People v Ga G.R. No.

L-49831 June 27, 1990

Facts: Accused-appellant and other 2 co-accused killed an old couple in Forbes Park and their housemate and serious
injury to the latter’s daughter in the course of a robbery of a wristwatch worth P100.00 and a transistor radio worth
P60.00. Accused were convicted for the crime of Robbery with Triple Homicide and Frustrated Homicide and imposing
the penalties of three death sentences for each of the accused.

Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in considering commission of a crime by a band as an aggravating
circumstance in this case.

Held: No. The court held that a band (en cuadrilla) consists of at least four malefactors who are all armed. In this case
there were only three perpetrators and two weapons, a kitchen knife and a dagger. Clearly, the terrible threesome of
the accused did not constitute a band.

People v Tac-an G.R. No. 76338-39 February 26, 1990

Facts: Accused while acting under the influence of drugs and without any license or permit from the proper authorities,
did have ill his possession custody and control an unlicensed firearm and used the said firearm and ammunitions to
shoot one Francis Ernest Escano III hitting and inflicting upon the latter the following gunshot wounds. Appellant
contends that he had voluntarily surrendered and that the trial court should have considered that mitigating
circumstance in his favor.

Issue: Whether or not Renato's voluntary surrender warrant him a mitigating circumstance.

Held: No. Renato surrendered his gun, not himself, to his brother, who was not in any case a person in authority nor an
agent of a person in authority. The fact that he did not resist arrest, did not constitute voluntary surrender. Assuming he
surrendered, such surrender cannot be regarded as voluntary and spontaneous.

People v Arrojado G.R. No. 130492 January 31, 2001

Facts: Accused-appellant allegedly killed his cousin and was convicted for the crime of murder. He claims that his cousin
committed suicide. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in finding him guilty on the ground that the victim
abused and oppressed him giving him more reason to kill the victim.

Issue: Whether or not there is aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence

Held: Yes. It is essential to show that the confidence between the parties must be immediate and personal such as
would give the accused some advantage or make it easier for him to commit the criminal act. In this case, while the
victim may have intimated her fear for her safety, her fears were subsequently allayed as shown by the fact that she
took back her personal effects from Erlinda. Thinking that accused-appellant would not do her any harm, the victim
allowed accused-appellant to sleep in the same room with her father and left the bedroom doors unlocked.

People v de los Reyes G.R. No. L-44112 October 22, 1992

Facts: Accused-appellants were charged for the crime of robbery with homicide and multiple physical injuries. On
appeal, they contend that co- accused de los Reyes forced and intimidated them into joining him in the commission of
the crime.

Issue: Whether or not exculpation from criminal liability by interposing irresistible force is an exempting circumstance

Held: No. The court held that to be exempt from criminal liability, a person invoking irresistible force or uncontrollable
fear must show that the force exerted was such that it reduced him to a mere instrument who acted not only without
will but against his will. In this case, accused-appellants failed to show that they were left no choice but to follow the
order of de los Reyes. Before and during the robbery, they did not take advantage of the many opportunities available to
them to escape from Faustino or at least avoid being involved with him in his criminal design.

People v Manalo G.R. No. L-8586, May 25, 1956

Facts: Accused, a habitual delinquent, was charged for the crime of theft. On appeal, he initially pleaded not guilty but
when the case was called for hearing, the asked permission to withdraw his plea of not guilty and substitute with plea of
guilty. The court then imposed upon him the principal penalty of 6 months and 1 day of prision correctional and to pay
the costs, and for habitual delinquency, an additional penalty of 30 days of reclusion temporal.

Issue: Whether or not the court erred in the penalty imposed against the accused

Held:

People v de Jesus G. R. No. 45198, October 31, 1936

Facts:

Issue:
Held:

People v Torriba G. R. Nos. 7450, 7461, 7452, September 18, 1912

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

People v Atienza G.R. No. L-38571 March 31, 1980

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

People v Layson G.R. No. L-25177 October 31, 1969

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

People v Abella G.R. No. L-32205 August 31, 1979

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

People v Paredes G.R. No. L-19149 August 16, 1968

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

People v Alincastre G.R. No. L-29891 August 30, 1971

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

People v Amion G.R. No. L-29891 August 30, 1971

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

People v Jaurigue C.A. No. 384 February 21, 1946

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

People v Race G.R. No. 93143 August 4, 1992

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

People v Saylan G.R. No. L-36941 June 29, 1984

Facts:

Issue:
Held:

People v Abella G.R. No. L-32205 August 31, 1979

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

People v Layson G.R. No. L-25177 October 31, 1969

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

People v Mendoza G.R. No. L-16392 January 30, 1965

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

People v Lee G.R. No. L-66848 December 20, 1991

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

People v Lapan G.R. No. 88300 July 6, 1992

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

People v Lucas G.R. No. 80102 January 22, 1990

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

People v Lucas G.R. Nos. 108172-73 May 25, 1994

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

People v Reyes G.R. Nos. 101127-31 November 18, 1993

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

People v Torrefiel G.R. No. 115431 April 18, 1996

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

People v Subido G.R. No. L-21734 September 5, 1975

Facts:

Issue:
Held:

People v Villabel G.R. No. L-32104 March 25, 1983

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

People v Marlon Delim G.R. No. 142773 January 28, 2003

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

People v Leon Dilim

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

People v Balderama

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

People v Agapinay G.R. No. 77776 June 27, 1990

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

People v Madali G.R. Nos. L-67803-04 July 30, 1990

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

Tan v People G.R. No. 134298 August 26, 1999

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

Capili v CA G.R. No. 139250 August 15, 2000

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

Taer v CA G.R. No. 85204 June 18, 1990

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

Enrile v Amin G.R. No. 93335 September 13, 1990

Facts:

Issue:
Held:

People v Verzola G.R. No. L-35022 December 21, 1977

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

US v Mendoza G.R. No. 7540 September 23, 1912

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

Vino v People G.R. No. 84163 October 19, 1989

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

People v Billion

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

People v Bayot G.R. No. L-44564 March 30, 1937

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

Bagtas v DOP G.R. No. L-3215 October 6, 1949

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

People v Bayotas G.R. No. 102007 September 2, 1994

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

Mansion Biscuit Corp Case G.R. No. 94713 November 23, 1995

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

People v Factoran G.R. No. 78239 February 9, 1989

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

People v Tuppal G.R. Nos. 137982-85 January 13, 2003

Facts:

Issue:
Held:

Salgado v CA G.R. No. 89606 August 30, 1990

Facts:

Issue:

Held:
 TITLE I

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

Facts: Laurel filed a petition for habeas corpus contending that a Filipino citizen who adhered to the enemy giving the
latter aid and comfort during the Japanese occupation cannot be prosecuted for the crime of treason for the reason that
the sovereignty of the Philippine government and Filipino allegiance was suspended; and that there was a change of
sovereignty upon the proclamation of the Philippine Republic:

Issue: Whether or not allegiance is qualified and temporary

Held: No. A citizen or subjects owes absolute and permanent allegiance, which consists in the obligation of fidelity and
obedience to his government or sovereign. It should not be confused with the qualified and temporary allegiance which
a foreigner owes to the government or sovereign of the territory wherein he resides.

Estrada v Sandiganbayan

Facts: Estrada was charged for the crime of Plunder. Petitioner contends that R.A. No. 7080 is unconstitutional on its
face and as applied to him and denies him the equal protection of the laws.

Issue: Whether or not was denied equal protection of laws

Held: No. Petitioner’s contention that R.A. No. 7080 is unconstitutional as applied to him is principally perched on the
premise that the Amended Information charged him with only one act or one offense which cannot constitute plunder.
Sandiganbayan has found probable cause against the petitioner for which reason it issued a warrant of arrest against
him. Petitioner then underwent arraignment and trial. The time to assail the finding of probable cause by the
Ombudsman has long passed.

People v Abad

Facts: Accused Abad was found guilty of the complex crime of treason with homicide by giving aid and comfort to the
Empire of Japan and the Japanese Imperial Forces. Appellant questioned that the lower court in finding the accused
guilty on the first count, notwithstanding the fact only one witness testified to the overt act alleged therein.

Issue: Whether or not one witness is enough to testify to each over act

Held: No. The two-witness rule must be adhered to as to each and every one of all the external manifestations of the
overt act in issue. Although both overt acts are inter-related. it would be too much to strain the imagination if they
should be identified as a single act or even as different manifestations, phases, or stage of the same overt act. The
singleness of purpose is not enough to make one of two acts.

US v Lagnayon

Facts: Defendant with this band made an attack upon the pueblo of Murcia in Negros Occidental but was driven off by
the Constabulary. The defendant was charged with the crime of treason.

Issue: Whether or not defendant committed treason

Held: Yes. Sections 1 of Act No. 292 of the Philippine Commission states that every person, resident in the Philippine
Islands, owing allegiance to the United States, or the Government of the Philippine Islands, who levies war against them
or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the Philippine Islands or elsewhere, is guilty of treason.
The acts committed by the defendant constituted a "levying of war" as that phrase was understood at the time the act
of the Commission was passed, cannot be doubted. Neither can it be doubted that these same acts constituted a
"rebellion or insurrection" within the meaning of the third section of Act No. 292.

People v Bate

Facts: Bate was charged with treason on six counts. He claims that he had no connection with nor was he present in the
several raids attributed to him under the several counts.

Issue: Whether or not appellant committed treason

Held: Yes. The court held that during the period covered by these counts the appellant was always seen armed and in
the company of Filipinos undercover men who allied themselves with their superiors — the Japanese soldiers and
Military Police. The appellant was seen always accompanying and aiding these raiding parties and took quote an
important part in them, questioning the people found during the raids, apprehending them, tying them up, even
threatening and torturing them in an effort to obtain the information desired. Furthermore, there is no reason known
why the witness for the prosecution should falsely accused the appellant of these grave charges.

People v Pordales

Facts:

Issue:
Held:

People v Morales

Facts: Morales is charged for the crime of treason. Appellant insists that their identity was not properly identified.

Issue: Whether or not Morales is a Filipino citizen to be charged of treason.

Held: Yes. Appellant's Filipino citizenship is proven by certified true copies of his identification record card and certificate
of citizenship, the originals of which are on file on the Bureau of Prisons. Since these are official records, it was not
necessary to identify them.

People v Villanueva

Facts: Appellant gave the enemy aid and comfort by rendering service with the Japanese Imperial Army as secret agent,
informer and spy, of its Detective Force in the province of Iloilo. The appellant put up the defense of duress allegedly
exerted by the Japanese upon him for which he had to serve in the detective force of the Japanese Army.

Issue: Whether or not appellant be held of treason

Held: Yes. Except the lone and self-serving testimony of the appellant that he was coerced to cooperate with and serve
the Japanese soldiers, there is not an iota of proof that he was in fact compelled or coerced by the Japanese. Much less
is there any evidence showing that the alleged compulsion or coercion was grave and imminent.

People v Racaza

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

People v Icaro

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

People v Roble

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

People v Mangahas

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

People v Perez

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

People v Fernando

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

People v Munoz

Facts:

Issue:

Held:
People v Nunez

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

People v Canibas

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

People v Delos Santos

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

People v Adriano

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

People v Ecleto

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

US v Magtibay

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

People v Tulin

Facts:

Issue:

Held: