Criminal Law II Crimes Against National Security and the Law of Nations TREASON Laurel vs.

Misa That the accused claim that his allegiance as a Filipino citizen was suspended and that there was a change of sovereignty over the Phil Islands: • A citizen or subject owes, not a qualified and temporary, but an absolute and permanent allegiance, which consists in the obligation of fidelity and obedience to his government of sovereign. The absolute and permanent allegiance of the inhabitants of a territory occupied by the enemy to their legitimate government or sovereign is not abrogated or severed by the enemy occupation, because the sovereignty of the government or sovereign de jure is not transferred thereby the occupier. • Just as treason may be committed against the Federal as well as against the State Govt, in the same way treason may have been committed during the Japanese occupation against the sovereignty of the US as weel as against the sovereignty of the Phil Commonwealth; and that the change of our gorm of govt from commonwealth to republic does not affect the prosecution of those charged with the crime of treason committed during the commonwealth, bec it is an offense against the same govt and the same sovereign people. People vs. Perez That the women were brought by the accused to the Japanese soldiers for sexual purposes: • Commandeering of women to satisfy the lust of Japanese officers or men or to enliven the entertainments held in their honor was not reason even though the women and the entertainments helpted to make life more pleasant for the enemies and boost their spirit. The law of treason does not prescribe all kinds of social, business and political intercourse bet the belligerent occupants of the invaded country and it inhabitants.

That the accused help in torturing guerillas with Japanese soldiers: • • two-witness rule: It is necessary that the two witnesses corroborate each other not only on the whole overt act but on any part of it. Torture and atrocities as aggravating circumstances –the use hereof instead of the usual and less painful method of execution will be taken into account to increase the penalty under art. 14(21). Plea of guilty to some counts: considered mitigating circumstance.

• •

Recall: There was a lone survivor Antonio De Guzman who was shot in the waters but was not killed. Number of persons killed on the occasion of piracy, not material; Piracy, a special complex crime punishable by death—but the number of persons killed on the occasion of piracy is not material. PD 532 considers qualified piracy as a special complex crime punishable by death. (not anymore-RP)

HIJACKING RA 6235 Crime Against the Fundamental Laws of the State ARBITRARY DETENTION Rule 112, sec 6 Rule 113, sec 5 Umil vs. Ramos • • Case of 8 habeas corpus. Arrest without a warrant is justified when the person arrested is caught in flagranti delicto. An arrest without a warrant of arrest under sec. 5 par a and 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 offensel or when an offense has just been committed and the person making the arrest has personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the person arrested has committed it. Habeas Corpus; Subversion; The crimes of rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes and offenses committed in furtherance thereof of in connection therewith constitute direct assaults against the State are in the nature continuing crimes. Rolando Dural was arrested for being a member of the NPA, an outlawed subversive organization. Subversion being a continuing offense, the arrest of Rolando Dural without warrant is justified as it can be said that he was committing an offense when arrested. The crimes, and crimes or offenses committed in furtherance thereof or in connection therewith constitute direct assaults against the State and are in the nature of continuing crimes.

ESPIONAGE CA 616 PIRACY People vs.Lol-lo and Saraw That the accused are claiming that they do not belong to the Phil territory:

Piracy is robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas, without lawful authority and done animo furandi (with intent to steal) and in the spirit and intention of universal hostility. Piracy is a crime not against any particular State byt against all mankind. It may be punished in the competent tribunal or any country where the offender may be found or into which he may be carried. The jurisdiction of piracy unlike all other crimes had not territorial limits.

