Case Title Facts
Title One
Article 114-Treason
Laurel v. Misa Filipino citizen who gave aid and
comfort to the Japanese contends
that since sovereignty is
suspended, his allegiance as
well is suspended.
People v. Perez Perez with other Filipinos
apprehended women to satisfy
desires of Colonel Mini.
People v. Prieto Accused caused the torture of
several Filipinos
Article 115-Conspiracy to Commit Treason
Held
Allegiance is not suspended upon
the occupation of a foreign
sovereignty.
A citizen owes his government
permanent and absolute
allegiance.
Held: Guilty of Treason. The
occupation of a foreign nation does
not serve as a defense.
Held: The women are not liable for
treason. The commandeering of
women, against their will, to satisfy
the sexual desires of the enemy is
NOT treason because it doesnt
directly or materially improve
the efforts of the enemy.
Held: The two-witness rule was not
satisfied.
There is no complex crime of
Treason and murder/Physical
injuries. The latter are absorbed
in Treason
Remarks
Treason is a war crime. It is
punished by state as a measure
of self-defense and self-
preservation.
Law of treason is an emergency
measure dormant until
emergency arises
What is suspended is the
exercise of rights not
sovereignty
The extent or aid given to the
enemies must be to render
assistance to them as
enemies and NOT MERELY AS
INDIVIDUALS. The form of
assistance must further the
purpose of the enemy;
Also, without any proven
allegiance to the enemy, there is
not treason.
The giving of aid and comfort
can only be accomplished by
some type of action as opposed
by a mental operation.
Murder and physical injuries
are inherent in the crime of
Treason.
US v. Bautista Accused is convicted with
conspiracy to commit Treason. This
was due to his acceptance of the
position in the Republica Universal
Democratica Filipina.
Article 122-Piracy
People v. Lol-lo & Boat of Dutch possession was
Saraw surrounded by 6 vintas with moros.
Took all the cargo, raped women
and attacked some men.
People v. Accused stole equipments and
Rodriguez personal properties of the crew
members and passengers.
Held:
The mere possession of such
appointment, without any
performance of overt acts does not
constitute Treason.
But in the case at bar, there is
genuine conspiracy that exists in
this case. It is proven that the
accused voluntarily accepted
an appointment as an officer in
that conspiracy, we think that this
fact may properly be taken into
consideration as evidence of his
relations with the conspirators.
Piracy is a crime against
mankind. (hostes humani generis)
Only political law is changed.
Municipal laws remain in force.
Piracy is robbery or forcible
depredation on the high seas,
without lawful authority and done
with animo furandi and in the spirit
and intention of universal hostility
Crime was positively testified by 3
witnesses.PD 532: Mandatory
death penalty for persons who
committed piracy with rape,
murder or homicide
Mutiny?
The 2-witness rule does not
apply for the crime of
conspiring to commit
Treason, because such is a
separate and distinct offense
from the crime of Treason.
Conspiracy to commit
treason can be proved by
voluntary accepting such
acts.
Is the 2-witness rule still
applicable today?Created at a
time when the only way to recall
events is through human
memory and human memory is
unreliable.different events:
purpose of the rule is defeated
now, not the only way to prove
treason VIDEOS!
Offender Purpose
Intent to
Piracy External
gain
Mutiny Crew/passenger Defiance
Robbery Crew/Passenger Intent to

Article 123-Qualified Piracy
People v. Siyoh Accused was apprehended
because he was seen the pants
which he took from the victim
Title Two
Article 124-Arbitrary Detention (Warrantless Arrest)
Umil v. Ramos NPA, PISTON
Arrested in a hospital,
Constantinos house, etc.
Accused were charged under PD
532: (Anti-Piracy and Anti-
Highway Robbery Law of 1974)
Special complex crime
regardless of number of
victims
The number of persons killed on
the occasion of piracy is not
material.
GR: Arrest without warrant is
equivalent to Arbitrary Detention.
XPN: Rule 113 Section 5.
a. In flagrante delicto;
b. Arrest in hot pursuit (based
on probable cause rooted on
personal knowledge)
c. Arrest of person evading the
performance of his sentence
Held: The arrest, although
without warrant, is valid
because it falls under the
exception. Subversion is a
continuing crime. Subversion is
anchored on an ideological base
which compels the repetition of the
same acts of lawlessness and
violence until the overriding
objective of overthrowing
organized government is attained.
gain
Qualified Piracy: if successfully
boarded/seized by firing upon
the same, the victims were
abandoned, performance of rape,
murder, homicide, physical
injuries
To qualify: It is enough that
vessel was fired upon even if the
offenders has not yet boarded
Theory of hot pursuit:
supposed to apprehend
the accused but
disappeared and was later
on arrested at home while
asleep
- Why would one who
evades justice would go
home
Principle that subversion
is a continuing offense
- Would a person spend
every waking moment/100% of
the time doing subversive acts?
- Logical: not yet done
with one overt act

People v. Burgos Respondent was being accused by
one Cesar Masamlok of coercing
him to join the CPP/NPA.
Masamlok reports to the police
that a gun was buried and that;
NPA pamphlets were found under a
pile of cogon.
Article 127-Expulsion
Villavicencio v. The Mayor of Manila deported
Lukban women of ill-repute from Manila to
Davao. The women were forced to
work in a hacienda as laborers.
Article 129-Search Warrants Maliciously Obtained
Stonehill v. Diokno 42 search warrants were issued in
order to search the premises of
office/warehouse/residence in
order to take possession of
personal properties such as books
of accounts, financial records, etc.
in order to serve as evidence for
the violation of the Central Bank
Laws, Customs laws, Internal
Held: One of the valid warrantless
arrest under Rule 113 Section 5 is
one in hot pursuit (b). This must
be based on a probable cause
rooted in the personal
knowledge of the arresting
officer.
In the case at bar, the arresting
officer did not have personal
knowledge of the commission of
the crimesuch was based on the
testimony of Masamlok. Also, it
was never proven that a crime
was committee. Such is a
condition sine qua non for a
warrantless arrest to be valid.
Held: There is no law, order, or
regulation that gives a Mayor of the
city of Manila or chief of police that
right to force citizens of the
Philippines. Therefore, the act is
illegal.
The Search warrants were invalid
because they lacked the
specificity being required by
law.
The following are not stated in
the warrant:
a. They do not describe with
particularity the documents,
books, and things to be
- Ridiculous: committing
100% of the time
Warrantless Arrest must be
based on probable cause.
Probable cause must be based
on the personal knowledge of the
arresting officer.
The police had enough time
to secure a warrant, but they
failed to do so. The
circumstances of the case did
not purport an urgent arrest.
If one does not have the
authority to do so, one cannot
cause the expulsion or the
changing of the abode by an
individual.
Only the Court can order a
person to change his residence
Level of specificity
- Look for evidence or fish for
evidence
- No idea of a specific crime
committed
- No specific charge
Fruit of the poison tree
 Revenue Code and RPC
Burgos v. Chief of Metropolitan Mail, We Forum
Staff Through the means of a search
warrant, a search was done in the
seized
b. cash money not mentioned
in the warrants, were
actually seized;
c. The warrants were issued to
fish information for the
deportment cases filed
against them
d. The search and seizures
were done in an illegal
manner
e. The documents, papers, and
money obtained were not
delivered to the court which
issued such search warrant
Therefore, the documents obtained
from such searches are
inadmissible as evidence.
General Warrants should be
outlawed.
The search warrants were invalid
because there was no sufficient
probable cause.
- Prohibit illegal search and all
fruits obtained from it
Why use exclusionary
principle when we
already have A.128?
- Incentive/disincentive
- Need for other means of
deterrence
- If more lenient to police
officers= the government will
benefit from the search
- Tendency: just do it, will be
pardoned later on
Exclusionary rule
- Deterrence
- Imperative of judicial integrity
- Should not profit from lawless
behavior
- Minimize risk of seriously
undermining popular trust in
government
2 points must be stressed in
connection with this
constitutional mandate, namely:
1. That no warrant shall
issue but upon probable
cause to be determined
by the judge;
2. That the warrant shall
particularly describe the
thing to be seized;
No search warrant shall issue
for more than one specific
offense.
The prosecution did not
discuss what subversive
acts were committed
 office of the We Forum in order to
seize printing machines and
equipment, motor vehicles,
numerous paper and documents
Article 133-Offending Religious Feelings
People v. Baes Church of Christ
The funeral would pass the
churchyard of a Roman Catholic
Church. The pries prevented them
but was threatened with physical
violence. He was prevailed.
