. Emmanuel de Claro presented
1. February 17, 2000 - Accused appellants, Rolando Botong delos Reyes, a blotter from the barangay containing the incident report made by
Raymundo Mac-Mac Reyes, Emmanuel Cocoy de Claro, Mary Jane delos Reyes wife that her husband and her nephew went missing on
Lantion-Tom, were all arrested for illegal possession, sale, delivery, February 17, 2000 and were arrested by unknown armed men in
distribution and transportation of shabu. Buenas Market, Manggahan, Pasig City.
2. The Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) found probable cause to indict
appellants. Emmanuel de Claro and his common-law-wife Mary Jane Lantion-Tom
3. March 7, 2000- Insisting on their innocence, delos Reyes, de Claro and (Counter Affidavit)
Lantion-Tom moved for reinvestigation of the case which the trial court
granted. They claim that they were at the Whistletop to talk to Lantion-
4. After reinvestigation, OCP recommended that the RTC proceed with the Toms accountant regarding the business permit. They were with
indictment of accused-appellant Reyes and de Claro and dismiss the Emmanuels brother, Roberto and a friend James who were waiting for
charges against delos Reyes and Lantion-Tom. them outside.Lantion-Tom went to accompany the accountant while
5. Charges against Lantion-Tom was dismissed. Emmanuel was left inside the restaurant.When the accountant left,
6. These were the versions presented during the preliminary investigation Lantion-Tom was suddenly surrounded by armed men who introduced
and reinvestigation. themselves as police officers and were arresting them for being the
source of shabu drug deal. Roberto and James were likewise arrested
Arresting Officers but released on the following day.

On February 17, 2000, a confidential informant called up relative to 7. Both respondents maintain that the allegations of the arresting officers
a drug deal to commence at the parking area of Shangrila hotel. At as to the circumstances on the alleged drug deal leading to their
2pm, they met with the confidential informant and positioned arrest are unfounded and purely fabricated.
themselves at the area. At 10pm, Reyes and delos Reyes arrived 8. April 4, 2000 - RTC: Probable cause exists not only against Reyes and
separately (on board different cars) and subsequently went inside de Claro but with delos Reyes as well.
Whistletop Bar and Restaurant. Delos Reyes was calling de Claros 9. The prosecution presented the testimonies of the members of the
cellular phone. Delos Reyes and De Claro went to the latters car where Regional Mobile Group of the Philippine National Police (PNP) NCR
Lantion-Tom was waiting. A transparent plastic bag was taken and Police office and the forensic chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory.
handed over to delos Reyes and in turn handed it to Reyes. The officers
accosted the accused respondents. According to the officers, the P03 Santiago
accused respondents have admitted that in their possession was illegal Their team leader sensed that the drug deal had already been
drugs. consummated so the police team immediately effected the arrest of the
suspected drug dealers. On cross-examination PO3 Santiago admitted
Rolando delos Reyes (Sinumpaang Salaysay) that he did not actually see what was inside the plastic bag and that he did not
even see delos Reyes hand over such plastic bag to Reyes. From his
7
position, he could not conclude that the suspects were committing and According to the CA, the police officers testimonies deserve credence
illegal drug deal as he has no prior knowledge of the contents of the plastic than accused appellants defenses of denial and alibi. There was no
bag and that he and the other arresting officers just relied on the information evidence to rebut the presumption that the police officers regularly
relayed by the confidential informant. performed their official duties.
15. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for final review.
SPO1 Lectura
Upon meeting with the confidential informant, he conducted a short Issue: Whether or not the search and seizure made by the officers without a
briefing and then positioned his team within the vicinity. When he sensed warrant is valid
that the drug deal had been consummated, he decided to arrest the
suspects. He arrested Reyes from whom he seized white plastic bag. During Ruling: No. It is invalid. The Supreme Court grant the appeal and reverse the
cross examination he denied that Marlon David was with Rolando when the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals.
latter was arrested but he later admitted that the police also arrested
Marlon David. He acknowledged that his team heavily relied on the Search and seizure may be made without a warrant and the evidence
information given by the confidential informant in identifying the suspects in the obtained therefrom may be admissible in the following instances: (1) search
illegal drug deal. incident to a lawful arrest; (2) search of a moving motor vehicle; (3) search in
violation of customs laws; (4) seizure of evidence in plain view; (5) when the
PO3 Yumul accused himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and seizures;
He narrated same version of events as that of PO3 Santiago and and (6) stop and frisk situations.
SPO1 Lectura
The first exception (search incidental to a lawful arrest) includes a valid
SPO1 David (investigator at the intelligence and investigation section) warrantless search and seizure pursuant to an equally valid warrantless arrest
He received a plastic bag containing a box with sachets of which must precede the search. In this instance, the law requires that there be
suspected shabu. He was told by Lectura that the articles were seized first a lawful arrest before a search can be made - the process cannot be
from the suspected drug dealers. He said that he prepared the affidavit of reversed. As a rule, an arrest is considered legitimate if effected with a valid
arrest of the arresting officers. warrant of arrest.

P/Insp. Cruto (forensic chemist) The Rules of Court, however, recognizes permissible warrantless arrests.
He conducted physical examination of the seized sachets. All tested Thus, a peace officer or a private person may, without warrant, arrest a person:
positive for shabu. (a) when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense (arrest in flagrante delicto);
10. RTC: accused-appellants and Emmanuel de Claro were found guilty (b) when an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to
beyond reasonable doubt and was sentenced life imprisonment. believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person
11. Emmanuel asked the RTC to review its judgment of conviction. He to be arrested has committed it (arrest effected in hot pursuit); and (c) when the
contended that the accusations that he was engaging in illegal drug person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment
deal was suspicious, if not credible. He argued that that the prosecution or a place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his
failed to contradict his well-supported alibi so they could attend to case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to
several documents pertaining to a business permit. He insisted that the another (arrest of escaped prisoners).
RTC should have highly regarded accused-appellant Rolando delos
Reyes testimony which directly contradicted the police officers. It is evident that the police officers arrested accused-appellants and
12. RTC acquitted de Claro of the crime charged. The RTC explicitly searched the latters persons without a warrant after seeing delos Reyes and de
admitted that it erred. Claro momentarily conversing in the restaurant, and witnessing the white plastic
13. There were pending notices of appeal of accused-appellants of which bag with a box or carton inside being passed from Lantion-Tom to Emmanuel de
records of the case were forwarded to the Supreme Court. Case was Claro, to accused-appellant Rolando delos Reyes, and finally, to accused-
forwarded by the SC to the Court of Appeals for proper action and appellant Reyes.
disposition.
14. CA sustained conviction of appellants including de Claro. Merely These circumstances, however, hardly constitute overt acts indicative of a
modified the penalty from life imprisonment to reclusion perpetua. felonious enterprise. SPO1 Lectura, PO3 Santiago, and PO3 Yumul had no prior
8
knowledge of the suspects identities, and they completely relied on their 6. Respondent Judge Angelito C. Salanga granted the motion to quash on
confidential informant to actually identify the suspects. None of the police finding that Tuvera, Sr. was not a public officer who can be charged
officers actually saw what was inside that box. with Arbitrary Detention.
7. The public officers liable for Arbitrary Detention must vested with
There is also no evidence that the confidential informant himself knew that authority to detain or order the detention of persons accused of crime.
the box contained shabu. No effort at all was taken to confirm that the arrested Such public officers are the policemen and other agents of the law, the
suspects actually knew that the box or carton inside the white plastic bag, seized judges or mayors.
from their possession, contained shabu. The police officers were unable to 8. Respondent Judge did not consider private Tuvera as public officer.
establish a cogent fact or circumstance that would have reasonably invited their
attention, as officers of the law, to suspect that accused-appellants, Emmanuel Issue:
de Claro, and Lantion-Tom has just committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit a crime, particularly, an illegal drug deal. Whether or not Tuvera, Sr., a barrio captain, is a public officer who can be
liable for the crime of Arbitrary Detention
Fallo:
Ruling:
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated July 12, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01733 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused- Yes. Arbitrary Detention is committed by a public officer who, without legal
appellants Rolando delos Reyes and Raymundo Reyes are ACQUITTED on the grounds, detains a person. The elements of this crime are the following:
ground of reasonable doubt and they are ORDERED forthwith released from
custody, unless they are being lawfully held for another crime.
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee.
SO ORDERED.
2. That he detains a person.

CASE 25 3. That the detention is without legal grounds.


Milo vs. Salanga
20 July 1987 Long before Presidential Decree 299 was signed into law, barrio lieutenants
(who were later named barrio captains and now barangay captains) were
Gancayco, J.: recognized as persons in authority.

Facts: Under Republic Act No. 3590, otherwise known as The Revised Barrio
1. An information for Arbitrary Detention was filed against Juan Tuvera, Charter, the powers and duties of a barrio captain include the following: to
Sr., Tomas Mendoza and Rodolfo Mangsat in the Court of First Instance. look after the maintenance of public order in the barrio and to assist the
2. Tuvera, Sr., who is a barangay captain, with the aid of some other municipal mayor and the municipal councilor in charge of the district in the
private persons, maltreated one Armando Valdez by hitting with butts of performance of their duties in such barrio; to look after the general welfare
their guns and fists blows without legal grounds. of the barrio; to enforce all laws and ordinances which are operative within
3. Tuvera Sr., with Cpl. Mendoza and Pat. Mangsat, who are members of the barrio; and to organize and lead an emergency group whenever the
the police force helped one another and feloniously locked Armando same may be necessary for the maintenance of peace and order within the
Valdez inside the municipal jail for about 11 hours. barrio.
4. 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
One need not be a police officer to be chargeable with Arbitrary Detention.
at the investigation are not sufficient to support the filing of the
It is accepted that other public officers like judges and mayors, who act with
information.
abuse of their functions, may be guilty of this crime.A perusal of the powers
5. Petitioner Assistant Provincial Fiscal Ramon S. Milo filed an opposition
and function vested in mayors would show that they are similar to those of a
thereto.
barrio captain except that in the case of the latter, his territorial jurisdiction
is smaller. Having the same duty of maintaining peace and order, both must

9
be and are given the authority to detain or order detention. Noteworthy is Ruling: Yes. Any officer charged with the preservation of the public peace may
the fact that even private respondent Tuvera himself admitted that with the arrest, without a warrant, any person who is committing, or has committed, a
aid of his rural police, he as a barrio captain, could have led the arrest of breach of the peace in his presence.
petitioner Valdez.
In the case at bar Gregorio Glindo, being a peace officer, not only had authority
From the foregoing, there is no doubt that a barrio captain, like private to arrest the defendant at the time, but it was his duty to do so, he having heard
respondent Tuvera, Sr., can be held liable for Arbitrary Detention. the priest call for help and having arrived on the scene before the disturbance
had finally ended.
Fallo:
Fallo:
The penalty imposed by the court below being in accordance with the law and
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition for certiorari is the proofs presented, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs against the
GRANTED. The questioned Order of April 25, 1973 in Criminal Case No. D- Appellant. So ordered.
529 is hereby set aside. Let this case be remanded to the appropriate trial Due to the resistance of Samonte, Glindo could not arrest him. Glindo
court for further proceedings. No pronouncement as to costs. immediately went to the house of councilman and reported the matter. The
councilman ordered him to arrest Samonte.
SO ORDERED. When Samonte was found, the policeman attempted to hold him but he resisted
striking at the policeman again with his knife. The councilman ordered Samonte
to submit himself but the latter resisted and also struck the councilman with a
CASE 26
knife.
United States vs. Samonte
The arrest did not took place that night on account of his resistance.
6 September 1910

Trent, J.:

Facts:
CASE 27
SAYO VS. CHIEF OF POLICE OF MANILA
1. Isaac Samonte was tried in the Court of First Instance on a charge of
80 Phil 859
criminal attempt against an agent of the authorities.
12 May 1948
2. One night, Samonte and Rabe were together in one house in the barrio of
FERIA,J.:
Macalalong in the province of Tayabas. When they left the house and met
shortly afterwards in Verdades Street in the said barrio, later they became
Facts:
engaged in a quarrel. Rabe called Police! Police!.
1. A complaint was filed by one Bernardino Malinao against the petitioners
3. Gregorio Glindo, a municipal policeman being on patrol duty that night heard
for the crime of robbery.
the priest call for help. He arrived at the scene just as when Rabe was
2. A policeman of City of Manila, Benjamin Dumlao arrested the petitioners
getting up
on April 2, 1948 and presented a complaint against them with the
4. Glindo attempted to arrest Samonte saying to him In the name of the
fiscals office of Manila.
United States do not move. Samonte replied Dont come near, because I
3. April 7, 1948 Petitioners filed a petition for habeas corpus for they
will take your life.
were still detained and the city fiscal has not yet released them or filed
5. Glindo continued toward Samonte until the former was strucked by the latter
an information against them with the proper courts of justice.
with a knife.
4. Until May 12, 1948 (the writing of the Supreme Court Decision), the
Court still does not have the information with regard to the action taken
Issue: Whether or not Gregorio Glindo has the authority to arrest Samonte even
by the office of the fiscal on the complaint filed by Dumlao against
without a warrant
petitioners.
5. Regardless of what action might have been taken already by the office
of the fiscal, if there was any, the court shall decide this case to rule on

10
the question involved and for the information and guidance of officers to the office of the city fiscal, and the latter might have ignored the fact that
concerned. the petitioners were being actually detained when the said policeman filed a
complaint against them with the city fiscal, we hold that the petitioners are
Issue: being illegally restrained of their liberty, and their release is hereby ordered
1. Whether or not the peace officer has authority to arrest without a unless they are now detained by virtue of a process issued by a competent
warrant court of justice. So ordered.
2. Whether or not the city fiscal of Manila is a judicial authority within the
provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code Paras, Actg. C.J., Pablo, and Bengzon, JJ., concur.
Ruling:

