APRIL KRIS D.

DELA CRUZ March 27, 2022

JD111-CRIMINAL LAW 2: ASSIGNMENT 1
SANCHEZ ROMAN-JD1

1. People vs. Adriano, June 30, 1947

In the case of People vs. Adriano, June 30, 1947 , the two witness rule is considered
to be “severely restrictive”. Two-witness is satified when each of the witness will
testify to the whole of the overt act; or, if it is separable, there must be two
witnesssess to each part of the overt act. In other words, it is necessary to
produce to witness to the whole or the same overt act, or if the overt act is
separable there must be one witness to an overt act and another witness to an
overt act as to the perpetration of the same or identical tresonous overt act. Adrinao was
acquitted because the alleged treasonous acts were committed on different dates without
any two witnesses coinciding in any one specific deed.

2. Laurel vs. Misa, G.R. No. L-409, January 30, 1947

In the case of Laurel vs. Misa, G.R. No. L-409, January 30, 1947, the Court
explained that Filipino citizens owes absolute and pemanent allegiance to the
Republic which consist of the obligation of fidelity and obedience to his
government or sovereign. The absolute and permanent allegiance of the
inhabitants of a territory occupied by the enemy of their legitimate government
or sovereign is not abrogated or severed by the enemy occupation, because the
sovereignty of the government or sovereign de jure is not tranfered thereby to
the occupier. The court denied Misa’s petition considering that petitioner’s theory of
suspended allegiance would lead to disastrous consequences, and would be repugant to
the laws of humanity for it ould allow invaders to legally recruit inhabitants of the occupied
territory to fight against their own government ithout the risk of being prosecuted for
treason.

3. People vs. Abad, G.R. L-430, July 30, 1947

In the case of People vs. Abad, G.R. L-430, July 30, 1947, the Court laid down that
the two-witness rule must be adhered to as to each and everyone of all the external
manifestations of the overt act in issue. Appellant's going to the Ibarra house, in search of
the revolver, is a single overt act, distinct and independent from appellant's overt act in
requiring Magno Ibarra, when the latter went to the garrison, to produce his revolver.
Although both acts may logically be presumed to have answered the same purpose, that of
confiscating Ibarra's revolver, the singleness of purpose is not enough to make one
of two acts. Conversely, there should have been two witnesses each to the said
overt acts.

4. People vs. Alitagtag, G.R. No. L-924, August 30, 1947

In the case of . People vs. Alitagtag, G.R. No. L-924, August 30, 1947, the Court
explained that though the statements do not meet the requirement of two-witness rule as
to giving aid and comfort to the enemy when Alitagatag was seen rendering service or
perform duties as a Makapili, it is nevertheless competent and sufficient proofs of
adherence. Adherence, unlike overt acts, need not be proved by the oaths of two
witnesses. Criminal intent and knowledge may be gathered from the testimony
of one witness, or from the nature of the act or from the circumstances
surrounding the act. It was Alitagtag’s intention as revealed by his conduct that
matters for the purpose of showing adherence to the enemy.

5. People vs. Bate, G.R. No. L-1547, January 28, 1949

In the case of People vs. Bate, G.R. No. L-1547, January 28, 1949, the Court pointed
out that all the charges under the five counts 1, 2, 5, 7, and 9 have been established by
the testimonies of at least two witnesses. As regards count 4, as pointed out by the
Solicitor General, only one witness Felisa Taboado testified as to Francisca
Bacalla's arrest by the appellant and only one witness, Conrado Bao, the cook of
Sgt. Yoshida testified about her investigation oat Yoshida's house by the
defendant; but although not sufficient to prove the overt acts of which he is
accused, nevertheless, the evidence may be considered as proof of his
adherence to the enemy.

6. People vs. Prieto, G.R. No. L-399, January 29, 1948

In the case of People vs. Prieto, G.R. No. L-399, January 29, 1948, where the
accused took part in the execution of some of the guerrilla suspects and inflicted physical
injuries on others, the Supreme Court ruled that the criminal offenses mentioned are not to
be considered as separate offense from treason. It was mentioned that in the nature of
things, the giving of aid and comfort can only be accomplished by some kind of
action. Its very nature partakes of a deed or physical activity, when the deed is
charged as an element of treason it becomes identified with the latter crime and
can not be the subject of a separate punishment.

7. People vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. L-9529, August 30, 1958

In the case of People vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. L-9529, August 30, 1958, Villanueva
put up the defense of duress allegedly exerted upon him by the Japanese for which he had
to serve in the detective force of the Japanese army. The Court ruled out the defense and
raised that duress, force, fear or intimidation to be available as a defense, must
be present, imminent and impending, and of such a nature as to induce a well-
grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act is not done. A
threat of future injury is not enough. To be available as a defense, the fear must be
well-founded, an immediate and actual danger of death or great bodily harm must be
present and the compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity to
accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat. Villanueva’s defense that he was made
to accept the position under duress is not available as a defense to acquit him of the crime
of treason.

8. People vs. Racaza, G.R. No. L-433, March 2, 1949;

In tha case of People vs. Racaza, G.R. No. L-433, March 2, 1949, the Court held that
evident premeditation, superior strength, treachery are, by their nature inherent
in the offense of treason and may not be taken to aggravate the penalty.
Adherence and the giving of aid and comfort to the enemy is, in many cases, as
in this, a long, continued process requiring, for the successful consummation of
the traitor's purpose, fixed, reflective and persistent determination and
planning. So are superior strength and treachery included in the crime of treason.
Treachery is merged in superior strength; and to overcome the opposition and wipe out
resistance movements, which was Racaza's purpose in collaborating with the enemy, the
use of a large force and equipment was necessary.

9. People vs. Victoria, G.R. No. L-369, March 13, 1947

In the case of People vs. Victoria, G.R. No. L-369, March 13, 1947, the Court the
performance of righteous action, no matter how meritorious they may be, is not,
a justifying, exempting, or mitigating circumstance in the commission of
wrongs, and although appellant had saved the lives of a thousand and one persons, if he
had caused the killing of a single human being to give aid and comfort to the enemy, he is,
nonetheless, a traitor. It was already said that: "For whosoever shall keep the whole law,
and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. Victoria’s claim that he too, was a guerrilla,
had helped the resistance movement, and in fact, succeeded in interceding for some
Filipino prisoners, does not relieve him from criminal responsibility for the acts he had
committed.

10. U.S. vs. Lagnason, G.R. No. 1582, March 28, 1904
In the case of U.S. vs. Lagnason, G.R. No. 1582, March 28, 1904, the Court held that
the acts committed by the defendant constituted a "levying of war". That if any person
or persons, owing allegiance to the United States of America, shall levy war
against them, or shall adhere to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort
within the United States or elsewhere, and shall be thereof convicted, on confession
in open court, or on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act of the treason
whereof he or they shall stand indicted, such person or persons shall be adjudged
guilty of treason against the United States, and shall suffer death. Lagnson was
held liable for treason under Section 1 and 3 of the Act . 292 of the Philippine Commission.

11. People vs. Go Tian Sek Santos, G.R. No. L-319, March 28, 1946
In the case of People vs. Go Tian Sek Santos, the accused, a political offender,
contends that as a Chinese citizen he cannot be legally charged of espionage. The Court,
denying the defendant’s claim, held that he may charged for espionage, a crime against
national security wherein allegiance is immaterial. Espionage, (Commonwealth
Act No. 616) a crime not conditioned by the citizenship of the offender, and
considered as an offense against national security.

12. U.S. vs. Lol-lo, G.R. No. 17958, February 27, 1922
In the case of U.S. vs. Lol-lo, G.R. No. 17958, February 27, 1922, the accused
contented that they cannot be tried and charged of piracy in the Court of First Instance of
Sulu based on the grounds that the offense charged was not within the jurisdiction of the
Court of First Instance, nor of any court of the Philippine Islands, and that the facts did not
constitute a public offense, under the laws in force in the Philippine Islands. The contention
was overruled by the Judge.
The Court held that all of the elements of the crime of piracy are present. Piracy is
robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas, without lawful authority and
done animo furandi, and in the spirit and intention of universal hostility. It is a
crime not against any particular state but against all mankind. It may be
punished in the competent tribunal of any country where the offender may be
found or into which he may be carried. The jurisdiction of piracy unlike all other
crimes has no territorial limits. As it is against all so may it be punished by all.

13. People vs. Tulin, et. al., G.R. No. 111709, August 30, 2001
In the case of People vs. Tulin, et. al., G.R. No. 111709, August 30, 2001, the Court
held that article 122 of the Revised Penal Code, 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. Upon its amendment by Republic Act No. 7659, the coverage of the
pertinent provision was widened to include offenses committed "in Philippine waters." On
the other hand, under Presidential Decree No. 532 (issued in 1974), the coverage of the
law on piracy embraces any person including "a passenger or member of the complement
of said vessel in Philippine waters." Hence, passenger or not, a member of the
complement or not, any person is covered by the law.
Republic Act No. 7659 neither superseded nor amended the provisions on
piracy under Presidential Decree No. 532. There is no contradiction between the two
laws. There is likewise no ambiguity and hence, there is no need to construe or interpret
the law. All the presidential decree did was to widen the coverage of the law, in
keeping with the intent to protect the citizenry as well as neighboring states
from crimes against the law of nations. Piracy under the Article 122, as amended, and
piracy under Presidential Decree No. 532 exist harmoniously as separate laws.
The Court also mentioned that piracy falls under Title One of Book Two of
the Revised Penal Code. As such, it is an exception to the rule on territoriality in
criminal law. The same principle applies even if Hiong, in the instant case, were charged,
not with a violation of qualified piracy under the penal code but under a special law,
Presidential Decree No. 532 which penalizes piracy in Philippine waters.

14. People vs. Catantan, G.R. No. 118075, September 5, 1997

In the case of People vs. Catantan, G.R. No. 118075, September 5, 1997, the court
explained that while it is true that the victims were compelled to go elsewhere other than
their place of destination, such compulsion was obviously part of the act of seizing
their boat. The fact remains, as the Court stated, that Catantan and his co-accused Ursal
seized through force and intimidation the pumpboat of the Pilapils while the latter were
fishing in Philippine waters.

15. People vs. Siyoh, et. al., G.R. No. 57292, February 18, 1986
In the case of People vs. Siyoh, et. al., G.R. No. 57292, February 18, 1986, the
number of the persons killed on the occasion of is not material. P.D. No. 532 considers
qualified piracy, i.e. rape, murder or homicide is committed as a result or on the occasion
of piracy, as a special complex crime punishable by death regardless of the number of
victims.

16. People vs. Tolentino, G.R. No. L-29419, August 31, 1971
In the case of People vs. Tolentino, G.R. No. L-29419, August 31, 1971, the
Court that the weakness of the conclusion of the lower court that conspiracy
existed overlooked circumstances favorable to the appellant. What was
 done by him did not entail the responsibility that the law imposes on a principal.
His criminal liability amounts at most to that of accomplice.

17. People vs. Corbes, G.R. No. 113470, March 26, 1997
In the case of People vs. Corbes, G.R. No. 113470, March 26, 1997, the Court held
that the evidence failed to meet the quantum of proof required by law to
establish conspiracy which jurisprudence dictates must be shown to exist as
clearly and convincingly as the commission of the crime itself. No less than
proof beyond reasonable doubt is required.