You are on page 1of 13

PEOPLE V. PRIETO FACTS: -The appellant was prosecuted for treason.

-Two witnesses gave evidence but their statements do not coincide in any single detail. The first witness testified that the accused with other Filipino undercovers and Japanese soldiers caught an American aviator and had the witness carry the American to town on a sled pulled by a carabao. That on the way, the accused walked behind the sled and asked the prisoner if the sled was faster than the airplane; that the American was taken to the empetai head!uarters, after which he did not know what happened to the flier. -The ne"t witness, testified that he saw the accused following an American and the accused were Japanese and other Filipinos. -The lower court believes that the accused is #guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of treason comple"ed by murder and physical in$uries%, with #the aggravating circumstances mentioned above%. Apparently, the court has regarded the murders and physical in$uries charged in the information, not only as crimes distinct from treason but also as modifying circumstances. The &olicitor 'eneral agrees with the decision e"cept as to the technical designation of the crime. (n his opinion, the offense committed by the appellant is a #comple" crime of treason with homicide%. -Accused being a member of the Japanese )ilitary *olice and acting as undercover man for the Japanese forces with the purpose of giving and with the intent to give aid and comfort feloniously and treasonably lad, guide and accompany a patrol of Japanese soldiers and Filipino undercovers for the purpose of apprehending guerillas and locating their hideouts. ISSUES; +. -. ,hether the #two-witness% rule was sufficiently complied. ,hether the T. erred in ruling that the murders and physical in$uries were crimes distinct from treason. HELD: +. /0, it was not sufficiently complied. The witnesses evidently referred to two different occasions. The two witnesses failed to corroborate each other not only on the whole overt act but on any part of it. The e"ecution of some of the guerilla suspects mentioned and the infliction of physical in$uries on others are not offenses separate from treason. There must concur both adherence to the enemy and giving him aid and comfort. 0ne without the other does not make treason. (n the nature of things, the giving aid and comfort can only be accomplished by some kind of action. (ts very nature partakes of a deed or physical activity as opposed to a

-.

mental operation. This deed or physical activity may be, and often is, in itself a criminal offense under another penal statute or provision. 1ven so, when the deed is charged as an element of treason it becomes identified with the latter crime and cannot be the sub$ect of a separate punishment. 2owever, the brutality with the killing or physical in$uries were carried out may be taken as an aggravating circumstances. Thus, the use of torture and other atrocities on the victims instead of the usual and less painful method of e"ecution will be taken into account to increase the penalty.
Laurel v. Misa January 34, +567 During the Japanese occupation, Anastasio Laurel, a Filipino citizen, adhered to and gave aid and comfort to the enemy. He was arrested in May !"# and after $eing turned over to the %ommonwealth &overnment has $een under the custody of Director of 'risons (ri$erto Misa. Laurel filed petition for ha$eas corpus, contending that he cannot $e prosecuted for treason $ecause ) * the sovereignty of the legitimate government in the 'hilippines and, conse+uently, the correlative allegiance of Filipino citizens thereto was then suspended, and )-* that there was a change of sovereignty over these .slands upon the proclamation of the 'hilippine /epu$lic. %ourt denied his petition. Doctri es8 A Filipino citi9en may be prosecuted for treason committed during the Japanese occupation because he owes allegiance to his country, not to the enemy occupant. A citi9en or sub$ect owes, not a !ualified and temporary, but an absolute and permanent allegiance, which consists in the obligation of fidelity and obedience to his government or sovereign. Temporary allegiance to the enemy occupant does not do away with the absolute and permanent allegiance which the citi9en owes to the legitimate government. !ote8 (n cases of enemy occupation, sovereignty de $ure is not transferred to the occupier. Therefore, the allegiance of a citi9en to the legitimate government is not severed. :uring the Japanese military occupation, sovereignty was not suspended. (t is the e"ercise of sovereignty that was suspended. Peo"le v. Pere# April +;, +565 0id 'erez commandeered girls and women against their will in order to satisfy the lust of Japanese officers. 1olicitor &eneral argued that 'erez2s act constituted treason $ecause the comfort women maintained and preserved the soldiers2 morale and is therefore an act of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. %ourt held that 'erez was not guilty of treason. 1e3ual and social relations with the Japanese did not directly and materially tend to improve their war efforts or to wea4en the power of the 5nited 1tates. Ma4ing life more pleasant for the Japanese and $oosting their spirits were deemed trivial, impercepti$le, and unintentional. Doctri es8 (ntent of disloyalty is a vital ingredient in the crime of treason. The law of treason does not prescribe all kinds of social, business and political intercourse between the belligerent occupants of the invaded country and its inhabitants. To be treasonous, the e"tent of the aid and comfort given to the enemies must be to render assistance to them as enemies and not merely as individuals and in addition, be directly in furtherance of the enemies< hostile designs. o The acts should be calculated to strengthen the Japanese 1mpire or its army or to cripple the defense and resistance of the other side. Peo"le v. A$ria o June 34, +567 Apolinario Adriano was charged with treason for having 6oined the Ma4apil6 organization. 'rosecution presented witnesses who testified seeing him wearing a Ma4apili uniform and carrying a gun, $ut on different days. 7o witness corro$orated the testimony of the other. %ourt ac+uitted Adriano $ecause of failure on the part of prosecution to esta$lish his acts under the two8witness rule. Doctri es8 (n a treason prosecution, every act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses. o (n this case, his membership in the )akapili was not sufficiently proven.

The mere fact of having $oined a )akapili organi9ation is evidence of both adherence to the enemy and giving him aid and comfort. o Adherence to enemy, unlike overt acts, need not be proved by the oaths of two witnesses. o The enemy derived psychological comfort in the knowledge that he had on his side nationals of the country with which his was at war. (t furnished the enemy aid in that his cause was advanced, his forces augmented, and his courage was enhanced by the knowledge that he could count on men such as the accused and his kind who were ready to strike at their own people. The principal effect of it was no different from that of enlisting in the invader<s army.

Peo"le v. Prieto January -5, +56; (duarto 'rieto was found $y the trial court guilty of # counts of treason )counts , -, 9, and : for ;treason comple3ed $y murder and physical in6uries;, count " for treason*. As evidence on count ", two witnesses testified )First witness< he was as4ed $y 'rieto to carry the American prisoner to town on a sled pulled $y a cara$ao, 1econd witness< he saw 'rieto following an American wal4ing with his captors*. %ourt ac+uitted 'rieto of count " $ecause the testimonies were referring to two different occasions, therefore failing under the ;two8witness rule.; As to the other counts, %ourt modified his conviction with respect to the technical designation of the crime. Doctri e8 A defendant may not be made liable for murder=physical in$uries as a separate crime or in con$unction with another offense where it is averred as a constitutive ingredient of treason. ,hen the deed is charged as an element of treason it becomes identified with the latter crime and can not be the sub$ect of a separate punishment, or used in combination with treason to increase the penalty as article 6; of the >evised *enal .ode provides. !ote8 The brutality with which the killing or physical in$uries were carried out may be taken as an aggravating circumstance. Peo"le v. Victoria )arch +3, +567 %armelito =ictoria was part of an armed army patrol composed of spies and Japanese soldiers. .n one of their raids, a spy was 4illed $y guerillas. Afterwards, =ictoria and other spies caused the arrest, torture, and e3ecution of several of their fellow Filipinos who were alleged to $e guerillas. Ma6ority of the %ourt appreciated the circumstances of treachery, aid of armed men, and cruelty, as aggravating, however, one Justice opined that these circumstances are 6ust elements of the crime. Death penalty was not imposed $ecause of lac4 of unanimity. Doctri e8 The crime of treason is of such a nature that it may be committed by one single act, by a series of acts, or by several series thereof, not only in a single time, but in different times, it being a continuous crime. Disse t% &. Feria8 Aggravating circumstances should have been appreciated and should have warranted the imposition of death penalty. Treachery, for one, is not an integral element of treason. The fact that the crime of treason may be committed by a single overt act or a series of overt acts, committed at one and the same time or at different times, does not, by any means, make those circumstances essential elements of the offense.

PEOPLE V. ROGER TULIN MT Tabangao is a cargo vessel owned by PNOC. It was sailing near t e coast o! Mindoro loaded wit barrels o! "erosene# gasoline# and diesel oil wit a total val$e o! %&.%M. T e vessel was s$ddenly boarded by ' !$lly ar(ed )irates *acc$sed in t e case + E(ilio C angco# Cecilio C angco# T$lin# Loyola# In!ante# etc.,. t ey detained and too" control o! t e vessel. T e na(e MT Tabangao and t e PNOC logo were )ainted over wit blac". T en it was )ainted wit t e na(e Galilee. T e s i) crew was !orced to sail to -inga)ore. In -inga)ore# t e s i) was awaiting anot er vessel t at did not arrive. Instead# t e s i) went bac" to .atangas P ili))ines and re(ained at sea. /ays later# it went bac" to -inga)ore. T is ti(e# anot er vessel called t e Navi Pride anc ored beside it. 0not er acc$sed# C eong -an 1iong# s$)ervised t e Navi2s crew and received t e cargo on board MT Tabangao3Galilee. 0!ter t e trans!er o! goods were co()leted# MT Tabangao3Galilee went bac" to t e P ili))ines and t e original crew (e(bers were released by t e )irates in batc es. T e crew was ordered not to tell a$t orities o! w at a))ened. T e c ie! engineer o! t e crew# owever# re)orted t e incident to t e coast g$ard. 0!terwards# a

series o! arrests were e!!ected in di!!erent )laces. 0n in!or(ation c arging t e acc$sed wit 4$ali!ied )iracy or violation o! t e P/ 567 + Piracy in t e P ili))ine 8aters + was !iled against t e acc$sed. 0s it t$rns o$t# Navi Pride ca)tain# 1iong# was e()loyed wit Navi Marine -ervices * a -inga)orean !ir(# I t in",. .e!ore t e sei9$re o! t e MT Tabangon# Navi Marine was dealing !or t e !irst ti(e wit Pa$l Gan# a -inga)orean bro"er w o o!!ered to sell b$n"er oil to t e !or(er. 8 en t e transaction )$s ed t ro$g # 1iong was assigned to s$)ervise a s i) to s i) trans!er. 1e was told t at t e Galilee wo$ld be (a"ing t e trans!er# so Navi Pride s i):sided wit Galilee and t e trans!er was e!!ected. Pa$l Gan received t e )ay(ent. U)on arrival in -inga)ore# 1iong was as"ed again to transact anot er trans!er o! oil. T e sa(e )roced$re was !ollowed. 1iong t en went to t e P ili))ines to arrange anot er trans!er wit C angco + t e )irates ead. T is was ow 1iong was arrested by t e N.I agents. 0ll t e acc$sed )$t $) denials and alibis. T e trial co$rt# wit ROMEO C0LLE;O deciding# r$led t at t e acc$sed were all g$ilty. I--UE< w3n t e acc$sed are g$ilty o! 4$ali!ied )iracy + =E-> RULING< 1iong arg$es t at e cannot be convicted $nder P/ 56% or 0rt ?77 o! t e RPC as a(ended# since bot laws )$nis )iracy co((itted in P ili))ine waters. 1iong also contends t at t e co$rt never ac4$ired @$risdiction over i( since t e cri(e was co((itted o$tside P ili))ine waters. 0rt. ?77 o! t e RPC *)iracy in general and ($tiny in t e ig seas, )rovided t at )iracy ($st be co((itted in t e ig seas by any )erson not a (e(ber o! its co()le(ent nor a )assenger t ereo!. It was a(ended by R0 'A5B# w ic broadened t e law to incl$de o!!enses co((itted in P ili))ine waters. P/ 567 on t e ot er and# e(braces any )erson# incl$ding a )assenger or (e(ber o! t e co()le(ent o! said vessel in t e P ili))ine waters. Passenger or not# (e(ber o! t e co()le(ent or not# any )erson is covered by t e law. No con!lict eCists a(ong t e (entioned laws# t ey eCist ar(onio$sly as se)arate laws. 0s regards t e contention t at t e trial co$rt did not ac4$ire @$risdiction over t e )erson o! acc$sed: a))ellant 1iong since t e cri(e was co((itted o$tside P ili))ine waters# s$!!ice it to state t at $n4$estionably# t e attac" on and sei9$re o! DM3T TabangaoD *rena(ed DM3T GalileeD by t e )irates, and its cargo were co((itted in P ili))ine waters# alt o$g t e ca)tive vessel was later bro$g t by t e )irates to -inga)ore w ere its cargo was o!!:loaded# trans!erred# and sold. 0nd s$c trans!er was done $nder acc$sed:a))ellant 1iongEs direct s$)ervision. 0lt o$g Presidential /ecree No. 567 re4$ires t at t e attac" and sei9$re o! t e vessel and its cargo be co((itted in P ili))ine waters# t e dis)osition by t e )irates o! t e vessel and its cargo is still dee(ed )art o! t e act o! )iracy# ence# t e sa(e need not be co((itted in P ili))ine waters. Moreover# )iracy !alls $nder Title One o! .oo" Two o! t e Revised Penal Code. 0s s$c # it is an eCce)tion to t e r$le on territoriality in cri(inal law. T e sa(e )rinci)le a))lies even i! 1iong# in t e instant case# were c arged# not wit a violation o! 4$ali!ied )iracy $nder t e )enal code b$t $nder a s)ecial law# Presidential /ecree No. 567 w ic )enali9es )iracy in P ili))ine waters. Verily# Presidential /ecree No. 567 s o$ld be a))lied wit (ore !orce ere since its )$r)ose is )recisely to disco$rage and )revent )iracy in P ili))ine waters *Peo)le v. Catantan# 7'F -CR0 'A? G?BB'H,. T e attac" on and t e sei9$re o! MT Tabangao and its cargo were co((itted in P ili))ine waters# alt o$g t e ca)tive vessel was later bro$g t by t e )irates to -inga)ore# w ere its cargo was o!!: loaded# trans!erred and sold. -$c trans!er was done $nder 1iong2s s$)ervision. 0lt o$g t e dis)osition by t e )irates o! t e vessel and its cargo was not done in P ili))ine waters# it is still dee(ed )art o! t e sa(e act. Piracy !alls $nder Title ? o! .oo" 7 o! t e RPC. It is an eCce)tion to t e r$le on territoriality in cri(inal law. T e sa(e )rinci)le a))lies to t e case# even i! 1iong is c arged wit violation o! a s)ecial )enal law# instead o! t e RPC. Regardless o! t e law )enali9ing )iracy# it re(ains to be a re)re ensible cri(e against t e w ole world

People vs Dasig G.R. No. 100231 April 28, 1993 Facts: 0))ellants Rodrigo /asig# Edwin N$Ie9 and A ot ers were c arged toget er o! s ooting Rede()to Manatad# a )olice o!!icer# as e died w ile )er!or(ing d$ties. U)on arraign(ent# a))ellant and Edwin N$Ies entered a )lea o! Dnot g$ilty.D 1owever# a!ter t e )rosec$tion ad )resented its !irst witness# acc$sed N$Ies c anged is )lea o! Dnot g$iltyD to Dg$ilty.D 1ence# t e lower co$rt eld in abeyance t e )ro($lgation o! a @$dg(ent against said acc$sed $ntil t e )rosec$tion ad !inis ed )resenting its evidence. 8 ile trial was still ongoing# N$Ie9 died on Marc ?&# ?BFB# t ereby eCting$is ing is cri(inal liability. 0t abo$t %<&& oEcloc" in t e a!ternoon# P!c. Cata(ora noticed eig t *F, )ersons# one o! w o( e identi!ied as Edwin N$Ie9# acting s$s)icio$sly. 1e noticed one o! t e( giving instr$ctions to two o! t e (en to a))roac P!c. Manatad. On 0$g$st ?A# ?BF'# two tea(s o! )olice o!!icers were tas"ed to cond$ct s$rveillance on a s$s)ected sa!e o$se o! (e(bers o! t e s)arrow $nit located in Peace Valley# Ceb$ City. U)on reac ing t e )lace# t e gro$) saw Rodrigo /asig and Edwin N$Ies trying to esca)e. T e tea( o! Ca)t. 0ntonio Gorre ca)t$red N$Ies and con!iscated a .%5 caliber revolver wit 6 (aga9ines and a(($nitions# w ile t e gro$) o! -gt. Ronald 0rne@o )$rs$ed /asig# w o t rew a grenade at is )$rs$ers# b$t was s ot on is le!t $))er ar( and s$bse4$ently a))re ended w ile a .6F caliber revolver wit ?' live a(($nitions were con!iscated !ro( i(. T erea!ter# /asig was bro$g t to t e os)ital !or treat(ent# w ile N$Ies was t$rned over to t e Metrodisco( !or investigation. /asig con!essed t at e and t e gro$) o! Edwin N$Ies "illed P!c. Manatad. 1e li"ewise ad(itted t at e and N$Ies were (e(bers o! t e s)arrow $nit and t e t eir aliases were D0r(andD and DMabi#D res)ectively. T e eCtra:@$dicial con!ession o! a))ellant was signed by i( on every )age t ereo! wit t e !irst )age containing a certi!ication li"ewise signed by i(. 1owever# /asig contends t at t e )roced$re by w ic is eCtra:@$dicial con!ession was ta"en was legally de!ective# and contrary to is Constit$tional rig ts. 1e !$rt er contends t at ass$(ing e cons)ired in t e "illing o! P!c. Manatad# e s o$ld be convicted at (ost o! si()le rebellion and not ($rder wit direct assa$lt. 0))ellant also clai(s t at t e c$stodial interrogation was done w ile e was still very sic" and conse4$ently# e co$ld not ave !$lly a))reciated t e wisdo( o! ad(itting s$c a serio$s o!!ense. Issue: 8 et er or not t e acc$sed:a))ellant is liable !or eCtra:@$dicial "illing o! t e deceased and )artici)ated in t e act o! rebellionJ el!: =es. 0cc$sed Rogelio /asig is !o$nd g$ilty o! )artici)ating in an act o! rebellion beyond reasonable do$bt and is ereby sentenced to s$!!er t e )enalty o! i()rison(ent o! eig t *F, years o! )rision (ayor# and to )ay t e eirs o! P!c. Rede()to Manatad# P5&#&&&.&& as civil inde(nity. 0s to t e )ro)er i()osable )enalty# t e Indeter(inate -entence Law is not a))licable to )ersons convicted o! rebellion *-ec. 7# R.0. %7&6,# contrary to t e insin$ation o! t e -olicitor General. 0rticle ?65 o! t e Revised Penal Code i()oses t e )enalty o! )rision (ayor and a !ine not eCceeding P7&#&&&.&& to any )erson w o )ro(otes# (aintains# or eads a rebellion. 1owever# in t e case at bar# t ere is no evidence to )rove t at a))ellant /asig eaded t e cri(e co((itted. 0s a (atter o! !act e was not s)eci!ically )in)ointed by P!c. Cata(ora as t e )erson giving instr$ctions to t e gro$) w ic attac"ed P!c. Manatad. 0))ellant (erely )artici)ated in co((itting t e act# or @$st eCec$ted t e co((and o! an $n"nown

leader. 1ence# e s o$ld be (ade to s$!!er t e )enalty o! i()rison(ent o! eig t *F, years o! )rision (ayor. Kor t e res$lting deat # a))ellant is li"ewise ordered to )ay t e eirs o! P!c. Manatad KIKT= T1OU-0N/ PE-O- *P5&#&&&.&&, as civil inde(nity.

1nrile v &ala9ar (n February +554, &en 1nrile was arrested. 2e was charged together with )r. ? )rs. *anlilio, and 2onasan for the crime of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder which allegedly occurred during their failed coup attempt. 1nrile was then brought to .amp aringal. 1nrile later filed for the habeas corpus alleging that the crime being charged against him is none"istent. That he was charged with a criminal offense in an information for which no complaint was initially filed or preliminary investigation was conducted, hence was denied due process; denied his right to bail; and arrested and detained on the strength of a warrant issued without the $udge who issued it first having personally determined the e"istence of probable cause. ISSUE: ,hether or not the court should affirm the Hernandez ruling. HELD: 1nrile filed for habeas corpus because he was denied bail although ordinarily a charge of rebellion would entitle one for bail. The crime of rebellion charged against him however is comple"ed with murder and multiple frustrated murders @ the intention of the prosecution was to make rebellion in its most serious form so as to make the penalty thereof in the ma"imum. The &. ruled that there is no such crime as >ebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder. ,hat 1nrile et al can be charged of would be &imple >ebellion because other crimes such as murder or all those that may be necessary to the commission of rebellion is absorbed hence he should be entitiled for bail. The &. however noted that a petition for habeas corpus was not the proper remedy so as to avail of bail. The proper step that should have been taken was for 1nrile to file a petition to be admitted for bail. 2e should have e"hausted all other efforts before petitioning for habeas corpus. The 2ernande9 ruling is still valid. All other crimes committed in carrying out rebellion are deemed absorbed. The &. noted, however, that there may be a need to modify the rebellion law. .onsidering that the essence of rebellion has been lost and that it is being used by a lot of opportunists to attempt to grab power

Peo"le vs Her a $e#


Peo"le vs Her a $e# '.R. !o. L()*+, Ma- .*% /0)1 Facts: This is the appeal prosecuted by the defendants from the $udgment rendered by the .ourt of First (nstance of )anila, 2on. Agustin *. )ontesa, presiding, in its .riminal .ase /o. +A;6+, *eople vs. Amado B. 2ernande9, et al., and .riminal .ase /o. +A675, *eople vs. Cayani 1spiritu, et al. (n .riminal .ase /o. +A;6+ D'.>. /o. EF4-FG the charge is for >ebellion with )ultiple )urder, Arsons and >obberies. The appellants are Amado B. 2ernande9, Juan J. .ru9, 'enaro de la .ru9, Amado >acanday, Fermin >odillas and Julian Eumanog; A!uilino Cunsol, Adriano &amson

and Andres Caisa, Jr. were among those sentenced in the $udgment appealed from, but they have withdrawn their appeal. (n .riminal .ase /o. +A675 D'.>. /o. E-F4-FG the charge is for rebellion with murders, arsons and kidnappings. The accused are Cayani 1spiritu Teopista Balerio and Andres Calsa, Jr.; they all appealed but Andres Calsa, Jr. withdrew his appeal. A $oint trial of both cases was held, after which the court rendered the decision sub$ect of the present appeals. Issue: ,hether or not the defendants-appelants are liable for the crime of conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection under Art. +3F of the >*.H Hel$: The court found defendants-appellants 2ernande9, member of the .ommunist *arty of the *hilippines, *resident of the .ongress of Eabor 0rgani9ations D.E0G, had close connections with the &ecretariat of the .ommunist *arty and held continuous communications with its leaders and its members, and others, guilty as principal of the crime charged against him and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessories provided by law, and to pay the proportionate amount of the costs. (n the testimonies shown in court, it further appears that Taruc and other .** leaders used to send notes to appellant 2ernande9, who in turn issued press releases for which he found space in the local papers. 2is acts in this respect belong to the category of propaganda, to which he appears to have limited his actions as a .ommunist. 2owever, in their appeal, defendants-appellants Amado B. 2ernande9, Juan J. .ru9, Amado >acanday and 'enaro de la .ru9 are absolved from the charges contained in the information, with their proportionate share of the costs de oficio. Cut other defendants-appellants, namely, Julian Eumanog and Fermin >odillas, Cayani 1spiritu and Teopista Balerio were found guilty of the crime of conspiracy to commit rebellion, as defined and punished in Article +3F of the >evised *enal .ode, and each and everyone of them is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment for five years, four months and twenty-one days of prision correccional, and to pay a fine of *A,444.44, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay their proportional share of the costs. Advocacy of %ommunism put into Action The advocacy of .ommunism or .ommunistic theory and principle is not to be considered as a criminal act of conspiracy unless transformed or converted into an advocacy of action. (n the very nature of things, mere advocacy of a theory or principle is insufficient unless the communist advocates action, immediate and positive, the actual agreement to start an uprising or rebellion or an agreement forged to use force and violence in an uprising of the working class to overthrow constituted authority and sei9e the reins of 'overnment itself. Inless action is actually advocated or intended or contemplated, the .ommunist is a mere theorist, merely holding belief

in the supremacy of the proletariat a .ommunist does not yet advocate the sei9ing of the reins of 'overnment by it. As a theorist the .ommunist is not yet actually considered as engaging in the criminal field sub$ect to punishment. 0nly when the .ommunist advocates action and actual uprising, war or otherwise, does he become guilty of conspiracy to commit rebellion. Legal considerations on the Appeal of the defendant8appellants All the other defendants were found guilty as accomplices in the crime of rebellion as charged in the information and were each sentenced to suffer the penalty of +4 years and one day of prision mayor, with the accessories provided by law, and to pay their proportionate share of the costs. Legal %onsiderations J Cefore proceeding to consider the appeals of the other defendants, it is believed useful if not necessary to lay dawn the circumstances or facts that may be determinative of their criminal responsibility or the e"istence or nature thereof. To begin with, as ,e have e"haustively discussed in relation to the appeal of 2ernande9, we do not believe that mere membership in the .ommunist *arty or in the .E0 renders the member liable, either of rebellion or of conspiracy to commit rebellion, because mere membership and nothing more merely implies advocacy of abstract theory or principle without any action being induced thereby; and that such advocacy becomes criminal only if it is coupled with action or advocacy of action, namely, actual rebellion or conspiracy to commit rebellion, or acts conducive thereto or evincing the same. 0n the other hand, membership in the 2)C D2ukbalahapG implies participation in an actual uprising or rebellion to secure, as the 2uks pretend, the liberation of the peasants and laboring class from thraldom. Cy membership in the 2)C, one already advocates uprising and the use of force, and by such membership he agrees or conspires that force be used to secure the ends of the party. &uch membership, therefore, even if there is nothing more, renders the member guilty of conspiracy to commit rebellion punishable by law.
Gon9ale9 et al. vs. Gen. 0baya G.R. No. ?A%&&'# 0$g. ?&# 7&&A T e nat$re o! t e (ilitary @$stice syste( Co$) dEetat vis:a:vis violation o! t e 0rticles o! 8ar K0CT-< On ;$ly 7'# 7&&6 at aro$nd ?<&& a.(.# (ore t an 6&& eavily ar(ed @$nior o!!icers and enlisted (en o! t e 0KP entered t e )re(ises o! t e Oa"wood Pre(ier L$C$ry 0)art(ents on 0yala 0ven$e# Ma"ati City# w ere t ey disar(ed t e sec$rity g$ards and )lanted eC)losive devices aro$nd t e b$ilding. T ey t en declared t eir wit drawal o! s$))ort !ro( t eir Co((ander:in:C ie! and de(anded t at s e resign as President o! t e Re)$blic. 0!ter ($c negotiation# t e gro$) !inally laid down t eir ar(s. -$bse4$ently# an In!or(ation !or co$) d2etat was !iled against t e( wit t e RTC# at t e sa(e ti(e t at t ey were tried at co$rt (artial !or cond$ct $nbeco(ing an o!!icer. T ey 4$estion t e @$risdiction o! t e co$rt (artial# contending t at t e RTC ordered t at t eir act was not service:connected and t at t eir violation o! 0rt. BA o! t e 0rticles o! 8ar *R0 '&55, was absorbed by t e cri(e o! co$) d2etat.

I--UE< 8 et er t e act co()lained o! was service:connected and t ere!ore cogni9able by co$rt (artial or absorbed by t e cri(e o! co$) dEetat cogni9able by reg$lar co$rts

RULING< T e (ilitary @$stice syste( is disci)linary in nat$re# ai(ed at ac ieving t e ig est !or( o! disci)line in order to ens$re t e ig est degree o! (ilitary e!!iciency. Military law is establis ed not (erely to en!orce disci)line in ti(es o! war# b$t also to )reserve t e tran4$ility and sec$rity o! t e -tate in ti(es o! war# b$t also to )reserve t e tran4$ility and sec$rity o! t e -tate in ti(e o! )eaceL !or t ere is not ing (ore dangero$s to t e )$blic )eace and sa!ety t an a licentio$s and $ndisci)lined (ilitary body. T e ad(inistration o! (ilitary @$stice as been $niversally )racticed. -ince ti(e i((e(orial# all t e ar(ies in al(ost all co$ntries o! t e world loo" $)on t e )ower o! (ilitary law and its ad(inistration as t e (ost e!!ective (eans o! en!orcing disci)line. Kor t is reason# t e co$rt (artial as beco(e invariably an indis)ensable )art o! any organi9ed ar(ed !orces# it being t e (ost )otent agency in en!orcing disci)line bot in )eace and in war. T e Co$rt eld t at t e o!!ense is service:connected. CCC It bears stressing t at t e c arge against t e )etitioners concerns t e alleged violation o! t eir sole(n oat as o!!icers to de!end t e Constit$tion and t e d$ly:constit$ted a$t orities. -$c violation allegedly ca$sed dis onor and disres)ect to t e (ilitary )ro!ession. In s ort# t e c arge as a bearing on t eir )ro!essional cond$ct or be avior as (ilitary o!!icers. E4$ally indicative o! t e Mservice:connectedN nat$re o! t e o!!ense is t e )enalty )rescribed !or t e sa(e + dis(issal !ro( t e service + i()osable only by t e (ilitary co$rt. -$c )enalty is )$rely disci)linary in c aracter# evidently intended to cleanse t e (ilitary )ro!ession o! (is!its and to )reserve t e stringent standard o! (ilitary disci)line.

Peo"le vs U2ali
Peo"le vs U2ali '.R. !o. L(,3*. !ove24er +0% /0,1 Facts: The comple" crime of which appellants /arciso Imali, et. al were found guilty was said to have been committed during the raid staged in the town of Tiaong, Kue9on, between ;844 and 5844 in the evening of /ovember +6, +5A+, by armed men. The raid took place resulting in the burning down and complete destruction of the house of )ayor )arcial *un9alan including its content valued at *-6,4-3; the house of Balentin >obles valued at *+4,444, and the house of one )ortega, the death of *atrolman :omingo *isigan and civilians Bicente &oriano and Eeocadio Intalan, and the wounding of *atrolman *edro Eacorte and five civilians. :uring and after the burning of the houses, some of the raiders engaged in looting, robbing one house and two .hinese stores; and that the raiders were finally dispersed and driven from the town by the *hilippine Army soldiers stationed in the town led by .aptain Al9ate.

Issue: ,hether or not the accused-appellants are liable of the charges against them of comple" crime of rebellion with multiple murder, frustrated murder, arson and robberyH Hel$: Les. The appellants were guilty of sedition, multiple murder, arson, frustrated murder and physical in$uries. For the crime of sedition each of the appellants is sentenced to A years of prision correctional and to pay a fine of *6,444; for each of the three murders, each of the appellants is sentenced to life imprisonment and to indemnify the heirs of each victim in the sum of *F,444; and for the arson, for which we impose the ma"imum penalty provided in Article 3-+, paragraph +, of the >evised *enal .ode, for the reason that the raiders in setting fire to the buildings, particularly the house of *un9alan they knew that it was then occupied by one or more persons, because they even and actually saw an old lady, the mother of *un9alan, at the window, and in view of the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, each of the appellants is sentenced to reclusion perpetua and to pay the indemnities mentioned in the decision of the lower court. (t shall be understood, however, the pursuant to the provisions of Article 74 of the >evised *enal .ode the duration of all penalties shall not e"ceed 64 years. (n view of the heavy penalties already imposed and their long duration, the court finds it unnecessary to fi" and impose the prison sentences corresponding to frustrated murder and physical in$uries; however, the sums awarded the victims DEacorte, 0rtega, Anselo, >ivano, 'arcia and EectorG, by the court below will stand. ,ith these modifications, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs.
People vs "a#il a$! "arso$ G.R. No. %&'803 Nove()er 29, 19'* Facts: T e a))ellants# /at$ Ta il and /at$ Tarson# were convicted in t e Co$rt o! Kirst Instance o! -$l$ o! t e cri(e o! rebellion# /at$ Ta il being sentenced to ten yearsE i()rison(ent and to )ay a !ine o! O?&#&&&# and /at$ Tarso to !ive yearsE i()rison(ent and to )ay a !ine o! O5#&&&# wit s$dsidiary i()rison(ent in case o! insolvency in regard to /at$ Tarson. 1aving enco$ntered certain di!!ic$lties in t e collection o! t e land and t e )ersonal ced$la taCes a(ong t e resident o! Pati"$l# d$e to t eir re!$sal to (a"e t is )ay(ent# t e )rovincial governor o! -$l$# Carl Moore# t$rned t e (atter over to Lie$tenant 0ngeles o! t e Constab$lary !or t e )$r)ose o! e()loying s$c (eans as e (ig t consider convenient to overco(e t ese di!!ic$lties. /at$ Ta il# t en t e t ird (e(ber o! t e )rovincial board o! -$l$# being a(ongst t ose w o re!$sed to (a"e t is )ay(ent# Lie$tenant 0ngeles tried and s$cceeded in aving a con!erence wit i(# in w ic /at$ Ta il s$ggested t at e ret$rn t e !ollowing day beca$se e wo$ld call (eeting o! is )eo)le at is o$se in Liang in order to disc$ss t e (atter wit t e(. Lie$tenant 0ngeles went to /at$ Ta ilEs o$se t e day !ollowing t is (eeting and !o$nd abo$t '& )ersons )resent. 0!ter Lie$tenant 0ngeles as eC)lained to all t e i()ortance o! t e Govern(entEs collecting t e land taC# /at$ Ta il too" several o! t ose )resent into a roo( !or a secret con!erence# a!ter w ic e in!or(ed Lie$tenant 0ngeles t at e# )ersonally# ad no ob@ection to )aying t e taC# b$t t e ot ers as"ed ti(e to do so.

On ;an$ary# ?B7'# t e )rovincial !iscal !iled a co()laint against /at$ Ta il and is !ollowers c arging t e( wit sedition# and t e )ro)er warrant o! arrest was iss$ed on t e ?5t . Governor Moore# owever# did not wis to )roceed on t is warrant o! arrest and tried to )ers$ade /at$ Ta il and is !ollowers to desist !ro( t eir intention# $sing t e in!l$ence o! ot er )ro(inent Moros to t is end. Governor Moore even tried to ave a con!erence wit /at$ Ta il !or t e sa(e )$r)ose# b$t was $ns$ccess!$l beca$se e was in!or(ed t at t ey intended to attac" i(. On ;an$ary 6&# t e governor delivered t e searc warrant. Issue: 8 et er or not t e a))ellants co((itted sedition or rebellionJ el!: T e !acts )roven# owever# constit$te t e cri(e o! sedition# de!ined in section 5 o! 0ct No. 7B7# and not o! rebellion according to section 6 o! t e sa(e law# t e acts co((itted being li(ited to )reventing t e Govern(ent o!!icials# t ro$g t !orce# !ro( co()lying wit t eir d$ties in connection wit t e @$dicial order# t e en!orce(ent o! w ic was entr$sted to t e(. T $s# t e cri(e co((itted is t at o! sedition# and t e !ine i()osed $)on /at$ Ta il is t ere!ore red$ced to O5#&&& and t at i()osed $)on /at$ Tarson to O7#5&&# t e @$dg(ent a))ealed !ro( being a!!ir(ed in all ot er res)ects# wit t e costs against t e a))ellants. -o ordered. Pri(icias v K$goso F& P1IL '? *?B%F, Posted by Evelyn Kacts< 0n action was instit$ted by t e )etitioner !or t e re!$sal o! t e res)ondent to iss$e a )er(it to t e( to old a )$blic (eeting in Pla9a Miranda !or redress o! grievances to t e govern(ent. T e reason alleged by t e res)ondent in is de!ense !or re!$sing t e )er(it is# Dt at t ere is a reasonable gro$nd to believe# basing $)on )revio$s $tterances and $)on t e !act t at )assions# s)ecially on t e )art o! t e losing gro$)s# re(ains bitter and ig # t at si(ilar s)eec es will be delivered tending to $nder(ine t e !ait and con!idence o! t e )eo)le in t eir govern(ent# and in t e d$ly constit$ted a$t orities# w ic (ig t t reaten breac es o! t e )eace and a disr$)tion o! )$blic order.D Giving e() asis as well to t e delegated )olice )ower to local govern(ent. -tating as well Revised Ordinances o! ?B7' )ro ibiting as an o!!ense against )$blic )eace# and )enali9es as a (isde(eanor# Dany act# in any )$blic )lace# (eeting# or )rocession# tending to dist$rb t e )eace or eCcite a riotL or collect wit ot er )ersons in a body or crowd !or any $nlaw!$l )$r)oseL or dist$rb or dis4$iet any congregation engaged in any law!$l asse(bly.D Incl$ded erein is -ec. ???B# Kree $se o! P$blic Place.

Iss$e< 8 et er or Not t e !reedo( o! s)eec was violated. 1eld< =es. /ealing wit t e ordinance# s)eci!ically# -ec. ???B# said section )rovides !or two constr$ctions< *?, t e Mayor o! t e City o! Manila is vested wit $nreg$lated discretion to grant or re!$se# to grant )er(it !or t e olding o! a law!$l asse(bly or (eeting# )arade# or )rocession in t e streets and ot er )$blic )laces o! t e City o! ManilaL *7, T e rig t o! t e Mayor is s$b@ect to reasonable discretion to deter(ine or s)eci!y t e streets or )$blic )laces to be $sed wit t e view to )revent con!$sion by overla))ing# to sec$re convenient $se o! t e streets and )$blic )laces by ot ers# and to )rovide ade4$ate and )ro)er )olicing to (ini(i9e t e ris" o! disorder. T e co$rt !avored t e second constr$ction. Kirst constr$ction tanta(o$nt to a$t ori9ing t e Mayor to )ro ibit t e $se o! t e streets. Under o$r de(ocratic syste( o! govern(ent no s$c $nli(ited )ower (ay be validly granted to any o!!icer o! t e govern(ent# eCce)t )er a)s in cases o! national e(ergency.

T e Mayor2s !irst de!ense is $ntenable. Kear o! serio$s in@$ry cannot alone @$sti!y s$))ression o! !ree s)eec and asse(bly. It is t e !$nction o! s)eec to !ree (en !ro( t e bondage o! irrational !ears. To @$sti!y s$))ression o! !ree s)eec t ere ($st be reasonable gro$nd to !ear t at serio$s evil will res$lt i! !ree s)eec is )racticed. T ere ($st be reasonable gro$nd to believe t at t e danger a))re ended is i((inent. T ere ($st be reasonable gro$nd to believe t at t e evil to be )revented is a serio$s one. T e !act t at s)eec is li"ely to res$lt in so(e violence or in destr$ction o! )ro)erty is not eno$g to @$sti!y its s$))ression. T ere ($st be t e )robability o! serio$s in@$ry to t e state. Peo)le vs. Pere9 K0CT-< Isaac Pere9 w ile olding a disc$ssion wit several )ersons on )olitical (atters $ttered t e !ollowing words D0ndt e Kili)inos# li"e (ysel!# ($st $se bolos !or c$tting o!! 8oodEs ead !or aving reco((ended a bad t ing !or t eP ili))ines.N .eca$se o! s$c $tterances# e was c arged in t e CKI o! -orsogon wit violation o! 0rt. 75A o! t e RPC w ic as so(et ing to do wit conte()t o! (inisters o! t e Crown or ot er )ersons in a$t ority. 1e was convicted.1ence# t is a))eal. I--UE< 8ON Pere92s re(ar"s is )rotected by t e constit$tional )rotection on !reedo( o! s)eec .Or 8ON t e )rovisions o! 0ct No. 7B7 s o$ld be inter)reted so as to abridge t e !reedo( o! s)eec and t e rig t o! t e )eo)le to )eacebly asse(ble and )etition t e Govern(ent !or redress o! grievances. 1EL/< No # it is not. 0greed wit t e lower co$rt in its !indings o! !acts b$t convicted t e acc$sed !or violation o! 0ct No.7B7 *-ection F,. R0TIO /ECI/EN/I< It is o! co$rse !$nda(entally tr$e t at t e )rovisions o! 0ct No. 7B7 ($st not be inter)reted so as to abridge t e!reedo( o! s)eec and t e rig t o! t e )eo)le )eaceably to asse(ble and )etition t e Govern(ent !or redress o! grievances. Criticis( is )er(itted to )enetrate even to t e !o$ndations o! Govern(ent. Criticis(# no (atter ow severe# on t e ECec$tive# t e Legislat$re# and t e ;$diciary# is wit in t e range o! liberty o! s)eec # $nless t e intention and e!!ect be seditio$s . .$t w en t e intention and e!!ect o! t e act is seditio$s# t econstit$tional g$aranties o! !reedo( o! s)eec and )ress and o! asse(bly and )etition ($st yield to )$nitive (eas$resdesigned to (aintain t e )restige o! constit$ted a$t ority# t e s$)re(acy o! t e constit$tion and t e laws# and t eeCistence o! t e -tate. In t is instance# t e attac" on t e Governor:General )asses t e !$rt est bo$nds o! !ree s)eec was intended.T ere is a seditio$s tendency in t e words $sed# w ic co$ld easily )rod$ce disa!!ection a(ong t e )eo)le and a state o! !eeling inco()atible wit a dis)osition to re(ain loyal to t e Govern(ent and obedient to t e laws.In t e words o! t e law# Pere9 as $ttered seditio$s words. 1e as (ade a state(ent and done an act w ic tended toinstigate ot ers to cabal or (eet toget er !or $nlaw!$l )$r)oses. 1e as (ade a state(ent and done an act w ic s$ggested and incited rebellio$s cons)iracies. 1e as (ade a state(ent and done an act w ic tended to stir $) t e )eo)leagainst t e law!$l a$t orities. 1e as (ade a state(ent and done an act w ic tended to dist$rb t e )eace o! t eco(($nity and t e sa!ety or order o! t e Govern(ent. 0ll o! t ese vario$s tendencies can be ascribed to t e action o! Pere9 and (ay be c aracteri9ed as )enali9ed by section F o! 0ct No. 7B7 as a(ended. Every )erson w o s all $tter seditio$s words or s)eec es# or w o s all write# )$blis or circ$late sc$rrilo$s libels against t eGovern(ent o! t e United -tates or against t e Govern(ent o! t e P ili))ine Islands# or w o s all )rint# write# )$blis $tter or (a"eany state(ent# or s)eec # or do any act

w ic tends to dist$rb or obstr$ct any law!$l o!!icer in eCec$ting is o!!ice or in )er!or(ing is d$ty# or w ic tends to instigate ot ers to cabal or (eet toget er !or $nlaw!$l )$r)oses# or w ic s$ggests or incites rebellio$scons)iracies or w ic tends to stir $) t e )eo)le against t e law!$l a$t orities# or w ic tends to dist$rb t e )eace o! t e co(($nityor t e sa!ety or order o! t e Govern(ent# or w o s all "nowingly conceal s$c evil )ractices !ro( t e constit$ted a$t orities# s allbe )$nis ed by a !ine not eCceeding two t o$sand dollars United -tates c$rrency or by i()rison(ent not eCceeding two years# orbot # in t e discretion o! t e co$rt.

(n +5;6, the >epublican *arty convened in :allas, Te"as for their national convention. *resident >onald >egan, seeking a second term in office, was to be officially delegated as the '0* candidate for *resident. &cores of individuals organi9ed a political protest in :allas that voiced opposition to >eagan administration policies and those of some :allas-based corporationsJamong the protesters was a man by the name of 'regory Eee Johnson. As the demonstrators marched through the streets, chanting their message, a fellow protestor handed Johnson an American flag that had been taken from a flag pole at one of their protest locations. Ipon reaching the :allas .ity 2all, Johnson doused the flag with kerosene and set it abla9e. Johnson and his fellow demonstrators circled the burning flag and shouted #America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you.% /o one was hurt or threatened with in$ury by the act, but many who witnessed it were deeply offended. Johnson was arrested, charged, and convicted of violating a Te"as law that made it a crime to desecrate a #venerable ob$ect.% Te"as was not the only state to have anti-flag burning laws on the books, 67 other states also criminali9ed flag desecration. For his crime, Johnson received a sentence of one year in prison and was ordered to pay a M-,444 fine. Johnson appealed his conviction and his case eventually went to the &upreme .ourt. Johnson argued that the Te"as flag desecration statute violated the First Amendment, which says #.ongress shall make no law N abridging the freedom of speech N or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.% The state of Te"as argued that it had an interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of national unity. The .ourt had to consider8 Are there certain symbols that are so widely cherished and understood to convey certain meanings that the government can regulate their useH The .ourt agreed with Johnson DA-6G and struck down the Te"as statute. Curning a I.&. flag in protest was e"pressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. #The First Amendment literally forbids the abridgment only of Ospeech,P but we have long recogni9ed that its protection does not end at the spoken or written wordN. (f there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the e"pression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.N%