People vs. Rodriguez • PD 532 (Anti-Piracy Law) amended 134 and its effect was to create the crime of qualified piracy where rape, murder or homicide is committed. No mitigating circumstance shall be appreciated regardless of plea of guilt. Recall: crew members of the vessel committed crime

People vs. Siyoh That the accused committed with triple murder and frustrated murder in piracy:

People vs. Prieto

People vs Burgos

• •

The case where the firearm was left to be buried to the ground and the wife pointed where the firearm was. Warrant of arrest; personal knowledge required of an officer arresting a person who has just committed is committing or is about to commit an offense-udner sec6(a) of Rule 113, the officer arresting a person who has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense must have personal knowledge of that fact. The offense must also be committed in his presence. For arrests without warrant to be lawful, it is required that a crime must in fact or actually have been committed first. In arrests without warrant under Sec 6(b) it is not enough that there is reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a crime. A crime must in fact or actually have been committed first. That a crime has actually been committed is an essential precondition. It is not enough to suspect that a crime may have been committee. The fact of the commission of the offense must be undisputed. The test of reasonable ground applies only to the identity of the perpetrator.

regardless of whether the transactions were legal or illegal, contravene the explicit command of the Bill of Rights that the things to be seized should be particularly described and defeat its major objective of eliminating general warrants. Burgos vs. Chief of Staff • • 2 search warrants against Metropolitan Mail and We Forum newspapers premises. Probable cause for search: as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. A search warrant against a publisher must particularize the alleged criminal or subversive material to be seized. The application and/or its supporting affidavits must contain a specification, stating with particularity the alleged subversive material he has published or intending to publish.

once the scene of religious intolerance and prosecution. Crimes Against Public Order REBELLION, INSURRECTION, COUP D’ETAT RA 6968 Enrile vs. Salazar • • Honasan charged with rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder. Hernandez doctrine prohibits complexing of rebellion with any other offense. The rejection of both options shapes and determines the primary ruling of the Court, which is that Hernandez remains binding doctrine operating to prohibit the complexing of rebellion with any other offense committed on the occasion thereof, either as a means necessary to its commission or as an unintended effect of an activity that constitutes rebellion. Gutierrez Jr Concurring: Rebellion consists of many acts; the crime of rebellion consists of many acts. The dropping of one bomb cannot be isolated as a separate crime. of rebellion. Neither should the dropping of one hundred bombs or the firing of thousands of machine gun bullets be broken up into a hundred or thousands of separate offenses. The killing of civilians during a rebel attack on military facilities furthers the rebellion and is part of the rebellion.

• OFFENDING RELIGIOUS FEELINGS People vs. Baes • • The case where the funeral passed thru the Catholic churchyard. The court held that WON the act complained of is offensive to the religious feelings of the Catholics, is a question of fact which must be judged only according to the feelings of the Catholics and not those of other faithful ones, for it is possible that certain acts may offend the feelings of those who profess a certain religion, while not otherwise offensive to the feelings of those professing another faith. Laurel Dissenting: Offense to religious feelings should not be made to depend upon the more or less broad or narrow conception of any given particular religion but should be gauged having in view the nature of the acts committed and after scrutiny of all the facts and circumstances which should be viewed through the mirror of an unbiased judicial criterion. Otherwise, the gravity of leniency of the offense would hinge in the subjective characterization of the act from the point of view of a given religious denomination or sect and in such a case, the application of the law would be partial and arbitrary, withal, dangerous, especially in a country said to

DELAY IN DELIVERY OF DETAINED PERSON EO 272 Rule 112, sec 7 RA 7438 SEARCH WARRANTS MALICIOUSLY OBTAINED Rule 126 Stonehill vs. Diokno • • Several judges issued 42 search warrants to seize all docs and papers showing all business transactions of petitioners. Requisites for issuing search warrantsConstitution provides that no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the judge, and that the warrant shall particularly describe the things to be seized. Search warrants authorizing the seizure of books of accounts and records showing all the business transactions of certain person,

Enrile vs. Amin • Enrile was charged with rebellion complexed with murder and a violation under PD 1829 Sec. 1(c) obstruction of justice bec he gave food and comfort to Honasan. Being in conspiracy with Honasan, petitioner’s alleged act of harboring or concealing was fo no other purpose but in furtherance of the crime of rebellion thus constituting a component thereof. It was motivated by the single intent or resolution to commit the crime of rebellion. The decisive factor is the intent or motive. All crimes whether punishable under a special law or general law which are mere components or ingredients or committed in furtherance thereof, become absorbed in the crime of rebellion and cannot be isolated and

charged as separate crimes in themselves. So whether punishable by RPC or a special law, the Hernandez case still is the ruling that these common crimes are absorbed in rebellion. • People vs. Lovedioro • A policeman was walking and he was killed by the accused. In deciding if the crime committed is rebellion not murder, it becomes imperative for the courts to ascertain won the act was done in furtherance of a political end. The political motive of the act should be conclusively demonstrated. It is not enough that the overt acts of rebellion are duly proven. From the foregoing, it is plainly obvous that it is not enough that the overt acts of rebellion are duly proven. Both purpose and overt acts are essential components of the crime. With either of these elements wanting, the crime of rebellion legally does not exist. If no political motive is established and proved, the accused should be convicted of the common crime and not of rebellion. In cases of rebellion, motive relates to the act, and mere membership in an organization dedicated to the furtherance of rebellion would not, by and of itself, suffice. •

company of Huk Commander Torio and about 30 armed men. The shots were heard. Afterwards they saw Umali and his companions leave in the direction of Taguan, by way of railroad tracks. The crime committed were not rebellion but rather that of sedition. The purpose of the raid and the act of the raiders in rising in rising publicly and taking up arms was not exactly against the Government and for the purpose of doing things defined in Article 134 of the RPC. The raiders did not even attack the Presidencia, the seat of the local Government. Rather the object was to attain by means of force, intimidation, etc., one object, to wit, to inflict an act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of a public official, namely Punzalan who was then mayor of Tiaong.

• • a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

Theatrical work which was alleged to be seditious. 7 modes of committing the offense: uttering seditious words or speeches writing, publishing, or ciculating of scurrilous libels against the govt. writing, publishing or circulating of scurrilous libels which tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing his office or which tend to instigate others to cabal or meet together for unlawful purposes which suggest or incite rebellious consipiracies which tend to stir up people against lawful authorires or to disturb the peace of the community, safety and order of the govt knowlingly concealing such evil practices

Espuelas vs. People • • Suicide note that he was not pleased with Roxas administration. A published writing which calls our govt one of corroks and dishonest persons infested with Nazis and Fascists i.e. dictators and which reveals a tendency to produce dissatisfaction or a feeling incompatible with the disposition to remain loyal to the govt is a scurrilous libel against the govt. Criticism of govt how it may legally be doneany citizen may criticize his govt and govt officials and submit his criticism to the free trade of ideas. However such criticicim should be specific and therefore constructive specifying particular objectionable actuations of the govt. it must be reasoned or tempered and not a contemptuous condemnation of the entire govt set up.

People vs. Cabrera • • • Phil Constabulary vs. the Manila police where the PC vowed revenge. Sedition in its more general sense is the raising of commotions or disturbances in the State. The Phil Law on the subject makes all persons guilty of sedition who rise publicly and tumultously in order to obtain by force or outside of legal methods any one of five objects, including that of inflicting any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of any official or agent of the Insular Govt or of a provincial or municipal govt. It is not necessary that the offender should be a private citizen and the offended party a public functionary. Conspiracies are generally proved by a number of indefinite acts, conditions and circumstances which vary according to the purposes to be accomplished. IF it be proved that the defendants pursued by their acts the same object, one performing one part and another part of the same so as to complete it with a view to the attainment of that same object one will be justified in the conclusion that they were engaged in a conspiracy to effect that object.

SEDITION People vs. Umali • On the eve of the election, at the house of Pasumbal’s father, Congressman Umali instructed Pasumbal to contact the Huks through Commander Abeng so that Punzalan would be killed. It would seem that Umali and Pasumbal had a feeling that Punzalan was going to win in the election and that his death was the surest way to eliminate him from the electoral fight. In the evening of the same day, Pasumbal reported to Umali about his conference with Commander Abeng, saying that the latter was agreeable to the proposition and even outlines the manner of attack. After waiting for sometime, Abeng and his troops numbering about fifty, armed with garlands and carbines, arrived. Congressman Umali, holding a revolver, was seen in the • •

VIOLATION OF PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY Martinez vs. Morfe • Martinez and Bautista were members of the Constitutional Convention. They were arrested for falsification of docs-birthday and distribution of free food, drinks and cigs at 2 public meetings Sec 15, Art VI of the Constitution makes it clear that parliamentary immunity from arrest does not cover any prosecution for treason, felony, and breach of the peace. American law: Bu common parliamentary law, the members of the legislature are privileged from arrest on civil process during

INCITING TO SEDITION US vs Tolentino •

the session of that body, and for a reasonable time before and after, to enable them to go to and return from the same. A prosecution for a criminal offense is thus excluded from this grant of community. ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS RA 8294 People vs. Quijada • • Case where a dance was held in a basketball court and Quijada kept on pestering Iroy’s sister and Quijada killed the brother. He was convicted of two separate offenses of murder and illegal use of firearm aggravated with illegal use of firearm. The unequivocal intent of the second par of section 1. of PD 1866 is to respect and preserve homicide or murder as a distinct offense penalized under the RPC and to increasae the penalty for illegal possession of firearm where such a firearm is used in killing a person. Its clear language yields no intention of the lawmaker to repeal or modify, pro tanto, Articles 248 and 249 of the RPC in such a way that if an unlicensed fiream is used in the commission of homicide or murder, either of these crimes, as the case may be, would only serve to aggravate the offense of illegal possession of firearm and would not anymore be separately punished. The words of the subject provision are palpably clear to exclude any suggestion that either of the crimes of homicide and murder, as crimes mala in se under the RPC is obliterated as such and reduced as a mere aggravating circumstance in illegal possession of firearm whenever the unlicensed firearm is used in killing a person. The only purpose of the provision is to increase the penalty prescribed in 1st par of sec 1—reclusion temporal in its max to reclusion perpetua to death.

The accused can be convicted of illegal possession of firearms, provided no other crime was committed by the person arrested. The word “committed” taken in its ordinary sense, and in light of the Constitutional presumption of innocence necessarily implies a prior determination of guilt by final conviction resulting from successful prosecution or voluntary admission. When the other offense involved is one of those enumerated under R.A. 8294, any information for illegal possession of firearm should be quashed because the illegal possession of firearm would have to be tried together with such other offense, either considered as an aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide, or absorbed as an element of rebellion, insurrection, sedition or attempted coup d’etat. When the other offense involved is not one of those enumerated under R.A. 8294, then the separate case for illegal possession of firearm should continue to be prosecuted.

Earnshaw the alleged President of the Communist Party of the Philippines requested a necessary permission to hold a popular meeting at the plaza. The mayor denied the request and prohibits all kinds of meeting held in the city. The mayor was not held liable for Article 131 inasmuch as the doctrines and principles advocated by the communist party were highly seditious in that they suggested and incited rebellious conspiracies and disturbed and obstructed the lawful authorities in their duties.

Primicias vs. Fugoso

DIRECT ASSAULT People vs. Beltran • • • Battle in the Puzon’s compound. Shooting at the mayor and a policeman on duty is attempted murder with assault. The Maypr was a person in authority and Tolentino was a policeman who at the time was in uniform. They were performing their official duties to maintain peace and order in the community.

• •

People vs. Dollantes


Celino Sr. vs. CA • On May 12, 2004 the accused carried outside his residence and armalite rifle loaded with ammunitions without having obtained proper authority in writing.

The case where the accused brandished a knife challenging anyone to fight with him when the brgy. Captain was giving a speech. Barangay captain was killed while in the performance of his duties. The records showed that the barangay captain was in the act of trying to pacify the accused who was making trouble in the dance hall when he was stabbed to death.

PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION, AND DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL MEETINGS Evangelista vs. Earnshaw

In November 1947, the mayor of Manila refused to grant a permit to hold a public meeting at Plaza Miranda for the purpose of petitioning the government for redress of grievances. The mayor’s reason: "that there is a reasonable ground to believe, basing upon previous utterances and upon the fact that passions, specially on the part of the losing groups, remains bitter and high, that similar speeches will be delivered tending to undermine the faith and confidence of the people in their government, and in the duly constituted authorities, which might threaten breaches of the peace and a disruption of public order." A Manila ordinance at that time required a mayor’s permit to hold a parade or procession, or, by analogy, a public meeting or assembly. Primicias filed a case to compel the mayor to grant the permit. May the mayor be compelled to grant the permit? Yes. The Supreme Court ordered the mayor to grant the permit, interpreting the ordinance to mean that the Mayor did not have the power to grant or refuse the permit, only the discretion to specify where the parade may pass or where the meeting may be held. The Court said that the constitutional right to free speech and peaceful assembly was a fundamental right of the people and may not be suppressed unless there was the probability of serious injury to the state, and quoted US Supreme Court Justice Brandeis in Whitney vs. California: "Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly.”

DELIVERY OF PRISONERS FROM JAIL

Alberto vs. De la Cruz

• •

Case where the accused was summoned at the house of the governor to fix the fence. In order to be guilty under 223 (connivance) and 224 (negligence), it is necessary that the public officer had consented to, or connived in, the escape of a prisoner on the part of the person in charge is an essential condition in the commission of the crime of faithfulness in the custody of the prisoner. If the public officer charged with the duty of guarding him does not connive with the fugitive, then he has not violated the law and is not guilty of the crime. Negligence in the custody of a prisoner under 224 of the RPC punishable if it is definitely and deliberately committed.

A convict granted conditional pardon who is recommitted must of course be convicted by final judgment of a court of the subsequent crime or crimes with which he was charged before the criminal penalty for such subsequent offense can be imposed upon. The parolee or convict who is regarded as having violated the provisions thereof must be charged, prosecuted and convicted by final judgment before he can be made to suffer the penalty under 159.

QUASI-RECIDIVISM People vs. Dionisio • • The Happy Go Lucky gang vs. Batang Mindanao case. The accused are quasi-recidivists, having committed the crime charged while serving sentence for a prior offense. The maximum penalty prescrived by law for the new felony (murder) is death, regardless of the presence or absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance or the complete absence thereof. But for lack of requisite votes, reclusion perpetua is imposed.

EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE Tanega vs. Masakayan • • Accused was convicted with slander but she didn’t serve her sentence. The elements are that the offender is a convict by final judgment; he is serving the sentence of deprivation of liberty and he evades the service of sentence by escaping during the term of his sentence. The prescription commence from date when culprit should evade the service of his sentence.

The forgery here committed comes under the first paragraph of Article 169 or the Code (By giving to a treasury or bank note or any instrument payable to bearer or to order mentioned therein, the appearance of a true and genuine document). This provision does not only contemplate situations where a spurious, false or fake document or instrument is given the appearance of a true and genuine document, but also to situations involving originally true and genuine documents which have been withdrawn or demonetized, or have outlived their usefulness. The case under consideration could not come within the second paragraph of the aforesaid article (By erasing, substituting , counterfeiting or altering by any means the figures, letters, words or signs contained therein) because no figure, letter, word, or sign contained in Exhibit A has been erased, substituted, counterfeited or altered. The forgery consists in the addition of a word in an effort to give to the present document the appearance of the true and genuine certificate that it used to have before it was withdrawn or has outlived its usefulness.

Crimes Against Public Interest MUTILATION OF COINS PD 247 FORGERY Del Rosario vs. People • Erasure and alteration of figures in genuine treasury notes-The possession of genuine treasury notes of the Philippines any of the “figures, letters, words or signs contained” in which had been erased and/or altered, with knowledge of such erasure and alteration, and with the intent to use such notes in enticing another to advance funds for the avowed purpose of financing the manufacture of counterfeit treasury notes of the Philippines, is punishable.

FALSIFICATION People vs. Romualdez • • Case of Bar Exam where the scores of a certain Mabunay were changed. The contention that the papers which defendant ER altered were not public or official documents is untenable because the examination of candidates for admission to the bar is a judicial function. The alterations made in such papers, under the circumstances proven in this case, of the grades given to them by the correctors, constitute the crime of falsification of public documents.

People vs. Abilong • • The accused was sentenced with destierro (100M from Manila) One who, sentenced to destierro by virtue of final judgment, and prohibited from entering the City of Manila, enters said city within the period of his sentence is guilty of evasion of sentence under article 157, RPC.

VIOLATION OF CONDITIONAL PARDON Torres vs. Gonzales • The accused was convicted of estafa but then he was granted a conditional pardon provided he would not violate any penal laws. He was charged 20 counts of estafa but he was not yet convicted of final judgment.

Syquian vs. People • • Mayor appointed one woman as clerk but there were no funds available and no special ordinance creating said position. The existence of a wrongful intent to injure a third person is not necessary when the falsified document is a public document.

People vs. Galano


Balut case and the Victory note payment

People vs. Villalon

Case where a document of mortgage was falsified by the accused alleging that he has obtained the signatures of the De Guzman brothers. The falsification of a public document may be a means of committing estafa because before the falsified document is actually utilized to defraud another, the crime of falsification has already been consummated, damage or intent to cause damage not being an element of the crime of falsification of public, official or commercial documents. The damage to another is caused by the commission of estafa, not by falsification of the document, hence, the falsification of the public, official or commercial document is only a necessary means to commit the estafa. In the crime of falsification of a public document, the prescriptive period commences from the time the offended party had constructive notice of the alleged forgery after the document was registered with the Register of Deeds.

usurpation of authority or official functionsany person:

Diaz vs. People

a. b.

who knowingly and falsely represent himself to be an officer, agent and representative of any department or agency of the Phil Goct or of any foreign govt (Usurpation of authority) under pretense of official position, performs any act pertaining to any person in authority or public officer of the Phil Govt or any forein govt or any agency thereof, without being lawfully entitled to do so. (Usurpation of official functions) Accused was previously a member of the said organization however it was not proven by the prosecution that he was dismissed from the org and that he no longer possesses such authority. However the SOLGEN argued that in makes no difference whether the accused was suspended or dismissed from the service for both imply the absence of power to represent oneself as vested with authority to perform acts pertaining to an office to which he knowingly was deprived of. He should have been charged of usurpation of official functions and not of usurpation of authority, thus, he was acquitted.

• a. b. c. d.

Case where the accused made it appear that he was a 4th yr student with Bachelor of Arts at the Cosmopolitan and Harvardian Colleges and this was a requirement for his reappointment as School Administrative Asst. As defined, perjury is the willful and corrupt assertion of falsehood under oath of affirmation administered by authority of law on a material matter. All elements present: that the accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material matter. That the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer, authorized to receive and administer oath That in that statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood That the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law or made for legal purpose.

USE OF FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS People vs. Dava • • • Case where Dava acquired a falsified driver’s license after his previous license was confiscated due to a felony he committed. Driver’s license a public document. The driver’s license being a public document, proof of the fourth element of damage caused to another person or at least an intent to cause such damage has become immaterial. In falsification of public or official documents, the principal thing being punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth proclaimed therein.

MACHINATIONS IN PUBLIC AUCTIONS Ouano vs. CA • • Case where auction was manipulated. Causing another bidder to stay away from the auction in order to cause reduction of the price of the property auctioned. These acts constitute a crime where Ouano and Eschavez had promised to share in the property in question as a consideration for Ouano’s refraining from taking part in the public auction, and they had attempted to cause and in fact succeeded in causing another bidder to stay away from the auction in order to cause reduction of the price of the property auctioned. Property forfeited in favor of the govt.

USING FICITITIOUS NAME CA 142 Legamia vs. IAC • Case where a woman used the name Corazon Reyes instead of Corazon Legamia y Rivera bec she has been living with Emilio Reyes for 20 years but not married. She assumed the role as his wife and used his name without any sinister purpose or personal material gain in mind. She applied for benefits upon his death not for herself but for their son. (“You may have your own Corazon” statement of the Court).

USURPATION Gigantoni vs. People • Case where accused claimed that he was an agent of CIS of the Phil Constabulary and went to Pal to conduct verification of same travel by the Black Mountain officials and presented an ID. Usurpation of authority and usurpation of official functions- Art 177 of the RPC on

ILLEGAL USE OF UNIFORMS OR INSIGNIA RA 75 RA 493 PERJURY

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful