You are on page 1of 11


People vs. Villanueva  The accused formed a unit of the Makapili organization, of which he was the chief. Said unit was engaged in patrolling
the town and looking for guerillas and persons suspected of helping the underground movement against the Japanese.
Some of the members wore uniforms similar to those used by the Japanese, and army bands with Japanese
characters. They were entitled to the respect and protection of the local authorities, and the people were obliged to
bow to them. (Treason √)

People vs. Villanueva  Villanueva, with intent to adhere as he did adhere to the enemy, and with treasonable intent to give as he did give
said enemy aid and comfort, in his capacity as agent, informer and spy of the Detective Force.

 Defense of duress allegedly exerted by the Japanese upon appellant for which he had to serve in the detective force of
the Japanese Army may not be believed on his lone and self-serving testimony if there is not an iota of proof that he
was in fact compelled or coerced by the Japanese. (Possible defense for Treason)
People vs. Delgado  Adherence to the Japanese forces of occupation and giving them aid and comfort by acting as their spy, undercover
man, investigator, and even killer when necessary to cow and compel the inhabitants to surrender their firearms and
disclose information about the guerrillas has been fully established. (Treason √)

 The appellant may be convicted only for treason, and the killing and infliction of physical injuries committed by him may
not be separated from the crime of treason but should be regarded as acts performed in the commission of the
treason, although, "the brutality with which the killing or physical injuries were carried out may be taken as an
aggravating circumstance."
Crisologo vs. People  Where it appears that the offense charged in the military court and in the civil court is the same, that the military court
had jurisdiction to try the case and that both courts derive their powers from one sovereignty, the sentence meted out
by the military court to the defendant should be a bar to defendant's further prosecution for the same offense in the
Court of First Instance. (Concurrent Jurisdiction over Treason Cases, Decision of Military Court constitutes a bar to
further prosecution for the same offense in civil courts)

 Where the offense charged in the amended information in the Court of First Instance is treason, the fact that the said
information contains an enumeration of additional overt acts not specifically mentioned in the indictment before the
military courts is immaterial where the new alleged overt acts do not in themselves constitute a new and distinct
offense from that of treason but constitute ingredients thereof.

US vs. Bautista  The fact that one accused of "conspiracy" to overthrow the Government has actually and voluntarily accepted
appointment by the conspirators as an officer of armed forces raised or to be raised for the furtherance of the designs


532. 7659. Upon its amendment by Republic Act No. the attack on and seizure of "M/T Tabangao" and its cargo were committed in Philippine waters. Republic Act No. although the captive vessel was later brought by the pirates to Singapore where its cargo was off. And such transfer was 2 .loaded. piracy is "among the highest forms of lawlessness condemned by the penal statutes of all countries. the coverage of the law on piracy embraces any person including "a passenger or member of the complement of said vessel in Philippine waters. PIRACY IN GENERAL AND MUTINY ON THE HIGH SEAS OR IN PHILIPPINE WATERS ARTICLE 123. Tulin  Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code.  The crime of conspiring to commit treason is a separate and distinct offense from the crime of treason US vs. passenger or not. Presumes that any person who does any of the acts provided in said section has performed them knowingly.  As regards the contention that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused-appellant Hiong since the crime was committed outside Philippine waters.  Section 4 of PD 532 ." On the other hand." Hence. before its amendment. provided that piracy must be committed on the high seas by any person not a member of its complement nor a passenger thereof. Cabola  By means of the pacto de sangre. which had for its object the destruction by force of the Government of the United States in the Philippine Islands and the establishment by said defendants of another government in the form of a military organization wherein they were officers or members. transferred. as amended. a member of the complement or not. may be taken into consideration as evidence of the criminal connection of the accused with the conspiracy. the coverage of the pertinent provision was widened to include offenses committed "in Philippine waters. under Presidential Decree No. any person is covered by the law. received property taken by such pirates and derived benefit therefrom. accused-appellant Hiong had failed to overcome the legal presumption that he knowingly abetted or aided in the commission of piracy. 532 (issued in 1974). suffice it to state that unquestionably.CRIMINAL LAW 2 of the conspirators. QUALIFIED PIRACY People vs.Aiding pirates or highway robbers/brigands or abetting piracy or highway robbery brigandage. organized a Katipunan Society. and piracy under Presidential Decree No. unless the contrary is proven. There is no contradiction between the two laws. As expressed in one of the "whereas" clauses of Presidential Decree No. 7659 neither superseded nor amended the provisions on piracy under Presidential Decree No. (Meaning: Pacto de sangre = Blood Compact) ARTICLE 122. In the case at bar. in keeping with the intent to protect the citizenry as well as neighboring states from crimes against the law of nations. there is no need to construe or interpret the law. piracy under the Article 122. and sold. There is likewise no ambiguity and hence." For this reason. 532 exist harmoniously as separate laws. 532. All the presidential decree did was to widen the coverage of the law.

Catantan  Under the definition of piracy in P. though neutral to war. and in practice they are not usually abrogated. vs. People  The prevailing jurisprudence on kidnapping and illegal detention is that the curtailment of the victim's liberty need not involve any physical restraint upon the victim's person. Furlong [1820]. so far as they are compatible with the new order of things. until they are suspended or superseded by the occupying belligerent. To sustain the defense and convert this case of piracy into one of grave coercion would be to ignore the fact that a fishing vessel cruising in Philippine waters was seized by the accused by means of violence against or intimidation of persons. the disposition by the pirates of the vessel and its cargo is still deemed part of the act of piracy. The testimony of Eugene. hence.S. detained against his will. the municipal laws of the conquered territory. 3 . The jurisdiction of piracy unlike all other crime has no territorial limits. People vs. case falls squarely within the purview of piracy. Jr. shows that the appellant actually seized the vessel through force and intimidation. If the acts and actuations of the accused can produce such fear in the mind of the victim sufficient to paralyze the latter. 5 Wheat. 286 of the RPC." (U. without lawful authority and done animo furandi and in the spirit and intention of universal hostility. and to be administered by the ordinary tribunals.) "Thought the powers of the military occupant are absolute and supreme. and provide for the punishment of crime. substantially as they before the occupation. such as affect private rights of person and property. ARTICLE 124. were compelled to go elsewhere other than their place of destination. Lol-lo  Piracy is robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas. Although Presidential Decree No. 532 requires that the attack and seizure of the vessel and its cargo be committed in Philippine waters. such compulsion was obviously part of the act of seizing their boat.CRIMINAL LAW 2 done under accused-appellant Hiong's direct supervision. (Meaning: Animo Furandi .. the same need not be committed in Philippine waters. People vs. to the extent that the victim is compelled to limit his own actions and movements in accordance with the wishes of the accused. are not neutral to crimes. one of the victims. for all intents and purposes. No. and immediately operate upon the political  condition of the inhabitants.Intent to steal)  Pirates are in law hostes humani generis. ARBITRARY DETENTION Astorga vs. 184. 532 as well as grave coercion as penalized in Art. are considered as continuing in force.D. While it may be true that Eugene and Juan. (Meaning: hostes humani generisi - enemy of mankind)  “It does not matter that the crime was committed within the jurisdictional 3-mile limit of a foreign state. but are allowed to remain in force. It may be punished in the competent tribunal of any country where the offender may be found or into which he may be carried. Piracy is a crime not against any particular State but against all mankind. "for those limits. then the victim is.

the police may undertake a protective search of the passenger compartment and containers in the vehicle which are within petitioner's grabbing distance regardless of the nature of the offense."' 4 .  PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE: "(W)hen in pursuing an illegal action or in the commission of a criminal offense. Ombudsman  Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code is intended to prevent any abuse resulting from confining a person without informing him of his offense and without permitting him to go on bail. they are not precluded from performing their duties as police officers for the apprehension of the guilty person and the taking of the corpus delicti. a fleeing suspect. the public place and the raining nighttime all created a situation in which speed is essential and delay improvident.  The words "judicial authority" as contemplated by Art. DELAY IN THE DELIVERY DETAINED PERSONS TO THE PROPER JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES Agbay vs. The products of that search are admissible evidence not excluded by the exclusionary rule. ARTICLE 125. that is. before the search. In connection therewith. a warrantless search is constitutionally permissible when. CA  It is appropriate to state at this juncture that a suspect.CRIMINAL LAW 2 Padilla vs. . the . as in this case. police officers should happen to discover a criminal offense being committed by any person. The exigent circumstances of hot pursuit.  Seizure without a search warrant nonetheless can still be justified under a search incidental to a lawful arrest (first instance). This satisfied the two-tiered test of an incidental search: (i) the item to be searched (vehicle) was within the arrestee's custody or area of immediate control and (ii) the search was contemporaneous with the arrest. Once the lawful arrest was effected. the officers conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe. 125 mean "the courts of justices or judges of said courts vested with judicial power to order the temporary detention or confinement of a person charged with having committed a public offense. 'the Supreme Court and other inferior courts as may be established by law. The court acknowledges police authority to make the forcible stop since they had more than mere "reasonable and articulable" suspicion that the occupant of the vehicle has been engaged in criminal activity."  Voluntary surrender of the alleged “illegal items” which are in his possession incidental to his arrest constitutes a waiver of right against illegal search and seizure. .  Another justification is a search of a moving vehicle (third instance). that either the motorist is a law-offender (like herein petitioner with respect to the hit and run) or the contents or cargo of the vehicle are or have been instruments or the subject matter or the proceeds of some criminal offense. cannot defeat the arrest which has been set in motion in a public place for want of a warrant as the police was confronted by an urgent need to render aid or take action. a moving vehicle. like petitioner herein.

should not be included in the computation of the period prescribed by law for the filing of complaint/information in courts in cases of warrantless arrests. This wise restriction was intended to operate upon legislative bodies. whether confessedly without any color of authority. Soria vs. SEARCHING DOMICILE WITHOUT WITNESSES Moncado vs. it being a "no-office day. so as to render it the duty of the courts to denounce as unlawful every unreasonable search and seizure. facilitating their escape in many instances. and the most depraved of criminals. any unreasonable search or seizure. in any case. satisfied the intent behind Art. Petitioner himself acknowledged this power of the MCTC to order his release when he applied for and was granted his release upon posting bail. and upn the judiciary. or declare lawful. Thus. or sought to be 5 . to a large extent." (Medina vs. the most expert. VIOLATION OF DOMICILE ARTICLE 129. justify. People  "To hold that no criminal can. at the mercy of the shrewdest. Chief of Police) ARTICLE 128. by legislation or otherwise. he may be released on bail. 313. to authorize. be arrested and searched for the evidence and tokens of his crime without a warrant. the means of communication as well as the hour of arrest and other circumstances. would be to leave society. must be taken into consideration. (Sayo vs."  The main. and in filing by the city fiscal of an information with the corresponding city courts after an investigation if the evidence against said person warrants. was to place a salutary restriction upon the powers of government. That is to say. such as the time of surrender and the material possibility for the fiscal to make the investigation and file in time the necessary information. upon executives. Desierto  An election day or a special holiday."  In the case at bar. upon the filing of the complaint with the Municipal Trial Court.) [NOTE: Saturdays and Sundays are also excluded in the computation of the period] For the purpose of determining the criminal liability of an officer detaining a person for more than the hours prescribed  by the Revised Penal Code. We agree with the position of the Ombudsman that such filing of the complaint with the MCTC interrupted the period prescribed in said Article. upon his application with the court. the very purpose underlying Article 125 has been duly served with the filing of the complaint with the MCTC. the Court even made a pronouncement that the delivery of a detained person "is a legal one and consists in making a charge or filing a complaint against the prisoner with the proper justice of the peace or judge of Court of First Instance in provinces. if not the sole. so that no law violative of this constitutional inhibition should ever be enforced. SEARCH WARRANTS MALICIOUSLY OBTAINED AND ABUSE IN THE SERVICE OF THOSE LEGALLY OBTAINED ARTICLE 130. so as to render ineffectual any effort to legalize by statute what the people expressly stipulated could in no event be made lawful. the detained person is informed of the crime imputed against him and. 125 Phil.CRIMINAL LAW 2  In the Sayo case. 125 considering that by such act. we believe the framers of the constitutions of the United States and of this and other states merely sought to provide against any attempt. purpose of our constitutional inhibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures. Orosco.

The indemnity shall include moral damages. under Article 32. who directly or indirectly obstructs. that is. smoldering for a time. in accordance with the power granted him by law. Casimiro  The conduct of a warrantless search is not a criminal act for it is not penalized under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) or any other special law. the permit previously issued by him to said Communist Party. in the exercise of its judgment as to the measures necessary to protect the public peace and safety. cancel and withdraw. house. PROHIBITION. violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages: (9) The right to be secure in one's person. What the RPC punishes are only two forms of searches which are under Art. 129 and 130. (Note: The principal ideal of the Communist Party aim is not to strengthen the capitalist government but to engender — as it cannot be avoided — the war of the classes and to bring about its downfall)  A single revolutionary spark may kindle a fire that. INTERRUPTION AND DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL MEETINGS Evangelista vs." did only the right thing under the circumstances.  The right of the defendant is not to exclude the incriminating documents from evidence. and the existence of the State. That right exists entirely apart from any proposed use of the property by the State or its agents. which provides: Art. whose sworn duty it is "to see that nothing should occur which would tend to provoke or excite the people to disturb the peace of the community or the safety or order of the Government.CRIMINAL LAW 2 justified under the guise of legislative sanction. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated ARTICLE 131. 32. It cannot be said that the state is acting arbitrarily or unreasonably when. defeats. as was done.  The remedy of petitioner against the warrantless search conducted on his vehicle is civil. it seeks to extinguish the spark without waiting 6 . may burst into a sweeping and destructive conflagration. papers. Perez)  Respondent mayor.  The right of peaceful assemblage is not an absolute one: “When the intention and effect of the act is seditious. the Earnshaw constitutional guaranties of freedom of speech and press and of assembly and petition must yield to punitive measures designed to maintain the prestige of constituted authority. and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. but to recover the possession of articles which were wrongfully taken from him. or any private individual. in relation to Article 2219 (6) and (10) of the Civil Code. the supremacy of the constitution and the laws. Galvante vs. Any public officer or employee." (People vs.

violence. COUP D’ETAT ARTICLE 135. in Cabansag v. Present refers to the time element. It used to be identified with imminent and immediate danger. as alleged in the information. The danger must not only be probable but very likely inevitable. ARTICLE 134. It cannot reasonably be required to defer the adoption of measures for its own peace and safety until the revolutionary utterances lead to actual disturbances of the public peace or imminent and immediate danger of its own destruction. or unlawfulness. the danger must not only be clear but also present. The test. (Note: Must be of political character to 7 . then such words are punishable. of two tests that may supply an acceptable criterion for permissible restriction. It is sufficient if the natural tendency and probable effect of the utterance be to bring about the substantive evil which the legislative body seeks to prevent. INSURRECTION OR COUP D’ETAT ARTICLE 136.If the words uttered create a dangerous tendency which the state has a right to prevent. Fernandez. but one crime — that of rebellion plain and simply. Hernandez  When. The term clear seems to point to a causal connection with the danger of the substantive evil arising from the utterance question. “Dangerous Tendency Rule” . REBELLION OR INSURRECTION People vs. in the exercise of its judgment. (People vs Llyod) Gonzales vs. but it may. punishable with one single penalty. CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT COUP D’ETAT. the "clear and present danger" rule. performed "as a necessary means to commit rebellion. suppress the threatened danger in its incipiency. or unlawfulness be advocated. COMELEC  No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech or of the press unless there be a clear and present danger of substantive evil that Congress has a right to prevent  This Court spoke. as a limitation on freedom of expression is justified by the danger or evil of a substantive character that the state has a right to prevent. that prescribed in said Article 135. The danger to be guarded against is the 'substantive evil' sought to be prevented .means that the evil consequence of the comment or utterance must be 'extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high' before the utterance can be punished.  Our Constitution recognizes the freedom to form association for purposes not contrary to law. violence. Unlike the dangerous tendency doctrine. purpose" of the rebellion — constitutes neither two or more offenses. PENALTY FOR REBELLION. REBELLION OR INSURRECTION ARTICLE 134-A. namely. “Clear and Present Danger Rule” . nor a complex crime. It is sufficient that such acts be advocated in general terms. Nor is it necessary that the language used be reasonably calculated to incite persons to acts of force.CRIMINAL LAW 2 until it has enkindled the flame or blazed into the conflagration. . in connection therewith and in furtherance thereof" and "so as to facilitate the accomplishment of the . . It is not necessary that some definite or immediate acts of force.

altogether. Thus for instance. Since one offense is a necessary means for the commission of the other. or 3. which information "was found to be true. the Court says that the arresting officers acted on "confidential information" that he was in the hospital.  Pursuant to Article 135 of the same code "any person. nor accused and convicted of the complex crime of rebellion with malversation of public funds.000 for "any person who promotes. merely participating or executing the commands of others in a rebellion shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period. Umil vs Ramos  In the case of Dural. "engaging in war against the forces of the government". 4. he would not be guilty of rebellion had he not so misappropriated said funds. and no more. "destroying property". as he lay supine in his sickbed. not to dispense with it. In further justification.  Fundamental reason why when common crimes (without political character) are committed during rebellion they are punished separately: If Art. because. the extreme penalty could not be imposed upon him. Whether performed singly or collectively. the arrest was made while he was engaged in the passive and innocuous act of undergoing medical treatment. he is twice guilty of having harbored criminal designs and of carrying the same into execution." This is supposed to have validated the determination of the officers that there was "probable cause" that excused the absence of a warrant.CRIMINAL LAW 2 be absorbed under rebellion. quantitatively. the evil intent is one. which. if common crimes are committed during rebellion then they are separate and distinct offenses)  Political crimes are those directly aimed against the political order. 2. while holding any public office or employment. is lesser than when the two offenses are unrelated to each other. "exacting contributions or" 5. moreover. as well as such common crimes as may be committed to achieve a political purpose. Justice Cruz's own impression is that probable cause must be established precisely to justify the issuance of a warrant. "committing serious violence"." The penalty is increased to prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P20. maintains or heads a rebellion or insurrection or who. and are. these five (5) classes of acts constitute only one offense. In the absence of aggravating circumstances. apart from rebellion. at least. engaged in the continuing offense of rebellion against the State. "diverting public funds from the lawful purpose for which they have been appropriated". The decisive factor is the intent or motive. a public of officer who assists the rebels by turning over to them. the public funds entrusted to his custody. The reason is that such malversation is inherent in the crime of rebellion committed by him. for use in financing the uprising. subject to only one penalty. takes part therein": 1. probable cause must be determined by the judge 8 . 48 would be applied. In fact. could neither be prosecuted for malversation of such funds. The fiction was indulged that he was even then. in such event.

CRIMINAL LAW 2 issuing the warrant. the person to be arrested has committed. in the absence of actual belief of the arresting officers.  The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when. according to Webster. thus: "The crimes of insurrection or rebellion. is actually committing. means "a very short time ago. not at any time after the suspicion of the arresting officer begins. and for subversion which.." which. 24 But if they do not strictly comply with the said conditions. no matter how long ago the offense was committed. a continuing offense. 2045. Dural was arrested for being a member of the New People's Army. Enrile. A reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on probable cause. . an outlawed organization." The arrest must be made almost immediately or soon after these acts. not the arresting officer who says it is not necessary. where membership is penalized. arrest a person: (a) When. or incident thereto."  RULE 113 SEC. or is attempting to commit an offense. i." in arrests without warrant must be based upon probable cause. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. aside from their essentially involving a massive conspiracy of nationwide magnitude . . is based on actual facts. are all in the nature of continuing offenses which set them apart from the common offenses. Under the conditions set forth in Section 5. particularly paragraph (b) thereof. — A peace officer or a private person may. under the doctrine of Garcia vs. conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes.  The courts should not expect of law enforcers more than what the law requires of them. and other crimes and offenses committed in the furtherance (sic) on the occasion thereof. without a warrant. like rebellion is. the arresting officers are not liable. the suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense. coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officers making the arrest. and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it  The requirement of immediacy is obvious from the word "just. or in connection therewith under Presidential Proclamation No. Rule 113. which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion.  "Personal knowledge of facts. even if the arrested persons are later found to be innocent and acquitted.e. 5. (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed. subversion. the arresting officers can be held liable for the crime of arbitrary detention 9 . in his presence.

 Sedition in its more general sense is the raising of commotions or disturbances in the state. vs. as the records show. the authority of the government. Cabrera) People vs Umali  The purpose of the raid and the act of the raiders in rising publicly and taking up arms was not exactly against the Government and for the purpose of doing the things defined in Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code under rebellion. Rather. murder is a crime directed against the lives of individuals. one object. (U. "The offenses charged in the two informations for sedition and murder are perfectly distinct in point of law however nearly they may be connected in point of fact. to inflict an act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of a public official. further. Rules of Court. however. Enrile vs. are probable cause and good faith of the arresting peace officers. Sedition is a crime directed against the existence of the State. to wit. (People vs. 1 Phil. with malice aforethought. namely. ARTICLE 139. for stress. of the Constitution. Sedition is a crime against public order. as distinct and independent acts separable from sedition. sec. and. S. in the peace of the sovereign. not on mere unsubstantiated suspicion. the seat of local Government. either as a means necessary to its commission or as an unintended effect of an activity that constitutes rebellion  WARRANT REQUIREMENT IN "PERSONALLY" DETERMINING THE EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE: It is also contended that the respondent Judge issued the warrant for petitioner's arrest without first personally determining the existence of probable cause by examining under oath or affirmation the complainant and his witnesses. in violation of Art. and which. This Court has already ruled. Rule 113. intimidation. 437). on the basis of. the actual facts and circumstances supporting the arrests. III. The Court predicated the validity of the questioned arrests without warrant in these petitions. Abad (1902). it being sufficient that he follows established procedure by personally evaluating the report and the supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor.CRIMINAL LAW 2  Mere suspicion of being a Communist Party member or a subversive is absolutely not a ground for the arrest without warrant of the suspect. etc. Punzalan who was then Mayor of Tiaong. Ramos  Hernandez remains binding doctrine operating to prohibit the complexing of rebellion with any other offense committed on the occasion thereof. express or implied. a long existing law.  The rule obtaining in this jurisdiction allows for the treatment of the common offenses of murder etc. murder at common law is where a person of sound mind and discretion unlawfully kills any human being. but on compliance with the conditions set forth in Section 5. 2. the object was to attain by means of force. The raiders did not even attack the Presidencia. and the general public tranquility. murder is a crime against persons. 10 . that it is not the unavoidable duty of the judge to make such a personal examination. SEDITION People vs Hadji  Sedition is not the same offense as murder.

Held: For these robberies only those who actually took part therein are responsible. 11 . Robberies were committed by only some of the raiders. presumably because of the opportunity offered by the confusion and disorder resulting from the shooting and the burning of the houses.CRIMINAL LAW 2  ROBBERIES COMMITTED AS AN AFTERTHOUGHT: The purpose of the raiders was to kidnap or kill the mayor and destroy his house.