You are on page 1of 6

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 s o v e r e i g n . T h e a b s o l u t e a n d p e r m a n e n t 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, becauset h e s o v e r e i g n t y o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t o r 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, i n t h e s a m e w a y t r e a s o n m a y h a v e b e e n committed during the Japanese occupationagainst the sovereignty of the US as we el as a g a i n s t t h e s o v e r e i g n t y o f t h e P h i l Commonwealth; and that the change of our form of govt from commonwealth to republic d o e s n o t a f f e c t t h e p r o s e c u t i o n o f t h o s e charged with the crime of treason committed d u r i n g t h e c o m m o n w e a l t h , b e c i t i s a n 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 no tr e a s o n e v e n t h o u g h t h e w o m e n a n d t h e entertainments helped to make life more pleasant for the enemies and boost their spirit. The law of treason does not prescribe allk i n d s o f s o c i a l , b u s i n e s s a n d p o l i t i c a l intercourse bet the belligerent occupants of the invaded country and it inhabitants. People vs. Prieto T h a t t h e a c c u s e d h e l p i n t o r t u r i n g g u e r i l l a s w i t h 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. T o r t u r e a n d a t r o c i t i e s a s a g g r a v a t i n g 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. 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 i n t h e s p i r i t a n d i n t e n t i o n o f u n i v e r s a l hostility. Piracy is a crime not against any particular S t a t e b u t a g a i n s t a l l m a n k i n d . I t m a y b e punished in the competent tribunal or any country where the offender may be found or into which he may be carried. The jurisdiction o f p i r a c y u n l i k e a l l o t h e r c r i m e s h a d n o 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. R e c a l l : c r e w m e m b e r s o f t h e v e s s e l committed crime People vs. Siyoh That the accused committed with triple murder and frustrated murder in piracy: Recall: There was a lone survivor Antonio DeGuzman who was shot in the waters but was not killed. Number of persons killed on the occasion of p i r a c y , n o t m a t e r i a l ; P i r a c y , a s p e c i a l complex crime punishable by deathbut the number of persons killed on the occasion of p i r a c y i s n o t m a t e r i a l . P D 5 3 2 c o n s i d e r s 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 6Rule 113, sec 5 Umil vs. Ramos Case of 8 habeas corpus. Arrest without a warrant is justified when the person arrested is caught in flagrante 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 flagrante delicto, viz in the act of committing an offense or when an offense has just been committed a n d t h e p e r s o n m a k i n g t h e a r r e s t h a s personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the person arrested has committed it. Habeas Corpus; Subversion; The crimes of rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposalt o c o m m i t s u c h c r i m e s a n d o f f e n s e s c o m m i t t e d i n f u r t h e r a n c e t h e r e o f o f i n c o n n e c t i o n t h e r e w i t h c o n s t i t u t e d i r e c t assaults against the State are in the nature c o n t i n u i n g c r i m e s . R o l a n d o D u r a l w a s arrested for being a member of the NPA, an outlawed subversive organization. Subversionb e i n g a c o n t i n u i n g o f f e n s e , t h e a r r e s t o f Rolando Dural without warrant is justified as it can be said that he was committing an o f f e n s e w h e n a r r e s t e d . T h e c r i m e s , a n d 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. People vs Burgos The case where the firearm was left to be buried to the ground and the wife pointed where the firearm was. W a r r a n t o f a r r e s t ; p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e required of an officer arresting a person who has just committed is committing or is about to commit an offense-under sec6(a) of Rule113, the officer arresting a person who has committed, is committing, or is about to c o m m i t a n o f f e n s e m u s t h a v e p e r s o n a l 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 mayh a v e b e e n c o m m i t t e e . T h e f a c t o f t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f t h e o f f e n s e m u s t b e undisputed. The test of reasonable ground applies only to the identity of the perpetrator. DELAY IN DELIVERY OF DETAINED PERSON EO 272Rule 112, sec 7RA 7438 SEARCH WARRANTS MALICIOUSLY OBTAINED Rule 126 Stonehill vs. Diokno Several judges issued 42 search warrants to s e i z e a l l d o c s a n d p a p e r s s h o w i n g a l l business transactions of petitioners. R e q u i s i t e s f o r i s s u i n g s e a r c h w a r r a n t s - Constitution provides that no warrant shalli s s u e b u t u p o n p r o b a b l e c a u s e , t o b e d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e j u d g e , a n d t h a t t h e 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, regardless of whether the transactions were l e g a l o r i l l e g a l , c o n t r a v e n e t h e e x p l i c i t 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 mustp a r t i c u l a r i z e t h e a l l e g e d c r i m i n a l o r s u b v e r s i v e m a t e r i a l t o b e s e i z e d . T h e application and/or its supporting affi davitsmust contain a specification, stating with particularity the alleged subversive material he has published or intending to publish. 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 laww o u l d b e p a r t i a l a n d a r b i t r a r y , w i t h a l , dangerous, especially in a country said to once the scene of religious intolerance and prosecution. Crimes Against Public Order REBELLION, INSURRECTION, COUP DETAT RA 6968 Enrile vs. Salazar Honasan charged with rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder. Hernandez doctrine prohibits complexing of r e b e l l i o n w i t h a n y o t h e r o f f e n s e . T h e r e j e c t i o n o f b o t h o p t i o n s s h a p e s a n d 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 meansn e c e s s a r y t o i t s c o m m i s s i o n o r a s a n u n i n t e n d e d e f f e c t o f a n a c t i v i t y t h a t 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 machinegun 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. Enrile vs. Amin Enrile was charged with rebellion complexed with murder and a violation under PD 1829Sec. 1(c) obstruction of justice bec he gavefood and comfort to Honasan. B e i n g i n c o n s p i r a c y w i t h H o n a s a n , p e t i t i o n e r s a l l e g e d a c t o f h a r b o r i n g o r concealing was fo no other purpose but in furtherance of the crime of rebellion thusconstituting a component thereof. It wasmotivated by the single intent or resolution tocommit the crime of rebellion. The decisive factor is the intent or motive. All crimes whether punishable under a special l a w o r g e n e r a l l a w w h i c h a r e m e r e 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 t h e s e c o m m o n c r i m e s a r e a b s o r b e d i n 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 m o t i v e o f t h e a c t s h o u l d b e c o n c l u s i v e l y demonstrated. I t i s n o t e n o u g h t h a t t h e o v e r t a c t s o f r e b e l l i o n a r e d u l y p r o v e n . F r o m t h e 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 e s s e n t i a l c o m p o n e n t s o f t h e c r i m e . W i t h either of these elements wanting, the crime of rebellion legally does not exist. I f n o p o l i t i c a l m o t i v e i s e s t a b l i s h e d a n d 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. SEDITION People vs. Umali On the eve of the election, at the house of P a s u m b a l s f a t h e r , C o n g r e s s m a n U m a l i i n s t r u c t e d P a s u m b a l t o c o n t a c t t h e H u k s through Commander Abeng so that Punzalan would be killed. It would seem that Umali and Pasumbal had a feeling that Punzalan was g o i n g t o w i n i n t h e e l e c t i o n a n d t h a t h i s 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 company of Huk Commander Torio and about3 0 a r m e d m e n . T h e s h o t s w e r e h e a r d . A f t e r w a r d s t h e y s a w U m a l i a n d h i s 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 134of the RPC. T h e r a i d e r s d i d n o t e v e n a t t a c k t h e P r e s i d e n c i a , t h e s e a t o f t h e l o c a l Government. Rather the object was to attain by means of force, intimidation, etc., one o b j e c t , t o w i t , t o i n f l i c t a n a c t o f h a t e o r revenge upon the person or property of a public official, namely Punzalan who was then mayor of Tiaong. People vs. Cabrera Phil Constabulary vs. the Manila police where the PC vowed revenge. S e d i t i o n i n i t s m o r e g e n e r a l s e n s e i s t h e raising of commotions or disturbances in the State. T h e P h i l L a w o n t h e s u b j e c t m a k e s a l l persons guilty of sedition who rise publicly and tumultously in order to obtain by force or o u t s i d e o f l e g a l m e t h o d s a n y o n e o f f i v e 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. C o n s p i r a c i e s a r e g e n e r a l l y p r o v e d b y 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 andanother 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. INCITING TO SEDITION US vs Tolentino T h e a t r i c a l w o r k w h i c h w a s a l l e g e d t o b e seditious. 7 modes of committing the offense: a. uttering seditious words or speeches .writing, publishing, or circulating 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. o r w h i c h t e n d t o i n s t i g a t e o t h e r s t o c a b a l o r meet together for unlawful purposese . w h i c h s u g g e s t o r i n c i t e r e b e l l i o u s consipiraciesf . w h i c h t e n d t o s t i r u p p e o p l e a g a i n s t l a w f u l a u t h o r i t i e s o r t o d i s t u r b t h e p e a c e o f t h e community, safety and order of the govt. knowingly concealing such evil practices Espuelas vs. People Suicide note that he was not pleased with Roxas administration. A published writing which calls our govt oneof corroks and dishonest persons infested with Nazis and Fascists i.e. dictators and w h i c h r e v e a l s a t e n d e n c y t o p r o d u c e 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 done-any citizen may criticize his govt and govt officials and submit his criticism to the free trade of ideas. However such criticism should b e s p e c i f i c a n d t h e r e f o r e c o n s t r u c t i v e specifying particular objectionable actuations of the govt. it must be reasoned or tempered and not a contemptuous condemnation of the entire govt set up. VIOLATION OF PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY Martinez vs. Morfe Martinez and Bautista were members of the C o n s t i t u t i o n a l C o n v e n t i o n . T h e y w e r e arrested for falsification of docs-birthday and distribution of free food, drinks and cigs at 2public meetings Sec 15, Art VI of the Constitution makes it c l e a r t h a t p a r l i a m e n t a r y i m m u n i t y f r o m arrest does not cover any prosecution for treason, felony, and breach of the