1. No except in authorized cases. A peace officer has no power or


CASE 28
authority to arrest a person without a warrant upon complaint of the
People vs. Rogelio Mengote
offended party or any other person authorized by law. What the
22 June 1992
complainant may do in such a case is to file a complaint with the city
fiscal of Manila or directly with the justice of peace courts in
Cruz, J.,:
municipalities and other political subdivisions. If the city fiscal of has no
authority, and he has not, to order the arrest of a person charged with
Facts:
having committed a public offense even if he finds, after due
1. A stolen pistol was found in possession of Rogelio Mengote at the
investigation, that there is a probability that a crime has been
moment of his warrantless arrest and was convicted of illegal
committed and the accused is guilty thereof, a fortiori, a police officer
possession of firearms.
has no authority to arrest and detain a person charged with an offense
2. He pleads that the weapon was not admissible as evidence against him
upon complaint of the offended party or other persons even though
because it had been illegally seized and was therefore the fruit of the
after investigation, he becomes convinced that the accused is guilty of
poisonous tree.
the offense charged.
3. The government insists that the revolver was validly received in
evidence by the trial judge because its seizure was incidental to a lawful
2. No. The judicial authority within the meaning of Article 125 of the
arrest even if admittedly without warrant.
Revised Penal Code must be a judge who has authority to issue a
4. The incident occurred when an informer called the police and informed
written warrant of commitment or release containing the ground on
them that there were three-suspicious-looking persons in Tondo,
which it is based. Judicial authorities mean the courts of justice or
Manila.A surveillance team was dispatched to the place.
judges of said courts vested with judicial power to order the temporary
5. At the trial, patrolmen said that they saw 2 men looking from side to
detention or confinement of a person charged with having committed a
side one of whom was holding his abdomen. When they were
public offense, that is, the Supreme Court and such inferior courts as
approached and the patrolmen identified themselves as policemen, the
may be established by law. It cannot be construed to include the fiscal
2 run away but were unable to escape. The suspects were then
of the City of Manila or any other city, because they cannot issue a
searched.
warrant of arrest or of commitment or temporary detention of a person
6. One of the suspects was Mengote. In his possession is a revolver with 6
arrested without warrant.
live bullets.
7. Rigoberto Danganan, a prosecution witnesses identified the subject
Fallo: weapon as among the articles stolen from him during the robbery in his
house in Malabon. He pointed out that Mengote was one of the robbers.
8. Petitioners contention: The revolver should not have been admitted in
evidence because of its illegal seizure. No warrant was previously
In view of all the foregoing, without making any pronouncement as obtained neither could it have been seized as an incident of a lawful
to the responsibility of the officers who intervened in the detention of the arrest because the arrest of Mengote was itself unlawful, having been
petitioners, for the policeman Dumlao may have acted in good faith, in the also effected without a warrant. The defense also contends that the
absence of a clear cut ruling on the matter in believing that he had complied
with the mandate of article 125 by delivering the petitioners within six hours
11
testimony regarding the alleged robbery in Danganan's house was The police officers did not know then what offense, if at all, had been
irrelevant and should also have been disregarded by the trial court. committed and neither were they aware of the participation therein of the
accused-appellant. It was only later, after Danganan had appeared at the Police
Issue: Whether or not the warrantless arrest is lawful. headquarters, that they learned of the robbery in his house and of Mengote's
supposed involvement therein.
Ruling:
No. Under Rule 113, Section 5, of the Rules of Court, a peace officer or The testimonial evidence against Mengote (which is based on the said
private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person; (a) When, in his firearm) is not sufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is imputed to him.
attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has in fact just been
committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to Fallo:
be arrested has committed it; and (c) When the person to be arrested is a
prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has accused-appellant is ACQUITTED and ordered released immediately unless he is
escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.In cases failing validly detained for other offenses. No costs.
under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested without a warrant shall SO ORDERED.
be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail, and he shall be
proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112, Section 7.
CASE 29
These requirements have not been established in the case at bar. At the People vs. Burgos
time of the arrest in question, the accused-appellant was merely "looking from
side to side" and "holding his abdomen," according to the arresting officers
themselves. There was apparently no offense that had just been committed or
was being actually committed or at least being attempted by Mengote in their Facts:
presence.
Defendant is charged with illegal possession of firearm in
The Solicitor General submits that the actual existence of an offense was not furtherance of subversion and found guilty by the RTC of Digos, Davao del
necessary as long as Mengote's acts "created a reasonable suspicion on the part Sur. From the information given by Masamlok, allegedly a man defendant
of the arresting officers and induced in them the belief that an offense had been tried to recruit into the NPA, the police authorities arrest defendant and had
committed and that the accused-appellant had committed it." The question is, his house searched. Subsequently, certain NPA-related documents and a
What offense? What offense could possibly have been suggested by a person firearm are confiscated. Defendant denies being involved in any subversive
"looking from side to side" and "holding his abdomen" and in a place not exactly activities and claims that he has been tortured in order to accept ownership
forsaken? of subject firearm and that his alleged extrajudicial statements have been
made only under fear, threat and intimidation on his person and his family.
Mengote was arrested at 11:30 in the morning and in a crowded street He avers that his arrest is unlawful as it is done without valid warrant, that
shortly after alighting from a passenger jeep with his companion. He was not the trial court erred in holding the search warrant in his house for the
skulking in the shadows but walking in the clear light of day. There was nothing firearm lawful, and that the trial court erred in holding him guilty beyond
clandestine about his being on that street at that busy hour in the blaze of the reasonable doubt for violation of PD 9.
noonday sun.
Issue:
The policemen admitted that they were dispatched in that place after a
receiving a telephone call from the informer that there were "suspicious-looking" Whether or not defendants arrest, the search of his home, and the
persons in that vicinity who were about to commit a robbery without the caller subsequent confiscation of a firearm and several NPA-related documents are
explaining why he thought the men looked suspicious nor did he elaborate on lawful.
the impending crime.There was nothing to support the arresting officers'
Ruling:
suspicion other than Mengote's darting eyes and his hand on his abdomen.

12
teabags of marijuana from a cart inside the chapel and another teabag from
Macabante.
The trial court justified the warrantless arrest under Rule 113 Sec 6 of the
RoC: Issue:

a) When the person to be arrested has committed, is actually (1) Whether or Not arrest without warrant is lawful.
committing, or is about to commit an offense in his presence;
b) When an offense has in fact been committed, and he has Ruling:
reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed
it; Search and seizures supported by a valid warrant of arrest is not an absolute
c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped rule. Rule 126, Sec 12 of Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a person
from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything,
temporarily confined while his case is pending or has escaped while being which may be used as proff of the commission of an offense, without a
transferred from one confinement to another. search warrant.(People v. Castiller) The failure of the police officers to
However, the trial court has erred in its conclusion that said warrantless secure a warrant stems from the fact that their knowledge required from the
arrest is under the ambit of aforementioned RoC. At the time of defendants surveillance was insufficient to fulfill requirements for its issuance. However,
arrest, he wasnt in actual possession of any firearm or subversive warantless search and seizures are legal as long as PROBABLE CAUSE
document, and was not committing any subversive acthe was plowing existed. The police officers have personal knowledge of the actual
his field. It is not enough that there is reasonable ground to believe that the commission of the crime from the surveillance of the activities of the
person to be arrested has committed a crime in a warrantless arrest. An accused. As police officers were the ones conducting the surveillance, it is
essential precondition is that a crime must have beenin fact or actually have presumed that they are regularly in performance of their duties.
been committed first; it isnt enough to suspect a crime may have been
committed. The test of reasonable ground applies only to the identity of the
perpetrator. The Court also finds no compelling reason for the haste with CASE 32
which the arresting officers sought to arrest the accused. We fail to see why Go vs CA
they failed to first go through the process of obtaining a warrant of arrest, if Facts:
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 Rolito Go while traveling in the wrong direction on a one-way
that the accused was on the verge of flight or escape. Likewise, there is no street, nearly bumped Eldon Maguans car. Go alighted from his car, shot
showing that the whereabouts of the accused were unknown. Maguan and left the scene. A security guard at a nearby restaurant was able
to take down petitioners car plate number. The police arrived shortly
thereafter at the scene of the shooting. A manhunt ensued.

Six days after, petitioner presented himself before the San Juan
CASE 31
Police Station to verify news reports that he was being hunted by the police;
People vs Sucro
he was accompanied by two (2) lawyers. The police forthwith detained him.
Facts:
An eyewitness to the shooting, who was at the police station at that time,
Pat. Fulgencio went to Arlie Regalados house at C. Quimpo to
positively identified petitioner as the gunman. Petitioner posted bail, the
monitor activities of Edison SUCRO (accused). Sucro was reported to be
prosecutor filed the case to the lower court, setting and commencing trial
selling marijuana at a chapel 2 meters away from Regalados house. Sucro
without preliminary investigation.
was monitored to have talked and exchanged things three times. These
activities are reported through radio to P/Lt. Seraspi. A third buyer was
transacting with appellant and was reported and later identified as Ronnie Issue:
Macabante. Macabante was intercepted and admitted that he bought
marijuana from Sucro. The police team intercepted and arrested SUCRO at Whether or Not warrantless arrest of petitioner was lawful.
the corner of C. Quimpo and Veterans. Recovered were 19 sticks and 4
Ruling:
13
No. The Court does not believe that the warrantless arrest or detention of Issue:
petitioner in the instant case falls within the terms of Section 5 of Rule 113
of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure which provides as follows: Whether or Not there was an unlawful search due to lack of search warrant.

Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private


Ruling:
person may, without a warrant, arrest a person;
No. Rule 113 sec. 5 provides the a peace officer or a private person may
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is w/o a warrant arrest a person when in his presence the person to be
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; arrested has committed, is committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense.
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed In the present case, the accused was found to have been committing
it; and possession of marijuana and can be therefore searched lawfully even
without a search warrant. Another reason is that this case poses urgency on
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a the part of the arresting police officers. It was found out that an informer
penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or pointed to the accused telling the policemen that the accused was carrying
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being marijuana. The police officers had to act quickly and there was not enough
transferred from one confinement to another. time to secure a search warrant.

Petitioners arrest took place six (6) days after the shooting of Maguan. CASE 34
The arresting officers obviously were not present, within the meaning of PEOPLE v. MALMSTEDT
Section 5(a), at the time petitioner had allegedly shot Maguan. Neither could GR No. 91107 June 19, 1991
the arrest effected six (6) days after the shooting be reasonably regarded
as effected when [the shooting had] in fact just been committed within the
PADILLA, J.
meaning of Section 5 (b). Moreover, none of the arresting officers had any
personal knowledge of facts indicating that petitioner was the gunman Facts:
who had shot Maguan. The information upon which the police acted had 1. Mikael Malmstedt, a Swedish national visiting the Philippines, was
been derived from statements made by alleged eyewitnesses to the shooting charged with violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act after an
one stated that petitioner was the gunman; another was able to take inspection conducted by NARCOM Officers in Cordillera.
down the alleged gunmans cars plate number which turned out to be 2. During the inspection of the bus where Malmstedt was on-board,
registered in petitioners wifes name. That information did not, however, NARCOM officers noticed something bulging from his waist and
constitute personal knowledge. asked him to produce the same for inspection but Malmstedt
refused.
CASE 33 3. The bulging object turned out to be a pouch containing marijuana,
People vs Tangliben thus the officers asked him to alight and his belongings searched
Facts: wherein 2 teddy bears were found containing marijuana inside.
4. During the arraignment, Malmstedt raised as defense the issue of
Patrolmen Silverio and Romeo Punzalan were conducting illegal search of his personal effects maintaining that such cannot
surveillance at the San Fernando Victory Liner Terminal. At around 9:30pm be admissible as evidence against him
they noticed a person, Medel Tangliben, carrying a traveling bag who acted 5. The trial court found him guilty, thus this petition.
suspiciously. They confronted him, inspected his bag, and there they found
marijuana leaves. The accused was then taken to the Police Headquarters Issue: WON the search made was illegal as it is without a warrant.
for further investigations. The TC found Tangliben guilty of violating sec.4
art. 2 of the RA 6425 or the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.
Held:

14
The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in The involuntary guests were received on board the steamers by a
their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches representative of the Bureau of Labor and a detachment of
and seizures. However, where the search was made pursuant to a lawful Constabulary soldiers. The two steamers with their unwilling
arrest, there is no need to obtain a search warrant. A lawful arrest without a passengers sailed for Davao during the night of October 25.
warrant may be made by a peace officer or a private person: (a) when, in The vessels reached their destination at Davao on October
his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually 29.
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) when an offense has
in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts The women were landed and receipted for as laborers by
indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and (c) when the Francisco Sales, provincial governor of Davao, and by
person to be arrested is a prisoner who escaped from a penal establishment Feliciano Yigo and Rafael Castillo. The governor and the
or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while hacendero Yigo, who appear as parties in the case, had no
his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one previous notification that the women were prostitutes who had
confinement to another. been expelled from the city of Manila. The further happenings to
A crime was actually being committed by the accused when he was these women and the serious charges growing out of alleged ill-
caught in flagrante delicto. Thus, the search made upon his personal effects treatment are of public interest, but are not essential to the
falls squarely under (a) which allow a warrantless search incident to a lawful disposition of this case. Suffice it to say, generally, that some of the
arrest, the officers having sufficient probable cause to believe that said women married, others assumed more or less clandestine relations
accused was then and there committing a crime. with men, others went to work in different capacities, others
assumed a life unknown and disappeared, and a goodly portion
found means to return to Manila.
CASE NO. 39
ZACARIAS VILLAVICENCIO vs. JUSTO LUKBAN ISSUE: Whether or not the women were illegally restrained of their liberty
Malcom, J., by forcibly changing their domicile

FACTS: HELD:

The Mayor of the city of Manila, Justo Lukban, with the Yes. RESTRAINT OF LIBERTY.A prime specification of an application for
intention to exterminate vice, ordered the segregated a writ of habeas corpus is restraint of liberty. The essential objects and
district for women of ill repute closed. Between October 16 purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to inquire into all manner of
and October 25, 1918, the women were kept confined to their involuntary restraint as distinguished from voluntary, and to relieve a
houses in the district by the police. The city authorities person therefrom if such restraint is illegal. Any restraint which will
quietly perfected arrangements with the Bureau of Labor for preclude freedom of action is sufficient.
sending the women to Davao, Mindanao, as laborers; with
some government office for the use of the coastguard cutters
Corregidor and Negros, and with the Constabulary for a guard of
soldiers. The forcible taking of these women from Manila by officials of that city,
who handed them over to other parties, who deposited them in a distant
About midnight of October 25, the police, acting pursuant to orders region, deprived these women of freedom of locomotion just as
from the chief of police, Anton Hohmann and the Mayor of the city effectively as if they had been imprisoned. The restraint of liberty which
of Manila, Justo Lukban, descended upon the houses, hustled some began in Manila continued until the aggrieved parties were returned to
170 inmates into patrol wagons, and placed them aboard the Manila and released or until they freely and truly waived this right.
steamers that awaited their arrival. The women were given no
opportunity to collect their belongings, and apparently were under No law, order, or regulation authorized the Mayor of the city of Manila or
the impression that they were being taken to a police station for an the chief of the police of that city to force citizens of the Philippine Islands
investigation. They had no knowledge that they were destined for a to change their domicile from Manila to another locality.
lif e in Mindanao.

15
CASE 41 appellants Delfin Lim and Jikil Taha, on November 19, 1962, filed
REQUISITES FOR ISSUANCE OF SEARCH WARRANT with the Court of First Instance of Palawan a complaint for
LIM V. PONCE DE LEON damages against defendants-appellees Fiscal Francisco Ponce de
MARTIN, J.: Leon and Orlando Maddela, alleging that on July 6, 1962 Orlando
Maddela entered the premises of Delfin Lim without a search
warrant and then and there took away the hull of the motor launch
FACTS: without his consent; that he effected the seizure upon order of
Fiscal Ponce de Leon who knew fully well that his office was not
On April 29, 1961, Jikil Taha sold to a certain Alberto vested with authority to order the seizure of a private property.
Timbangcaya of Brookes Point, Palawan a motor launch
named M/L SAN RAFAEL. A year later or on April 9, 1962
Alberto Timbangcaya filed a complaint with the Office of
the Provincial Fiscal of Palawan alleging that after the sale ISSUE: Whether or not the seizure of the Marine Vessell be effected
Jikil Taha forcibly took away the motor launch from him. without search warrant

On May 14, 1962, after conducting a preliminary investigation, HELD:


Fiscal Francisco Ponce de Leon, in his capacity as Acting Provincial
Fiscal of Palawan, filed with the Court of First Instance of Palawan NO. Requisites for issuance of valid search warrant.A search and
the corresponding information for Robbery with Force and seizure to be reasonable, must be effected by means of a valid
Intimidation upon Persons against Jikil Taha. search warrant. And for a search warrant to be valid: (1) it must be
issued upon probable cause; (2) the probable cause must be
On June 15, 1962, Fiscal Francisco Ponce de Leon, upon being determined by the judge himself and not by the applicant or any
informed that the motor launch was in Balabac, Palawan, wrote the other person; (3) in the determination of probable cause, the judge
Provincial Commander of Palawan requesting him to direct the must examine, under oath or affirmation, the complainant and such
detachment commander in Balabac to impound and take custody of witnesses as the latter may produce; and (4) the warrant issued
the motor launch. must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or
things to be seized.
On June 26, 1962, Fiscal Ponce de Leon reiterated his request to
the Provincial Commander to impound the motor launch, explaining Seizure of personal property; Prohibition against seizure of personal
that its subsequent sale to a third party, plaintiff-appellant Delfin property, even if property the corpus delicti of a crime, without
Lim, cannot prevent the court from taking custody of the same. search warrant.Under Sections 2 and 3 of Rule 122 of the Rules
of Court which complement the constitutional provision, two
So, on July 6, 1962 upon order of the Provincial Commander, principles are made clear, namely: (1) that in the seizure of a
defendant-appellee Orlando Maddela, Detachment Commander of stolen property search warrant is still necessary; and (2) that in
Balabac, Palawan, seized the motor launch SAN RAFAEL from issuing a search warrant the judge alone determines whether or
plaintiff-appellant Delfin Lim and impounded it. not there is a probable cause. The fact that a thing is a corpus
delicti of a crime does not justify its seizure without a warrant.
On July 15, 1962 plaintiff-appellant Delfin Lim pleaded
with Orlando Maddela to return the motor launch but the
latter refused. Likewise, on September 20, 1962, Jikil Taha
through his counsel made representations with Fiscal CASE 45
Ponce de Leon to return the seized property to plaintiff- Quintero vs. NBI
appellant Delfin Lim but Fiscal Ponce de Leon refused, on 162 SCRA 467
the ground that the same was the subject of a criminal June 23, 1988
offense.
Padilla, J.:
All efforts to recover the motor launch going to naught, plaintiffs-

16
Facts:
1. May 19, 1972 Petitioner Eduardo Quintero was a delegate of the Statements of applicant and complainant did not provide sufficient
1st District of Leyte in the 1971 ConCon basis for the finding of probable cause.
2. He disclosed in his speech that certain persons had distributed The respondent judge should have known that an application for
money to some delegates to influence them in the discharge of search warrant if based on hearsay cannot justify the issuance of a search
their functions. warrant, before he issued the questioned search warrant.
3. Quintero delivered to the Concon the payola he himself received,
for Concons action. However, he did not reveal the names of those The search itself that was conducted by the NBI agents who raided
who gave him money. the house of petitioner pursuant to the questioned search warrant was
4. Eventually, he was pressured to name them so he released a sworn highly irregular as no members of the household were in a position to watch
statement addressed to the Concon, mentioning the names of the them, thus they conducted the search on their own. This procedure is held
persons who gave him the payola. to be violative of both the spirit and the letter of the law, which provides
5. In his statement, it appeared that varying amounts of money were that no search of a house, room, or any other premises shall be made,
being handed to him by different people from different offices, except in the presence of at least one competent witness, resident of the
some from other delegates, from wives of representatives. neighborhood.
6. The then First Lady Imelda Marcos was among those implicated in
Quinteros expose. Requirements of Section 10, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court were
7. Due to this, Pres. Ferdinand Marcos denounced Quintero and made not complied with. The officer seizing property under the warrant must give
a statement sayng that he will uncover the people behind this act a detailed receipt for the same to the person on whom or in whose
making Quintero as a tool. possession it was found, or in the absence of any person, must in the
8. That same day/evening, NBI agents raided the house of Quintero presence of one witness, leave a receipt in the place in which he found the
on the basis of a search warrant issued by the CFI Manila Judge seized property. In the case at bar, the one who attested to the receipt
Asuncion. NBI claimed to have found bundles of money in from the raiding party was himself a member of the raiding party.
Quinteros residence.
9. NBI filed a criminal complaint for direct bribery against Quintero The circumstances prevailing before the issuance of the questioned
with the court issuing a TRO enjoining the use in any proceeding of warrant , and the actual manner in which the search was conducted,
the objects seized by NBI from his residence. strongly suggest that the entire procedure ws an orchestrated movement
10. The search warrant delivered to the occupant of the searched designed to destroy Quinteros public image with incriminating evidence
premises was issued in connection with the offense of grave and that the evidence allegedly seized from his residence was planted by
threats and not direct bribery which was the criminal complaint the very raiding party that was commanded to seize such.
filed against Quintero.
11. The 1935 Constitution was enforced at that time of the issuance of
the search warrant which was being questioned. Fallo:

WHEREFORE, Search Warrant No. 7 issued on 31 May 1972 by respondent


Issue: Whether or not the questioned search warrant issued by the judge is Judge is declared NULL and VOID and of no force and effect. The
null and void for being violative of the Constitution and the Rules of Court Temporary Restraining Order issued by this Court on 6 June 1972 is hereby
made PERMANENT. The amount of P379,200.00 allegedly seized from the
Ruling: YES. The Court finds, and so holds, that the questioned search house of petitioner Quintero, now in the possession of the Central Bank, and
warrant issued by the judge is null and void for being violative of the already demonetized, is left with Central Bank, to be disposed of, as such, in
Constitution and the Rules of Court accordance with the law and the regulations.

No relation at all can be established between the crime supposedly SO ORDERED.


committed and the evidence ordered to be seized. There was thus no
ground whatsoever for the respondent judge to claim that facts and
circumstances had been established, sufficient for him to believe that the CASE 46
crime being charged had been committed. People vs. Lovedioro
17
250 SCRA 389 Finally, treachery was adequately proved in the court below. The attack
29November1995 delivered by appellant was sudden, and without warning of any kind. 41 The
killing having been qualified by treachery, the crime committed is murder
Rebellion -- Art.134 of the Revised Penal Code under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code. In the absence of any mitigating
and aggravating circumstances, the trial court was correct in imposing the
FACTS: penalty of reclusion perpetua together with all the accessories provided by
1. Elias Lovedioro with 3 other companions fatally shot SPO3 Jesus Lucilo law.
while Lucilo was walking.
2. The victim died on the same day from massive blood loss.
3. On November 6, 1992, Elias Lovedioro was then charged of the crime of FALLO
murder, and subsequently found guilty.
4. Lovedioro then appealed the decision, contesting the verdict of murder
instead of rebellion.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the trial court's decision dated
5. It was confirmed by the prosecutions principal witness that Lovedioro
September 14, 1993, sentencing the accused of Murder is hereby
was a member of the New Peoples Army.
AFFIRMED, in toto.
ISSUE
SO ORDERED.
Was the RTC correct in holding Lovedioro liable for the crime of murder,
instead of rebellion?

RULING
CASE 47
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DE GRACIA
Yes. Overt acts and purpose are essential components of the crime of
G.R. No. 112984 November 14, 1996
rebellion, with either of these elements wanting, the crime of rebellion does
not exist. FRANCISCO, J.:

Political motive should be established before a person charged with a


common crime, alleging rebellion in order to lessen the possible imposable
penalty, could benefit from the laws relatively benign attitude towards FACTS:
political crimes. If no political motive is established or proved, the accused
should be convicted of the common crime and not of rebellion.
1. In an Information dated April 10, 1992, the brothers Cresencio De Gracia,
Dalmacio de Gracia and Bonifacio de Gracia were charged with the crime of
In cases of rebellion, motive relates to the act, and mere membership in an
murder, the accusatory pleading averring substantially as follows:
organization dedicated to the furtherance of rebellion would not, by and of
itself suffice.
That on or about the 19th day of February 1992, in the Municipality of
The killing of the victim, as observed by the Solicitor General, offered no Cuyapo, Province of Nueva Viscaya, Republic of the Philippines and within
contribution to the achievement of the NPAs subversive aims, in fact, there the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused armed
were no known acts of the victims that can be considered as offending to with a bladed weapon with intent to kill, with evident premeditation,
the NPA. treachery and taking advantage of their superior strength, conspiring,
confederating and helping with one another, did then and there, wilfully,
unlawfully, criminally and feloniously attack assault, stab and hack one
Crispin Almazan hitting his throat and face, thereby inflicting upon him
Evidence shows that Lovedioros allegation of membership to the N.P.A was
multiple hack-stab wounds which directly caused his instantaneous death.
conveniently infused to mitigate the penalty imposable upon him.

18
2. Upon arraignment, the accused, with the exception of Dalmacio de Gracia Appellants lay stress on the apparent contradiction between the
who is at large, pleaded not guilty and the case accordingly proceeded to testimony of the prosecution witnesses as to the location of the incident and
trial. the weapons used on the assault. Prosecution witnesses viewed the incident
from different locations and angles, hence the variation in their perceptions.
3. Thereafter, judgment was rendered finding Cresencio and Bonifacio de The discrepancy as to the place where the appellants met the victim is
Gracia guilty as charged and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion negligible considering that the yard was part of the rice field. Similarly, the
perpetua. disparity as to the kind of the weapon used is insignificant as both a spear
4. Accused-appellants now seek the reversal of their conviction based on the and a bolo fall under the description pointed sharp edged instrument.
following assignment of errors: In the whole, the alleged inconsistencies are inconsequential. The
witnesses testifying on the same event do not have to be consistent in every
ISSUES detail as differences in recollection or viewpoints or impressions are
inevitable. Total recall or perfect symmetry is not required for as long as the
Whether or not: witnesses concur on material points, slight differences in their remembrance
of the details do not reflect on the essential veracity of their
testimony.[8] Indeed, if rights were to be lost merely because witnesses,
I
while agreeing on the essential fact, fail to testify harmoniously to all the
particulars, in a very large proportion of cases involving wrongs to be
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED- redressed the law would fail to furnish a remedy. Hence, variations in the
APPELLANTS CRESENCIO DE GRACIA AND BONIFACIO DE GRACIA, testimony of witnesses on the same side in respect of minor, collateral, or
JR. ON THE BASIS OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES incidental matters do not usually impair the weight of their united testimony
INCONSISTENT AND IMPROBABLE TESTIMONIES. to the prominent facts.[9]

Next, appellants invoke self-defense and defense of relative.


II
It is a settled rule that when an accused invokes self-defense, the
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING EXCULPATORY WEIGHT ON burden is on him to establish by clear and convincing evidence his
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS IMPUTATION OF MOTIVE UPON THE VICTIM justification for the killing.[10] He must rely on the strength of his own
AND THE LATTERS RELATIVES WHO TESTIFIED FOR THE evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence for the prosecution. For
PROSECUTION. self-defense to prevail, three (3) requisites must concur, to wit: (1) unlawful
aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
III repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself.[11]
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING ACCUSED- Upon minute examination of the evidence on record, we find that
APPELLANTS ON THE GROUND OF SELF-DEFENSE AND DEFENSE OF appellants have failed to discharge this burden. The first and crucial element
RELATIVE. for self-defense to prosper is wanting in this case. Unlawful aggression
presupposes an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger
IV on the life and limb of a person. A mere threatening or intimidating attitude
exhibited in the alleged shouting incident between Crispin and the brothers
is not sufficient.[12] Thus, as correctly observed by the trial court:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT CREDITING ACCUSED-APPELLANT
BONIFACIO DE GRACIA, JR. WITH THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER AND, CONSEQUENTLY, IN NOT Considering the fact that not all the essential elements of self-defense as
APPLYING THE BENEFITS OF THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW mentioned above were present, this Court is brushing aside the self-defense
IN THE IMPOSITION OF THE PENALTY.[4] theory of accused Bonifacio (Jr.) De Gracia. His evidence is not sufficient to
sustain self-defense.[13]
RULING

19
Another factor which militates against the appellants claim of self-
defense and defense of a relative is the physical evidence on record. Crispin
suffered no less than five (5) stab wounds on different parts of his body and CASE 48
a compound fracture on the nasal bone. Just as the presence and severity of People of the Philippines vs. Dasig
a large number of wounds on the part of the victim disprove self- G.R. No. 100231. April 28, 1993.
defense,[14] so do they belie the claim of defense of a relative and indicate
not the desire to defend ones relative but a determined effort to kill. FACTS:
1. In the afternoon of August 4, 1987, Pfc. Redempto Manatad,
In the final analysis, appellants first three assignment of errors hinge Pfc. Ninah Tizon and Pfc. Rene Catamora were tasked by their
on the trial courts assessment of the witnesses credibility. Factual findings of commanding officer to assist in canning the traffic.
the lower court especially on the credibility of the witnesses is generally
accorded great weight and respect on appeal.[15] In this case, the trial court
considered the testimonies of prosecution witnesses as natural, probable, 2. Pfc. Tizon controlled the traffic lighting facility; Pfc. Manatad
straightforward, and credible.[16] We find no cogent reason to hold otherwise manned the traffic; while Pfc. Catamora acted as back-up and
as the trial court is in the best position to make an honest determination of posted himself at Norkis Trading building.
the witnesses deportation during trial.[17]
3. At about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon, Catamora noticed eight
Lastly, appellant Bonifacio claims the benefit of the mitigating (8) persons, one of whom he identified as Edwin Nuez, acting
circumstance of voluntary surrender. We note that Bonifacio surrendered suspiciously.
and was in fact accompanied by his uncle to the police station, albeit he
remained silent. Nonetheless, we cannot take Bonifacios silence against him.
4. He noticed one of them giving instructions to two of the men to
What matters is that Bonifacio, spontaneously, voluntarily and
approach Manatad.
unconditionally placed himself at the disposal of the authorities.[18] This act
of repentance and respect for the law indicates a moral disposition favorable
to his reform.[19] 5. He followed the two, but sensing that they were being followed,
they immediately proceeded to the middle of the road and engaged
The applicable penalty for murder prior to the enactment of the Death Catamora to a gun battle.
Penalty Law is reclusion temporal maximum to death. There being no
aggravating circumstance but with one mitigating circumstance of voluntary
6. Catamora heard a series of shots from the other group and
surrender, the penalty imposable on Bonifacio in accordance with Art. 64 (2)
thereafter saw Manatad sprawled on the ground.
of the Revised Penal Code should be the minimum period, that is, reclusion
temporal in its maximum period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
he is entitled to a minimum penalty of prision mayor maximum to reclusion 7. Being out-numbered and to save his own life, Catamora sought
temporal medium, being the range of the penalty next lower than that refuge at the nearby BIR Office from where he saw two (2) persons
prescribed by Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.[20] The same mitigating take Manatad's gun and again fired at him to make sure that he is
circumstance, however, cannot favor Cresencio as he did not surrender. dead while the rest of the group including Nues acted as back up.
Cresencio was thus correctly sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
8. Thereafter, the Nues group commandeered a vehicle and fled
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court is AFFIRMED from the scene of the shooting.
subject to the following MODIFICATIONS: Appellant Bonifacio is hereby
sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years and one (1)
day of prision mayor as minimum to twenty years (20) years of reclusion 9. On a surveillance days after, on a suspected safehouse of
temporal as maximum and the P50,000.00 award for moral damages should members of the sparrow unit, the group saw Rodrigo Dasig and
be denominated as indemnity. Cresencios sentence of reclusion Edwin Nues trying to escape.
perpetua and the award for actual damages are likewise AFFIRMED. Costs
against appellants. 10. Nues and wounded Dasig were captured and ammunitions
were confiscated.
SO ORDERED.

20
11. Dasig extrajudicially confessed that he and the group of Edwin judicial confession, he was first asked if he was amenable to the
Nues killed Pfc. Manatad. He likewise admitted that he and Nues services of Atty. Parawan to which query he answered affirmatively.
were members of the sparrow unit and the their aliases were Finally, the alleged use of fore and intimidation has not been
"Armand" and "Mabi," respectively. substantiated by evidence other than his self-serving testimony. As
has been pointed out, such allegation is another naive effort of
12. However, upon arraignment, Dasig and Edwin Nues entered a appellant to back track from his prior voluntary admission of guilt.
plea of "not guilty." Evidently, the taking of his extra-judicial confession was done with
regularity and legality.
13. After the prosecution had presented its first witness, accused
Nues changed his plea of "not guilty" to "guilty." While trial was 2. Yes. Section 12 (1) of Article III of the 1987 Constitution
still ongoing, Nuez died thereby extinguishing his criminal liability. provides:

14. In the present appeal, Dasig contends that the procedure by 'Sec. 12(1). Any person under investigation for the commission
which his extra-judicial confession was taken was legally defective, of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to
and contrary to his Constitutional rights. He further contends that remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel
assuming he conspired in the killing of Manatad, he should be preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the
convicted at most of simple rebellion and not murder with direct services of counsel he must provided with one. These rights cannot
assault. be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.'

Issue: "It is very clear from the aforequoted provision that a person under
investigation for the commission of an offense may choose his own
counsel but if he cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be
1. Whether or not Dasigs extra-judicial confession is admissible in
provided with one. While the initial choice of the lawyer in the
Court
latter case is naturally lodged in the police investigators, the
2. Whether or not Dasig was accorded his constitutional rights as
accused really has the final choice as he may reject the counsel
an accused
chosen for him and ask for another one. In the instant case, the
3. Whether or not he committed murder with direct assault
records show that no objection was voiced by the accused
throughout the entire proceedings of the investigation and
Ruling afterwards when he subscribed to its veracity before City
Prosecutor Luzminda V. Uy. Thus, he apparently acquiesced to the
1. Yes. The settled jurisprudence on the matter is that a confession choice of the investigators. He complained for the first time that
is admissible until the accused successfully proves that it was given Atty. Fuentes was not his choice only during trial. Thus it was too
as a result of violence, intimidation, threat or promise of reward or late."
leniency.
3. Yes, there is merit in appellant's argument that granting he is
Appellant relies on the much abused claim that his extra-judicial guilty, what he committed was a political crime of simple rebellion,
confession was legally defective and hence, should not have and hence he should not be convicted of murder with direct
beenadmitted and considered by the trial judge. This accusation is assault.
whimsical and obviously a mere refuge for appellant's turnabout. In
an attempt to avoid criminal liability, he now questions the integrity The Solicitor General agrees with the accused-appellant on this
of the police authorities and the reputation of the lawyer who stood point as manifested in the People's brief, which We quote:
by him during the investigation. Indubitably established and now a
matter of record is the fact that appellant was assisted by Atty.
"However, as correctly pointed by appellant, the lower court
Parawan who even signed the former's sworn declarations. It is
erroneously convicted him of Murder with Assault Upon a Person in
likewise a matter of record that before appellant made his extra-
Authority, instead of Rebellion.
21
"Rebellion is committed by taking up arms against the government, overthrow the duly constituted government, the crime committed is
among other means. (Article 135, Revised Penal Code). In this simple rebellion and not murder with direct assault.
case, appellant not only confessed voluntarily his membership with
the sparrow unit but also his participation and that of his group in WHEREFORE, accused Rogelio Dasig is found guilty of participating
the killing of Pfc. Manatad while manning the traffic in Mandaue in an act of rebellion beyond reasonable doubt and is hereby
City in the afternoon of August 4, 1987. It is of judicial notice that sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of eight (8) years
the sparrow unit is the liquidation squad of the New People's Army of prision mayor, and to pay the heirs of Pfc. Redempto Manatad,
with the objective of overthrowing the duly constituted P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.
government. It is therefore not hard to comprehend that the killing
of Pfc. Manatad was committed as a means to or in furtherance of
SO ORDERED.
the subversive ends of the NPA. Consequently, appellant is liable
for the crime of rebellion, not murder with direct assault upon a
person in authority."

CASE 49
The crime of rebellion consists of many acts. It is a vast movement
UMIL VS. RAMOS
of men and a complex net of intrigues and plots. Acts committed in
187 SCRA 312
furtherance of rebellion though crimes in themselves are deemed
absorbed in one single crime of rebellion. The act of killing a police
officer, knowing too well that the victim is a person in authority is a The are eight (8) petitioners for habeas corpus filed before the Court, which
mere component or ingredient of rebellion or an act done in have been consolidated because of the similarity of issues raised, praying for
furtherance of the rebellion. It cannot be made a basis of a the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus, ordering the respective
separate charge. respondents to produce the bodies of the persons named therein and to
explain why they should not be set at liberty without further delay.
As to the proper imposable penalty, the Indeterminate Sentence
Law is not applicable to persons convicted of rebellion (Sec. 2, R.A. In their respective Returns, the respondents uniformly assert that the
4203), contrary to the insinuation of the Solicitor General. Article privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is not available to the petitioners as
135 of the Revised Penal Code imposes the penalty of prision they have been legally arrested and are detained by virtue of valid
mayor and a fine not exceeding P20,000.00 to any person who informations filed in court against them.
promotes, maintains, or heads a rebellion. However, in the case at
bar, there is no evidence to prove that appellant Dasig headed the The petitioners counter that their detention is unlawful as their arrests were
crime committed. As a matter of fact he was not specifically made without warrant and, that no preliminary investigation was first
pinpointed by Pfc. Catamora as the person giving instructions to conducted, so that the informations filed against them are null and void.
the group which attacked Pfc. Manatad.
1. On 1 February 1988, military agents were dispatched to the St.
Appellant merely participated in committing the act, or just Agnes Hospital, Quezon City, to verify a confidential information
executed the command of an unknown leader. Hence, he should be which was received by their office, about a "sparrow man" (NPA
made to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of eight (8) years of member) who had been admitted to the said hospital with a
prision mayor. For the resulting death, appellant is likewise ordered gunshot wound.
to pay the heirs of Pfc. Manatad FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS 2. The wounded man in the said hospital was among the five (5) male
(P50,000.00) as civil indemnity. "sparrows" who murdered two (2) Capcom mobile patrols the day
before, at about 12:00 o'clock noon, before a road hump along a
Premises considered, We uphold the findings of the trial court that street in Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City.
the extra-judicial confession was legally obtained. However, 3. The wounded man's name was listed by the hospital management
appellant being a confessed member of the sparrow unit, the as "Ronnie Javellon," however it was disclosed later that the true
liquidation squad of the New People's Army whose objective is to name of the wounded man was Rolando Dural.

22
4. In view of this verification, Rolando Dural was transferred to the Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace
Regional Medical Services of the CAPCOM, for security reasons. officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest
While confined thereat, he was positively identified by the a person:
eyewitnesses as the one who murdered the 2 CAPCOM mobile
patrols. (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
5. For reference, the consolidated cases include the following facts : committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense;
In the case of Wilfredo Buenaobra, the same admitted that he was an NPA
courier.
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and
he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the
In the case of Amelia Roque, subversive documents and live ammunition
person to be arrested has committed it; and
were found at the timeof her arrest, and she admitted to owning such
documents.
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
As regards Domingo Anonuevo & Ramon Casiple, agents frisked them and escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is
found subversivedocuments & loaded guns without permits. serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his
case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred
With regard to Vicky Ocaya, she arrived at a house subject to a search from one confinement to another.
warrant. Ammunition & subversive documents were found in her car.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the
In the Nazareno case, Narciso Nazareno was identified by Ramil Regala as person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith
the latters companion in killing Romulo Bunye II. delivered to the nearest police station or jail, and he shall
be proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112,
The release on habeas corpus of the petitioner Deogracias Espiritu, who is Section 7.
detained by virtue of an Information for Violation of Article 142 of the
Revised Penal Code (Inciting to Sedition) filed with the Regional Trial Court
An arrest without a warrant of arrest, under Section 5 paragraphs (a) and
of Manila, is similarly not warranted.
(b) of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, as amended, is justified when the
person arrested is caught in flagranti delicto, viz., in the act of committing
an offense; or when an offense has just been committed and the person
Issue: Whether or not Rolando Dural and other petitioners were lawfully
making the arrest has personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the
arrested
person arrested has committed it.
Ruling:
Rolando Dural was arrested for being a member of the NPA, an outlawed
subversive organization. Subversion being a continuing offense, the
YES. The Court has carefully reviewed the contentions of the parties in their
arrest without warrant is justified as it can be said that he was
respective pleadings, and it finds that the persons detained have not been
committing an offense when arrested. The crimes rebellion,
illegally arrested nor arbitrarily deprived of their constitutional right to
subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and crimes or
liberty, and that the circumstances attending these cases do not warrant
offenses committed in furtherance therefore in connection therewith
their release on habeas corpus.
constitute direct assaults against the state and are in the nature of
continuing crimes.
The arrest of a person without a warrant of arrest or previous complaint is
recognized in law. The occasions or instances when such an arrest may be
effected are clearly spelled out in Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court,
To hold that no criminal can, in any case, be arrested and
as amended, which provides:
searched for the evidence and tokens of his crime without
a warrant, would be to leave society, to a large extent, at
the mercy of the shrewdest, the most expert, and the
23
most depraved of criminals, facilitating their escape in the most serious crime shall be imposed). Thus, he filed a petition
many instances. to the Supreme Court.

The record of the instant cases would show that the persons in whose 6. Prosecution argued that the gravity of the crime committed
behalf these petitions for habeas corpus have been filed, had freshly required the denial of the bail and it maintained that capital
committed or were actually committing an offense, when apprehended, so punishment may be imposed for the crime Hernandez was
that their arrests without a warrant were clearly justified, and that they are, convicted of.
further, detained by virtue of valid informations filed against them in court.
7. Defense contends that there is no complex crime in the crime of
rebellion.
WHEREFORE, the petitions are hereby DISMISSED, except that in
G.R. No. 85727 (Espiritu vs. Lim), the bail bond for petitioner's provisional
liberty is hereby ordered reduced from P60,000.00 to P10,000.00. No costs. Issue:
Whether or not the crime committed by petitioner was rebellion
SO ORDERED. complexed with crime murders, arson & robbery, and should be punished
with life imprisonment, thus bail should not be granted

Ruling:
CASE NO. 50
The Supreme Court ruled that rebellion cannot be complexed with
other crimes, such as murder and arson. Rebellion in itself would include
People vs Hernandez
and absorb the said crimes, thus granting the accused his right to bail.
L-6025-26 / July 18, 1956
Murder and arson are crimes inherent and concomitant when rebellion is
Concepcion, J:
taking place. Rebellion in the Revised Penal Code constitutes one single
Facts: crime and that there is no reason to complex it with other crimes. As basis,
the Court cited several cases convicting the defendants of simple
1. Amado Hernandez is a bonafide member of Congress of Labor rebellion although they killed several persons.
Organizations, an affiliate of Hukbong Magpalayang Bayan Thus, motion for bail was granted.
(Hukbalahaps), a known group performing rebellious activities.
The ingredients of a crime form part and parcel thereof, and,
2. Hukbalahaps have risen publicly and taken arms to remove the hence, are absorbed by the same and cannot be punished either separately
territory of the Philippines from the allegiance of the government, there from. Indeed, if one act constitutes two or more offenses, there can
making armed raids, sorties and ambushes, attacks against police, be no reason to inflict a punishment graver than that prescribed for each
constabulary and army detachments as well as innocent civilians. one of said offenses put together. In directing that the penalty for the
graver offense be, in such case, imposed in its maximum period, Article 48
3. On about March 15, 1945, Hernandez and other appellants were could have had no other purpose than to prescribe a penalty lower than the
accused of cooperates and synchronizes its activities with the Huks aggregate of the penalties for each offense, if imposed separately. The
by actively engaging in its armed rebellion against the government reason for this benevolent spirit of Article 48 is readily discernible. When two
of the Philippines. or more crimes are the result of a single act, the offender is deemed less
perverse than when he commits said crimes thru separate and distinct acts.
4. They were charged and convicted of the crime of rebellion Instead of sentencing him for each crime independently from the other, he
complexed with murders, arsons and robbery and were sentenced must suffer the maximum of the penalty for the more serious one, on the
with life imprisonment. assumption that it is less grave than the sum total of the separate penalties
for each offense.
5. Five years after his arrest, Hernandez asked for bail with the court
where his case was pending, but was denied on the basis of the
nature of the offense (if the crime was complexed, the penalty for
24
CASE NO. 51 alleged co-conspirator of Col. Honasan on the basis of the
Ponce Enrile vs Amin same meeting on Dec.1 1989.
G.R. No. 93335 / September 13, 1990 The orderly administration of Justice requires that there be
only one prosecution for all the component acts of rebellion.
Gutierrez, Jr., J: 6. Judge Amin sustained the charge of violation of PD No. 1829
notwithstanding the rebellion case filed against the petitioner on the
Facts: theory that the former involves a special law while the latter is based on
1. Senator Juan Ponce Enrile was charged of having committed rebellion the Revised Penal Code or a general law.
complexed with murder with RTC of Quezon City.

ISSUE:
2. He was also charged with violation of Pres. Decree 1829 with RTC of
Makati City because he allegedly harbored and concealed in his house Whether or not Sen. Enrile could be separately charged of violation of
Ex. Lt. Gregorio Gringo Honasan, who was suspected of having PD 1829 nothwithstanding the rebellion case earlier filed against him
committed a crime.
RULING:

Allegations: No. The violation of PD 1829 is absorbed in the crime of rebellion.

a) Rebellion Case: The SC reiterated the long standing proscription against splitting the
In the evening of Dec.1, 1989, fugitive Honasan and some 100 component offenses of rebellion and subjecting them to separate prosecutions.
rebel soldiers attended the mass and birthday party held at the The Hernandez case remains a binding doctrine to prohibit the complexing of
residence of Sen. Enrile. rebellion with any other offense committed on the occasion thereof, either as
Honasan conferred with Sen. Enrile accompanied by about 100 means necessary to its commission or as an intended effect of an activity that
fully armed rebel soldiers wearing white armed patches. constitutes rebellion.
These facts led the prosecution to conclude that Enrile and
Honasan were co-conspirators in the failed Dec. coup.

Sen. Enriles act of harboring or concealing Col. Honasan is a mere


b) Violation of PD 1829 Case: component of rebellion or an act done in furtherance of the rebellion, it cannot
Sen. Enrile entertained and accommodated Col. Honasanby therefore be made the basis of a separate charge. All crimes, whether punishable
giving him food and comfort on Dec.1, 1989 in his house. under a special law or general law, which are mere components or ingredients,
3. Omnibus Motion filed by Sen. Enrile: or committed in furtherance thereof, become absorbed in the crime of rebellion
a. To hold in abeyance the issuance of warrant of arrest pending and cannot be isolated and charged as separate crimes in themselves. Thus:
personal determination by the court of probable cause This does not detract, however, from the rule that the ingredients of a crime
b. To dismiss the case and expunge the information from the form part and parcel thereof, and hence, are absorbed by the same and cannot
record be punished either separately therefrom or by the application of Article 48 of the
Revised Penal Code.

4. The court denied the omnibus motion. Sen. Enrile filed Motion for Wherefore, the petition is granted. Sen. Enrile cannot be tried separately
Reconsideration and to Quash/Dismiss but was also denied. under PD 1829 in addition to his being prosecute din the rebellion case.

5. Enriles arguments on his appeal to the Supreme Court on certiorari:


The alleged harboring or concealing by Sen. Enrile of Col.
Honasan in a supposed meeting on Dec.1, 1989 is CASE NO. 52
Enrile vs Salazar
ABSORBED in, or is a COMPONENT ELEMENT of, the
complexed rebellion presently charged against Sen. Enrile as G.R. No. 92163 / June 5, 1990
Narvasa, J.:
25
1. Whether the petitioner has committed complex crimes (delito
compleio) arising from an offense being a necessary means for
Facts: committing another, which is referred to in the second clause of
Article 48, Revised Penal Code
2. Whether or not the court should affirm the Hernandez ruling
1. In February 27, 1990, Senate Minority Floor Leader Juan Ponce
Enrile was arrested by law enforcement officers led by Director
Alfredo Lim of the NBI on the strength of a warrant issued by Hon. Ruling:
Jaime Salazar of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City Branch
103.
Enrile filed for habeas corpus because he was denied bail although
2. He was charged together with Mr. and Mrs. Panlilio, and Gregorio ordinarily a charge of rebellion would entitle one for bail. The crime of
Honasan for the crime of rebellion with murder and multiple rebellion charged against him however is complexed with murder and
frustrated murder which allegedly committed during their failed multiple frustrated murders the intention of the prosecution was to make
coup attempt from November 29 to December 10, 1990. rebellion in its most serious form so as to make the penalty thereof in the
maximum. There is one other reason and a fundamental one at that why
3. Senator Enrile was taken to and held overnight at the NBI Article 48 of the Penal Code cannot be applied in this case. If murder were
headquarters on Taft Avenue, Manila, without bail, none having not complexed with rebellion, and the two crimes were punished separately,
been recommended in the information and none fixed in the arrest then the following penalties would be imposable upon the movant, namely:
warrant. Then, he was brought to Camp Tomas Karingal in Quezon (1) for the crime of rebellion, a fine not exceeding P20,000 and prision
City on the following day. mayor, in the corresponding period, depending upon the modifying
circumstances present, but never exceeding 12 years of prision mayor, and
4. Later on the same day, Enrile filed a petition for habeas corpus (2) for the crime of murder, reclusion temporal in its maximum period to
alleging that he was deprived of his constitutional rights. The death, depending upon the modifying circumstances present. In other
following are his arguments: words, in the absence of aggravating circumstances, the extreme penalty
That the crime being charged against him is nonexistent. could not be imposed upon him. However, under Article 48 said penalty
That he was charged with a criminaloffense in an would have to be meted out to him, even in the absence of a single
information for which no complaint was initially filed or aggravating circumstance. Thus, said provision, if construed in conformity
preliminary investigation was conducted, hence was with the theory of the prosecution, would be unfavorable to the movant.
denied due process;
That he has been denied with his right to bail
That he was arrested and detained on the strength of a The Hernandez ruling is still valid. Hernandez doctrine remains
warrant issued without thejudge who issued it first having binding doctrine operating to prohibit the complexing of rebellion with any
personally determined the existence of probable cause other offense committed on the occasion thereof, either as a means
necessary to its commission or as an unintended effect of an activity that
5. Solicitor Generals answer: the case does not fall within the constitutes rebellion. All other crimes committed in carrying out rebellion
Hernandez ruling sincethe in Hernandez, the information charged are deemed absorbed. The Court reiterates that based on the this doctrine,
murders and other common crimes committed as a necessary the questioned information filed against petitioners Juan Ponce Enrile and
means for the commission of rebellion whereas in Enriles the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio must be read as charging simple
case, murder and frustrated murder charged against Enrile were rebellion only, since there is no such crime as rebellion with murder and
committed on the occasion, but not in furtherance, of multiple frustrated murder. These other crimes such as murder or all those
rebellion. that may be necessary to the commission of rebellion is absorbed hence
petitioners should be entitiled for bail, before final conviction.

Issues:

CASE NO. 53

26
People vs Pimentel No. Sec. 21 of Article III of the Constitution and Rule 117 of the
G.R. No. 100210 / April 1, 1998 Revised Rules of Court state that for double jeopardy to occur, acquittal,
conviction or dismissal in previous cases must have occurred. In the present
Martinez, J: case, Tujans motion to quash filed in the trial court did not actually raise the
Facts: issue of double jeopardy simply because it had not arisen yet. It is
noteworthy that the private respondent has not even been arraigned in the
1. In 1983, private respondent Antonio Tujan was charged with first criminal action for subversion. Besides, the two criminal charges against
subversion under Republic Act 1700 (the Anti-Subversion Law) as private respondent are not of the same offense as required by Section 21,
amended before the RTC of Manila. A warrant of arrest was issued Article III of the Constitution.
but was not served due to his disappearance.
2. Seven years later, Tujan was arrested on the basis of the warrant While the SC holds that both the subversion charge under RA1700,
of arrest in the subversion case, and was also found to possess an as amended, and the one for illegal possession of firearm and ammunition in
unlicensed .38 caliber special revolver and six rounds of live furtherance of subversion under PD 1866, as amended, can co-exist, the
ammunition. subsequent enactment of of RA 7636 on Sept. 22, 1992, totally repealing RA
3. Due to this, he was charged with illegal possession of firearms and 1700, as amended, has substantially changed the complexion of the present
ammunition in furtherance of subversion under PD 1866 before the case, inasmuch as the said repealing law being favorable to the accused-
RTC in Makati City. private respondent, who is not a habitual delinquent, should be given
4. Tujan filed a motion to quash the illegal possession case on the retroactive effect.
ground that he has been previously in jeopardy of being convicted
for subversion. He contended that common crimes such as illegal With the enactment of R.A. No. 7636, the charge of subversion
possession of firearms and ammunition should actually be deemed against the accused-private respondent has no more legal basis and should
absorbed in subversion. And since the present case is the twin be dismissed. As regards the other charge of illegal possession of firearm
prosecution of the earlier subversion case, he is entitled to invoke and ammunition, qualified by subversion, this charge should be amended to
constitutional protection against double jeopardy. simple illegal possession of firearm and ammunition since subversion is no
5. Opposing the Tujans motion to quash, the State contended that he longer a crime. It would be illogical for the trial courts to try and sentence
does not stand in jeopardy of being convicted a second time the accused-private respondent for an offense that no longer exists.
because: Subversion charge against Tujan was dismissed, illegal possession of firearm
he has not even been arraigned in the subversion case and ammunition in furtherance of subversion against the same accused is
the previous offense charged against him is for Subversion, deemed amended. Accused was ordered to be released immediately from
punishable under RA 1700, while the present case is for Illegal detention, since he was already detained for 7years, whereas the amended
Possession of Firearm and Ammunition in Furtherance of charge has a penalty of 4 years, 2 mos. and 1 day to six years.
Subversion, punishable under PD 1866, a different law
CASE NO. 54
Ocampo vs Abando
Issue: G.R. No. 176830 / February 11, 2014

Whether or not Tujan was placed in double jeopardy with the filing Sereno, J:
of the second information for illegal possession of firearm & ammunition in Facts:
furtherance of subversion

1. A mass grave site was discovered at Sitio Sapang Daco, Barangay


Kaulisihan, Inopacan, Leyte by the 43rd Infantry Brigade
Ruling: containing 67 skeletal remains of those believed to be victims of
Operation Venereal Disease (VD). Said Operation VD was
launched by the Communist Party of the Philippines/New Peoples
Army/National Democratic Front (CPP/NPA/NPDF) of the Philippines
to purge their ranks of suspected military informers.

27
Common crimes, such as murder, are already absorbed by
2. PNP SOCO conducted a forensic crime analysis to identify the the crime of rebellion when committed as a necessary
bodies by way of SNA sample, however, the Initial Specialist Report means, in connection with and in furtherance of rebellion.
remained inconclusive as to the identities of the skeletal remains
and the leght of time that they had been buried.
Issues:
3. In a Special Report, 10 possible victims were named after
comparison and examination based on testimonies of relatives and 1. Whether or not petitioners were denied due process during
witnesses. preliminary investigation and in the issuance of the warrant of
arrests
4. Believing that their relatives remains were among those discovered 2. Whether or not the murder charges against petitioners should be
at the mass grave site,12 complaint-affidavits were filed by the dismissed under the political offense doctrine
relatives of the alleged victims of Operation VD. They swore that
their relatives had been abducted or last seen wit members of the
CPP/NPA/NDFP. Ruling:

5. Also, 4 former members of the CPP/NPA/NDFP filed their affidavits


alleging that petitioners Ocampo, Echanis, Baylosis and Ladlad,
being members of CPP/NPA/NDFP Central Committee, ordered the 1. Yes, petitioners were accorded due process during preliminary
Operation VD in 1985. On the basis of these affidavits, petitioners investigation and in the issuance of the warrant of arrests. A
were charged with murder. preliminary investigation is not a casual affair.It is conducted to
protect the innocent from the embarrassment, expense and anxiety
6. In a resolution, Prosecutor Vivero recommended the filing of of a public trial. While the right to have a preliminary investigation
anInformation for 15 counts of multiple murders against 54 named before trial is statutory rather than constitutional, it is a
members of the CPP/NPA/NDFP, including petitioners herein. The substantive right and a component of due process in the
said 4 former members of CPP/NPA/NDFP were dropped as administration of criminal justice.
respondents and were considered state witnesses.
In this case, the Resolution stated that efforts were undertaken to
7. On 6 March 2007, Judge Abando issued an Order finding probable serve subpoenas on the named respondents at their last known
cause "in the commission by all mentioned accused of the crime addresses. This is sufficient for due process. It was only because a
charged." He ordered the issuance of warrants of arrest against majority of them could no longer be found at their last known
them with no recommended bail for their temporary liberty. addresses that they were not served copies of the complaint and
the attached documents or evidence.
8. Petitioner Ocampo filed a special civil action for certiorari and As to the issuance of warrant of arrest, Ocampos allegation that
prohibition: Judge Abando did not comply with the requirements of the
seeking the annulment of the 6 March 2007 Order of Constitution in finding the existence of probable cause for the
Judge Abando and the Resolution of Prosecutor Vivero. issuance of warrants of arrest against petitioners have no merit.
praying for his unconditional release from PNP custody, as
well as the issuance of a temporary restraining order/ writ 2. Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest has been
of preliminary injunction to restrain the conduct of further defined as "such facts and circumstances which would lead a
proceedings during the pendency of the petition reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has
been committed by the person sought to be arrested." In this case,
9. Ocampos arguments: the determination of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of
A rebellion case against him & 44 others was then pending arrest against petitioners is addressed to the sound discretion of
before the RTC of Makati City. Judge Abando as the trial judge.

28
The political offense doctrine is NOT a ground to dismiss the charge and civilians Vicente Soriano and Leocadio Untalan, and the
against petitioners prior to a determination by the trial court that wounding of Patrolman Pedro Lacorte and five civilians.
the murders were committed in furtherance of rebellion. Under the
political offense doctrine, common crimes, perpetrated in During and after the burning of the houses, some of the raiders
furtherance of a political offense, are divested of their character as engaged in looting, robbing one house and two Chinese stores; and
common offenses and assume the political complexion of the main that the raiders were finally dispersed and driven from the town by
crime of which they are mere ingredients, and, consequently, the Philippine Army soldiers stationed in the town led by Captain
cannot be punished separately from the principal offense, or Alzate.
complexed with the same, to justify the imposition of a graver
penalty. After trial, the court found Umali et.al, found guilty of the complex
crime of rebellion with multiple murder, frustrated murder, arson
Any ordinary act assumes a different nature by being absorbed in and robbery.
the crime of rebellion. Thus, when a killing is committed in
furtherance of rebellion, the killing is not homicide or murder. To understand the reason for and object of the raid we have to go into the
Rather, the killing assumes the political complexion of rebellion as political situation in Tiaong. Narciso Umali and Marcial Punzalan were old
its mere ingredient and must be prosecuted and punished as time friends and belonged to the same political faction. However, these
rebellion alone. friendly relations between the two did not endure. In the words of Punzalan,
Narciso Umali who as Congressman regarded himself as the political head
When the political offense doctrine is asserted as a defense in the and leader in that region including Tiaong, became jealous because of his
trial court, it becomes crucial for the court to determine whether (Punzalan's) fast growing popularity among the people of Tiaong who looked
the act of killing was done in furtherance of a political end, and for to him instead of Umali for political guidance, leadership, and favors. Then
the political motive of the act to be conclusively demonstrated. the elections of 1951 (November 13) approached and Punzalan ran for
Petitioners aver that the records show that the alleged murders reelection. To oppose him, and to clip his political wings and definitely blast
were committed in furtherance of the CPP/NPA/NDFP rebellion, and his ambition for continued power and influence in Tiaong, Umali picked
that the political motivation behind the alleged murders can be Epifanio Pasumbal, his trusted leader. The result of the elections plainly
clearly seen from the charge against the alleged top leaders of the showed that Punzalan was the political master and leader in Tiaong. He beat
CPP/NPA/NDFP as coconspirators. The court ruled that the burden Pasumbal by an overwhelming majority of 2,221 votes. Naturally, Umali and
of demonstrating political motivation must be discharged by the Pasumbal were keenly disappointed, and according to the evidence, adopted
defense, since motive is a state of mind which only the accused measures calculated to frustrate Punzalan's victory.
knows. The proof showing political motivation is adduced during
trial where the accused is assured an opportunity to present Issue:
evidence supporting his defense. It is not for this Court to
determine this factual matter in the instant petitions. Whether or not the trial court erred in ruling that the crime committed is
rebellion.

Case No. 55 Ruling:


People vs. Umali
Yes. The court is convinced that the principal and main, tho not necessarily
FACTS:
the most serious, crime committed here was not rebellion but rather that of
The complex crime of which appellants Narciso Umali, et. al were
sedition. The purpose of the raid and the act of the raiders in rising publicly
found guilty was said to have been committed during the raid
and taking up arms was not exactly against the Government and for the
staged in the town of Tiaong, Quezon, between 8:00 and 9:00 in
purpose of doing the things defined in Article 134 of the Revised Penal code
the evening of November 14, 1951, by armed men. The raid
under rebellion. The raiders did not even attack the Presidencia, the seat of
resulted in the burning down and complete destruction of the
local Government. Rather, the object swas to attain by means of force,
house of Mayor Marcial Punzalan including its content valued at
intimidation, etc. one object, to wit, to inflict an act of hate or revenge upon
P24,023; the house of Valentin Robles valued at P10,000, and the
the person or property of a public official, namely, Punzalan was then Mayor
house of one Mortega, the death of Patrolman Domingo Pisigan

29
of Tiaong. Under Article 139 of the same Code this was sufficient to the offender should be a private citizen and the offended party a
constitute sedition. public functionary, and that what really happened in this instance
was a fight between two armed bodies of the Philippine
Case No. 56 Government, is absolutely without foundation. Subdivison 3 of
League Jose vs. People section 5 of the Treason and Sedition Law makes no distinction
FACTS: between the persons to which it applies. In one scene there was a
fights between two armed bodies of the Philippine Government, but
it was an unequal fight brought on by the actions of the accused.
Case No. 57
People vs Cabrera

FACTS:

The Philippine constabulary and the Police of Manila had a rough Case No. 58
relationship with each other. The constabulary force had grudges U.S. vs Lapus
against the Police force of Manila because of the incident wherein a
Manila police arrested a woman who is a member of the household FACTS:
of a constabulary soldier and was allegedly abused by the said
policeman. More so, a day after one Macasinag was shot by a A complaint for sedition was filed alleging that on the night of June
Manila police, a rumor spread among the Constabulary that the 3, 1902, a band composed of about four hundred men, among
Police who shot himwas back to his original duties while Macasinag whom were the accused Mateo Lapus et.al., armed with guns,
was declared dead. There were also rumors that the said shooting revolvers, talibones, bolos, and clubs, raided the town of Cabiao.
was ordered. As a result, some members of the Constabulary,with
rifles and ammunitions, escaped their barracks through a window
They went through the streets of the town firing shots, yelling, and
and went to attack the Police force, killing and wounding several
frightening the inhabitants thereof.
policemen and civilians. After trial, the court convicted Graciano
Cabrera at. with the crime of sedition.
Some of said band went to the house of the municipal president,
Issue; while others raided several houses, taking captive sixty or seventy
of the inhabitants.
Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting Graciano Cabrera
et.al with the crime of sedition. They roamed about the streets of the town threatening and
intimidating the people.
Ruling:

No. Some members of the band, among them the chief, Domingo
Cunanan, told the prisoners that the latter were often found in the
Sedition, in its more general sense, is the raising of commotions or justice court, and that they were loaning money at usurious terms
disturbances in the State. The Philippine law on the subject (Act to their farm laborers, and when the latter were unable to pay the
No. 292) makes all persons guilty of sedition who rise publicly and loan they compelled their children to work for them as servants;
tumultuously in order to obtain by force or outside of legal methods that if the wealthy landowners continued oppressing the poor they
any one of vie objects, including that of inflicting any act of hate or would not stop disturbing the towns, because the law must be
revenge upon the person or property of any official or agent of the equally applied to rich and poor.
Insular Government or of Provincial or Municipal Government.
These acts were said to be in compliance with the orders of Felipe
Counsel's contention that in order for there to be a violation of Salvador, chief of the association called "Santa Iglesia", to which
subdivision 3 of section 5 of Act No. 292 it is and necessary that they belonged.

30
Issue: movement had its origin in religious differences between the
residents of the municipality.
Whether or not the crime of sedition was committed.
The petitioners desired the dismissal of the officials because they
Ruling: believed that they should not be permitted to hold office in the
municipality on account of their outspoken allegiance to one of the
factions into which the town was at that time divided.
Yes. The facts as stated constitute the crime of sedition provided
for in paragraphs 3 and 4 of section 5 and punished by section 6 of
Act No. 292 of the Civil Commission. The appellants were members Issue:
of an illegal association and had publicly and tumultuously attacked
the town of Cabiao and roamed over its streets, firing shots, Whether or not Filomeno Apurado et.al were guilty of sedition.
yelling, and threatening the residents with death, and thereby
frightening them. They performed acts of violence on the persons Ruling:
of the president and other residents of the town, against the law
and the supreme authority and with political-social purposes. For
No.The provisions of Section 5 of Act No. 292 must not be
these reasons the acts performed by the defendants constitute
interpreted so as to abridge "the freedom of speech" or "the right
sedition as defined by the aforesaid sections of Act No. 292. The
of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government
crime of sedition was consummated, even though the object of the
for redress or grievances" guaranteed by the express provisions of
defendants was not realized.
section 5 of "the Philippine bill. Not only were the individual
members of the crowd wholly unarmed, but they were manifestly
Case No. 59 desirous that fact should be known, for it appears that two
US vs Apurado American officials having asked what the purpose of the gathering
was, were assured that the assembly merely desired to petition for
Facts: the removal of several municipal officials; and in proof of the fact
that they had no intention of committing a breach of the peace, the
Filomeno Apurado et.al.were convicted of the crime of sedition as members of the crowd raised their jackets and camisas to prove
defined in section 5 of Act No. 292 of the Philippine Commission that they were carrying no concealed weapons.

Before the municipal council of San Carlos, Occidental Negros,


entered upon its regular morning sessions, some 500 residents
assembled near the municipal building and demanded the dismissal The prosecution emphasizes unduly the fact that a few of those
from office of the treasurer, secretary, and the chief of police, and who took in the demonstration carried canes, but there is nothing
the substitution in their places of new officials whose names were in the record to indicate that any usual number of sticks were in
suggested by the spokesman of the party; the hands of the petitioners, or that they had been brought to the
meeting for the purpose of using them as weapons of assault.
They wanted the council to accede to their wishes and drew up a
formal document setting out the reasons for its action.

The persons who took part in the movement were wholly unarmed CASE 61
except that a few carried canes. G.R. No. L-21049
December 22, 1923
The crowd was fairly orderly and well-behaved except in so far as THE PEOPLE VS. ISAAC PEREZ,
their pressing into the council chamber during a session of that MALCOLM, J.:
body can be called disorder and misbehavior; and that the

31
Facts: law. The Governor-General is the representative of executive civil
authority in the Philippines and of the sovereign power. A seditious
Isaac Perez, the municipal secretary of Pilar, Sorsogon, and attack on the Governor-General is an attack on the rights of the
Fortunato Lodovice, a citizen of that municipality, happening to Filipino people and on American sovereignty. (Concepcion vs.
meet on the morning of April 1, 1992. Upon meeting, they became Paredes [1921], 42 Phil., 599; U.S. vs. Dorr [1903], 2 Phil., 332.)
engaged in a discussion regarding the administration of Governor-
General Wood, which resulted in Perez shouting a number of times: Section 8 of Act No. 292 of the Philippine Commission, as amended
"The Filipinos, like myself, must use bolos for cutting off Wood's by Act No. 1692, appears to have been placed on the statute books
head for having recommended a bad thing for the Filipinos, for he exactly to meet such a situation. This section reads as follows:
has killed our independence." With that act, he was charged in the
Court of First Instance of Sorsogon with a violation of article 256 of Every person who shall utter seditious words or speeches, or who
the Penal Code having to do with contempt of ministers of the shall write, publish or circulate scurrilous libels against the
Crown or other persons in authority. Upon conviction of such Government of the United States or against the Government of the
charge, Perez then appealed the case to this court. Philippine Islands, or who shall print, write, publish utter or make
any statement, or speech, or do any act which tends to disturb or
Issue: whether or not Isaac Perez is guilty of the crime Sedition obstruct any lawful officer in executing his office or in performing
his duty, or which tends to instigate others to cabal or meet
Held: together for unlawful purposes, or which suggests or incites
rebellious conspiracies or which tends to stir up the people against
Yes, Isaac Perez is guilty of the crime Sedition. In criminal law, the lawful authorities, or which tends to disturb the peace of the
there are a variety of offenses which are not directed primarily community or the safety or order of the Government, or who shall
against individuals, but rather against the existence of the State, knowingly conceal such evil practices from the constituted
the authority of the Government, or the general public peace. The authorities, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand
offenses created and defined in Act No. 292 are distinctly of this dollars United States currency or by imprisonment not exceeding
character. Among them is sedition, which is the raising of two years, or both, in the discretion of the court.
commotions or disturbances in the State. It is a revolt against
legitimate authority. Though the ultimate object of sedition is a In the words of the law, Perez has uttered seditious words. He has
violation of the public peace or at least such a course of measures made a statement and done an act which tended to instigate
as evidently engenders it, yet it does not aim at direct and open others to cabal or meet together for unlawful purposes. He has
violence against the laws, or the subversion of the Constitution. made a statement and done an act which suggested and incited
rebellious conspiracies. He has made a statement and done an act
Here, the person maligned by the accused is the Chief Executive of which tended to stir up the people against the lawful authorities.
the Philippine Islands. His official position, like the Presidency of He has made a statement and done an act which tended to disturb
the United States and other high offices, under a democratic form the peace of the community and the safety or order of the
of government, instead, of affording immunity from promiscuous Government. All of these various tendencies can be ascribed to the
comment, seems rather to invite abusive attacks. But in this action of Perez and may be characterized as penalized by section 8
instance, the attack on the Governor-General passes the furthest of Act No. 292 as amended.
bounds of free speech was intended. There is a seditious tendency CASE 62
in the words used, which could easily produce disaffection among G.R. No. L-1451
the people and a state of feeling incompatible with a disposition to March 6, 1906
remain loyal to the Government and obedient to the laws. THE UNITED STATE vs. AURELIO TOLENTINO
CARSON, J.:
The Governor-General is an executive official appointed by the
President of the United States by and with the advice and consent Facts:
of the Senate of the United States, and holds in his office at the
pleasure of the President. The Organic Act vests supreme executive On May 14, 1903, Aurelio Tolentino utter seditious words and
power in the Governor-General to be exercised in accordance with speeches and did write, publish, and circulate scurrilous libels in
32
Tagalog language in a theatrical work written by accused-appellant spirit of hatred and enmity against the American people and the
and which was presented by him and others on the May 14, 1903 Government of the United States in the Philippines, and we are
at the "Teatro Libertad," in the city of Manila entitled 'Kahapon satisfied that the principal object and intent of its author was to
gayon at Bukas' (Yesterday, To-day, and To-morrow) which is incite the people of the Philippine Islands to open and armed
against the Government of the United States and the Insular resistance to the constituted authorities, and to induce them to
Government of the Philippine Islands, which tend to obstruct the conspire together for the secret organization of armed forces, to be
lawful officers, instigate others to cabal and meet together for used when the opportunity presented itself, for the purpose of
unlawful purposes, and which suggest and incite rebellious overthrowing the present Government and setting up another in its
conspiracies and riots, tend to stir up the people against the lawful stead.
authorities and to disturb the peace of the community and the
safety and order of the Government of the United States and the
Insular Government of the Philippine Islands. CASE 64
Espuelas vs People
G.R. No. L-2990
Issue: December 17, 1951
whether, in writing, publishing, and uttering the drama, the
accused was in fact guilty of a violation of section 8 of Act No. 292 Facts:
of the Philippine Commission
On June 9 and June 24, 1947, both dates inclusive, in the town
Held: of Tagbilaran, Bohol, Oscar Espuelas y Mendoza had his
picture taken, making it to appear as if he were hanging
Several allied offenses or modes of committing the same offense lifeless at the end of a piece of rope suspended from the limb
are define in that section, viz: (1) The uttering of seditious words of the tree, when in truth and in fact, he was merely standing
or speeches; (2) the writing, publishing, or circulating of scurrilous on a barrel.
libels against the Government of the United States or the Insular After securing copies of his photograph, Espuelas sent copies
Government of the Philippine Islands; (3) the writing, publishing, or of same to several newspapers and weeklies of general
circulating of libels which tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful circulation not only in the Province of Bohol but also
officer in executing his office; (4) or which tend to instigate others throughout the Philippines and abroad, for their publication
to cabal or meet together for unlawful purposes; (5) or which with a suicide note or letter, wherein he made to appear that it
suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots; (6) or which tend was written by a fictitious suicide, Alberto Reveniera and
to stir up the people against the lawful authorities or to disturb the addressed to the latter's supposed wife. The note contains
peace of the community, the safety and order of the Government; statements of dismay with the administration of President
(7) knowingly concealing such evil practices. Roxas, pointing out the situation in Central Luzon and Leyte,
and directing his wife his dear wife to write to President
In accordance with the principles laid down in the preceding Truman and Churchill of US and tell them that in the
paragraph the judgment of conviction in this case must be Philippines the government is infested with many Hitlers and
sustained, if it appears from the evidence in the record that the Mussolinis, and to teach their children to burn pictures of
accused was guilty as charged of any one of those offenses. We Roxas if and when they come across one.
are all agreed that the publication and presentation of the drama The accused admitted the fact that he wrote the note or letter
directly and necessarily tend to instigate others to cabal and meet above quoted and caused its publication in the Free Press, the
together for unlawful purposes, and to suggest and incite rebellious Evening News, the Bisaya, Lamdang and other local periodicals
conspiracies and riots and to stir up the people against the lawful and that he had impersonated one Alberto Reveniera by
authorities and to disturb the peace of the community and the signing said pseudonymous nam in said note or letter and
safety and order of the Government. posed himself as Alberto Reveniera in a picture taken wherein
he was shown hanging by the end of a rope tied to a limb of a
The manifest, unmistakable tendency of the play, in view of the tree."
time, place, and manner of its presentation, was to inculcate a
33
Issue: Whether the accused is liable of seditious libel under Art. 142 of CASE 66
the RPC against the Government of the Philippines? People vs. Dasig
G.R. No. 100231.
April 28, 1993.

Held: Yes. Facts:


At about 4:00 oclock in the afternoon, Pfc. Catamora noticed eight
The letter is a scurrilous libel against the Government.1 It calls our (8) persons, one of whom he identified as Edwin Nuez, acting
government one of crooks and dishonest persons (dirty) infested with suspiciously. He noticed one of them giving instructions to two of
Nazis and Fascists i.e. dictators. And the communication reveals a the men to approach Pfc. Manatad. He followed the two, but
tendency to produce dissatisfaction or a feeling incompatible with the sensing that they were being followed, they immediately proceeded
disposition to remain loyal to the government.2 to the middle of the road and engaged Pfc. Catamora to a gun
battle.
Writings which tend to overthrow or undermine the security of the
govemment or to weaken the oonfidence of the people in the At that instant, Pfc. Catamora heard a series of shots from the
government are against the public peace, and are criminal not only other group and thereafter saw Pfc. Manatad sprawled on the
because they tend to incite to a breach of the peace but because they ground. Being out-numbered and to save his own life, Pat.
are conducive to the destruction of the very government itself. Catamora sought refuge at the nearby BIR Office from where he
saw two (2) persons take Pfc. Manatads gun and again fired at him
The essence of seditious libel is its immediate tendency to stir up to make sure that he is dead while the rest of the group including
general discontent to the pitch of illegal courses or to induce people to Nuez acted as back up.
resort to illegal methods in order to redress the evils which press upon
their minds. Thereafter, the Nuez group commandeered a vehicle and fled
from the scene of the shooting. Pfc. Rene Catamora testified that
A published writing which calls our government one of crooks and
he can identify accused-appellant Nuez because of a mole at the
dishonest persons ("dirty") infested with Nazis and Fascists i.e.
bridge of his nose near the left eye which he noticed when the
dictators, and which reveals a tendency to produce dissatisfaction or a
accused passed 2 or 3 meters in front of him together with his
feeling incompatible with the disposition to remain loyal to the
companions.
government, is a scurrilous libel against the Government.

Any citizen may criticize his government and government officials and
On August 16, 1987, two teams of police officers were tasked to
submit his criticism to the "free trade of ideas." However, such criticism
conduct surveillance on a suspected safehouse of members of the
should be specific and therefore constructive specifying particular
sparrow unit located in Peace Valley, Cebu City. Upon reaching the
objectionable actuations of the government; it must be reasoned or
place, the group saw Rodrigo Dasig and Edwin Nuez trying to
tempered, and not a contemptuous condemnation of the entire
escape. The team of Capt. Antonio Gorre captured Nuez and
government set-up. Such wholesale attack is nothing less than an
confiscated a .45 caliber revolver with 3 magazines and
invitation to disloyalty to the government. In the article now under
ammunitions, while the group of Sgt. Ronald Arnejo pursued Dasig,
examination one will find no particular objectionable actuation of the
who threw a grenade at his pursuers, but was shot on his left
government. It is called dirty, it is called a dictatorship, it is called
upper arm and subsequently apprehended.
shameful, but no particular omissions or commissions are set forth.
Instead the article drips with maleviolence and hate towards the Issue
constituted authorities. It tries to arouse animosity towards all public
servants headed by President Roxas whose pictures this appellant Whether or not he committed murder with direct assault or simple
would burn and would teach the younger generation to destroy. rebellion.

Held

34
Rebellion is committed by taking up arms against the government, Whether or not Lydia Gelig is liable for Direct Assault with
among other means. (Article 135, Revised Penal Code). In this Unintentional Abortion.
case, appellant not only confessed voluntarily his membership with
the sparrow unit but also his participation and that of his group in Held
the killing of Pfc. Manatad while manning the traffic in Mandaue Yes. It is clear from the foregoing provision that direct assault is an
City in the afternoon of August 4, 1987. It is of judicial notice that offense against public order that may be committed in two ways:
the sparrow unit is the liquidation squad of the New Peoples Army first, by any person or persons who, without a public uprising, shall
with the objective of overthrowing the duly constituted employ force or intimidation for the attainment of any of the
government. It is therefore not hard to comprehend that the killing purposes enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and
of Pfc. Manatad was committed as a means to or in furtherance of sedition; and second, by any person or persons who, without a
the subversive ends of the NPA. Consequently, appellant is liable public uprising, shall attack, employ force, or seriously intimidate or
for the crime of rebellion, not murder with direct assault upon a resist any person in authority or any of his agents, while engaged
person in authority.8 in the performance of official duties, or on occasion of such
performance.
The crime of rebellion consists of many acts. It is a vast movement
of men and a complex net of intrigues and plots. Acts committed in The case of Lydia falls under the second mode, which is the more
furtherance of rebellion though crimes in themselves are deemed common form of assault. Its elements are:
absorbed in one single crime of rebellion.9 The act of killing a 1. That the offender (a) makes an attack, (b) employs force, (c)
police officer, knowing too well that the victim is a person in makes a serious intimidation, or (d) makes a serious resistance.
authority is a mere component or ingredient of rebellion or an act 2. That the person assaulted is a person in authority or his agent.
done in furtherance of the rebellion. It cannot be made a basis of a 3. That at the time of the assault the person in authority or his
separate charge. agent (a) is engaged in the actual performance of official duties, or
[b] that he is assaulted by reason of the past performance of
CASE 67 official duties.
Gelig vs. People 4. That the offender knows that the one he is assaulting is a
G.R. No. 173150 person in authority or his agent in the exercise of his duties.
July 28, 2010 5. That there is no public uprising.15

Facts: On the day of the commission of the assault, Gemma was engaged
Lydia Gelig and private complainant Gemma B. Micarsos in the performance of her official duties, that is, she was busy with
(Gemma), were public school teachers at the Nailon paperwork while supervising and looking after the needs of pupils
Elementary School, in Nailon, Bogo, Cebu. Lydias son, who are taking their recess in the classroom to which she was
Roseller, was a student of Gemma at the time material to assigned. Lydia was already angry when she entered the classroom
this case. and accused Gemma of calling her son a sissy. Lydia refused to
Lydia confronted Gemma after learning from Roseller that be pacified despite the efforts of Gemma and instead initiated a
Gemma called him a sissy while in class. Lydia slapped verbal abuse that enraged the victim. Gemma then proceeded
Gemma in the cheek and pushed her, thereby causing her towards the principals office but Lydia followed and resorted to the
to fall and hit a wall divider. As a result of Lydias violent use of force by slapping and pushing her against a wall divider. The
assault, Gemma suffered a contusion in her maxillary violent act resulted in Gemmas fall to the floor.
area, as shown by a medical certificate5 issued by a
doctor in the Bogo General Hospital. However, Gemma Gemma being a public school teacher, belongs to the class of
continued to experience abdominal pains and started persons in authority expressly mentioned in Article 152 of the
bleeding two days after the incident. On August 28, 1981, Revised Penal Code, as amended. The pertinent portion of the
she was admitted in the Southern Islands Hospital and provision reads as follows:
was diagnosed, to her surprise, to have suffered Art. 152. Persons in Authority and Agents of Persons in
incomplete abortion. AuthorityWho shall be deemed as such.
Issue xxxx
35
In applying the provisions of articles 148 and 151 of this Code, there and protested to the president that their brother's carabao
teachers, professors, and persons charged with the supervision of was taken to Pavia which is within the zone affected by the
public or duly recognized private schools, colleges and universities, quarantine.
and lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties
or on the occasion of such performance shall be deemed persons in The president, upon hearing said protest, said that it was his
authority. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 873, approved opinion that Gregorio Ismaa was right in taking the carabao to the
June 12, 1985). police station at Pavia.

It is worth stressing that Gemma was admitted and confined in a However he promised to intervene in the matter and to telephone
hospital for incomplete abortion on August 28, 1981, which was 42 to the man in charge of the quarantine to find out whether, on the
days after the July 17, 1981 incident. This interval of time is too following day, the said carabao could not be withdrawn from the
lengthy to prove that the discharge of the fetus from the womb of zone affected by the quarantine and upon hearing this statement of
Gemma was a direct outcome of the assault. Her bleeding and the president, the accused insulted the said president and gave him
abdominal pain two days after the said incident were not a slap on the face which struck his left ear.
substantiated by proof other than her testimony. Thus, it is not
unlikely that the abortion may have been the result of other ISSUE:
factors.
Whether or not the accused is guilty of assault upon an agent of
(Guilty of Direct Assault, but NO unintentional abortion)
authority

HELD:

CASE 69 Yes. The information qualifies the crime charged as an assault upon
69. THE UNITED STATES vs. NICOMEDES GUMBAN an agent of authority. Inasmuch as the offended party, as
GR NO. 13658 municipal president, is a person in authority and not a mere agent
November 9, 1918 of authority, the designation of the crime given by the fiscal is
Avancea, J. erroneous. But, as has been decided by this court in many cases,
this mistake does not affect the information, because the
qualification which the fiscal makes is not what constitutes the
FACTS: crime but the f acts stated in the information. In relating the facts
constituting the alleged crime, the fiscal further says that the
Petronilo Gumban, municipal president of Jaro, Iloilo, was in the offended party was a municipal president and therefore an agent of
barrio of Pavia of the said municipality, inspecting the quarantine of authority. This, however, is nothing but a mere conclusion of law
animals. which can be considered discarded from the information. The
allegation made that the offended party was a municipal president
He was getting some information from a councilor, Magdaleno is sufficient to make one understand that the crime charged in the
Suliano, regarding the condition of the animals in his barrio, when information is that of assault upon a person in authority. For this
Gregorio Ismaa, a tenant of Magdaleno Suliano, arrived to report reason, we believe that, in accordance with the information filed in
the fact that he had surprised a carabao belonging to Policarpio this case, the accused can be found guilty of the crime of assault
Gumban, destroying a planted area belonging to the said upon a person in authority.
Magdaleno Suliano, and that, having seized the carabao, he
brought the same to the police station at Pavia, which is within the
zone affected by the quarantine.
CASE 70
Then Epifanio Gumban and the accused Nicomedes Gumban, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FELIX BENITEZ
brothers of Policarpio Gumban, the owner of the carabao, arrived GR No. 48396
36
September 11, 1942 Tiburcio Balbar entered the room where schoolteacher Ester
Moran, J. Gonzales was conducting her classes.

Without warning and right after complainant had finished writing


FACTS: on the blackboard, defendant allegedly placed his arms around her
and kissed her on the eye.
In the morning of October 28, 1939, while D'Artagnan Williams,
Division Superintendent of Schools for Negros Occidental, was Shocked, complainant instinctively pushed Balbar away and tried to
working in his office, defendant Felix Benitez, special agent in the flee.
office of the Provincial Governor, gave the former a fist blow
causing him a contusion over the mastoid bone on the left ear. Defendant allegedly brought out his daga (a local dagger) and
pursued complainant, catching up with her before she was able to
The assault appeared to have been prompted by the defendant's get out of the room and defendant embraced her again, at the
desire to avenge a supposed affront to the Provincial Governor by same time holding on to his daga.
the Division Superintendent in connection with the appointment of
teachers. They both fell to the floor, as a result of which complainant
sustained slight physical injuries.
ISSUE:
ISSUE:
Whether or not a division superintendent of schools is a person in
authority within the meaning of article 148, in connection with Whether or not quashing the information for Direct Assault should
article 152, of the Revised Penal Code. be set aside by reason of absence of knowledge of the accused
that the victim is a person in authority.
HELD:
HELD:
Yes, since under the law (section 917 of the Revised Administrative
Code), a division superintendent of schools is given the power of NO. The lower courts dismissal of the information on the ground
general superintendence over schools and school interests in his that there is no express
division, with the right to appoint municipal school teachers and to allegation in the information that the accused had knowledge that
fix their salaries, and further, since education is a state function the person attacked was a person in authority is clearly erroneous.
and public policy demands an adequate protection of those
engaged in the performance of this commission, we believe and so Where an information for direct assault upon a person in authority
hold that a division superintendent of schools should be regarded sufficiently alleges that the accused knew the complainant was a
as a person in authority. school teacher, was in her classroom and engaged in the
performance of her duties when she was assaulted, it is error to
quash the same upon the ground of absence of express allegation
that accused had knowledge that she was a person in authority,
CASE 71 and the case should be remanded for trial on the merits, for it
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. TIBURCIO BALBAR matters not that such knowledge on his part is not expressly
GR Nos. L20216 and L20217 alleged. It matters not that such knowledge on his part is not
November 29, 1967 expressly alleged, complainants status as a person in authority
Makalintal, J. being a matter of law and not of fact, ignorance whereof could not
excuse noncompliance on his part (Art. 3, Civil Code). This article
applies to all kinds of domestic laws, whether civil or penal, and
whether substantive or remedial, for reasons of expediency, policy
FACTS:
and necessity.

37
the uniforms worn by the policemen. The policemen then went
away, which may be attributed not only to the command of the
CASE 72 justice of the peace but also to the fact that some of Tabiana's
U.S. v. GUMBAN, friends indicated a determination to fight if the policemen should
SUPRA persist in their purpose of arresting Tabiana.
FACTS:

The warrant for the arrest of Tabiana and his herdsman was placed ISSUE: Whether or not Tabiana resisted the persons in authority.
in the hands of two policemen, Emiliano Callado and Baltazar
Cabilitasan. Tabiana told the policemen that he would come in later HELD:
and report at the municipal building with his herdsman. At 6. p.m.,
the Tabiana not having appeared at the municipal building, the YES. Tabiana guilty of resistance and serious disobedience to
policemen were directed by the chief to find him and have him public authority. Resistance is impossible without the employment
come to the municipal building in obedience to the warrant of some force. A man may abscond or evade or elude arrest, or
In passing near the market place Tabiana detached himself from may disobey the commands of an officer without using force but he
the custody of the policemen without their consent and entered the cannot resist without using force of some kind or in some degree.
market. The policemen, instead of following Tabiana into the If at the ultimate moment no force is employed to resist, there is
market, they waited about half an hour, at the end of which time not resistance but submission; and if it had been intended that
they went into the market and found Tabiana with some of his every manifestation of force, however slight, against the
friends. Tabiana asked for the warrant. Callado drew the warrant authorities, and their agents should bring the case under article
from his pocket; and as he showed it to the Tabiana who took it, 249, Reasonably interpreted they appear to have reference to
looked at it, and put it into his pocket. After that he said, "Come something more dangerous to civil society than a simple blow with
along" and gave the policeman a push, as did also more than one the hands at the moment a party is taken into custody by a
other of Tabiana's friends. policeman.

They went to the municipal building but as it was getting late, the Julian Canillas is found to participated in the offense committed on
chief of police and other officials were gone. Tabiana and his the occasion, knowing that Tabiana was liable to arrest under the
friends left the municipal building, saying that they were going to warrant issued by himself; and he is therefore punishable in the
find the justice of the peace (the justice of the peace lived with same manner.
Tabiana) Presently, however, the chief of police arrived at the
CASE 73
municipal building, and learning what had taken place, he
PEOPLE VS. HERNANDEZ
dispatched the two policemen to go after Tabiana and procure the
59 PHIL 343
return of the warrant of arrest and to insist that Tabiana should
come down at once so that the matter could be finished.
FACTS:
Amador E. Gomez, as provincial sheriff of Camarines Norte,
When the policemen arrived they found Tabiana, he was requested
appeared at the house of the defendant, Gabriel Hernandez, to
to give up the warrant and go to the police station he denied
proceed with the attachment of the personal property belonging to
having taken the warrant. Tabiana then approached the policeman,
the latter and his wife, by virtue of a writ of execution issued by
Callado, and hit him in the breast with his hand or fist, at which
the court in civil case No. 775, entitled The Collector of Internal
instant the policeman seized him by the wrist and resistance
Revenue v. Gabriel Hernandez, the said defendant Gabriel
ceased. As the policeman started to carry the prisoner away two
Hernandez, who was then governor of Camarines Norte, and
bystanders interfered and took him away from the policeman.
Marcos Panotes, who was chief of police of the municipality of
By this time Julian Canillas, the justice of the peace, had arrived on
Daet, taking advantage of their respective public positions and
the scene and being evidently excited, he hit Callado on the back,
abusing the same, voluntarily, illegally and criminally, without any
when he too was stopped by another policeman. Julian Canillas
legal motive or right whatsoever, detained, locked up and deprived
directing himself to the policeman said, "Go back to the municipal
building and to-morrow you will take those clothes off," referring to
38
the said offended party of his liberty against his will, for a period of Doton 's hands. Barangay Captain Doton yelled "I'm going to die,
time less than three days. they are going to kill me."
Pascual Rillorta denied having killed Barangay Captain Doton. He
ISSUE: alleged that Barangay Captain Doton attacked him. For his part,
Wesley alleged that he simply defended his father who was
HELD: attacked by Doton.
RESISTANCE TO AN AGENT OF A PERSON IN AUTHORITY; FALSE
IMPRISONMENT; ARBITRARY DETENTION; PROVINCIAL SHERIFF. ISSUE:
The alleged offense of resistance to an agent of a person in W/N Barangay Captain Doton was performing his official duties as
authority, with which the GABRIEL HERNANDEZ is charged, barangay captain when attacked.
consisted in his having prevented the provincial sheriff from
carrying away his piano and chairs from his house by holding him HELD:
by the arm with hand while with the other he wrested the chair YES. Under Article 152 of the Revised Penal Code and P.D. 299, a
which the said sheriff was trying to hand over to one of the several barangay captain (formerly a "barrio lieutenant") is a person in
laborers standing by for his orders below or at the foot of the stairs authority. When Doton intervened to prevent a violent encounter
of the appellants house. The alleged offense of arbitrary detention between the Pascual Rillorta and Ramos' group, he was discharging
with which he was also charged consisted in his having ordered the his duty as barangay captain to protect life and property and
chief of police to arrest said sheriff, depriving him of his liberty at enforce law and order in his barrio.
least from 6 to 8.45 oclock in the evening.
CASE 75
U.S. VS. BALUYOT
40 PHIL 385
CASE 74
PEOPLE VS RILLORTA FACTS:
180 SCRA 102 Conrado Lerma was elected governor of the Province of Bataan.
One of his competitors upon this occasion was, Jose I. Baluyot. He
FACTS: was then commissioned as captain of the National Guard. pendency
Romy Ramos, a thresher operator, recounted that while they were of the accusation for estafa and its damaging effects upon his
threshing the palay stock near the premises of the of Barangay reputation, he had been asked to resign from the position; and
Captain Emiliano Doton. Pascual Baylon Rillorta accosted Ramos although he had not resigned when the act which gave occasion to
and threatened him with a gun saying "Damn you, you better go this prosecution occurred, he had apparently been temporarily
home or I'll kill you here" Rillorta resented the threshing of palay in relieved from duty with that organization pending investigation.
his barrio by the Ramos' threshing party, whom he regarded as
outsiders, because he wanted the palay stocks in his barrio to be He was to deliver a piano owned by his wife to the provincial
threshed in his own thresher. building and inquired for the governor upon the pretext that he
desired a friendly interview.
On their way home, Calapugan, Ramos and his companions, Romy
Elizaga and Ceferino Facon, aboard their thresher, were stopped by Baluyot had been called into the office upon the governor's first
the three accused. Pascual Rillorta, who was armed with a bolo, arrival and had withdrawn for a few moments to permit another
warned them not to return to thresh palay in barrio Barangobong. person to have an interview was also calculated to put the
Barangay Captain Doton, who was following behind Ramos' group, governor off his guard at the moment Baluyot re-entered the office.
advised Pascual Rillorta to let the threshing party pass. The three The unarmed governor could make no effectual defence against a
PASCUAL, WESLEY and WILSON RILLORTA chased Barangay person armed with such a deadly weapon as a revolver. It is
Captain Doton. Upon overtaking him, they surrounded him and obvious also that the means and methods thus deliberately
pushed him toward the creek. Pascual Rillorta hacked him with a selected by Baluyot were intended to insure the execution of the
bolo while his sons (Wesley and Wilson) held Barangay Captain crime without any risk to himself arising from the defence which
the governor could make.
39
Held:
The governor tried to make an escape but was fired the second
and third shot. 1. No, there was never a mutual agreement to fight. Complainant
never agreed. It appears that when the two left the room. Justo
ISSUE: was following the complainant.
Whether of not the crime was committed whilst the governor was
in the performance of his duty. 2. No, being a public official, the duty is attached to their
personality until such person ceases to hold office. No mutual
HELD: agreement to fight can disrobe that.
Yes. A complex crime of murder and assault upon a person in
authority during the performance of his duty. The provincial The Supreme Court finds no reversible error in the decision
governor was killed within his office in the provincial building whilst appealed from, and the same is hereby affirmed. Costs against
performing his duty. Appellant.

CASE 76
Severino Justo vs CA CASE 77
GR No. L-8611 US vs. Prudencio Garcia
REYES J.B.L.,J. G.R. No. 6820
Arellano, C.J.,
FACTS:
FACTS
This is an appeal from the Court of Appeals from Court of This is appeal for the crime of attempt against an authority
First Instance Ilocos Norte. in which the defendant was found guilty.

There were two public teachers who are complainant and There was a case involving Carmen Pascual. The decision of the
defendant in this case.Justo asked De la Cuesta if it is possible to case was announced. Apparently, Garcia was outraged by the
have a certain Ms. Racela as teacher in her district. De la Cuesta decision and blurted, "We dont agree to the decision!". The
said no but maybe a "shop teacher. Insulted and his feelings justice of the peace, whose name is not present in the Supreme
hurt,the complainant lashed out and said in these exact words Court resolution, said that if he does not agree he could post bail
Shet, you are a double crosser. One who cannot keep his Garcia replied with outrageous and vexing remarks. The judge
promise., and then challenged De la Cuesta to a fist fight outside rhetorically asked what involvement does he have with the case
office premises. Complainant grabbed a lead paper weight. The two when he is not even a party to it. The judge told him to get out
went out the room and then stopped at a certain Mr. Bueno's office as Garcia was making a disturbance. Garcia made an
table; Bueno was there apparently. De la Cuesta said that Justo implied threatening remark just before he left. When the
should drop the lead paper weight. Defendant put grabbed the Justice of the peace was about to go home, apparently Garcia was
neck and collar of Justo. Bueno broke up the fight, but before waiting in the shadows, like a thief in the night or a lion pouncing
that defendant threw punches at complainant. Justo was on his prey. Garcia then attacked the said justice with a cane
found guilty of assault. Justo claims both parties mutually and slapped the face of the justice. The defendant denies
agreed to fight, both disrobed themselves as teachers. that he attacked the justice and states that the latter provoked
him and admits to slapping.
Issues:
Issue: Whether or not the defendant did assualt the justice of the
Whether or not there was mutual agreement to fight peace

Whether or not mutual agreement to fight disrobes public duty as


teachers

40
Held: Yes, the facts were presented in the lower court with 5
witness claiming what is stated in the facts is true. Further, Garcia's
statements of provocation are unsubstantiated. CASE 79
Hilarion Sarcepuedes vs People of the PHilippines
The judgment is affirmed, with the costs of this instance upon the G.R. No. L-3857
Appellant. BENGZON, J.:

FACTS:
This is an appeal by certiorari from a decision of the Court of
CASE 78 Appeals convicting the appellant of direct assault upon a person in
People vs.JESUS HECTO, PEDRO HECTO and LORETO HECTO, accused, authority.
PEDRO HECTO and LORETO HECTO
G.R. No. L-52787 Lucrecia Bustamante is a teacher-nurse who ordered the closing of
EN BANC a pathway in her land which led to the premis of the school she
was working. Hilarion did not like this act. Hilarion went straight to
FACTS: the school to confront her. A heated exchange brewed up and
Hilarion pushed Lucrecia to the window and hit her with a raincoat
CFI LEYTE finds herein accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of twice. Hilarion pleads that Lucrecia on that day was not in her
the complex crime of murder with assault upon a person in official capacity.
authority and sentencing them to DEATH.
Issue: whether or not to affirm the decision.
Appellants slaughtered a carabao but did not pay slaughter
fee. Barangay Captain Catalino Pedrosa asked the appellants to Held Yes, the defendant's statement is unfounded. She is a person
pay but latter said they already did paid however it was apparently in authority within the meaning of the law at the time of the assault
a lie. Catalino confronted the appellants and a heated exchange she was piercing the earlobe of a student which was part of her
happened which lead to fists being thrown by appellants but the function. Finding no legal error in the affirmed decision, The
wife of the Captain was there to pull him out of the fight. Later the Supreme Court affirms the decision, with costs against the
Captain while escorting his nephew to the latters parents house, appellant.
he was attacked. A gunshot was heard which prompted the
Captain's wife to go outside their house but she was halted by
appellant who aimed their guns at her. More shots were fired to the
body of the Captain who was lying on the ground and then not
satisfied the appellants sadistically stabbed the captain. The
defense of appellant was denial and that they were somewhere
else when the incident happened.

Issue: Whether or not appellants' guilt should be affirmed.

Held: Yes, although some of the evidence is hearsay. The


testimony of the Captain's wife and Mario Cadayong corroborated
with the facts. The fact that appellants went into hiding after the
incident is evidence of guilt. The decision is modified as the trial
court erred in convicting them of the complex crime of murder with
assault upon a person in authority.Barangay Captain was in his
official capacity when the accused killed him,the CFI erred in not
ruling this.The penalty is modified to Reclusion Perpetua.

41
42