CASE 1

LAUREL v. MISA FACTS:

77 PHIL 856
Dalmacio Lagnason lead a band of armed men in the
FACTS: province of Occidental Negros campaigning through its
Laurel was charged with treason during the Japanese Northern part against the United States Government. He
occupation. He claims that he cannot be tried for treason was captures in a fight. 20 of his men died. He and some of
since his allegiance to the Philippines was suspended at his men were captured. Rifles, bolos, daggers were
that time. Also, he claims that he cannot be tried under a confiscated from them. They wore black shirts, white
change of sovereignty over the country since his acts were pantaloons and black caps.
against the Commonwealth which was replaced already by
the Republic. ISSUE: W/N the crime was treason?

ISSUE: W/N absolute allegiance of the citizens suspended during HELD:

Japanese occupation?
YES. Engaging in a rebellion and giving it aid and comfort
HELD/RATIO: amounts to a levying of war within the meaning of section
1 of Act No. 292, no matter how vain and futile the
Laurel was found guilty. A citizen owes absolute and attempt. The crime of rebellion and insurrection constitute
permanent allegiance to his government or sovereign. No treason, but when the treason consists in engaging in an
transfer of sovereignty was made; hence, it is presumed insurrection or rebellion it is to be punished in accordance
that the Philippine government still had the power. with section 3 of Act No. 292.
Moreover, sovereignty cannot be suspended; it is either
subsisting or eliminated and replaced. Sovereignty per se DISSENTING:
wasnt suspended; rather, it was th e exercise of
sovereignty that was suspended. Thus, there is no The crime of treason and the crime of rebellion are distinct
suspended allegiance. Regarding the change of and separate offenses; they are crimes of the same class,
government, there is no such change since the sovereign but differ in magnitude and gravity. If the intention is to
the Filipino people is still the same. What happened was a utterly overthrow the Government the offense is treason,
mere change of name of government, from Commonwealth but if it is simply to obstruct and resist the authority of the
to the Republic of the Philippines. United States or the Government of the Philippine Islands"
the offense is rebellion or insurrection.
DISSENT:
CASE 3
During the long period of Japanese occupation, all the PEOPLE VS. PEREZ
political laws of the Philippines were suspended. Thus, 83 PHIL 314
treason under the Revised Penal Code cannot be
punishable where the laws of the land are momentarily FACTS:
halted. Regarding the change of sovereignty, it is true that Seven counts of treason were filed against Susano Perez
the Philippines werent sovereign at the time of the aka Kid Perez, the accused, for recruiting, apprehending,
Commonwealth since it was under the United States. and commandeering women (Eriberta Ramo, Eduarda
Hence, the acts of treason done cannot carry over to the Daohog, Eutiquia Lamay, and Flaviana Bonalos) against
new Republic where the Philippines are now indeed their will to satisfy the immoral purpose and sexual desire
sovereign. of Colonel Mini, and other Japanese of Officers.

ISSUE: W/N furnishing of woman for immoral purpose to enemy

CASE 2 was treason?
U.S. VS LAGNASON
3 PHIL 495 HELD:
1
 NO. The act of the accused of providing the enemies with Issue: Whether or not the conviction of complex crime of treason
women and entertainment, boosting their (the enemies) with murder is correct.
morale and making their lives more pleasant, is not Held:
treason. Sexual and social relations with the Japanese did No. It is not correct for murder is absorbed in the crime if
not directly and materially tend to improve their war efforts treason.Thus the court modifies this as treason with
or weaken the power of the government. Any favourable aggravating circumstance of ignominy.
effect toward the Japanese that the accused might have
made was trivial, imperceptible and unintentional. Intent of
disloyalty is a vital ingredient in the crime of treason, which CASE 6
in the absence of admission may be gathered from the People vs. Alvero
nature and circumstances of each case. In this particular G.R. L-820
case, it was not evident that the intent of the accused in EN BANC
providing the enemies with women was to help them
overthrow the government. Facts:
Alvero on counts of Political, Economic, and Military
CASE 4 collaboration allegedly supported the Japanese campaign
PEOPLE VS. ADRIANO in the Philippines. Alvero supplied motor and automobile
78 PHIL 560 equipments to the Japanese. Alvero adhered to the
TUASON, J.: advocacy of the Japanese and even called himself their
servant. Alvero was a major figurehead in the Makapili
Facts: group. He was convicted of treason by the Peoples Court.
Allegedly appellant was a member of the Makapili group
during World War 2.The Makapili is an armed group of Issue: Whether or not to affirm the conviction.
Filipinos which sided with the Japanese and committed Held:
hostilities against their fellow countrymen. After the war, Yes as his diary and sales of equipment and among others
the Peoples Court convicted the appellant for treason. heavily shows his guilt and his adherence to the
Japanese.His denial holds no weight since it was
Issue: Whether or not the conviction of the appellant for treason unsubstantiated. The decision is affirmed.
the Peoples Court made was correct.

Held: CASE 8
No. Absent two witnesses to testify this claim of treason in THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JOSE Luis GODINEZ
which the law strictly applies, the appellant was acquitted. [No. L895. December 81, 1947]

FACTS:
CASE 5 1. Jose Godinez was a shipmaster in the Philippine
PEOPLE VS. ROBLE coastwise trade before the Pacific War.
G.R. NO. L-433 2. He rendered service to the Japanese Navy as their
TUASON, J: Pilor in bringing their ships into harbor and otherwise
performing work connected with navigation. He was paid
FACTS: monthly salaries.
Roble did allegedly 3 acts which justified his conviction in 3. The prosecution said that such acts gave aid and
the lower court for complex crime of treason with murder. comfort to the enemies, but Godinez denied the allegation
Lead a group of Pro Japanese Filipinos and killed a guerrilla stating that he was threaten by the Japanese that if he do
supporter. Lead a group to torture a guerrilla supporter not render his service he or his family could be killed.
which led to the latters death. Detained and killed an 4. The prosecution, on the other hand, said that there
alleged member if the guerrilla was no imminent danger to his life because some of other

2
 merchant officer succeeded in evading service to the 4. Prieto tortured and killed guerrilla in the following manner:
Japanese and were not molested. (1) he tied the hands of Abraham Puno then gave him fist
5. Moreover, he was accused of helping to the blows and placed a red hot iron on his body; (2) he also
Japanese together with criminal intention" to betray render gave fist blows on the face and other parts of the body to
him guilty of treason. Mariano Ponce; (3) he also tied the hands of Damian Alilin
and Santiago Alilin with rope, tortured and detained them,
and thereafter he killed them with a bayonet; and (4) he
ISSUE: WON the prosecution is correct in asserting that Jose tortured Antonio Soco and the killing of Gil Soco for
Godinez did commit the crime of treason by rendering his guerrilla activities.
service to the Japanese.

RULING: ISSUE: WON the lower court is correct is convicting Eduardo Prieto
No. It was not demonstrated, however, that the other of the crime of treason complexed by murder and physical
seamen were surrounded by the same circumstances of injuries, with aggravating circumstances.
herein indictee, as to family members, means of evasion,
personal relations or conditions, etc., all of which
necessarily affected any decision to serve or not to serve.
It may be that such marine officers were not pressed by HELD:
the Japanese precisely because the herein accused and No. The execution of some of the guerrilla suspects
others (Eduardo Gonzales, Marcelo Ayesa) had consented mentioned in these counts and the infliction of physical
to render pilotage service. injuries on others are not offenses separate from treason.
Those who refused to cooperate, in the face of Under the Philippine treason law and under the United
danger, were patriotic citizens; but it does not follow that States continuation defining treason, after which the
the faintheart, who gave in, were traitors. Moreover, Mere former was patterned, there must concur both adherence
governmental work under the Japanese regimeand to the enemy and giving him aid and comfort one without
pilotage service may be considered in the same lightdoes the other does not make treason.
not constitute per se indictable disloyalty. Lastly, it is hard Where murder or physical injuries are charged as
to believe appellant wished the defeat of our allies, an element of treason, they become identified with the
because he had two sons in the guerrilla forces. latter crime and cannot be the subject of a separate
punishment, or used in combination with treason to
increase the penalty as article 48 of the Revised Penal
CASE 9 Code provides. This rule would not, of course, preclude the
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EDUARDO PRIETO (alias punishment of murder or physical injuries as such if the
EDDIE VALENCIA) government should elect to prosecute the culprit
JANUARY 29, 1948 specifically for those crimes instead of relying on them as
an element of treason. It is where murder or physical
FACTS: injuries are charged as overt acts of treason that they
1. Eduardo Prieto pleaded guilty on counts 1, 2, 3, and 7 cannot be regarded separately under their general
among the 7 counts of treason that was filed against him in denomination.
the Peoples Court. The use of torture and other atrocities on the vic-
2. The lower court convicted him of the crime of treason tims instead of the usual and less painful method of
complexed by murder and physical injuries, with execution will be taken into account to increase the penalty
aggravating circumstances. under the provision of article 14, paragraph 21, of the
3. On counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 it was shown that Prieto aided Revised Penal Code. However, there being an aggravating
the Japanese soldiers when he acted as the Japanese circumstance and a mitigating circumstance, the penalty to
soldiers informer and agent, when he accompanied them be imposed is reclusin perpetua.
in apprehending different guerrillas and when he
participated in torturing and killing the guerilla.

3
CASE 10 when it is shown by evidence that said officer were not
PEOPLE VS LABRA content to render lip service to the enemy in making pleas
for public orders, but went further and torture their own
FACTS: The evidence has conclusively shown that appellant Pablo countrymen who were guerillas, a verdict of guilt must
Labra, being a Filipino citizen, in biolagion of his allegiance inevitably be returned.
to the Commonwealth of the Philippines, adhered to the
empire of Japan and gave it aid and comfort by acting as
an agent of the Kempei Tai, the Japanese Military Police. His CASE NO. 14
main activity was arresting, investigating and torturing PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FELIPE REYES
guerillas. He took part in the arrest of one Tomas Abella, a No. L-1624 January 18, 1950
guerilla suspect who was later beheaded and one Nicolas REYES, J.
Tudtud who was found dead in a seashore.
The lower court found appellant guilty of treason and of the FACTS:
murder of Tomas Abella.
December 1, 1944, in the different barrios of the
Issue: whether or not appellant was guilty of murder Municipality of Taguig, Rizal the accused, acting as
informer or agent of the Japanese Forces in the Philippines,
Held: No. The lower court erred in finding appellant guilty of the for the purpose of giving and with the intent to give aid
murder of Tomas Abella. The arrest and killing of Tomas and/or comfort to the enemy, with the aid of a group of
Abella is alleged in court three of the information, as one of armed men and Japanese soldiers who afforded him (them)
the elements of the crime of treason for which appellant is impunity, guided and accompanied a group of armed men
prosecuted. Such element constitutes a part of the legal and Japanese soldiers in the 'zonification' of the different
basis upon which appellant stands convicted of treason. barrios in search of guerilla suspects. The accused and his
The killing of Tomas Abella cannot be considered as legal companions arrested about 267 male residents, suspected
ground for convicting appellant of any crime other than of being guerrillas, and herded them together in a place
treason. which was afterwards surrounded by armed men and
Japanese soldiers, and having thus confined the 267
CASE 11 guerrilla suspects and illegally and arbitrarily having
PEOPLE VS ALBANO deprived them of their freedom, carried out the purpose
and plans of the enemy.
Facts: Benjamin Albano, at that time a sergeant in the Bureau of
Constabulary of the puppet government, was charged with The only question of fact presented in the appeal is the
treason. There is enough evidence, in accordance with the participation of the appellants in the "zoning" above
two-witness rule that the accused together with his men, described.
arrested some suspects of being involve in the guerillas.
The suspects denied such allegations but the accused was As to the participation of Leon Gutierrez the witness Julita
charged with treason but he contended that he was merely Gregorio testified that she saw the said appellant between
following orders and that the prosecution failed to establish 6 and 7 o'clock in the morning of December 1, 1944,
adherence to the enemy and rendering of aid and comfort. arresting and driving the male residents towards Tipas and
that he was among those who went to her store that
Issue: whether or not Albano is guilty of treason morning and took her husband along. No one, however,
corroborated this testimony.
Held: Yes. The contention of Albano is without merit because the
words and deeds of appellant clearly eXhibit such
adherence and assistance to the toe. Possibly, under The same defect is to be noted in the testimony of the
certain circumstances, members of the police force during witnesses against the appellant Felipe. Maria Umali Ramos
the occupation who merely urged guerillas to keep the testified that this appellant was one of those who took her
peace and stop their activities did not commit treason; but

4
 husband from their house. But no one corroborated her on perform duties as a Makapili, and though the statements
this point. do not meet the two-witness requirement as proof of giving
aid and comfort to the enemy, they nevertheless are
ISSUE: Whether of not the accused should be convicted of treason competent and sufficient proofs of adherence.
absent the corroboration to a witness testimony
Adherence, unlike overt acts, need not be proved by the
oaths of two witnesses. Criminal intent and knowledge may
HELD: be gathered from the testimony of one witness, or from the
nature of the act or from the circumstances surrounding
No. The rule is that every act, movement, deed and word the act. )
of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be
supported by the testimony of two witnesses. The two- ISSUE: Whether or not the appellant could be convicted absent
witness rule must be adhered to as to each and every one the two witness testimony regarding his adherence to give
of all the external manifestations of the overt act in issue aid to the enemy.
and each of the two- witnesses must testify to the whole of
the overt act; or if it is. Separable, there must be two
witnesses to each part of the overt act. HELD:

Yes. Adherence, unlike overt acts, need not be proved by

CASE NO. 15 the oaths of two witnesses. Criminal intent and knowledge
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. TIBURCIO ALITAGTAG may be gathered from the testimony of one witness, or
NO. L-924. AUGUST 30, 1947 from the nature of the act or from the circumstances
surrounding the act.
FACTS:
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF MAKAPILI ORGANIZATION AND ITS
Tiburcio Alitagtag was prosecuted in the People's Court PURPOSES.Judicial notice may be taken of the existence
charged with treason on three counts. Briefly it is alleged and purposes of the Makapili organization as matters of
(1) that on February 4, 1945, in Santa Rosa, Laguna, the public notoriety and interest and as part of contemporary
accused participated in the arrest and execution of history. The courts knew as historical facts that the
Augusto Ramirez, a guerrilla suspect; (2) that on the same Makapili association was organized under the sponsorship.
day the accused took part in the arrest of one Canuto direction and supervision of the Japanese army; that its
Velandres and two others who are still unknown; and (3) aims were as stated in the preamble and purposes of its
that in the month of December, 1944, the accused enlisted by-laws, Exhibit A-1; that it was a body of men recruited
and served as a member of the Makapilis and retreated and armed chiefly for the purpose of warfare and placed
with Japanese troops upon the approach of the American itself at the disposal of the enemy; that it received military
and guerrilla forces. training and instruction from Japanese military personnel
and was equipped by the invaders for- combat; that
The Peoples Court declared that the overt acts described Filipinos joined that association and rendered service in
in counts 2 and 3 had not been duly proven. However, the furtherance of the above objectives, fighting side by side
court considered the evidence adduced on the third count with the Japanese, commandeering supplies for the latter,
that the defendant was a Makapiliproof of adherence to and in many instances excelling their overlords in the
the enemy. commission of atrocities against their own countrymen in a
campaign to suppress what they and the Japanese
(There is clear evidence that the defendant's associates regarded as subversive acts.
were Makapilis, and two witnesses, Dichoso and Perez,
swore that the accused was also a Makapili. Although the APPOINTMENT OR ENLISTMENT IN MAKAPILI
statements of these witnesses do not tally as to the ORGANIZATION, How PROVED.Appointment or enlistment
occasion when they saw the defendant render service or in that organization need not be established by direct

5
 testimony. It may be inferred from the surrounding
circumstances. A person who acted as and was actually Facts:
engaged in the work of a Makapili, bearing arm, wearing
Makapili or Japanese uniform, drilling under Japanese 1 Francisco Bautista, Aniceto de Guzman, and Toms Puzon
military officers, taking part in the rounding up and were convicted of the crime of conspiracy to overthrow,
execution of guerrillas, joining the Japanese in their retreat, put down, and destroy the government.
and the like, such person is presumed to have been 2 Evidence shows that a junta was organized and a
regularly inducted. It is presumed that things have conspiracy entered into by a number of Filipinos for the
happened according to the ordinary course of nature and purpose of overthrowing the government by force of arms
the ordinary habits of life. and establishing Repblica Universal Democrtica Filipina.
3 Francisco Bautista is an intimate friend of Artemio Ricarte,
the chief of the military forces to be organized; that Ricarte
CASE NO. 16 wrote and notified Bautista of his coming in Manila; and
PEOPLE VS. ROSAS that Bautista took part and was present in several
NO. L-2958 meetingswhereat the plans of the conspirators were
TUASON, J.: discussed.

Facts: 4 Tomas Puzon had an agency with the prime leader of the
1 Patricio Rosas was found guilty for 3counts of treason for movement; that Puzon held several conferences with such
which he was sentenced to life imprisonment. prime leader; that Puzon accepted the commission and
2 Counts 1 and 3 are general allegations of the same overt voluntarily united himself and undertook to do his part in
acts averred in count 5, except as to the charge of looting organizing.
and arson, which is laid in count 3 but not in count 5,
hence, these three counts may still be reduced to one. Issue: Whether or not Bautista, de Guzman, and Puzon is in
3 Two witnesses, Dionisia Igamin and Maria Empalmado, conspiracy to overthrow the government?
testified count 5, the rest of the prosecution witnesses'
testimony having reference to counts 1 and 3. Ruling:

Issue: Whether or not the two-witness rule has been complied No. The fact that the accused accepted the appointment is
with in this case? taken into consideration merely as evidence of his criminal
relations with the conspirators. In the first of these cases
Ruling: the United States vs. De los Reyes the accused was
charged with treason, and the court found that the mere
No. The evidence on the charge that the appellant was a acceptance of a commission by the defendant, nothing else
Makapili has not been proved by the requisite two- being done either by himself or by his companions, was not
witnesses rule. The witnesses have corroborated each an "overt act" of treason within the meaning of the law.
other on the material points of this feature of the
accusation. The trial judge himself states that the evidence CASE 18
presented to show that the defendant joined and enlisted PEOPLE VS. LOL-LO AND SARAW
in the Makapili organization "falls short, strictly speaking,
of the necessary legal requirement." Nevertheless, the
testimony is valid and sufficient proof of adherence to the Facts:
enemy. Two boats left Matuta and Peta, a dutch possession. On
their way, their boat has been surrounded by six vintas
CASE NO. 17 manned by 24 moros all armed. They get all the cargos in
US VS FRANCISCO BAUTISTA, ET.AL. the boats and attach some of the men and brutally violated
NOV. 3, 1906 the women by methods too horrible to describe. The moros
CARSON, J.: including Lol-lo and Saraw take the women who were
brutally violated. Upon arriving at their destination, the
6
 women were able to escape. When Lol-lo and Saraw
returned home, they were arrested and charged with the Leonardo-De Castro, J.:
crime of piracy.
Facts:
Issue: Whether or not Lol-lo and Saraw were guilty as charged 1 February 17, 2000 - Accused appellants, Rolando Botong
delos Reyes, Raymundo Mac-Mac Reyes, Emmanuel Cocoy
Held: de Claro, Mary Jane Lantion-Tom, were all arrested for illegal
Yes, Lol-lo and Saraw are guilty as charged. The proven possession, sale, delivery, distribution and transportation of
facts cannot be disputed. All of the elements of the crime shabu.
of piracy are present. Piracy is robbery or forcible 2 The Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) found probable cause to
defredation on the high seas, without lawful authority and indict appellants.
done animo furendi and in the spirit and intention of 3 March 7, 2000- Insisting on their innocence, delos Reyes, de
universal hostility. In the given case, the crime of piracy us Claro and Lantion-Tom moved for reinvestigation of the case
proven. Hence, death penalty was imposed to Lol-lo for which the trial court granted.
the crime committed with aggravating circumstance and 4 After reinvestigation, OCP recommended that the RTC proceed
life imprisonment is sentenced to Saraw. with the indictment of accused-appellant Reyes and de Claro
and dismiss the charges against delos Reyes and Lantion-Tom.
5 Charges against Lantion-Tom was dismissed.
CASE 19 6 These were the versions presented during the preliminary
SANTOS VS. MISA investigation and reinvestigation.
GR NO. L-319, MARCH 28, 1946
Arresting Officers
Facts:
The petitioner Go Tian Tek Santos, is a Chinese citizen who On February 17, 2000, a confidential informant called up
was apprehended by the Counter Intelligence Corps of the relative to a drug deal to commence at the parking area of
US Army and was turned over to the Commonwealth Shangrila hotel. At 2pm, they met with the confidential
Government and was thereafter, detained. He is claiming informant and positioned themselves at the area. At 10pm,
that such detention was illegal as he owes allegiance Reyes and delos Reyes arrived separately (on board different
neither to the United States nor to the Commonwealth cars) and subsequently went inside Whistletop Bar and
Government of the Philippines. Hence, the present petition. Restaurant. Delos Reyes was calling de Claros cellular phone.
Delos Reyes and De Claro went to the latters car where
Issue: whether or not Go Tian Tek Santos is guilty of the crime Lantion-Tom was waiting. A transparent plastic bag was taken
espionage and handed over to delos Reyes and in turn handed it to Reyes.
The officers accosted the accused respondents. According to
Held: the officers, the accused respondents have admitted that in
Yes. Go Tian Sek Santos is guilty of the crime espionage. As their possession was illegal drugs.
the record states, the petitioner must be deemed a
Chinese subject. The Commitment Order No. 291 issued by Rolando delos Reyes (Sinumpaang Salaysay)
the US Army authorities describes him as such. But he is
not entitled to liberty now. His foreign state does not On February 17, 2000, he went to Buenas Market,
exclude him ipso facto from the scope of the said law. As Manggahan Pasig with his neighbor, Marlon David, to talk to
stated by the OSG, he might be prosecuted for espionage, Raymundo Reyes who was to pay his indebtedness. While in
a crime not conditioned by the citizenship of the offender the parking space, several armed men suddenly appeared and
and considered as an offense against national security. shouting at them to open the door of the vehicle. He and his
neighbor were forced out of the vehicle with one of the armed
CASE 24 men bringing out a plastic shopping bag of SM and asking
People vs. Rolando Delos Reyes and Raymundo Reyes them where the bag did, containing shabu came from. When
GR. No. 174774 he answered hindi ko alam they were blind folded and
August 31, 2011
7
 forcibly taken to the groups vehicle and continuously asked SPO1 Lectura
who the source of shabu was. When delos Reyes blindfold was Upon meeting with the confidential informant, he
removed he found himself at Camp Bagong Diwa. conducted a short briefing and then positioned his team within
the vicinity. When he sensed that the drug deal had been
He claims that he was arrested in Brgy. Manggahan, Pasig consummated, he decided to arrest the suspects. He arrested
City and not in the Whistletop Restaurant and Bar. Emmanuel Reyes from whom he seized white plastic bag. During cross
de Claro presented a blotter from the barangay containing the examination he denied that Marlon David was with Rolando when the
incident report made by delos Reyes wife that her husband latter was arrested but he later admitted that the police also
and her nephew went missing on February 17, 2000 and were arrested Marlon David. He acknowledged that his team heavily
arrested by unknown armed men in Buenas Market, relied on the information given by the confidential informant in
Manggahan, Pasig City. identifying the suspects in the illegal drug deal.

Emmanuel de Claro and his common-law-wife Mary Jane PO3 Yumul

Lantion-Tom (Counter Affidavit) He narrated same version of events as that of PO3
Santiago and SPO1 Lectura
They claim that they were at the Whistletop to talk to
Lantion-Toms accountant regarding the business permit. They SPO1 David (investigator at the intelligence and investigation
were with Emmanuels brother, Roberto and a friend James section)
who were waiting for them outside.Lantion-Tom went to He received a plastic bag containing a box with sachets of
accompany the accountant while Emmanuel was left inside the suspected shabu. He was told by Lectura that the articles were
restaurant.When the accountant left, Lantion-Tom was seized from the suspected drug dealers. He said that he prepared the
suddenly surrounded by armed men who introduced affidavit of arrest of the arresting officers.
themselves as police officers and were arresting them for being
the source of shabu drug deal. Roberto and James were P/Insp. Cruto (forensic chemist)
likewise arrested but released on the following day. He conducted physical examination of the seized sachets.
All tested positive for shabu.
7 Both respondents maintain that the allegations of the arresting
officers as to the circumstances on the alleged drug deal 10 RTC: accused-appellants and Emmanuel de Claro were found
leading to their arrest are unfounded and purely fabricated. guilty beyond reasonable doubt and was sentenced life
8 April 4, 2000 - RTC: Probable cause exists not only against imprisonment.
Reyes and de Claro but with delos Reyes as well. 11 Emmanuel asked the RTC to review its judgment of conviction.
9 The prosecution presented the testimonies of the members of He contended that the accusations that he was engaging in
the Regional Mobile Group of the Philippine National Police illegal drug deal was suspicious, if not credible. He argued that
(PNP) NCR Police office and the forensic chemist of the PNP that the prosecution failed to contradict his well-supported alibi
Crime Laboratory. so they could attend to several documents pertaining to a
business permit. He insisted that the RTC should have highly
P03 Santiago regarded accused-appellant Rolando delos Reyes testimony
Their team leader sensed that the drug deal had already which directly contradicted the police officers.
been consummated so the police team immediately effected the 12 RTC acquitted de Claro of the crime charged. The RTC explicitly
arrest of the suspected drug dealers. On cross-examination PO3 admitted that it erred.
Santiago admitted that he did not actually see what was inside the 13 There were pending notices of appeal of accused-appellants of
plastic bag and that he did not even see delos Reyes hand over which records of the case were forwarded to the Supreme
such plastic bag to Reyes. From his position, he could not conclude Court. Case was forwarded by the SC to the Court of Appeals
that the suspects were committing and illegal drug deal as he has for proper action and disposition.
no prior knowledge of the contents of the plastic bag and that he and 14 CA sustained conviction of appellants including de Claro.
the other arresting officers just relied on the information relayed by Merely modified the penalty from life imprisonment to reclusion
the confidential informant. perpetua. According to the CA, the police officers testimonies
deserve credence than accused appellants defenses of denial

8
 and alibi. There was no evidence to rebut the presumption that PO3 Yumul had no prior knowledge of the suspects identities, and they
the police officers regularly performed their official duties. completely relied on their confidential informant to actually identify the
15 The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for final review. suspects. None of the police officers actually saw what was inside that
box.
Issue: Whether or not the search and seizure made by the officers
without a warrant is valid There is also no evidence that the confidential informant himself
knew that the box contained shabu. No effort at all was taken to
Ruling: No. It is invalid. The Supreme Court grant the appeal and confirm that the arrested suspects actually knew that the box or carton
reverse the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals. inside the white plastic bag, seized from their possession, contained
shabu. The police officers were unable to establish a cogent fact or
Search and seizure may be made without a warrant and the circumstance that would have reasonably invited their attention, as
evidence obtained therefrom may be admissible in the following officers of the law, to suspect that accused-appellants, Emmanuel de
instances: (1) search incident to a lawful arrest; (2) search of a moving Claro, and Lantion-Tom has just committed, is actually committing, or is
motor vehicle; (3) search in violation of customs laws; (4) seizure of attempting to commit a crime, particularly, an illegal drug deal.
evidence in plain view; (5) when the accused himself waives his right
against unreasonable searches and seizures; and (6) stop and frisk Fallo:
situations.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated July 12, 2006 of the Court of Appeals
The first exception (search incidental to a lawful arrest) includes a in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01733 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
valid warrantless search and seizure pursuant to an equally valid Accused-appellants Rolando delos Reyes and Raymundo Reyes are
warrantless arrest which must precede the search. In this instance, the ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt and they are
law requires that there be first a lawful arrest before a search can be ORDERED forthwith released from custody, unless they are being
made - the process cannot be reversed. As a rule, an arrest is lawfully held for another crime.
considered legitimate if effected with a valid warrant of arrest.
SO ORDERED.
The Rules of Court, however, recognizes permissible warrantless
arrests. Thus, a peace officer or a private person may, without warrant,
arrest a person: (a) when, in his presence, the person to be arrested CASE 25
has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an Milo vs. Salanga
offense (arrest in flagrante delicto); (b) when an offense has just been 20 July 1987
committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has Gancayco, J.:
committed it (arrest effected in hot pursuit); and (c) when the person
to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal Facts:
establishment or a place where he is serving final judgment or is 1. An information for Arbitrary Detention was filed against Juan
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while Tuvera, Sr., Tomas Mendoza and Rodolfo Mangsat in the Court
being transferred from one confinement to another (arrest of escaped of First Instance.
prisoners). 2. Tuvera, Sr., who is a barangay captain, with the aid of some
other private persons, maltreated one Armando Valdez by
It is evident that the police officers arrested accused-appellants hitting with butts of their guns and fists blows without legal
and searched the latters persons without a warrant after seeing delos grounds.
Reyes and de Claro momentarily conversing in the restaurant, and 3. Tuvera Sr., with Cpl. Mendoza and Pat. Mangsat, who are
witnessing the white plastic bag with a box or carton inside being members of the police force helped one another and
passed from Lantion-Tom to Emmanuel de Claro, to accused-appellant feloniously locked Armando Valdez inside the municipal jail for
Rolando delos Reyes, and finally, to accused-appellant Reyes. about 11 hours.
4. Tuvera filed a motion to quash the information on the ground
These circumstances, however, hardly constitute overt acts that the facts charged do not constitute an offense and that
indicative of a felonious enterprise. SPO1 Lectura, PO3 Santiago, and

9
 the proofs adduced at the investigation are not sufficient to One need not be a police officer to be chargeable with Arbitrary
support the filing of the information. Detention. It is accepted that other public officers like judges and
5. Petitioner Assistant Provincial Fiscal Ramon S. Milo filed an mayors, who act with abuse of their functions, may be guilty of this
opposition thereto.
crime.A perusal of the powers and function vested in mayors would
6. Respondent Judge Angelito C. Salanga granted the motion to
quash on finding that Tuvera, Sr. was not a public officer who show that they are similar to those of a barrio captain except that
can be charged with Arbitrary Detention. in the case of the latter, his territorial jurisdiction is smaller. Having
7. The public officers liable for Arbitrary Detention must vested the same duty of maintaining peace and order, both must be and
with authority to detain or order the detention of persons are given the authority to detain or order detention. Noteworthy is
accused of crime. Such public officers are the policemen and the fact that even private respondent Tuvera himself admitted that
other agents of the law, the judges or mayors. with the aid of his rural police, he as a barrio captain, could have
8. Respondent Judge did not consider private Tuvera as public
led the arrest of petitioner Valdez.
officer.

Issue: From the foregoing, there is no doubt that a barrio captain, like
private respondent Tuvera, Sr., can be held liable for Arbitrary
Whether or not Tuvera, Sr., a barrio captain, is a public officer who Detention.
can be liable for the crime of Arbitrary Detention

Ruling: Fallo:

Yes. Arbitrary Detention is committed by a public officer who, WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition for certiorari is
without legal grounds, detains a person. The elements of this crime GRANTED. The questioned Order of April 25, 1973 in Criminal
are the following: Case No. D-529 is hereby set aside. Let this case be remanded to
the appropriate trial court for further proceedings. No
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee. pronouncement as to costs.

2. That he detains a person. SO ORDERED.

3. That the detention is without legal grounds. CASE 26

United States vs. Samonte
Long before Presidential Decree 299 was signed into law, barrio 6 September 1910
lieutenants (who were later named barrio captains and now
barangay captains) were recognized as persons in authority. Trent, J.:

Under Republic Act No. 3590, otherwise known as The Revised Facts:
Barrio Charter, the powers and duties of a barrio captain include
the following: to look after the maintenance of public order in the 1. Isaac Samonte was tried in the Court of First Instance on a charge
barrio and to assist the municipal mayor and the municipal of criminal attempt against an agent of the authorities.
councilor in charge of the district in the performance of their duties 2. One night, Samonte and Rabe were together in one house in the
in such barrio; to look after the general welfare of the barrio; to barrio of Macalalong in the province of Tayabas. When they left the
enforce all laws and ordinances which are operative within the house and met shortly afterwards in Verdades Street in the said
barrio; and to organize and lead an emergency group whenever barrio, later they became engaged in a quarrel. Rabe called
the same may be necessary for the maintenance of peace and Police! Police!.
order within the barrio. 3. Gregorio Glindo, a municipal policeman being on patrol duty that
night heard the priest call for help. He arrived at the scene just as
when Rabe was getting up
10
 4. Glindo attempted to arrest Samonte saying to him In the name of them or filed an information against them with the proper
the United States do not move. Samonte replied Dont come courts of justice.
near, because I will take your life. 4. Until May 12, 1948 (the writing of the Supreme Court Decision),
5. Glindo continued toward Samonte until the former was strucked by the Court still does not have the information with regard to the
the latter with a knife. action taken by the office of the fiscal on the complaint filed by
Dumlao against petitioners.
Issue: Whether or not Gregorio Glindo has the authority to arrest 5. Regardless of what action might have been taken already by
Samonte even without a warrant the office of the fiscal, if there was any, the court shall decide
this case to rule on the question involved and for the
Ruling: Yes. Any officer charged with the preservation of the public information and guidance of officers concerned.
peace may arrest, without a warrant, any person who is committing, or
has committed, a breach of the peace in his presence. Issue:
1. Whether or not the peace officer has authority to arrest without
In the case at bar Gregorio Glindo, being a peace officer, not only had a warrant
authority to arrest the defendant at the time, but it was his duty to do 2. Whether or not the city fiscal of Manila is a judicial authority
so, he having heard the priest call for help and having arrived on the within the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code
scene before the disturbance had finally ended.
Ruling:
Fallo:
The penalty imposed by the court below being in accordance with the 1. No except in authorized cases. A peace officer has no power or
law and the proofs presented, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs authority to arrest a person without a warrant upon complaint
against the Appellant. So ordered. of the offended party or any other person authorized by law.
Due to the resistance of Samonte, Glindo could not arrest him. Glindo What the complainant may do in such a case is to file a
immediately went to the house of councilman and reported the matter. complaint with the city fiscal of Manila or directly with the
The councilman ordered him to arrest Samonte. justice of peace courts in municipalities and other political
When Samonte was found, the policeman attempted to hold him but subdivisions. If the city fiscal of has no authority, and he has
he resisted striking at the policeman again with his knife. The not, to order the arrest of a person charged with having
councilman ordered Samonte to submit himself but the latter resisted committed a public offense even if he finds, after due
and also struck the councilman with a knife. investigation, that there is a probability that a crime has been
The arrest did not took place that night on account of his resistance. committed and the accused is guilty thereof, a fortiori, a police
officer has no authority to arrest and detain a person charged
with an offense upon complaint of the offended party or other
persons even though after investigation, he becomes
convinced that the accused is guilty of the offense charged.
CASE 27
SAYO VS. CHIEF OF POLICE OF MANILA 2. No. The judicial authority within the meaning of Article 125 of
80 Phil 859 the Revised Penal Code must be a judge who has authority to
12 May 1948 issue a written warrant of commitment or release containing
FERIA,J.: the ground on which it is based. Judicial authorities mean the
courts of justice or judges of said courts vested with judicial
Facts: power to order the temporary detention or confinement of a
1. A complaint was filed by one Bernardino Malinao against the person charged with having committed a public offense, that
petitioners for the crime of robbery. is, the Supreme Court and such inferior courts as may be
2. A policeman of City of Manila, Benjamin Dumlao arrested the established by law. It cannot be construed to include the fiscal
petitioners on April 2, 1948 and presented a complaint against of the City of Manila or any other city, because they cannot
them with the fiscals office of Manila. issue a warrant of arrest or of commitment or temporary
3. April 7, 1948 Petitioners filed a petition for habeas corpus for detention of a person arrested without warrant.
they were still detained and the city fiscal has not yet released

11
 Fallo: 6 One of the suspects was Mengote. In his possession is a
revolver with 6 live bullets.
In view of all the foregoing, without making any 7 Rigoberto Danganan, a prosecution witnesses identified the
pronouncement as to the responsibility of the officers who subject weapon as among the articles stolen from him during
intervened in the detention of the petitioners, for the policeman the robbery in his house in Malabon. He pointed out that
Mengote was one of the robbers.
Dumlao may have acted in good faith, in the absence of a clear cut
8 Petitioners contention: The revolver should not have been
ruling on the matter in believing that he had complied with the admitted in evidence because of its illegal seizure. No warrant
mandate of article 125 by delivering the petitioners within six was previously obtained neither could it have been seized as
hours to the office of the city fiscal, and the latter might have an incident of a lawful arrest because the arrest of Mengote
ignored the fact that the petitioners were being actually detained was itself unlawful, having been also effected without a
when the said policeman filed a complaint against them with the warrant. The defense also contends that the testimony
city fiscal, we hold that the petitioners are being illegally restrained regarding the alleged robbery in Danganan's house was
irrelevant and should also have been disregarded by the trial
of their liberty, and their release is hereby ordered unless they are
court.
now detained by virtue of a process issued by a competent court of
justice. So ordered. Issue: Whether or not the warrantless arrest is lawful.

Paras, Actg. C.J., Pablo, and Bengzon, JJ., concur. Ruling:

No. Under Rule 113, Section 5, of the Rules of Court, a peace
officer or private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person; (a)
When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When
CASE 28 an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal
People vs. Rogelio Mengote knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has
22 June 1992 committed it; and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who
has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving
Cruz, J.,: final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has
escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.In
Facts: cases failing under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested
1 A stolen pistol was found in possession of Rogelio Mengote at without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police
the moment of his warrantless arrest and was convicted of station or jail, and he shall be proceeded against in accordance with
illegal possession of firearms. Rule 112, Section 7.
2 He pleads that the weapon was not admissible as evidence
against him because it had been illegally seized and was
These requirements have not been established in the case at bar.
therefore the fruit of the poisonous tree.
At the time of the arrest in question, the accused-appellant was merely
3 The government insists that the revolver was validly received
"looking from side to side" and "holding his abdomen," according to the
in evidence by the trial judge because its seizure was
arresting officers themselves. There was apparently no offense that
incidental to a lawful arrest even if admittedly without warrant.
had just been committed or was being actually committed or at least
4 The incident occurred when an informer called the police and
being attempted by Mengote in their presence.
informed them that there were three-suspicious-looking
persons in Tondo, Manila.A surveillance team was dispatched
The Solicitor General submits that the actual existence of an
to the place.
offense was not necessary as long as Mengote's acts "created a
5 At the trial, patrolmen said that they saw 2 men looking from
reasonable suspicion on the part of the arresting officers and induced
side to side one of whom was holding his abdomen. When
in them the belief that an offense had been committed and that the
they were approached and the patrolmen identified themselves
accused-appellant had committed it." The question is, What offense?
as policemen, the 2 run away but were unable to escape. The
What offense could possibly have been suggested by a person "looking
suspects were then searched.

12
 from side to side" and "holding his abdomen" and in a place not Defendant denies being involved in any subversive activities and
exactly forsaken? claims that he has been tortured in order to accept ownership of
subject firearm and that his alleged extrajudicial statements have
Mengote was arrested at 11:30 in the morning and in a crowded been made only under fear, threat and intimidation on his person
street shortly after alighting from a passenger jeep with his companion. and his family. He avers that his arrest is unlawful as it is done
He was not skulking in the shadows but walking in the clear light of without valid warrant, that the trial court erred in holding the
day. There was nothing clandestine about his being on that street at search warrant in his house for the firearm lawful, and that the trial
that busy hour in the blaze of the noonday sun. court erred in holding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt for
violation of PD 9.
The policemen admitted that they were dispatched in that place
after a receiving a telephone call from the informer that there were Issue:
"suspicious-looking" persons in that vicinity who were about to commit
a robbery without the caller explaining why he thought the men Whether or not defendants arrest, the search of his home,
looked suspicious nor did he elaborate on the impending crime.There and the subsequent confiscation of a firearm and several NPA-
was nothing to support the arresting officers' suspicion other than related documents are lawful.
Mengote's darting eyes and his hand on his abdomen.
Ruling:
The police officers did not know then what offense, if at all, had
been committed and neither were they aware of the participation
therein of the accused-appellant. It was only later, after Danganan had
The trial court justified the warrantless arrest under Rule 113 Sec 6
appeared at the Police headquarters, that they learned of the robbery
of the RoC:
in his house and of Mengote's supposed involvement therein.
a) When the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
The testimonial evidence against Mengote (which is based on the
committing, or is about to commit an offense in his presence;
said firearm) is not sufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
b) When an offense has in fact been committed, and he has
doubt of the crime imputed to him.
reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has
committed it;
Fallo:
c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending or
The accused-appellant is ACQUITTED and ordered released
has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to
immediately unless he is validly detained for other offenses. No costs.
another.
SO ORDERED.
However, the trial court has erred in its conclusion that said
warrantless arrest is under the ambit of aforementioned RoC. At
the time of defendants arrest, he wasnt in actual possession of
CASE 29
any firearm or subversive document, and was not committing any
People vs. Burgos
subversive acthe was plowing his field. It is not enough that
there is reasonable ground to believe that the person to be
arrested has committed a crime in a warrantless arrest. An
Facts: essential precondition is that a crime must have beenin fact or
actually have been committed first; it isnt enough to suspect a
Defendant is charged with illegal possession of firearm in crime may have been committed. The test of reasonable ground
furtherance of subversion and found guilty by the RTC of Digos, applies only to the identity of the perpetrator. The Court also finds
Davao del Sur. From the information given by Masamlok, allegedly no compelling reason for the haste with which the arresting officers
a man defendant tried to recruit into the NPA, the police authorities sought to arrest the accused. We fail to see why they failed to first
arrest defendant and had his house searched. Subsequently, go through the process of obtaining a warrant of arrest, if indeed
certain NPA-related documents and a firearm are confiscated. they had reasonable ground to believe that the accused had truly
committed a crime. There is no showing that there was a real
13
 apprehension that the accused was on the verge of flight or Rolito Go while traveling in the wrong direction on a one-
escape. Likewise, there is no showing that the whereabouts of the way street, nearly bumped Eldon Maguans car. Go alighted from
accused were unknown. his car, shot Maguan and left the scene. A security guard at a
nearby restaurant was able to take down petitioners car plate
number. The police arrived shortly thereafter at the scene of the
shooting. A manhunt ensued.
CASE 31
People vs Sucro Six days after, petitioner presented himself before the San
Facts:
Juan Police Station to verify news reports that he was being hunted
Pat. Fulgencio went to Arlie Regalados house at C. Quimpo
to monitor activities of Edison SUCRO (accused). Sucro was by the police; he was accompanied by two (2) lawyers. The police
reported to be selling marijuana at a chapel 2 meters away from forthwith detained him. An eyewitness to the shooting, who was at
Regalados house. Sucro was monitored to have talked and the police station at that time, positively identified petitioner as the
exchanged things three times. These activities are reported gunman. Petitioner posted bail, the prosecutor filed the case to the
through radio to P/Lt. Seraspi. A third buyer was transacting with lower court, setting and commencing trial without preliminary
appellant and was reported and later identified as Ronnie investigation.
Macabante. Macabante was intercepted and admitted that he
bought marijuana from Sucro. The police team intercepted and
arrested SUCRO at the corner of C. Quimpo and Veterans. Issue:
Recovered were 19 sticks and 4 teabags of marijuana from a cart
inside the chapel and another teabag from Macabante. Whether or Not warrantless arrest of petitioner was lawful.
Ruling:
Issue:

1 Whether or Not arrest without warrant is lawful. No. The Court does not believe that the warrantless arrest or
detention of petitioner in the instant case falls within the terms of
Ruling: Section 5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure
which provides as follows:
Search and seizures supported by a valid warrant of arrest is not an
absolute rule. Rule 126, Sec 12 of Rules of Criminal Procedure
provides that a person lawfully arrested may be searched for Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a
dangerous weapons or anything, which may be used as proff of the private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person;
commission of an offense, without a search warrant.(People v.
Castiller) The failure of the police officers to secure a warrant
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
stems from the fact that their knowledge required from the
surveillance was insufficient to fulfill requirements for its issuance. committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
However, warantless search and seizures are legal as long as offense;
PROBABLE CAUSE existed. The police officers have personal
knowledge of the actual commission of the crime from the (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has
surveillance of the activities of the accused. As police officers were personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be
the ones conducting the surveillance, it is presumed that they are
arrested has committed it; and
regularly in performance of their duties.

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped

CASE 32 from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final
Go vs CA judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has
Facts:
escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

14
 Petitioners arrest took place six (6) days after the shooting of case poses urgency on the part of the arresting police officers. It
Maguan. The arresting officers obviously were not present, within was found out that an informer pointed to the accused telling the
the meaning of Section 5(a), at the time petitioner had allegedly policemen that the accused was carrying marijuana. The police
officers had to act quickly and there was not enough time to secure
shot Maguan. Neither could the arrest effected six (6) days after
a search warrant.
the shooting be reasonably regarded as effected when [the
shooting had] in fact just been committed within the meaning of
Section 5 (b). Moreover, none of the arresting officers had any CASE 34
personal knowledge of facts indicating that petitioner was the PEOPLE v. MALMSTEDT
gunman who had shot Maguan. The information upon which the GR No. 91107 June 19, 1991
police acted had been derived from statements made by alleged
eyewitnesses to the shooting one stated that petitioner was the PADILLA, J.
gunman; another was able to take down the alleged gunmans Facts:
cars plate number which turned out to be registered in petitioners 1 Mikael Malmstedt, a Swedish national visiting the
wifes name. That information did not, however, constitute Philippines, was charged with violation of the Dangerous
personal knowledge. Drugs Act after an inspection conducted by NARCOM
Officers in Cordillera.
2 During the inspection of the bus where Malmstedt was on-
CASE 33 board, NARCOM officers noticed something bulging from
People vs Tangliben his waist and asked him to produce the same for inspection
Facts: but Malmstedt refused.
3 The bulging object turned out to be a pouch containing
Patrolmen Silverio and Romeo Punzalan were conducting marijuana, thus the officers asked him to alight and his
surveillance at the San Fernando Victory Liner Terminal. At around belongings searched wherein 2 teddy bears were found
9:30pm they noticed a person, Medel Tangliben, carrying a containing marijuana inside.
traveling bag who acted suspiciously. They confronted him, 4 During the arraignment, Malmstedt raised as defense the
inspected his bag, and there they found marijuana leaves. The issue of illegal search of his personal effects maintaining
accused was then taken to the Police Headquarters for further that such cannot be admissible as evidence against him
investigations. The TC found Tangliben guilty of violating sec.4 art. 5 The trial court found him guilty, thus this petition.
2 of the RA 6425 or the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.

Issue: WON the search made was illegal as it is without a

Issue: warrant.

Whether or Not there was an unlawful search due to lack of search

Held:
warrant.
The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against
Ruling: unreasonable searches and seizures. However, where the search
was made pursuant to a lawful arrest, there is no need to obtain a
No. Rule 113 sec. 5 provides the a peace officer or a private person search warrant. A lawful arrest without a warrant may be made by
may w/o a warrant arrest a person when in his presence the person a peace officer or a private person: (a) when, in his presence, the
to be arrested has committed, is committing, or is attempting to person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
commit an offense. attempting to commit an offense; (b) when an offense has in fact
just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts
In the present case, the accused was found to have been indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and (c)
committing possession of marijuana and can be therefore searched when the person to be arrested is a prisoner who escaped from a
lawfully even without a search warrant. Another reason is that this penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or

15
 is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped governor and the hacendero Yigo, who appear as parties
while being transferred from one confinement to another. in the case, had no previous notification that the women
A crime was actually being committed by the accused were prostitutes who had been expelled from the city of
when he was caught in flagrante delicto. Thus, the search made Manila. The further happenings to these women and the
upon his personal effects falls squarely under (a) which allow a serious charges growing out of alleged ill-treatment are of
warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest, the officers having public interest, but are not essential to the disposition of
sufficient probable cause to believe that said accused was then this case. Suffice it to say, generally, that some of the
and there committing a crime. women married, others assumed more or less clandestine
relations with men, others went to work in different
capacities, others assumed a life unknown and
CASE NO. 39 disappeared, and a goodly portion found means to return
ZACARIAS VILLAVICENCIO vs. JUSTO LUKBAN to Manila.
Malcom, J.,
ISSUE: Whether or not the women were illegally restrained of their
FACTS: liberty by forcibly changing their domicile

The Mayor of the city of Manila, Justo Lukban, with HELD:

the intention to exterminate vice, ordered the
segregated district for women of ill repute closed. Yes. RESTRAINT OF LIBERTY.A prime specification of an
Between October 16 and October 25, 1918, the women application for a writ of habeas corpus is restraint of liberty. The
were kept confined to their houses in the district by essential objects and purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to
the police. The city authorities quietly perfected inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint as distinguished
arrangements with the Bureau of Labor for sending the from voluntary, and to relieve a person therefrom if such
women to Davao, Mindanao, as laborers; with some restraint is illegal. Any restraint which will preclude freedom of
government office for the use of the coastguard cutters action is sufficient.
Corregidor and Negros, and with the Constabulary for a
guard of soldiers.

About midnight of October 25, the police, acting pursuant The forcible taking of these women from Manila by officials of
to orders from the chief of police, Anton Hohmann and the that city, who handed them over to other parties, who deposited
Mayor of the city of Manila, Justo Lukban, descended upon them in a distant region, deprived these women of freedom of
the houses, hustled some 170 inmates into patrol wagons, locomotion just as effectively as if they had been imprisoned.
and placed them aboard the steamers that awaited their The restraint of liberty which began in Manila continued until the
arrival. The women were given no opportunity to collect aggrieved parties were returned to Manila and released or until
their belongings, and apparently were under the they freely and truly waived this right.
impression that they were being taken to a police station
for an investigation. They had no knowledge that they were No law, order, or regulation authorized the Mayor of the city of
destined for a lif e in Mindanao. Manila or the chief of the police of that city to force citizens of
the Philippine Islands to change their domicile from Manila to
The involuntary guests were received on board the another locality.
steamers by a representative of the Bureau of Labor and a
detachment of Constabulary soldiers. The two steamers
with their unwilling passengers sailed for Davao
during the night of October 25. The vessels reached CASE 41
their destination at Davao on October 29. REQUISITES FOR ISSUANCE OF SEARCH WARRANT
LIM V. PONCE DE LEON
The women were landed and receipted for as MARTIN, J.:
laborers by Francisco Sales, provincial governor of
Davao, and by Feliciano Yigo and Rafael Castillo. The
16
FACTS: Francisco Ponce de Leon and Orlando Maddela, alleging
that on July 6, 1962 Orlando Maddela entered the premises
On April 29, 1961, Jikil Taha sold to a certain Alberto of Delfin Lim without a search warrant and then and there
Timbangcaya of Brookes Point, Palawan a motor took away the hull of the motor launch without his consent;
launch named M/L SAN RAFAEL. A year later or on that he effected the seizure upon order of Fiscal Ponce de
April 9, 1962 Alberto Timbangcaya filed a complaint Leon who knew fully well that his office was not vested
with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Palawan with authority to order the seizure of a private property.
alleging that after the sale Jikil Taha forcibly took
away the motor launch from him.