peace. American law: Bu common parliamentaryl a w , t h e m e m b e r s o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e a r e privileged from arrest on civil process during t h e s e s s i o n o f t h a t b o d y , a n d f o r 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 8294People vs. Quijada Case where a dance was held in a basketball court and Quijada kept on pestering Iroys 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 s e c t i o n 1 . o f P D 1 8 6 6 i s t o r e s p e c t a n d preserve homicide or murder as a distincto f f e n s e p e n a l i z e d u n d e r t h e R P C a n d t o 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 away that if an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of homicide or murder, either rof 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. T h e w o r d s o f t h e s u b j e c t p r o v i s i o n a r e palpably clear to exclude any suggestion that either of the crimes of homicide and murder, a s c r i m e s m a l a i n s e u n d e r t h e R P C i s obliterated as such and reduced as a merea g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e i n i l l e g a l p o s s e s s i o n o f f i r e a r m w h e n e v e r t h e unlicensed firearm is used in killing a person. T h e o n l y p u r p o s e o f t h e p r o v i s i o n i s t o increase the penalty prescribed in 1st par of s e c 1 r e c l u s i o n t e m p o r a l i n i t s m a x t o reclusion perpetua to death. 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. T h e a c c u s e d c a n b e c o n v i c t e d o f i l l e g a l possession of firearms, provided no other crime was committed by the person arrested. The word committed taken in its ordinary s e n s e , a n d i n l i g h t o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n a l presumption of innocence necessarily impliesa p r i o r d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f g u i l t b y f i n a l c o n v i c t i o n r e s u l t i n g f r o m s u c c e s s f u l prosecution or voluntary admission. When the other offense involved is one of t h o s e e n u m e r a t e d u n d e r R . A . 8 2 9 4 , a n y information for illegal possession of firearm s h o u l d b e q u a s h e d b e c a u s e t h e i l l e g a l possession of firearm would have to be tried t o g e t h e r w i t h s u c h o t h e r o f f e n s e , e i t h e r r considered as an aggravating circumstance in m u r d e r o r h o m i c i d e , o r a b s o r b e d a s a n element of rebellion, insurrection, sedition or attempted coup detat. 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. DIRECT ASSAULT People vs. Beltran Battle in the Puzons compound. Shooting at the mayor and a policeman on duty is attempted murder with assault. The Mayor 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 inthe community. People vs. Dollantes The case where the accused brandished a knife challenging anyone to fight with him when the brgy. Captain was giving a speech. B a r a n g a y c a p t a i n w a s k i l l e d w h i l e i n t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f h i s d u t i e s . T h e r e c o r d s 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 E a r n s h a w t h e a l l e g e d P r e s i d e n t o f t h e 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 131inasmuch as the doctrines and principles a d v o c a t e d b y t h e c o m m u n i s t p a r t y w e r e highly seditious in that they suggested andincited rebellious conspiracies and disturbed and obstructed the lawful authorities in their duties. Primicias vs. Fugoso I n N o v e m b e r 1 9 4 7 , t h e m a y o r o f 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 mayors 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 reaches of the peace and a disruption of public order." A Manila ordinance at that time required a mayors 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 may or t o g r a n t t h e p e r m i t , i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e ordinance to mean that the Mayor did not have the power to grant or refuse the permit, o n l y t h e d i s c r e t i o n t o s p e c i f y w h e r e t h e parade may pass or where the meeting maybe 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 c a n n o t a l o n e j u s t i f y s u p p r e s s i o n o f f r e e 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 t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e p r i s o n e r . I f t h e p u b l i c 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 under224 of the RPC punishable if it is definitely and deliberately committed. EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE Tanega vs. Masakayan Accused was convicted with slander but she didnt serve her sentence. T h e e l e m e n t s a r e t h a t t h e o f f e n d e r i s 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 c u l p r i t s h o u l d e v a d e t h e s e r v i c e o f h i s sentence. 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 theperiod 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. 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 chargedb e f o r e t h e c r i m i n a l p e n a l t y f o r s u c h 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 T h e H a p p y G o L u c k y g a n g v s . B a t a n g Mindanao case. The accused are quasi -recidivists, having committed the crime charged while serving sentence for a prior offense. The maximum penalty prescribed by law for the new felony(murder) is death, regardless of the presence or absence of any mitigating or aggravatingc i r c u m s t a n c e o r t h e c o m p l e t e a b s e n c e t h e r e o f . B u t f o r l a c k o f r e q u i s i t e v o t e s , reclusion perpetua is imposed.