On May 14, 1962, after conducting a preliminary ISSUE: Whether or not the seizure of the Marine Vessell be
investigation, Fiscal Francisco Ponce de Leon, in his effected without search warrant
capacity as Acting Provincial Fiscal of Palawan, filed with
the Court of First Instance of Palawan the corresponding HELD:
information for Robbery with Force and Intimidation upon
Persons against Jikil Taha. NO. Requisites for issuance of valid search warrant.A
search and seizure to be reasonable, must be effected by
On June 15, 1962, Fiscal Francisco Ponce de Leon, upon means of a valid search warrant. And for a search warrant
being informed that the motor launch was in Balabac, to be valid: (1) it must be issued upon probable cause; (2)
Palawan, wrote the Provincial Commander of Palawan the probable cause must be determined by the judge
requesting him to direct the detachment commander in himself and not by the applicant or any other person; (3) in
Balabac to impound and take custody of the motor launch. the determination of probable cause, the judge must
examine, under oath or affirmation, the complainant and
On June 26, 1962, Fiscal Ponce de Leon reiterated his such witnesses as the latter may produce; and (4) the
request to the Provincial Commander to impound the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be
motor launch, explaining that its subsequent sale to a third searched and persons or things to be seized.
party, plaintiff-appellant Delfin Lim, cannot prevent the
court from taking custody of the same. Seizure of personal property; Prohibition against seizure of
personal property, even if property the corpus delicti of a
So, on July 6, 1962 upon order of the Provincial crime, without search warrant.Under Sections 2 and 3 of
Commander, defendant-appellee Orlando Maddela, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court which complement the
Detachment Commander of Balabac, Palawan, seized the constitutional provision, two principles are made clear,
motor launch SAN RAFAEL from plaintiff-appellant Delfin namely: (1) that in the seizure of a stolen property search
Lim and impounded it. warrant is still necessary; and (2) that in issuing a search
warrant the judge alone determines whether or not there is
On July 15, 1962 plaintiff-appellant Delfin Lim a probable cause. The fact that a thing is a corpus delicti of
pleaded with Orlando Maddela to return the motor a crime does not justify its seizure without a warrant.
launch but the latter refused. Likewise, on
September 20, 1962, Jikil Taha through his counsel
made representations with Fiscal Ponce de Leon to
return the seized property to plaintiff-appellant CASE 45
Delfin Lim but Fiscal Ponce de Leon refused, on the Quintero vs. NBI
ground that the same was the subject of a criminal 162 SCRA 467
offense. June 23, 1988

All efforts to recover the motor launch going to naught, Padilla, J.:
plaintiffs-appellants Delfin Lim and Jikil Taha, on November
19, 1962, filed with the Court of First Instance of Palawan a Facts:
complaint for damages against defendants-appellees Fiscal
17
 1. May 19, 1972 Petitioner Eduardo Quintero was a delegate claim that facts and circumstances had been established, sufficient
of the 1st District of Leyte in the 1971 ConCon for him to believe that the crime being charged had been
2. He disclosed in his speech that certain persons had committed.
distributed money to some delegates to influence them in
the discharge of their functions. Statements of applicant and complainant did not provide
3. Quintero delivered to the Concon the payola he himself sufficient basis for the finding of probable cause.
received, for Concons action. However, he did not reveal The respondent judge should have known that an
the names of those who gave him money. application for search warrant if based on hearsay cannot justify
4. Eventually, he was pressured to name them so he released the issuance of a search warrant, before he issued the questioned
a sworn statement addressed to the Concon, mentioning search warrant.
the names of the persons who gave him the payola.
5. In his statement, it appeared that varying amounts of The search itself that was conducted by the NBI agents
money were being handed to him by different people from who raided the house of petitioner pursuant to the questioned
different offices, some from other delegates, from wives of search warrant was highly irregular as no members of the
representatives. household were in a position to watch them, thus they conducted
6. The then First Lady Imelda Marcos was among those the search on their own. This procedure is held to be violative of
implicated in Quinteros expose. both the spirit and the letter of the law, which provides that no
7. Due to this, Pres. Ferdinand Marcos denounced Quintero search of a house, room, or any other premises shall be made,
and made a statement sayng that he will uncover the except in the presence of at least one competent witness, resident
people behind this act making Quintero as a tool. of the neighborhood.
8. That same day/evening, NBI agents raided the house of
Quintero on the basis of a search warrant issued by the CFI Requirements of Section 10, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court
Manila Judge Asuncion. NBI claimed to have found bundles were not complied with. The officer seizing property under the
of money in Quinteros residence. warrant must give a detailed receipt for the same to the person on
9. NBI filed a criminal complaint for direct bribery against whom or in whose possession it was found, or in the absence of
Quintero with the court issuing a TRO enjoining the use in any person, must in the presence of one witness, leave a receipt in
any proceeding of the objects seized by NBI from his the place in which he found the seized property. In the case at
residence. bar, the one who attested to the receipt from the raiding party was
10. The search warrant delivered to the occupant of the himself a member of the raiding party.
searched premises was issued in connection with the
offense of grave threats and not direct bribery which The circumstances prevailing before the issuance of the
was the criminal complaint filed against Quintero. questioned warrant , and the actual manner in which the search
11. The 1935 Constitution was enforced at that time of the was conducted, strongly suggest that the entire procedure ws an
issuance of the search warrant which was being orchestrated movement designed to destroy Quinteros public
questioned. image with incriminating evidence and that the evidence
allegedly seized from his residence was planted by the very
raiding party that was commanded to seize such.
Issue: Whether or not the questioned search warrant issued by the
judge is null and void for being violative of the Constitution and the
Rules of Court Fallo:

Ruling: YES. The Court finds, and so holds, that the questioned WHEREFORE, Search Warrant No. 7 issued on 31 May 1972 by
search warrant issued by the judge is null and void for being respondent Judge is declared NULL and VOID and of no force and
violative of the Constitution and the Rules of Court effect. The Temporary Restraining Order issued by this Court on 6
June 1972 is hereby made PERMANENT. The amount of
No relation at all can be established between the crime P379,200.00 allegedly seized from the house of petitioner
supposedly committed and the evidence ordered to be seized. Quintero, now in the possession of the Central Bank, and already
There was thus no ground whatsoever for the respondent judge to

18
 demonetized, is left with Central Bank, to be disposed of, as such, aims, in fact, there were no known acts of the victims that can be
in accordance with the law and the regulations. considered as offending to the NPA.

SO ORDERED. Evidence shows that Lovedioros allegation of membership to the

N.P.A was conveniently infused to mitigate the penalty imposable
upon him.
CASE 46
People vs. Lovedioro
250 SCRA 389 Finally, treachery was adequately proved in the court below. The
29November1995 attack delivered by appellant was sudden, and without warning of
any kind. 41 The killing having been qualified by treachery, the
Rebellion -- Art.134 of the Revised Penal Code
crime committed is murder under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal
FACTS: Code. In the absence of any mitigating and aggravating
1. Elias Lovedioro with 3 other companions fatally shot SPO3 Jesus circumstances, the trial court was correct in imposing the penalty
Lucilo while Lucilo was walking. of reclusion perpetua together with all the accessories provided by
2. The victim died on the same day from massive blood loss. law.
3. On November 6, 1992, Elias Lovedioro was then charged of the
crime of murder, and subsequently found guilty.
4. Lovedioro then appealed the decision, contesting the verdict of
murder instead of rebellion. FALLO
5. It was confirmed by the prosecutions principal witness that
Lovedioro was a member of the New Peoples Army.

ISSUE WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the trial court's decision

dated September 14, 1993, sentencing the accused of Murder is
Was the RTC correct in holding Lovedioro liable for the crime of hereby AFFIRMED, in toto.
murder, instead of rebellion?
SO ORDERED.
RULING

Yes. Overt acts and purpose are essential components of the crime
of rebellion, with either of these elements wanting, the crime of
rebellion does not exist. CASE 47
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DE GRACIA
G.R. No. 112984 November 14, 1996
Political motive should be established before a person charged with
a common crime, alleging rebellion in order to lessen the possible
imposable penalty, could benefit from the laws relatively benign FRANCISCO, J.:
attitude towards political crimes. If no political motive is
established or 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 FACTS:

membership in an organization dedicated to the furtherance of
rebellion would not, by and of itself suffice. 1. In an Information dated April 10, 1992, the brothers Cresencio
De Gracia, Dalmacio de Gracia and Bonifacio de Gracia were
The killing of the victim, as observed by the Solicitor General, charged with the crime of murder, the accusatory pleading
offered no contribution to the achievement of the NPAs subversive
averring substantially as follows:
19
That on or about the 19th day of February 1992, in the Municipality THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING ACCUSED-
of Cuyapo, Province of Nueva Viscaya, Republic of the Philippines APPELLANTS ON THE GROUND OF SELF-DEFENSE AND
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- DEFENSE OF RELATIVE.
named accused armed with a bladed weapon with intent to kill,
with evident premeditation, treachery and taking advantage of IV
their superior strength, conspiring, confederating and helping with
one another, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully, criminally and THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT CREDITING ACCUSED-
feloniously attack assault, stab and hack one Crispin Almazan APPELLANT BONIFACIO DE GRACIA, JR. WITH THE MITIGATING
hitting his throat and face, thereby inflicting upon him multiple CIRCUMSTANCE OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER AND,
hack-stab wounds which directly caused his instantaneous death. CONSEQUENTLY, IN NOT APPLYING THE BENEFITS OF THE
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW IN THE IMPOSITION OF THE
2. Upon arraignment, the accused, with the exception of Dalmacio PENALTY.[4]
de Gracia who is at large, pleaded not guilty and the case
accordingly proceeded to trial. RULING

3. Thereafter, judgment was rendered finding Cresencio and Appellants lay stress on the apparent contradiction between
Bonifacio de Gracia guilty as charged and sentenced to suffer the the testimony of the prosecution witnesses as to the location of the
penalty of reclusion perpetua. incident and the weapons used on the assault. Prosecution
witnesses viewed the incident from different locations and angles,
4. Accused-appellants now seek the reversal of their conviction hence the variation in their perceptions. The discrepancy as to the
based on the following assignment of errors: place where the appellants met the victim is negligible considering
that the yard was part of the rice field. Similarly, the disparity as to
ISSUES the kind of the weapon used is insignificant as both a spear and a
bolo fall under the description pointed sharp edged instrument.
Whether or not:
In the whole, the alleged inconsistencies are inconsequential.
I The witnesses testifying on the same event do not have to be
consistent in every detail as differences in recollection or
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED- viewpoints or impressions are inevitable. Total recall or perfect
APPELLANTS CRESENCIO DE GRACIA AND BONIFACIO DE symmetry is not required for as long as the witnesses concur on
GRACIA, JR. ON THE BASIS OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES material points, slight differences in their remembrance of the
INCONSISTENT AND IMPROBABLE TESTIMONIES. details do not reflect on the essential veracity of their testimony.
[8]
Indeed, if rights were to be lost merely because witnesses, while
agreeing on the essential fact, fail to testify harmoniously to all the
II
particulars, in a very large proportion of cases involving wrongs to
be redressed the law would fail to furnish a remedy. Hence,
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING EXCULPATORY variations in the testimony of witnesses on the same side in
WEIGHT ON ACCUSED-APPELLANTS IMPUTATION OF MOTIVE respect of minor, collateral, or incidental matters do not usually
UPON THE VICTIM AND THE LATTERS RELATIVES WHO impair the weight of their united testimony to the prominent facts.
TESTIFIED FOR THE PROSECUTION. [9]

III
20
 Next, appellants invoke self-defense and defense of relative. court is in the best position to make an honest determination of the
witnesses deportation during trial.[17]
It is a settled rule that when an accused invokes self-defense,
the burden is on him to establish by clear and convincing evidence Lastly, appellant Bonifacio claims the benefit of the mitigating
his justification for the killing. [10] He must rely on the strength of his circumstance of voluntary surrender. We note that Bonifacio
own evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence for the surrendered and was in fact accompanied by his uncle to the police
prosecution. For self-defense to prevail, three (3) requisites must station, albeit he remained silent. Nonetheless, we cannot take
concur, to wit: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of Bonifacios silence against him. What matters is that Bonifacio,
the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of spontaneously, voluntarily and unconditionally placed himself at
sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. the disposal of the authorities.[18] This act of repentance and
[11]
respect for the law indicates a moral disposition favorable to his
reform.[19]
Upon minute examination of the evidence on record, we find
that appellants have failed to discharge this burden. The first and The applicable penalty for murder prior to the enactment of
crucial element for self-defense to prosper is wanting in this case. the Death Penalty Law is reclusion temporal maximum to death.
Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden and There being no aggravating circumstance but with one mitigating
unexpected attack or imminent danger on the life and limb of a circumstance of voluntary surrender, the penalty imposable on
person. A mere threatening or intimidating attitude exhibited in the Bonifacio in accordance with Art. 64 (2) of the Revised Penal Code
alleged shouting incident between Crispin and the brothers is not should be the minimum period, that is, reclusion temporal in its
sufficient.[12] Thus, as correctly observed by the trial court: maximum period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is
entitled to a minimum penalty of prision mayor maximum
Considering the fact that not all the essential elements of self- to reclusion temporal medium, being the range of the penalty next
defense as mentioned above were present, this Court is brushing lower than that prescribed by Article 248 of the Revised Penal
aside the self-defense theory of accused Bonifacio (Jr.) De Gracia. Code.[20] The same mitigating circumstance, however, cannot favor
His evidence is not sufficient to sustain self-defense. [13] Cresencio as he did not surrender. Cresencio was thus correctly
sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
Another factor which militates against the appellants claim of
self-defense and defense of a relative is the physical evidence on WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court is
record. Crispin suffered no less than five (5) stab wounds on AFFIRMED subject to the following MODIFICATIONS: Appellant
different parts of his body and a compound fracture on the nasal Bonifacio is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of
bone. Just as the presence and severity of a large number of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to
wounds on the part of the victim disprove self-defense, [14] so do twenty years (20) years of reclusion temporal as maximum and
they belie the claim of defense of a relative and indicate not the the P50,000.00 award for moral damages should be denominated
desire to defend ones relative but a determined effort to kill. as indemnity. Cresencios sentence of reclusion perpetua and the
award for actual damages are likewise AFFIRMED. Costs against
In the final analysis, appellants first three assignment of errors appellants.
hinge on the trial courts assessment of the witnesses credibility.
Factual findings of the lower court especially on the credibility of SO ORDERED.
the witnesses is generally accorded great weight and respect on
appeal.[15] In this case, the trial court considered the testimonies of
prosecution witnesses as natural, probable, straightforward, and
credible.[16] We find no cogent reason to hold otherwise as the trial CASE 48
21
People of the Philippines vs. Dasig 11. Dasig extrajudicially confessed that he and the group
G.R. No. 100231. April 28, 1993. of Edwin Nues killed Pfc. Manatad. He likewise admitted
that he and Nues were members of the sparrow unit and
FACTS:
the their aliases were "Armand" and "Mabi," respectively.
1. In the afternoon of August 4, 1987, Pfc. Redempto
Manatad, Pfc. Ninah Tizon and Pfc. Rene Catamora were
tasked by their commanding officer to assist in canning the 12. However, upon arraignment, Dasig and Edwin Nues
traffic. entered a plea of "not guilty."
2. Pfc. Tizon controlled the traffic lighting facility; Pfc.
Manatad manned the traffic; while Pfc. Catamora acted as 13. After the prosecution had presented its first witness,
back-up and posted himself at Norkis Trading building. accused Nues changed his plea of "not guilty" to "guilty."
While trial was still ongoing, Nuez died thereby
3. At about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon, Catamora noticed extinguishing his criminal liability.
eight (8) persons, one of whom he identified as Edwin
Nuez, acting suspiciously. 14. In the present appeal, Dasig contends that the
procedure by which his extra-judicial confession was taken
4. He noticed one of them giving instructions to two of the was legally defective, and contrary to his Constitutional
men to approach Manatad. rights. He further contends that assuming he conspired in
the killing of Manatad, he should be convicted at most of
5. He followed the two, but sensing that they were being simple rebellion and not murder with direct assault.
followed, they immediately proceeded to the middle of the
road and engaged Catamora to a gun battle. Issue:

6. Catamora heard a series of shots from the other group 1. Whether or not Dasigs extra-judicial confession is
and thereafter saw Manatad sprawled on the ground. admissible in Court
2. Whether or not Dasig was accorded his constitutional
7. Being out-numbered and to save his own life, Catamora rights as an accused
3. Whether or not he committed murder with direct assault
sought refuge at the nearby BIR Office from where he saw
Ruling
two (2) persons take Manatad's gun and again fired at him
to make sure that he is dead while the rest of the group
1. Yes. The settled jurisprudence on the matter is that a
including Nues acted as back up.
confession is admissible until the accused successfully
proves that it was given as a result of violence,
8. Thereafter, the Nues group commandeered a vehicle
intimidation, threat or promise of reward or leniency.
and fled from the scene of the shooting.

Appellant relies on the much abused claim that his extra-

9. On a surveillance days after, on a suspected safehouse
judicial confession was legally defective and hence, should
of members of the sparrow unit, the group saw Rodrigo
not have beenadmitted and considered by the trial judge.
Dasig and Edwin Nues trying to escape.
This accusation is whimsical and obviously a mere refuge
for appellant's turnabout. In an attempt to avoid criminal
10. Nues and wounded Dasig were captured and liability, he now questions the integrity of the police
ammunitions were confiscated. authorities and the reputation of the lawyer who stood by
him during the investigation. Indubitably established and
22
now a matter of record is the fact that appellant was 3. Yes, there is merit in appellant's argument that granting
assisted by Atty. Parawan who even signed the former's he is guilty, what he committed was a political crime of
sworn declarations. It is likewise a matter of record that simple rebellion, and hence he should not be convicted of
before appellant made his extra-judicial confession, he was murder with direct assault.
first asked if he was amenable to the services of Atty.
Parawan to which query he answered affirmatively. Finally, The Solicitor General agrees with the accused-appellant on
the alleged use of fore and intimidation has not been this point as manifested in the People's brief, which We
substantiated by evidence other than his self-serving quote:
testimony. As has been pointed out, such allegation is
another naive effort of appellant to back track from his "However, as correctly pointed by appellant, the lower
prior voluntary admission of guilt. Evidently, the taking of court erroneously convicted him of Murder with Assault
his extra-judicial confession was done with regularity and Upon a Person in Authority, instead of Rebellion.
legality.
"Rebellion is committed by taking up arms against the
2. Yes. Section 12 (1) of Article III of the 1987 Constitution government, among other means. (Article 135, Revised
provides: Penal Code). In this case, appellant not only confessed
voluntarily his membership with the sparrow unit but also
'Sec. 12(1). Any person under investigation for the his participation and that of his group in the killing of Pfc.
commission of an offense shall have the right to be Manatad while manning the traffic in Mandaue City in the
informed of his right to remain silent and to have afternoon of August 4, 1987. It is of judicial notice that the
competent and independent counsel preferably of his own sparrow unit is the liquidation squad of the New People's
choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel Army with the objective of overthrowing the duly
he must provided with one. These rights cannot be waived constituted government. It is therefore not hard to
except in writing and in the presence of counsel.' comprehend that the killing of Pfc. Manatad was committed
as a means to or in furtherance of the subversive ends of
"It is very clear from the aforequoted provision that a the NPA. Consequently, appellant is liable for the crime of
person under investigation for the commission of an rebellion, not murder with direct assault upon a person in
offense may choose his own counsel but if he cannot afford authority."
the services of counsel, he must be provided with one.
While the initial choice of the lawyer in the latter case is The crime of rebellion consists of many acts. It is a vast
naturally lodged in the police investigators, the accused movement of men and a complex net of intrigues and
really has the final choice as he may reject the counsel plots. Acts committed in furtherance of rebellion though
chosen for him and ask for another one. In the instant crimes in themselves are deemed absorbed in one single
case, the records show that no objection was voiced by the crime of rebellion. The act of killing a police officer,
accused throughout the entire proceedings of the knowing too well that the victim is a person in authority is
investigation and afterwards when he subscribed to its a mere component or ingredient of rebellion or an act done
veracity before City Prosecutor Luzminda V. Uy. Thus, he in furtherance of the rebellion. It cannot be made a basis of
apparently acquiesced to the choice of the investigators. a separate charge.
He complained for the first time that Atty. Fuentes was not
his choice only during trial. Thus it was too late." As to the proper imposable penalty, the Indeterminate
Sentence Law is not applicable to persons convicted of
rebellion (Sec. 2, R.A. 4203), contrary to the insinuation of
23
 the Solicitor General. Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code The are eight (8) petitioners for habeas corpus filed before the
imposes the penalty of prision mayor and a fine not Court, which have been consolidated because of the similarity of
exceeding P20,000.00 to any person who promotes, issues raised, praying for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus,
ordering the respective respondents to produce the bodies of the
maintains, or heads a rebellion. However, in the case at
persons named therein and to explain why they should not be set
bar, there is no evidence to prove that appellant Dasig at liberty without further delay.
headed the crime committed. As a matter of fact he was
not specifically pinpointed by Pfc. Catamora as the person
In their respective Returns, the respondents uniformly assert that
giving instructions to the group which attacked Pfc. the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is not available to the
Manatad. petitioners as they have been legally arrested and are detained by
virtue of valid informations filed in court against them.
Appellant merely participated in committing the act, or just
executed the command of an unknown leader. Hence, he The petitioners counter that their detention is unlawful as their
should be made to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of arrests were made without warrant and, that no preliminary
investigation was first conducted, so that the informations filed
eight (8) years of prision mayor. For the resulting death,
against them are null and void.
appellant is likewise ordered to pay the heirs of Pfc.
Manatad FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as civil
1 On 1 February 1988, military agents were dispatched to
indemnity.
the St. Agnes Hospital, Quezon City, to verify a confidential
information which was received by their office, about a
Premises considered, We uphold the findings of the trial "sparrow man" (NPA member) who had been admitted to
court that the extra-judicial confession was legally the said hospital with a gunshot wound.
obtained. However, appellant being a confessed member 2 The wounded man in the said hospital was among the five
(5) male "sparrows" who murdered two (2) Capcom mobile
of the sparrow unit, the liquidation squad of the New
patrols the day before, at about 12:00 o'clock noon, before
People's Army whose objective is to overthrow the duly a road hump along a street in Bagong Barrio, Caloocan
constituted government, the crime committed is simple City.
rebellion and not murder with direct assault. 3 The wounded man's name was listed by the hospital
management as "Ronnie Javellon," however it was
WHEREFORE, accused Rogelio Dasig is found guilty of disclosed later that the true name of the wounded man
was Rolando Dural.
participating in an act of rebellion beyond reasonable
4 In view of this verification, Rolando Dural was transferred
doubt and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of to the Regional Medical Services of the CAPCOM, for
imprisonment of eight (8) years of prision mayor, and to security reasons. While confined thereat, he was positively
pay the heirs of Pfc. Redempto Manatad, P50,000.00 as identified by the eyewitnesses as the one who murdered
civil indemnity. the 2 CAPCOM mobile patrols.
5 For reference, the consolidated cases include the following
facts :
SO ORDERED.
In the case of Wilfredo Buenaobra, the same admitted that he was
an NPA courier.

CASE 49 In the case of Amelia Roque, subversive documents and live

UMIL VS. RAMOS ammunition were found at the timeof her arrest, and she admitted
187 SCRA 312 to owning such documents.

24
As regards Domingo Anonuevo & Ramon Casiple, agents frisked (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner
them and found subversivedocuments & loaded guns without who has escaped from a penal establishment or
permits. place where he is serving final judgment or
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or
With regard to Vicky Ocaya, she arrived at a house subject to a has escaped while being transferred from one
search warrant. Ammunition & subversive documents were found confinement to another.
in her car.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b)
In the Nazareno case, Narciso Nazareno was identified by Ramil hereof, the person arrested without a warrant shall
Regala as the latters companion in killing Romulo Bunye II. be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station
or jail, and he shall be proceeded against in
The release on habeas corpus of the petitioner Deogracias Espiritu, accordance with Rule 112, Section 7.
who is detained by virtue of an Information for Violation of Article
142 of the Revised Penal Code (Inciting to Sedition) filed with the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, is similarly not warranted. An arrest without a warrant of arrest, under Section 5 paragraphs
(a) and (b) of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, as amended, is
justified when the person arrested is caught in flagranti
Issue: Whether or not Rolando Dural and other petitioners were delicto, viz., in the act of committing an offense; or when an
lawfully arrested offense has just been committed and the person making the arrest
has personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the person
Ruling: arrested has committed it.
YES. The Court has carefully reviewed the contentions of the
parties in their respective pleadings, and it finds that the persons Rolando Dural was arrested for being a member of the NPA, an
detained have not been illegally arrested nor arbitrarily deprived of outlawed subversive organization. Subversion being a
continuing offense, the arrest without warrant is justified
their constitutional right to liberty, and that the circumstances
as it can be said that he was committing an offense when
attending these cases do not warrant their release on habeas arrested. The crimes rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal
corpus. to commit such crimes, and crimes or offenses committed in
furtherance therefore in connection therewith constitute direct
The arrest of a person without a warrant of arrest or previous assaults against the state and are in the nature of continuing
complaint is recognized in law. The occasions or instances when crimes.
such an arrest may be effected are clearly spelled out in Section 5,
Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, as amended, which provides:
To hold that no criminal can, in any case, be
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A arrested and searched for the evidence and tokens
peace officer or a private person may, without a of his crime without a warrant, would be to leave
warrant, arrest a person: society, to a large extent, at the mercy of the
shrewdest, the most expert, and the most
depraved of criminals, facilitating their escape in
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be
many instances.
arrested has committed, is actually committing, or
is attempting to commit an offense;
The record of the instant cases would show that the persons in
whose behalf these petitions for habeas corpus have been filed,
(b) When an offense has in fact just been
had freshly committed or were actually committing an offense,
committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts
when apprehended, so that their arrests without a warrant were
indicating that the person to be arrested has
clearly justified, and that they are, further, detained by virtue of
committed it; and
valid informations filed against them in court.

25
 WHEREFORE, the petitions are hereby DISMISSED, except that in
G.R. No. 85727 (Espiritu vs. Lim), the bail bond for petitioner's 7 Defense contends that there is no complex crime in the
provisional liberty is hereby ordered reduced from P60,000.00 to crime of rebellion.
P10,000.00. No costs.

Issue:
SO ORDERED.

Whether or not the crime committed by petitioner was

rebellion complexed with crime murders, arson & robbery, and
should be punished with life imprisonment, thus bail should not be
CASE NO. 50 granted
People vs Hernandez
L-6025-26 / July 18, 1956
Concepcion, J:
Ruling:
Facts:

1 Amado Hernandez is a bonafide member of Congress of

Labor Organizations, an affiliate of Hukbong Magpalayang
Bayan (Hukbalahaps), a known group performing rebellious
activities. The Supreme Court ruled that rebellion cannot be
complexed with other crimes, such as murder and arson. Rebellion
2 Hukbalahaps have risen publicly and taken arms to remove in itself would include and absorb the said crimes, thus granting
the territory of the Philippines from the allegiance of the the accused his right to bail. Murder and arson are crimes inherent
government, making armed raids, sorties and ambushes, and concomitant when rebellion is taking place. Rebellion in
attacks against police, constabulary and army
the Revised Penal Code constitutes one single crime and that there
detachments as well as innocent civilians.
is no reason to complex it with other crimes. As basis, the Court
3 On about March 15, 1945, Hernandez and other appellants cited several cases convicting the defendants of simple
were accused of cooperates and synchronizes its activities rebellion although they killed several persons.
with the Huks by actively engaging in its armed rebellion
against the government of the Philippines. Thus, motion for bail was granted.
4 They were charged and convicted of the crime of rebellion
complexed with murders, arsons and robbery and were
sentenced with life imprisonment.
The ingredients of a crime form part and parcel thereof,
5 Five years after his arrest, Hernandez asked for bail with
and, hence, are absorbed by the same and cannot be punished
the court where his case was pending, but was denied on
the basis of the nature of the offense (if the crime was either separately there from. Indeed, if one act constitutes two or
complexed, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be more offenses, there can be no reason to inflict a punishment
imposed). Thus, he filed a petition to the Supreme Court. graver than that prescribed for each one of said offenses put
together. In directing that the penalty for the graver offense be, in
6 Prosecution argued that the gravity of the crime committed such case, imposed in its maximum period, Article 48 could have
required the denial of the bail and it maintained that had no other purpose than to prescribe a penalty lower than the
capital punishment may be imposed for the crime
aggregate of the penalties for each offense, if imposed separately.
Hernandez was convicted of.
26
 The reason for this benevolent spirit of Article 48 is readily 3 Omnibus Motion filed by Sen. Enrile:
discernible. When two or more crimes are the result of a single act, a To hold in abeyance the issuance of warrant of arrest
the offender is deemed less perverse than when he commits said pending personal determination by the court of
probable cause
crimes thru separate and distinct acts. Instead of sentencing him
b To dismiss the case and expunge the information from
for each crime independently from the other, he must suffer the the record
maximum of the penalty for the more serious one, on the
assumption that it is less grave than the sum total of the separate
penalties for each offense. 4 The court denied the omnibus motion. Sen. Enrile filed Motion
for Reconsideration and to Quash/Dismiss but was also denied.

5 Enriles arguments on his appeal to the Supreme Court on

certiorari:
The alleged harboring or concealing by Sen. Enrile of
CASE NO. 51
Ponce Enrile vs Amin Col. Honasan in a supposed meeting on Dec.1, 1989 is
G.R. No. 93335 / September 13, 1990 ABSORBED in, or is a COMPONENT ELEMENT of, the
complexed rebellion presently charged against Sen.
Gutierrez, Jr., J: Enrile as alleged co-conspirator of Col. Honasan on the
basis of the same meeting on Dec.1 1989.
Facts: The orderly administration of Justice requires that there
1 Senator Juan Ponce Enrile was charged of having committed be only one prosecution for all the component acts of
rebellion complexed with murder with RTC of Quezon City. rebellion.
6 Judge Amin sustained the charge of violation of PD No. 1829
notwithstanding the rebellion case filed against the petitioner
2 He was also charged with violation of Pres. Decree 1829 with on the theory that the former involves a special law while the
RTC of Makati City because he allegedly harbored and latter is based on the Revised Penal Code or a general law.
concealed in his house Ex. Lt. Gregorio Gringo Honasan, who
was suspected of having committed a crime.
ISSUE:

Allegations: Whether or not Sen. Enrile could be separately charged of

violation of PD 1829 nothwithstanding the rebellion case earlier
a Rebellion Case: filed against him
In the evening of Dec.1, 1989, fugitive Honasan and
some 100 rebel soldiers attended the mass and RULING:
birthday party held at the residence of Sen. Enrile.
No. The violation of PD 1829 is absorbed in the crime of rebellion.
Honasan conferred with Sen. Enrile accompanied by
about 100 fully armed rebel soldiers wearing white The SC reiterated the long standing proscription against
armed patches. splitting the component offenses of rebellion and subjecting them to
These facts led the prosecution to conclude that Enrile separate prosecutions. The Hernandez case remains a binding doctrine
and Honasan were co-conspirators in the failed Dec. to prohibit the complexing of rebellion with any other offense
coup. committed on the occasion thereof, either as means necessary to its
commission or as an intended effect of an activity that constitutes
rebellion.
b Violation of PD 1829 Case:
Sen. Enrile entertained and accommodated Col.
Honasanby giving him food and comfort on Dec.1,
1989 in his house.
27
 Sen. Enriles act of harboring or concealing Col. Honasan is a That the crime being charged against him is
mere component of rebellion or an act done in furtherance of the nonexistent.
rebellion, it cannot therefore be made the basis of a separate charge. That he was charged with a criminaloffense in an
All crimes, whether punishable under a special law or general law, information for which no complaint was initially
which are mere components or ingredients, or committed in filed or preliminary investigation was conducted,
furtherance thereof, become absorbed in the crime of rebellion and hence was denied due process;
cannot be isolated and charged as separate crimes in themselves. That he has been denied with his right to bail
Thus: This does not detract, however, from the rule that the That he was arrested and detained on the strength
ingredients of a crime form part and parcel thereof, and hence, are
of a warrant issued without thejudge who issued it
absorbed by the same and cannot be punished either separately
first having personally determined the existence
therefrom or by the application of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.
of probable cause
Wherefore, the petition is granted. Sen. Enrile cannot be tried
5 Solicitor Generals answer: the case does not fall within the
separately under PD 1829 in addition to his being prosecute din the
Hernandez ruling sincethe in Hernandez, the information
rebellion case.
charged murders and other common crimes committed as
a necessary means for the commission of
rebellion whereas in Enriles case, murder and frustrated
CASE NO. 52 murder charged against Enrile were committed on the
Enrile vs Salazar occasion, but not in furtherance, of rebellion.
G.R. No. 92163 / June 5, 1990
Narvasa, J.:
Issues:

1 Whether the petitioner has committed complex crimes

Facts:
(delito compleio) arising from an offense being a necessary
means for committing another, which is referred to in the
second clause of Article 48, Revised Penal Code
1 In February 27, 1990, Senate Minority Floor Leader Juan 2 Whether or not the court should affirm the Hernandez
Ponce Enrile was arrested by law enforcement officers led ruling
by Director Alfredo Lim of the NBI on the strength of a
warrant issued by Hon. Jaime Salazar of the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City Branch 103. Ruling:
2 He was charged together with Mr. and Mrs. Panlilio, and
Gregorio Honasan for the crime of rebellion with murder
Enrile filed for habeas corpus because he was denied bail
and multiple frustrated murder which allegedly committed
although ordinarily a charge of rebellion would entitle one for bail.
during their failed coup attempt from November 29 to
The crime of rebellion charged against him however is complexed
December 10, 1990.
with murder and multiple frustrated murders the intention of the
prosecution was to make rebellion in its most serious form so as to
3 Senator Enrile was taken to and held overnight at the NBI
make the penalty thereof in the maximum. There is one other
headquarters on Taft Avenue, Manila, without bail, none
reason and a fundamental one at that why Article 48 of the Penal
having been recommended in the information and none
Code cannot be applied in this case. If murder were not complexed
fixed in the arrest warrant. Then, he was brought to Camp
with rebellion, and the two crimes were punished separately, then
Tomas Karingal in Quezon City on the following day.
the following penalties would be imposable upon the movant,
namely: (1) for the crime of rebellion, a fine not exceeding P20,000
4 Later on the same day, Enrile filed a petition for habeas
and prision mayor, in the corresponding period, depending upon
corpus alleging that he was deprived of his constitutional
the modifying circumstances present, but never exceeding 12
rights. The following are his arguments:
years of prision mayor, and (2) for the crime of murder, reclusion
28
 temporal in its maximum period to death, depending upon the being convicted for subversion. He contended that
modifying circumstances present. In other words, in the absence of common crimes such as illegal possession of firearms and
aggravating circumstances, the extreme penalty could not be ammunition should actually be deemed absorbed in
imposed upon him. However, under Article 48 said penalty would subversion. And since the present case is the twin
have to be meted out to him, even in the absence of a single prosecution of the earlier subversion case, he is entitled to
aggravating circumstance. Thus, said provision, if construed in invoke constitutional protection against double jeopardy.
conformity with the theory of the prosecution, would be 5 Opposing the Tujans motion to quash, the State contended
unfavorable to the movant. that he does not stand in jeopardy of being convicted a
second time because:
he has not even been arraigned in the subversion case
The Hernandez ruling is still valid. Hernandez doctrine the previous offense charged against him is for
remains binding doctrine operating to prohibit the complexing of Subversion, punishable under RA 1700, while the
rebellion with any other offense committed on the occasion present case is for Illegal Possession of Firearm and
thereof, either as a means necessary to its commission or as an Ammunition in Furtherance of Subversion, punishable
unintended effect of an activity that constitutes rebellion. All other under PD 1866, a different law
crimes committed in carrying out rebellion are deemed absorbed.
The Court reiterates that based on the this doctrine, the
questioned information filed against petitioners Juan Ponce Enrile Issue:
and the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio must be read as
charging simple rebellion only, since there is no such crime as Whether or not Tujan was placed in double jeopardy with
rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder. These other the filing of the second information for illegal possession of firearm
crimes such as murder or all those that may be necessary to the & ammunition in furtherance of subversion
commission of rebellion is absorbed hence petitioners should be
entitiled for bail, before final conviction.

Ruling:

CASE NO. 53
People vs Pimentel
G.R. No. 100210 / April 1, 1998 No. Sec. 21 of Article III of the Constitution and Rule 117 of
the Revised Rules of Court state that for double jeopardy to occur,
Martinez, J: acquittal, conviction or dismissal in previous cases must have
Facts: occurred. In the present case, Tujans motion to quash filed in the
trial court did not actually raise the issue of double jeopardy simply
1 In 1983, private respondent Antonio Tujan was charged because it had not arisen yet. It is noteworthy that the private
with subversion under Republic Act 1700 (the Anti- respondent has not even been arraigned in the first criminal action
Subversion Law) as amended before the RTC of Manila. A for subversion. Besides, the two criminal charges against private
warrant of arrest was issued but was not served due to his respondent are not of the same offense as required by Section 21,
disappearance. Article III of the Constitution.
2 Seven years later, Tujan was arrested on the basis of the
warrant of arrest in the subversion case, and was also While the SC holds that both the subversion charge under
found to possess an unlicensed .38 caliber special revolver RA1700, as amended, and the one for illegal possession of firearm
and six rounds of live ammunition. and ammunition in furtherance of subversion under PD 1866, as
3 Due to this, he was charged with illegal possession of amended, can co-exist, the subsequent enactment of of RA 7636
firearms and ammunition in furtherance of subversion on Sept. 22, 1992, totally repealing RA 1700, as amended, has
under PD 1866 before the RTC in Makati City. substantially changed the complexion of the present case,
4 Tujan filed a motion to quash the illegal possession case on inasmuch as the said repealing law being favorable to the accused-
the ground that he has been previously in jeopardy of private respondent, who is not a habitual delinquent, should be
given retroactive effect.
29
 With the enactment of R.A. No. 7636, the charge of 5 Also, 4 former members of the CPP/NPA/NDFP filed their
subversion against the accused-private respondent has no more affidavits alleging that petitioners Ocampo, Echanis,
legal basis and should be dismissed. As regards the other charge of Baylosis and Ladlad, being members of CPP/NPA/NDFP
illegal possession of firearm and ammunition, qualified by Central Committee, ordered the Operation VD in 1985. On
subversion, this charge should be amended to simple illegal the basis of these affidavits, petitioners were charged with
possession of firearm and ammunition since subversion is no murder.
longer a crime. It would be illogical for the trial courts to try and
sentence the accused-private respondent for an offense that no 6 In a resolution, Prosecutor Vivero recommended the filing
longer exists. Subversion charge against Tujan was dismissed, of anInformation for 15 counts of multiple murders against
illegal possession of firearm and ammunition in furtherance of 54 named members of the CPP/NPA/NDFP, including
subversion against the same accused is deemed amended. petitioners herein. The said 4 former members of
Accused was ordered to be released immediately from detention, CPP/NPA/NDFP were dropped as respondents and were
since he was already detained for 7years, whereas the amended considered state witnesses.
charge has a penalty of 4 years, 2 mos. and 1 day to six years.
7 On 6 March 2007, Judge Abando issued an Order finding
CASE NO. 54 probable cause "in the commission by all mentioned
Ocampo vs Abando accused of the crime charged." He ordered the issuance of
G.R. No. 176830 / February 11, 2014 warrants of arrest against them with no recommended bail
for their temporary liberty.
Sereno, J:
Facts: 8 Petitioner Ocampo filed a special civil action for certiorari
and prohibition:
seeking the annulment of the 6 March 2007 Order
1 A mass grave site was discovered at Sitio Sapang Daco, of Judge Abando and the Resolution of Prosecutor
Barangay Kaulisihan, Inopacan, Leyte by the 43 rd Infantry Vivero.
Brigade containing 67 skeletal remains of those believed to praying for his unconditional release from PNP
be victims of Operation Venereal Disease (VD). Said custody, as well as the issuance of a temporary
Operation VD was launched by the Communist Party of the restraining order/ writ of preliminary injunction to
Philippines/New Peoples Army/National Democratic Front restrain the conduct of further proceedings during
(CPP/NPA/NPDF) of the Philippines to purge their ranks of the pendency of the petition
suspected military informers.
9 Ocampos arguments:
2 PNP SOCO conducted a forensic crime analysis to identify A rebellion case against him & 44 others was then
the bodies by way of SNA sample, however, the Initial pending before the RTC of Makati City.
Specialist Report remained inconclusive as to the identities Common crimes, such as murder, are already
of the skeletal remains and the leght of time that they had absorbed by the crime of rebellion when
been buried. committed as a necessary means, in connection
with and in furtherance of rebellion.
3 In a Special Report, 10 possible victims were named after
comparison and examination based on testimonies of
relatives and witnesses. Issues:
4 Believing that their relatives remains were among those 1 Whether or not petitioners were denied due process during
discovered at the mass grave site,12 complaint-affidavits preliminary investigation and in the issuance of the warrant
were filed by the relatives of the alleged victims of of arrests
Operation VD. They swore that their relatives had been 2 Whether or not the murder charges against petitioners
abducted or last seen wit members of the CPP/NPA/NDFP. should be dismissed under the political offense doctrine

30
Ruling: Any ordinary act assumes a different nature by being
absorbed in the crime of rebellion. Thus, when a killing is
committed in furtherance of rebellion, the killing is not
homicide or murder. Rather, the killing assumes the
1 Yes, petitioners were accorded due process during political complexion of rebellion as its mere ingredient and
preliminary investigation and in the issuance of the warrant must be prosecuted and punished as rebellion alone.
of arrests. A preliminary investigation is not a casual
affair.It is conducted to protect the innocent from the When the political offense doctrine is asserted as a defense
embarrassment, expense and anxiety of a public trial. in the trial court, it becomes crucial for the court to
While the right to have a preliminary investigation before determine whether the act of killing was done in
trial is statutory rather than constitutional, it is a furtherance of a political end, and for the political motive of
substantive right and a component of due process in the the act to be conclusively demonstrated. Petitioners aver
administration of criminal justice. that the records show that the alleged murders were
committed in furtherance of the CPP/NPA/NDFP rebellion,
In this case, the Resolution stated that efforts were and that the political motivation behind the alleged
undertaken to serve subpoenas on the named respondents murders can be clearly seen from the charge against the
at their last known addresses. This is sufficient for due alleged top leaders of the CPP/NPA/NDFP as coconspirators.
process. It was only because a majority of them could no The court ruled that the burden of demonstrating political
longer be found at their last known addresses that they motivation must be discharged by the defense, since
were not served copies of the complaint and the attached motive is a state of mind which only the accused knows.
documents or evidence. The proof showing political motivation is adduced during
As to the issuance of warrant of arrest, Ocampos trial where the accused is assured an opportunity to
allegation that Judge Abando did not comply with the present evidence supporting his defense. It is not for this
requirements of the Constitution in finding the existence of Court to determine this factual matter in the instant
probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest petitions.
against petitioners have no merit.

2 Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest has Case No. 55
been defined as "such facts and circumstances which People vs. Umali
would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to FACTS:
believe that an offense has been committed by the person The complex crime of which appellants Narciso Umali, et. al
sought to be arrested." In this case, the determination of were found guilty was said to have been committed during
probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest the raid staged in the town of Tiaong, Quezon, between
against petitioners is addressed to the sound discretion of 8:00 and 9:00 in the evening of November 14, 1951, by
Judge Abando as the trial judge. armed men. The raid resulted in the burning down and
complete destruction of the house of Mayor Marcial
The political offense doctrine is NOT a ground to dismiss Punzalan including its content valued at P24,023; the
the charge against petitioners prior to a determination by house of Valentin Robles valued at P10,000, and the house
the trial court that the murders were committed in of one Mortega, the death of Patrolman Domingo Pisigan
furtherance of rebellion. Under the political offense and civilians Vicente Soriano and Leocadio Untalan, and the
doctrine, common crimes, perpetrated in furtherance of a wounding of Patrolman Pedro Lacorte and five civilians.
political offense, are divested of their character as
common offenses and assume the political complexion of During and after the burning of the houses, some of the
the main crime of which they are mere ingredients, and, raiders engaged in looting, robbing one house and two
consequently, cannot be punished separately from the Chinese stores; and that the raiders were finally dispersed
principal offense, or complexed with the same, to justify and driven from the town by the Philippine Army soldiers
the imposition of a graver penalty. stationed in the town led by Captain Alzate.

31
 After trial, the court found Umali et.al, found guilty of the Case No. 57
complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, frustrated People vs Cabrera
murder, arson and robbery.
FACTS:
To understand the reason for and object of the raid we have to go
into the political situation in Tiaong. Narciso Umali and Marcial The Philippine constabulary and the Police of Manila had a
Punzalan were old time friends and belonged to the same political rough relationship with each other. The constabulary force
faction. However, these friendly relations between the two did not had grudges against the Police force of Manila because of
endure. In the words of Punzalan, Narciso Umali who as the incident wherein a Manila police arrested a woman who
Congressman regarded himself as the political head and leader in is a member of the household of a constabulary soldier and
that region including Tiaong, became jealous because of his was allegedly abused by the said policeman. More so, a
(Punzalan's) fast growing popularity among the people of Tiaong day after one Macasinag was shot by a Manila police, a
who looked to him instead of Umali for political guidance, rumor spread among the Constabulary that the Police who
leadership, and favors. Then the elections of 1951 (November 13) shot himwas back to his original duties while Macasinag
approached and Punzalan ran for reelection. To oppose him, and to was declared dead. There were also rumors that the said
clip his political wings and definitely blast his ambition for shooting was ordered. As a result, some members of the
continued power and influence in Tiaong, Umali picked Epifanio Constabulary,with rifles and ammunitions, escaped their
Pasumbal, his trusted leader. The result of the elections plainly barracks through a window and went to attack the Police
showed that Punzalan was the political master and leader in force, killing and wounding several policemen and civilians.
Tiaong. He beat Pasumbal by an overwhelming majority of 2,221 After trial, the court convicted Graciano Cabrera at. with
votes. Naturally, Umali and Pasumbal were keenly disappointed, the crime of sedition.
and according to the evidence, adopted measures calculated to
frustrate Punzalan's victory. Issue;

Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting Graciano

Cabrera et.al with the crime of sedition.
Whether or not the trial court erred in ruling that the crime
committed is rebellion. Ruling:

Ruling: No.

Yes. The court is convinced that the principal and main, tho not Sedition, in its more general sense, is the raising of
necessarily the most serious, crime committed here was not commotions or disturbances in the State. The Philippine
rebellion but rather that of sedition. The purpose of the raid and law on the subject (Act No. 292) makes all persons guilty of
the act of the raiders in rising publicly and taking up arms was not sedition who rise publicly and tumultuously in order to
exactly against the Government and for the purpose of doing the obtain by force or outside of legal methods any one of vie
things defined in Article 134 of the Revised Penal code under objects, including that of inflicting any act of hate or
rebellion. The raiders did not even attack the Presidencia, the seat revenge upon the person or property of any official or
of local Government. Rather, the object swas to attain by means of agent of the Insular Government or of Provincial or
force, intimidation, etc. one object, to wit, to inflict an act of hate Municipal Government.
or revenge upon the person or property of a public official, namely,
Punzalan was then Mayor of Tiaong. Under Article 139 of the same Counsel's contention that in order for there to be a
Code this was sufficient to constitute sedition. violation of subdivision 3 of section 5 of Act No. 292 it is
and necessary that the offender should be a private citizen
Case No. 56 and the offended party a public functionary, and that what
League Jose vs. People really happened in this instance was a fight between two
FACTS: armed bodies of the Philippine Government, is absolutely
without foundation. Subdivison 3 of section 5 of the
Treason and Sedition Law makes no distinction between
32
 the persons to which it applies. In one scene there was a Issue:
fights between two armed bodies of the Philippine
Government, but it was an unequal fight brought on by the
Whether or not the crime of sedition was committed.
actions of the accused.

Ruling:

Yes. The facts as stated constitute the crime of sedition

Case No. 58 provided for in paragraphs 3 and 4 of section 5 and
U.S. vs Lapus punished by section 6 of Act No. 292 of the Civil
Commission. The appellants were members of an illegal
FACTS: association and had publicly and tumultuously attacked the
A complaint for sedition was filed alleging that on the night town of Cabiao and roamed over its streets, firing shots,
of June 3, 1902, a band composed of about four hundred yelling, and threatening the residents with death, and
men, among whom were the accused Mateo Lapus et.al., thereby frightening them. They performed acts of violence
armed with guns, revolvers, talibones, bolos, and clubs, on the persons of the president and other residents of the
raided the town of Cabiao. town, against the law and the supreme authority and with
political-social purposes. For these reasons the acts
They went through the streets of the town firing shots, performed by the defendants constitute sedition as defined
yelling, and frightening the inhabitants thereof. by the aforesaid sections of Act No. 292. The crime of
sedition was consummated, even though the object of the
Some of said band went to the house of the municipal defendants was not realized.
president, while others raided several houses, taking
captive sixty or seventy of the inhabitants. Case No. 59
US vs Apurado
They roamed about the streets of the town threatening and
Facts:
intimidating the people.
Filomeno Apurado et.al.were convicted of the crime of
sedition as defined in section 5 of Act No. 292 of the
Some members of the band, among them the chief, Philippine Commission
Domingo Cunanan, told the prisoners that the latter were
often found in the justice court, and that they were loaning
Before the municipal council of San Carlos, Occidental
money at usurious terms to their farm laborers, and when
Negros, entered upon its regular morning sessions, some
the latter were unable to pay the loan they compelled their
500 residents assembled near the municipal building and
children to work for them as servants; that if the wealthy
demanded the dismissal from office of the treasurer,
landowners continued oppressing the poor they would not
secretary, and the chief of police, and the substitution in
stop disturbing the towns, because the law must be equally
their places of new officials whose names were suggested
applied to rich and poor.
by the spokesman of the party;

These acts were said to be in compliance with the orders of

They wanted the council to accede to their wishes and
Felipe Salvador, chief of the association called "Santa
drew up a formal document setting out the reasons for its
Iglesia", to which they belonged.
action.

33
The persons who took part in the movement were wholly The prosecution emphasizes unduly the fact that a few of
unarmed except that a few carried canes. those who took in the demonstration carried canes, but
there is nothing in the record to indicate that any usual
The crowd was fairly orderly and well-behaved except in so number of sticks were in the hands of the petitioners, or
far as their pressing into the council chamber during a that they had been brought to the meeting for the purpose
session of that body can be called disorder and of using them as weapons of assault.
misbehavior; and that the movement had its origin in
religious differences between the residents of the
municipality.
CASE 61
The petitioners desired the dismissal of the officials G.R. No. L-21049
because they believed that they should not be permitted to December 22, 1923
THE PEOPLE VS. ISAAC PEREZ,
hold office in the municipality on account of their
MALCOLM, J.:
outspoken allegiance to one of the factions into which the
town was at that time divided. Facts:

Issue: Isaac Perez, the municipal secretary of Pilar, Sorsogon, and

Fortunato Lodovice, a citizen of that municipality,
happening to meet on the morning of April 1, 1992. Upon
Whether or not Filomeno Apurado et.al were guilty of meeting, they became engaged in a discussion regarding
sedition. the administration of Governor-General Wood, which
resulted in Perez shouting a number of times: "The
Ruling: Filipinos, like myself, must use bolos for cutting off Wood's
head for having recommended a bad thing for the Filipinos,
for he has killed our independence." With that act, he was
No.The provisions of Section 5 of Act No. 292 must not be charged in the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon with a
interpreted so as to abridge "the freedom of speech" or violation of article 256 of the Penal Code having to do with
"the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition contempt of ministers of the Crown or other persons in
the Government for redress or grievances" guaranteed by authority. Upon conviction of such charge, Perez then
the express provisions of section 5 of "the Philippine bill. appealed the case to this court.
Not only were the individual members of the crowd wholly
Issue: whether or not Isaac Perez is guilty of the crime
unarmed, but they were manifestly desirous that fact Sedition
should be known, for it appears that two American officials
having asked what the purpose of the gathering was, were Held:
assured that the assembly merely desired to petition for
the removal of several municipal officials; and in proof of Yes, Isaac Perez is guilty of the crime Sedition. In criminal
law, there are a variety of offenses which are not directed
the fact that they had no intention of committing a breach
primarily against individuals, but rather against the
of the peace, the members of the crowd raised their existence of the State, the authority of the Government, or
jackets and camisas to prove that they were carrying no the general public peace. The offenses created and defined
concealed weapons. in Act No. 292 are distinctly of this character. Among them
is sedition, which is the raising of commotions or
disturbances in the State. It is a revolt against legitimate
authority. Though the ultimate object of sedition is a
violation of the public peace or at least such a course of
34
measures as evidently engenders it, yet it does not aim at practices from the constituted authorities, shall be
direct and open violence against the laws, or the punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars
subversion of the Constitution. United States currency or by imprisonment not exceeding
two years, or both, in the discretion of the court.
Here, the person maligned by the accused is the Chief
Executive of the Philippine Islands. His official position, like In the words of the law, Perez has uttered seditious words.
the Presidency of the United States and other high offices, He has made a statement and done an act which tended to
under a democratic form of government, instead, of instigate others to cabal or meet together for unlawful
affording immunity from promiscuous comment, seems purposes. He has made a statement and done an act which
rather to invite abusive attacks. But in this instance, the suggested and incited rebellious conspiracies. He has
attack on the Governor-General passes the furthest bounds made a statement and done an act which tended to stir up
of free speech was intended. There is a seditious tendency the people against the lawful authorities. He has made a
in the words used, which could easily produce disaffection statement and done an act which tended to disturb the
among the people and a state of feeling incompatible with peace of the community and the safety or order of the
a disposition to remain loyal to the Government and Government. All of these various tendencies can be
obedient to the laws. ascribed to the action of Perez and may be characterized
as penalized by section 8 of Act No. 292 as amended.
The Governor-General is an executive official appointed by CASE 62
the President of the United States by and with the advice G.R. No. L-1451
and consent of the Senate of the United States, and holds March 6, 1906
in his office at the pleasure of the President. The Organic THE UNITED STATE vs. AURELIO TOLENTINO
Act vests supreme executive power in the Governor- CARSON, J.:
General to be exercised in accordance with law. The
Governor-General is the representative of executive civil Facts:
authority in the Philippines and of the sovereign power. A
seditious attack on the Governor-General is an attack on On May 14, 1903, Aurelio Tolentino utter seditious words
the rights of the Filipino people and on American and speeches and did write, publish, and circulate
sovereignty. (Concepcion vs. Paredes [1921], 42 Phil., 599; scurrilous libels in Tagalog language in a theatrical work
U.S. vs. Dorr [1903], 2 Phil., 332.) written by accused-appellant and which was presented by
him and others on the May 14, 1903 at the "Teatro
Section 8 of Act No. 292 of the Philippine Commission, as Libertad," in the city of Manila entitled 'Kahapon gayon at
amended by Act No. 1692, appears to have been placed on Bukas' (Yesterday, To-day, and To-morrow) which is
the statute books exactly to meet such a situation. This against the Government of the United States and the
section reads as follows: Insular Government of the Philippine Islands, which tend to
obstruct the lawful officers, instigate others to cabal and
Every person who shall utter seditious words or speeches, meet together for unlawful purposes, and which suggest
or who shall write, publish or circulate scurrilous libels and incite rebellious conspiracies and riots, tend to stir up
against the Government of the United States or against the the people against the lawful authorities and to disturb the
Government of the Philippine Islands, or who shall print, peace of the community and the safety and order of the
write, publish utter or make any statement, or speech, or Government of the United States and the Insular
do any act which tends to disturb or obstruct any lawful Government of the Philippine Islands.
officer in executing his office or in performing his duty, or
which tends to instigate others to cabal or meet together
for unlawful purposes, or which suggests or incites Issue:
rebellious conspiracies or which tends to stir up the people whether, in writing, publishing, and uttering the drama, the
against the lawful authorities, or which tends to disturb the accused was in fact guilty of a violation of section 8 of Act
peace of the community or the safety or order of the No. 292 of the Philippine Commission
Government, or who shall knowingly conceal such evil

35
 Held:
Facts:
Several allied offenses or modes of committing the same
offense are define in that section, viz: (1) The uttering of On June 9 and June 24, 1947, both dates inclusive, in
seditious words or speeches; (2) the writing, publishing, or the town of Tagbilaran, Bohol, Oscar Espuelas y
circulating of scurrilous libels against the Government of Mendoza had his picture taken, making it to appear as
the United States or the Insular Government of the if he were hanging lifeless at the end of a piece of rope
Philippine Islands; (3) the writing, publishing, or circulating suspended from the limb of the tree, when in truth and
of libels which tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in fact, he was merely standing on a barrel.
in executing his office; (4) or which tend to instigate others After securing copies of his photograph, Espuelas sent
to cabal or meet together for unlawful purposes; (5) or copies of same to several newspapers and weeklies of
which suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots; (6) general circulation not only in the Province of Bohol but
or which tend to stir up the people against the lawful also throughout the Philippines and abroad, for their
authorities or to disturb the peace of the community, the publication with a suicide note or letter, wherein he
safety and order of the Government; (7) knowingly made to appear that it was written by a fictitious
concealing such evil practices. suicide, Alberto Reveniera and addressed to the latter's
supposed wife. The note contains statements of
In accordance with the principles laid down in the dismay with the administration of President Roxas,
preceding paragraph the judgment of conviction in this pointing out the situation in Central Luzon and Leyte,
case must be sustained, if it appears from the evidence in and directing his wife his dear wife to write to President
the record that the accused was guilty as charged of any Truman and Churchill of US and tell them that in the
one of those offenses. We are all agreed that the Philippines the government is infested with many
publication and presentation of the drama directly and Hitlers and Mussolinis, and to teach their children to
necessarily tend to instigate others to cabal and meet burn pictures of Roxas if and when they come across
together for unlawful purposes, and to suggest and incite one.
rebellious conspiracies and riots and to stir up the people The accused admitted the fact that he wrote the note
against the lawful authorities and to disturb the peace of or letter above quoted and caused its publication in the
the community and the safety and order of the Free Press, the Evening News, the Bisaya, Lamdang
Government. and other local periodicals and that he had
impersonated one Alberto Reveniera by signing said
The manifest, unmistakable tendency of the play, in view pseudonymous nam in said note or letter and posed
of the time, place, and manner of its presentation, was to himself as Alberto Reveniera in a picture taken wherein
inculcate a spirit of hatred and enmity against the he was shown hanging by the end of a rope tied to a
American people and the Government of the United States limb of a tree."
in the Philippines, and we are satisfied that the principal
object and intent of its author was to incite the people of Issue: Whether the accused is liable of seditious libel under Art.
the Philippine Islands to open and armed resistance to the 142 of the RPC against the Government of the Philippines?
constituted authorities, and to induce them to conspire
together for the secret organization of armed forces, to be
used when the opportunity presented itself, for the purpose
of overthrowing the present Government and setting up Held: Yes.
another in its stead.
The letter is a scurrilous libel against the Government.1 It calls
our government one of crooks and dishonest persons (dirty)
CASE 64 infested with Nazis and Fascists i.e. dictators. And the
Espuelas vs People communication reveals a tendency to produce dissatisfaction
G.R. No. L-2990 or a feeling incompatible with the disposition to remain loyal to
December 17, 1951 the government.2

36
 Writings which tend to overthrow or undermine the security of being followed, they immediately proceeded to the middle
the govemment or to weaken the oonfidence of the people in of the road and engaged Pfc. Catamora to a gun battle.
the government are against the public peace, and are criminal
not only because they tend to incite to a breach of the peace At that instant, Pfc. Catamora heard a series of shots from
but because they are conducive to the destruction of the very the other group and thereafter saw Pfc. Manatad sprawled
government itself. on the ground. Being out-numbered and to save his own
life, Pat. Catamora sought refuge at the nearby BIR Office
The essence of seditious libel is its immediate tendency to stir from where he saw two (2) persons take Pfc. Manatads
up general discontent to the pitch of illegal courses or to gun and again fired at him to make sure that he is dead
induce people to resort to illegal methods in order to redress while the rest of the group including Nuez acted as back
the evils which press upon their minds. up.

A published writing which calls our government one of crooks Thereafter, the Nuez group commandeered a vehicle and
and dishonest persons ("dirty") infested with Nazis and Fascists fled from the scene of the shooting. Pfc. Rene Catamora
i.e. dictators, and which reveals a tendency to produce testified that he can identify accused-appellant Nuez
dissatisfaction or a feeling incompatible with the disposition to because of a mole at the bridge of his nose near the left
remain loyal to the government, is a scurrilous libel against the eye which he noticed when the accused passed 2 or 3
Government. meters in front of him together with his companions.

Any citizen may criticize his government and government

officials and submit his criticism to the "free trade of ideas." On August 16, 1987, two teams of police officers were
However, such criticism should be specific and therefore tasked to conduct surveillance on a suspected safehouse of
constructive specifying particular objectionable actuations of members of the sparrow unit located in Peace Valley, Cebu
the government; it must be reasoned or tempered, and not a City. Upon reaching the place, the group saw Rodrigo Dasig
contemptuous condemnation of the entire government set-up. and Edwin Nuez trying to escape. The team of Capt.
Such wholesale attack is nothing less than an invitation to Antonio Gorre captured Nuez and confiscated a .45
disloyalty to the government. In the article now under caliber revolver with 3 magazines and ammunitions, while
examination one will find no particular objectionable actuation the group of Sgt. Ronald Arnejo pursued Dasig, who threw
of the government. It is called dirty, it is called a dictatorship, it a grenade at his pursuers, but was shot on his left upper
is called shameful, but no particular omissions or commissions arm and subsequently apprehended.
are set forth. Instead the article drips with maleviolence and
hate towards the constituted authorities. It tries to arouse Issue
animosity towards all public servants headed by President
Roxas whose pictures this appellant would burn and would Whether or not he committed murder with direct assault or
teach the younger generation to destroy. simple rebellion.

Held

CASE 66 Rebellion is committed by taking up arms against the

People vs. Dasig government, among other means. (Article 135, Revised
G.R. No. 100231. Penal Code). In this case, appellant not only confessed
April 28, 1993. voluntarily his membership with the sparrow unit but also
his participation and that of his group in the killing of Pfc.
Facts: Manatad while manning the traffic in Mandaue City in the
At about 4:00 oclock in the afternoon, Pfc. Catamora afternoon of August 4, 1987. It is of judicial notice that the
noticed eight (8) persons, one of whom he identified as sparrow unit is the liquidation squad of the New Peoples
Edwin Nuez, acting suspiciously. He noticed one of them Army with the objective of overthrowing the duly
giving instructions to two of the men to approach Pfc. constituted government. It is therefore not hard to
Manatad. He followed the two, but sensing that they were comprehend that the killing of Pfc. Manatad was committed
37
 as a means to or in furtherance of the subversive ends of intimidation for the attainment of any of the purposes
the NPA. Consequently, appellant is liable for the crime of enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and
rebellion, not murder with direct assault upon a person in sedition; and second, by any person or persons who,
authority.8 without a public uprising, shall attack, employ force, or
seriously intimidate or resist any person in authority or any
The crime of rebellion consists of many acts. It is a vast of his agents, while engaged in the performance of official
movement of men and a complex net of intrigues and duties, or on occasion of such performance.
plots. Acts committed in furtherance of rebellion though
crimes in themselves are deemed absorbed in one single The case of Lydia falls under the second mode, which is the
crime of rebellion.9 The act of killing a police officer, more common form of assault. Its elements are:
knowing too well that the victim is a person in authority is 1.That the offender (a) makes an attack, (b) employs
a mere component or ingredient of rebellion or an act done force, (c) makes a serious intimidation, or (d) makes a
in furtherance of the rebellion. It cannot be made a basis of serious resistance.
a separate charge. 2.That the person assaulted is a person in authority or
his agent.
CASE 67 3. That at the time of the assault the person in authority
Gelig vs. People or his agent (a) is engaged in the actual performance of
G.R. No. 173150 official duties, or [b] that he is assaulted by reason of the
July 28, 2010 past performance of official duties.
4.That the offender knows that the one he is assaulting is
Facts: a person in authority or his agent in the exercise of his
Lydia Gelig and private complainant Gemma B. duties.
Micarsos (Gemma), were public school teachers at 5.That there is no public uprising.15
the Nailon Elementary School, in Nailon, Bogo,
Cebu. Lydias son, Roseller, was a student of On the day of the commission of the assault, Gemma was
Gemma at the time material to this case. engaged in the performance of her official duties, that is,
Lydia confronted Gemma after learning from she was busy with paperwork while supervising and looking
Roseller that Gemma called him a sissy while in after the needs of pupils who are taking their recess in the
class. Lydia slapped Gemma in the cheek and classroom to which she was assigned. Lydia was already
pushed her, thereby causing her to fall and hit a angry when she entered the classroom and accused
wall divider. As a result of Lydias violent assault, Gemma of calling her son a sissy. Lydia refused to be
Gemma suffered a contusion in her maxillary pacified despite the efforts of Gemma and instead initiated
area, as shown by a medical certificate5 issued by a verbal abuse that enraged the victim. Gemma then
a doctor in the Bogo General Hospital. However, proceeded towards the principals office but Lydia followed
Gemma continued to experience abdominal pains and resorted to the use of force by slapping and pushing
and started bleeding two days after the incident. her against a wall divider. The violent act resulted in
On August 28, 1981, she was admitted in the Gemmas fall to the floor.
Southern Islands Hospital and was diagnosed, to
her surprise, to have suffered incomplete abortion. Gemma being a public school teacher, belongs to the class
Issue of persons in authority expressly mentioned in Article 152
Whether or not Lydia Gelig is liable for Direct Assault with of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The pertinent
Unintentional Abortion. portion of the provision reads as follows:
Art. 152. Persons in Authority and Agents of Persons in
Held AuthorityWho shall be deemed as such.
Yes. It is clear from the foregoing provision that direct xxxx
assault is an offense against public order that may be In applying the provisions of articles 148 and 151 of this
committed in two ways: first, by any person or persons Code, teachers, professors, and persons charged with the
who, without a public uprising, shall employ force or supervision of public or duly recognized private schools,

38
 colleges and universities, and lawyers in the actual their brother's carabao was taken to Pavia which is within
performance of their professional duties or on the occasion the zone affected by the quarantine.
of such performance shall be deemed persons in authority.
(As amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 873, approved The president, upon hearing said protest, said that it was
June 12, 1985). his opinion that Gregorio Ismaa was right in taking the
carabao to the police station at Pavia.
It is worth stressing that Gemma was admitted and
confined in a hospital for incomplete abortion on August However he promised to intervene in the matter and to
28, 1981, which was 42 days after the July 17, 1981 telephone to the man in charge of the quarantine to find
incident. This interval of time is too lengthy to prove that out whether, on the following day, the said carabao could
the discharge of the fetus from the womb of Gemma was a not be withdrawn from the zone affected by the quarantine
direct outcome of the assault. Her bleeding and abdominal and upon hearing this statement of the president, the
pain two days after the said incident were not accused insulted the said president and gave him a slap on
substantiated by proof other than her testimony. Thus, it is the face which struck his left ear.
not unlikely that the abortion may have been the result of
other factors. ISSUE:
(Guilty of Direct Assault, but NO unintentional abortion)
Whether or not the accused is guilty of assault upon an
agent of authority

CASE 69 HELD:
69. THE UNITED STATES vs. NICOMEDES GUMBAN
GR NO. 13658 Yes. The information qualifies the crime charged as an
November 9, 1918 assault upon an agent of authority. Inasmuch as the
Avancea, J. offended party, as municipal president, is a person in
authority and not a mere agent of authority, the
designation of the crime given by the fiscal is erroneous.
FACTS: But, as has been decided by this court in many cases, this
mistake does not affect the information, because the
Petronilo Gumban, municipal president of Jaro, Iloilo, was in qualification which the fiscal makes is not what constitutes
the barrio of Pavia of the said municipality, inspecting the the crime but the f acts stated in the information. In
quarantine of animals. relating the facts constituting the alleged crime, the fiscal
further says that the offended party was a municipal
He was getting some information from a councilor, president and therefore an agent of authority. This,
Magdaleno Suliano, regarding the condition of the animals however, is nothing but a mere conclusion of law which can
in his barrio, when Gregorio Ismaa, a tenant of Magdaleno be considered discarded from the information. The
Suliano, arrived to report the fact that he had surprised a allegation made that the offended party was a municipal
carabao belonging to Policarpio Gumban, destroying a president is sufficient to make one understand that the
planted area belonging to the said Magdaleno Suliano, and crime charged in the information is that of assault upon a
that, having seized the carabao, he brought the same to person in authority. For this reason, we believe that, in
the police station at Pavia, which is within the zone accordance with the information filed in this case, the
affected by the quarantine. accused can be found guilty of the crime of assault upon a
person in authority.
Then Epifanio Gumban and the accused Nicomedes
Gumban, brothers of Policarpio Gumban, the owner of the
carabao, arrived there and protested to the president that
CASE 70

39
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FELIX BENITEZ FACTS:
GR No. 48396
September 11, 1942 Tiburcio Balbar entered the room where schoolteacher
Moran, J. Ester Gonzales was conducting her classes.

Without warning and right after complainant had finished

FACTS: writing on the blackboard, defendant allegedly placed his
arms around her and kissed her on the eye.
In the morning of October 28, 1939, while D'Artagnan
Williams, Division Superintendent of Schools for Negros Shocked, complainant instinctively pushed Balbar away
Occidental, was working in his office, defendant Felix Beni- and tried to flee.
tez, special agent in the office of the Provincial Governor,
gave the former a fist blow causing him a contusion over Defendant allegedly brought out his daga (a local
the mastoid bone on the left ear. dagger) and pursued complainant, catching up with her
before she was able to get out of the room and defendant
The assault appeared to have been prompted by the embraced her again, at the same time holding on to his
defendant's desire to avenge a supposed affront to the daga.
Provincial Governor by the Division Superintendent in
connection with the appointment of teachers. They both fell to the floor, as a result of which complainant
sustained slight physical injuries.
ISSUE:
ISSUE:
Whether or not a division superintendent of schools is a
person in authority within the meaning of article 148, in Whether or not quashing the information for Direct Assault
connection with article 152, of the Revised Penal Code. should be set aside by reason of absence of knowledge of
the accused that the victim is a person in authority.
HELD:
HELD:
Yes, since under the law (section 917 of the Revised
Administrative Code), a division superintendent of schools NO. The lower courts dismissal of the information on the
is given the power of general superintendence over schools ground that there is no express
and school interests in his division, with the right to allegation in the information that the accused had
appoint municipal school teachers and to fix their salaries, knowledge that the person attacked was a person in
and further, since education is a state function and public authority is clearly erroneous.
policy demands an adequate protection of those engaged
in the performance of this commission, we believe and so Where an information for direct assault upon a person in
hold that a division superintendent of schools should be authority sufficiently alleges that the accused knew the
regarded as a person in authority. complainant was a school teacher, was in her classroom
and engaged in the performance of her duties when she
was assaulted, it is error to quash the same upon the
ground of absence of express allegation that accused had
CASE 71 knowledge that she was a person in authority, and the case
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. TIBURCIO BALBAR should be remanded for trial on the merits, for it matters
GR Nos. L20216 and L20217 not that such knowledge on his part is not expressly
November 29, 1967 alleged. It matters not that such knowledge on his part is
Makalintal, J. not expressly alleged, complainants status as a person in
authority being a matter of law and not of fact, ignorance

40
 whereof could not excuse noncompliance on his part (Art. policeman started to carry the prisoner away two
3, Civil Code). This article applies to all kinds of domestic bystanders interfered and took him away from the
laws, whether civil or penal, and whether substantive or policeman.
remedial, for reasons of expediency, policy and necessity. By this time Julian Canillas, the justice of the peace, had
arrived on the scene and being evidently excited, he hit
Callado on the back, when he too was stopped by another
CASE 72 policeman. Julian Canillas directing himself to the
U.S. v. GUMBAN, policeman said, "Go back to the municipal building and to-
SUPRA morrow you will take those clothes off," referring to the
FACTS: uniforms worn by the policemen. The policemen then went
away, which may be attributed not only to the command of
The warrant for the arrest of Tabiana and his herdsman was the justice of the peace but also to the fact that some of
placed in the hands of two policemen, Emiliano Callado and Tabiana's friends indicated a determination to fight if the
Baltazar Cabilitasan. Tabiana told the policemen that he policemen should persist in their purpose of arresting
would come in later and report at the municipal building Tabiana.
with his herdsman. At 6. p.m., the Tabiana not having
appeared at the municipal building, the policemen were
directed by the chief to find him and have him come to the ISSUE: Whether or not Tabiana resisted the persons in authority.
municipal building in obedience to the warrant
In passing near the market place Tabiana detached himself HELD:
from the custody of the policemen without their consent
and entered the market. The policemen, instead of YES. Tabiana guilty of resistance and serious disobedience
following Tabiana into the market, they waited about half to public authority. Resistance is impossible without the
an hour, at the end of which time they went into the employment of some force. A man may abscond or evade
market and found Tabiana with some of his friends. Tabiana or elude arrest, or may disobey the commands of an officer
asked for the warrant. Callado drew the warrant from his without using force but he cannot resist without using force
pocket; and as he showed it to the Tabiana who took it, of some kind or in some degree. If at the ultimate moment
looked at it, and put it into his pocket. After that he said, no force is employed to resist, there is not resistance but
"Come along" and gave the policeman a push, as did also submission; and if it had been intended that every
more than one other of Tabiana's friends. manifestation of force, however slight, against the
authorities, and their agents should bring the case under
They went to the municipal building but as it was getting article 249, Reasonably interpreted they appear to have
late, the chief of police and other officials were gone. reference to something more dangerous to civil society
Tabiana and his friends left the municipal building, saying than a simple blow with the hands at the moment a party
that they were going to find the justice of the peace (the is taken into custody by a policeman.
justice of the peace lived with Tabiana) Presently, however,
the chief of police arrived at the municipal building, and Julian Canillas is found to participated in the offense
learning what had taken place, he dispatched the two committed on the occasion, knowing that Tabiana was
policemen to go after Tabiana and procure the return of the liable to arrest under the warrant issued by himself; and he
warrant of arrest and to insist that Tabiana should come is therefore punishable in the same manner.
down at once so that the matter could be finished.
CASE 73
When the policemen arrived they found Tabiana, he was PEOPLE VS. HERNANDEZ
requested to give up the warrant and go to the police 59 PHIL 343
station he denied having taken the warrant. Tabiana then
approached the policeman, Callado, and hit him in the FACTS:
breast with his hand or fist, at which instant the policeman Amador E. Gomez, as provincial sheriff of Camarines Norte,
seized him by the wrist and resistance ceased. As the appeared at the house of the defendant, Gabriel
Hernandez, to proceed with the attachment of the personal
41
 property belonging to the latter and his wife, by virtue of a
writ of execution issued by the court in civil case No. 775, On their way home, Calapugan, Ramos and his
entitled The Collector of Internal Revenue v. Gabriel companions, Romy Elizaga and Ceferino Facon, aboard
Hernandez, the said defendant Gabriel Hernandez, who their thresher, were stopped by the three accused. Pascual
was then governor of Camarines Norte, and Marcos Rillorta, who was armed with a bolo, warned them not to
Panotes, who was chief of police of the municipality of return to thresh palay in barrio Barangobong. Barangay
Daet, taking advantage of their respective public positions Captain Doton, who was following behind Ramos' group,
and abusing the same, voluntarily, illegally and criminally, advised Pascual Rillorta to let the threshing party pass. The
without any legal motive or right whatsoever, detained, three PASCUAL, WESLEY and WILSON RILLORTA chased
locked up and deprived the said offended party of his Barangay Captain Doton. Upon overtaking him, they
liberty against his will, for a period of time less than three surrounded him and pushed him toward the creek. Pascual
days. Rillorta hacked him with a bolo while his sons (Wesley and
Wilson) held Barangay Captain Doton 's hands. Barangay
ISSUE: Captain Doton yelled "I'm going to die, they are going to
kill me."
HELD: Pascual Rillorta denied having killed Barangay Captain
RESISTANCE TO AN AGENT OF A PERSON IN AUTHORITY; Doton. He alleged that Barangay Captain Doton attacked
FALSE IMPRISONMENT; ARBITRARY DETENTION; him. For his part, Wesley alleged that he simply defended
PROVINCIAL SHERIFF. The alleged offense of resistance his father who was attacked by Doton.
to an agent of a person in authority, with which the
GABRIEL HERNANDEZ is charged, consisted in his having ISSUE:
prevented the provincial sheriff from carrying away his W/N Barangay Captain Doton was performing his official
piano and chairs from his house by holding him by the arm duties as barangay captain when attacked.
with hand while with the other he wrested the chair which
the said sheriff was trying to hand over to one of the HELD:
several laborers standing by for his orders below or at the YES. Under Article 152 of the Revised Penal Code and P.D.
foot of the stairs of the appellants house. The alleged 299, a barangay captain (formerly a "barrio lieutenant") is
offense of arbitrary detention with which he was also a person in authority. When Doton intervened to prevent a
charged consisted in his having ordered the chief of police violent encounter between the Pascual Rillorta and Ramos'
to arrest said sheriff, depriving him of his liberty at least group, he was discharging his duty as barangay captain to
from 6 to 8.45 oclock in the evening. protect life and property and enforce law and order in his
barrio.

CASE 75
CASE 74 U.S. VS. BALUYOT
PEOPLE VS RILLORTA 40 PHIL 385
180 SCRA 102
FACTS:
FACTS: Conrado Lerma was elected governor of the Province of
Romy Ramos, a thresher operator, recounted that while Bataan. One of his competitors upon this occasion was,
they were threshing the palay stock near the premises of Jose I. Baluyot. He was then commissioned as captain of
the of Barangay Captain Emiliano Doton. Pascual Baylon the National Guard. pendency of the accusation
Rillorta accosted Ramos and threatened him with a gun for estafa and its damaging effects upon his reputation, he
saying "Damn you, you better go home or I'll kill you here" had been asked to resign from the position; and although
Rillorta resented the threshing of palay in his barrio by the he had not resigned when the act which gave occasion to
Ramos' threshing party, whom he regarded as outsiders, this prosecution occurred, he had apparently been
because he wanted the palay stocks in his barrio to be temporarily relieved from duty with that organization
threshed in his own thresher. pending investigation.

42
 premises. Complainant grabbed a lead paper weight. The
He was to deliver a piano owned by his wife to the two went out the room and then stopped at a certain Mr.
provincial building and inquired for the governor upon the Bueno's office table; Bueno was there apparently. De la
pretext that he desired a friendly interview. Cuesta said that Justo should drop the lead paper weight.
Defendant put grabbed the neck and collar of Justo.
Baluyot had been called into the office upon the Bueno broke up the fight, but before that defendant
governor's first arrival and had withdrawn for a few threw punches at complainant. Justo was found
moments to permit another person to have an interview guilty of assault. Justo claims both parties mutually
was also calculated to put the governor off his guard at the agreed to fight, both disrobed themselves as teachers.
moment Baluyot re-entered the office. The unarmed
governor could make no effectual defence against a person Issues:
armed with such a deadly weapon as a revolver. It is
obvious also that the means and methods thus deliberately Whether or not there was mutual agreement to fight
selected by Baluyot were intended to insure the execution
of the crime without any risk to himself arising from the Whether or not mutual agreement to fight disrobes public
defence which the governor could make. duty as teachers

The governor tried to make an escape but was fired the Held:
second and third shot.
1. No, there was never a mutual agreement to fight.
ISSUE: Complainant never agreed. It appears that when the two
Whether of not the crime was committed whilst the left the room. Justo was following the complainant.
governor was in the performance of his duty.
2. No, being a public official, the duty is attached to their
HELD: personality until such person ceases to hold office. No
Yes. A complex crime of murder and assault upon a person mutual agreement to fight can disrobe that.
in authority during the performance of his duty. The
provincial governor was killed within his office in the The Supreme Court finds no reversible error in the decision
provincial building whilst performing his duty. appealed from, and the same is hereby affirmed. Costs
against Appellant.

CASE 76
Severino Justo vs CA
GR No. L-8611 CASE 77
REYES J.B.L.,J. US vs. Prudencio Garcia
G.R. No. 6820
FACTS: Arellano, C.J.,

This is an appeal from the Court of Appeals from FACTS

Court of First Instance Ilocos Norte. This is appeal for the crime of attempt against an
authority in which the defendant was found guilty.
There were two public teachers who are complainant
and defendant in this case.Justo asked De la Cuesta if it There was a case involving Carmen Pascual. The decision
is possible to have a certain Ms. Racela as teacher in her of the case was announced. Apparently, Garcia was
district. De la Cuesta said no but maybe a "shop teacher. outraged by the decision and blurted, "We dont agree
Insulted and his feelings hurt,the complainant to the decision!". The justice of the peace, whose name is
lashed out and said in these exact words Shet, you are a not present in the Supreme Court resolution, said that if he
double crosser. One who cannot keep his promise., and does not agree he could post bail Garcia replied with
then challenged De la Cuesta to a fist fight outside office outrageous and vexing remarks. The judge rhetorically
43
 asked what involvement does he have with the case when ground and then not satisfied the appellants sadistically
he is not even a party to it. The judge told him to get stabbed the captain. The defense of appellant was denial
out as Garcia was making a disturbance. Garcia and that they were somewhere else when the incident
made an implied threatening remark just before he happened.
left. When the Justice of the peace was about to go home,
apparently Garcia was waiting in the shadows, like a thief Issue: Whether or not appellants' guilt should be affirmed.
in the night or a lion pouncing on his prey. Garcia then
attacked the said justice with a cane and slapped Held: Yes, although some of the evidence is hearsay. The
the face of the justice. The defendant denies that he testimony of the Captain's wife and Mario Cadayong
attacked the justice and states that the latter provoked corroborated with the facts. The fact that appellants went
him and admits to slapping. into hiding after the incident is evidence of guilt. The
decision is modified as the trial court erred in convicting
Issue: Whether or not the defendant did assualt the justice them of the complex crime of murder with assault upon a
of the peace person in authority.Barangay Captain was in his official
capacity when the accused killed him,the CFI erred in not
Held: Yes, the facts were presented in the lower court with ruling this.The penalty is modified to Reclusion Perpetua.
5 witness claiming what is stated in the facts is true.
Further, Garcia's statements of provocation are
unsubstantiated.
CASE 79
The judgment is affirmed, with the costs of this instance Hilarion Sarcepuedes vs People of the PHilippines
upon the Appellant. G.R. No. L-3857
BENGZON, J.:

FACTS:
CASE 78 This is an appeal by certiorari from a decision of the Court
People vs.JESUS HECTO, PEDRO HECTO and LORETO HECTO, of Appeals convicting the appellant of direct assault upon a
accused, PEDRO HECTO and LORETO HECTO person in authority.
G.R. No. L-52787
EN BANC Lucrecia Bustamante is a teacher-nurse who ordered the
closing of a pathway in her land which led to the premis of
FACTS: the school she was working. Hilarion did not like this act.
Hilarion went straight to the school to confront her. A
CFI LEYTE finds herein accused guilty beyond reasonable heated exchange brewed up and Hilarion pushed Lucrecia
doubt of the complex crime of murder with assault upon a to the window and hit her with a raincoat twice. Hilarion
person in authority and sentencing them to DEATH. pleads that Lucrecia on that day was not in her official
capacity.
Appellants slaughtered a carabao but did not pay
slaughter fee. Barangay Captain Catalino Pedrosa asked Issue: whether or not to affirm the decision.
the appellants to pay but latter said they already did paid
however it was apparently a lie. Catalino confronted the Held Yes, the defendant's statement is unfounded. She is a
appellants and a heated exchange happened which lead to person in authority within the meaning of the law at the
fists being thrown by appellants but the wife of the Captain time of the assault she was piercing the earlobe of a
was there to pull him out of the fight. Later the Captain student which was part of her function. Finding no legal
while escorting his nephew to the latters parents house, error in the affirmed decision, The Supreme Court affirms
he was attacked. A gunshot was heard which prompted the the decision, with costs against the appellant.
Captain's wife to go outside their house but she was halted
by appellant who aimed their guns at her. More shots were
fired to the body of the Captain who was lying on the
44
45