- Police did not make
factual statements;
- The police should have
described what is there
and let the judge make
the conclusion;
- Determination of WON
the act is subversive is
done by the courts
What the police did it is
subversive
What they shouldve
done: present evidence of
subversion like written
articles, etc.
Distinguish between
factual and non-factual
statements
Ownership, therefore, is of no
consequence, and it is sufficient
that the person against whom
the warrant is directed has
control or possession of the
property sought to be seized;
Probable cause for a search is defined as
such facts and circumstances which
would lead a reasonably discreet and
prudent man to believe that an offense
has been committed and that the objects
sought in connection with the offense are
in the place sought to be searched;
The Fiscal was ordered to comply The offense of
with his duties. The case is religious feelings is
REMANDED. according to the
feelings of the
- The question of WON it is Catholic and not on
offensive to the religious the other faithful
 feelings of the faithful is a ones;
The fiscal dismissed the case for question of fact. It is GR: It must be based on the
insufficiency of evidence. determined in a proceeding. perspective of the one offended;

It is not a ruling on guilt but on

sufficiency of allegation for trial
to proceed
Title Three
Article 134-Rebellion, Insurrection,
Article 134-A Coup d Etat
People v. High ranking officials who are The Court found Hernandez not Common crimes such as murder,
Hernandez members of the Communist Party guilty of the crime of rebellion. homicide and physical injuries
of the Philippines willfully are absorbed or inherent in the
supported, promoted and crime of rebellion.
command the Hukbalahaps to rise
publicly and take arms against the
government for the purpose of
removing the Philippines from the
allegiance to the government.
Hernandez was the head of the
CLO which served as the
preparation of the members for
the uprising that would come.
Enrile v. Salazar Enrile was arrested and charged The Hernandez ruling is maintained Why not complex?
with rebellion with murder and wherein the common crimes of Conceptual: They are elements
multiple frustrated murder in line murder and physical injuries are of the crime of rebellion;
with failed coup attempt. absorbed in the crime of rebellion. Statutory: In the old law, the
They cannot serve to complex the common crimes are punished
latter. Accused is guilty of simple separately because they serve to
rebellion. further the interest of rebellion.
But now, the statutory clause
cannot be invoked.

Applying Article 48 would be

more unfavorable to the accused
which is against the tenor of
the Article
Enrile v. Amin Enrile was charged with PD 1829
for harboring and concealing
Honasan in his house.
Ocampo v. Abando A mass grave was found by Police.
Such dead bodies were the cause
of the Operation Veneral Disease.
As held in People v. Hernandez, supra:
In short, political crimes are those
directly aimed against the political order,
as well as such common crimes as may
be committed to achieve a political
purpose. The decisive factor is the
intent or motive
Jurisprudence tells us that acts
committed in furtherance of the rebellion
though crimes in themselves are
deemed absorbed in the one single
crime of rebellion.
All crimes, whether punishable under a
special law or general law, which are
mere components or ingredients, or
committed in furtherance thereof,
become absorbed in the crime of
rebellion and can not be isolated and
charged as separate crimes in
themselves.
He cannot be separately charged
with PD 1829 and the crime of
rebellion.
They are held guilty of the political
crime of rebellion. The acts that
they have done where in
furtherance of the cause of
rebellion.
There is an overlap of factual
foundation.
The two crimes use the same
evidence.
Same Basisthe government
has to make up its mind on what
it should charge;
The theory of absorption in
rebellion cases must not
confine itself to common
crimes, but also under
special laws which are
perpetrated in furtherance of
the political offense.
Political Offense Doctrine
"common crimes, perpetrated in
furtherance of a political offense, are
divested of their character as
"common" offenses and assume
the political complexion of the
main crime of which they are mere
ingredients, and, consequently,
cannot be punished separately from
the principal offense, or complexed
with the same, to justify the imposition
of a graver penalty."
People v. The accused shot a policeman. In
Lovedioro his defense, he identified himself
as an NPA.
Article 139-Sedition
People v. Umali There was a conflict between two
political factions. This ended up on
an attack made by Umali on the
house of his opponentthis was
assisted by members of a rebel
group. After which, Umali and his
companions fled to the other town.
People v. Cabrera Outrage of Policemen
regarding the Constabulary vs.
the Police
There is a rift between a
constabulary and a police officer. A
rumor spread that the member of
constabulary was allowed to
resume work. The 77 soldiers
escaped their barracks and had a
shooting spree
Article 142-Inciting to Sedition
US v. Tolentino Kahapon, Ngayon at Bukas
A play was presented in Teatro
Libertad wherein false, seditious
and scurrilous language were
used.
Espuelas v. People Pictured himself to be hanging
lifeless
Accused took a picture of himself
to be hanging lifelessly with a
suicide note containing the
The accused is charged with
murder. The membership in the
NPA is merely an afterthought, the
defense merely picked up and
followed through upon the
witness testimony.
The accused is found guilty of
sedition. It is considered an act of
hate performed upon the property
or person of any public official or
officer
Sedition is a separate offense from
murder and physical injuries.
Sedition is raising of commotion in
the State. The persons inflicting
any act of hate or revenge upon
the person or property of an official
agent.
The accused is found to be guilty.
The manner and form of expression
as well as current environment are
important considerations.
The offender is guilty.
It was scurrilous and he suggested
the assassination of the President
Roxas.
The burden of proving the
political motive lies on the
defense
Catch 22:
Confess as a member or if you
wont it will not be appreciated
Common crimes are not
absorbed in sedition.
Sedition does not absorb
other offenses (common
crimes).
Sedition is a violation of public
peace, while murder is a crime
against persons.
No distinction as to persons to
which it applies.
Time, Place, Manner Doctrine
There is no need to prove that
people actually committed
sedition. There is only a need to
prove, if it is implied/indirect,
in the sense that it leaves
the audience to interpret.
Variance in appreciation
underscores the difficulty. There
is a Clear and Present Danger
rule.
- It punishes the tendency
 following:
- Displeased/ashamed of
government;
- Infested with Hitlers and
Mussolinis;
- Unable to put under juez de
cuchillo all the Roxas
people
Article 145-Violation of Parliamentary Immunity
Martinez v. Morfe Immunity from Arrests
Both the accused were members
of the Constitutional Convention.
One was charged with falsification
while the other was accused of
illegal campaigning (both are
criminal charges)
Article 148-Direct Assault
People v. Beltran Puzon Compound
Mayor and Chief of Police went to
the compound of the
Congressman. Upon reaching the
compound, there was
simultaneous discharge of gunfire.
The mayor was injured and his son
was killed,
People v. Dollantes Barangay Captain
Barangay captain was stabbed to
death while delivering his speech
during a town dance.
Justo v. CA Accused assaulted the supervisor
of the school due to the failure of
the latter to give a certain Ms.
Racelis a position in the school.
to incite sedition.
The accused are not immune. This is a gray area, because civil
Lawmakers are exempt only from liability doesnt include arrests.
civil arrests and not from arrest Article 145 of the RPC is
involving crimes. superseded by Article 16 Sec 2 of
the Constitution.
1935 Constitution: No exemption
from criminal arrests
- There is no civil arrest
here in the Philippines;
- No one gets imprisoned in
civil cases
Direct Assault
The mayor is a person in authority and the other was a policeman who
is an agent of a person in authority. Both were in the performance of
their duties to maintain peace and order in the community.
Direct Assault Construe it as wide as possible.In
It is the captains duty to enforce the Philippines, there are a lot of
the laws and ordinances within the ceremonial functions.
barangay.
Direct Assault Direct Assault by reason of the
The supervisor was assaulted performance of ones official
because of the performance of his function.
function;

Article 156-Delivery of Prisoners from Jail
Alberto v. Dela Assistant Provincial Warden
Cruz Orbita was supposed to bring the
prisoner to the Governors house
to help in the construction of a
fence. He left the prisoner
unguarded and so the latter
managed to escape.
Article 157-Evasion of Service of Sentence
Tanega v. Never Arrested
Masakayan The accused was convicted of
Slander but was never arrested.
People v. Abilong Destierro
Accused was sentenced to
destierro for attempted robbery,
but he went beyond the limits
made against him.
Article 159-Violation of Conditional Pardon
Torres v. Gonzales Conditional Pardon
Accused was granted pardon on
the premise that he will not
commit any crime under the RPC.
He was charged with 20 counts of
The acceptance of the challenge
does not serve to divest the
supervisor of his position. Such is
lost by operation of law or passage
of time.
Neither the governor nor the
warden are guilty under Article
156. Also, they are not guilty under
Article 223 because the letter did
not list the names of the prisoners
thus negating any connivance.
Prescription does not start to run
because of the evasion of the
sentence.
Accused is guilty of evasion of his
sentence.
The SC relied on the Spanish text,
wherein destierro is about the
deprivation of liberty to enter the
prohibited zone.
Conviction of crime by final
judgment is NOT NECESSARY. If the
President chooses the RAC, no
pronouncement is needed to
recommit the convict.
Ones status as a person in
authority is specific to the
position held. It does not become
divested by the acceptance of an
offer to fight
A. 156 committed by outsider
not in charge with custody
A. 223 public officer who
connived or consented
A. 224 Negligence
The accused was never arrested,
therefore, how could she
avoid/evade it.
Custody: Place at the disposal
of authorities
Reckoning point: When under
the custody (inside the prison)
Grant of Pardon:
1. Administrative (Section
64 of the Revised
Administrative Code)
2. Judicial Act (Article 159,
 estafa.
Article 160-Quasi-Recidivism
People v. Dioso New Bilibid Prison
Both the accused were already
serving their sentence. They were
members of Batang Mindanao
gang rival of Happy Go Lucky
gang. They feigned sickness so
they could kill the victim who was
then confined in the prison
hospital.
Article 166-Forgery
Del Rosario v. Genuine Treasury Notes
People Genuine treasury notes where
presented however one digit of the
serial number had been erased.
Article 171-Falsification
Siquian v. People 20-year-old clerk
Mayor employed a girl for a clerk
position, when no such position
existed. There was falsification of
the budget proposal which
included such position.
People v. Villalon Attorney in fact
Attorney was only authorized to
manage half of the portion of the
land. But, the attorney made it
seem that he was authorized to
Maximum Penalty is given
regardless of the mitigating
circumstances.
Title Four
The accused is guilty of the 2nd
manner of Falsification. (erase,
alter, substitute etc.)
The accused is guilty under Article
171 for taking advantage of his
position. He is guilty of falsification
in the narration of facts
Action has prescribed.
RPC)
Quasi Recidivism: committing
a felony while serving the
sentence of a prior offense.
What is punished is not merely
the harm to the public that may
be caused if it enters the
circulation but also potential
danger that counterfeiter
produces should he apply his
trade.
Defrauding people in buying the
coin
The defense of the conclusion of
law will not prosper.
The accused wrote something
else which made it appear as if
he was given the authority.
 manage the whole of land.
U.S. v. Capule Accused by agreement and
cooperation with a notary public
prepared and drew up a sale,
made it seem that the owner of
the land agreed to it, when in fact
there was no consent. The
document was actually an SPA.
People v. Accused made it seem that the
Manansala cans here were selling were full of
opium, when in fact it was not. It
contained sand and molasses.
Article 172-Use of Falsified Document
US v. Castillo Accused, a clerk in a bank,
presented to one Chinese
merchant Lim Ponso a check. That
the same check was payable to
bearer and purported to be drawn
by one James T. Watkins. The said
check was a forgery.
People v. Dava License
Accused was involved in a
vehicular accident. Upon such
accident his license was
confiscated. After which, the
accused was found again driving
his car with a brand new license.
The license was falsified by a fixer.
Article 177-Usurpation
Gigantoni v. CIS Agent
People Accused presented himself as a
CIS Agent (Constabulary Officer) to
investigate the kidnappings in PAL.
He is guilty of falsification by
making it seem that the couple
participated in a contract, when in
fact they did not.
Accused is guilty of estafa under Any person who shall defraud
Article 315. another through unfaithfulness
or abuse of confidence by
altering the substance, quantity,
or quality of anything of value
which the offender shall deliver
by virtue of an obligation to do
so, even though such obligation
be based on an immoral or illegal
consideration.
The accused is found guilty of Utterance when, unexplained, is
falsification of a public document. strong proof tending to establish
that it is forged.
The accused is guilty of falsification
because he really did not have any
license.
The accused is not guilty of Usurpation of authority
usurpation because he had no prior
knowledge of his dismissal. This is
against the regularity of the
 The accused was actually an
officer of the Black Mountain
Corporation who is investigating
the flights of the member of the
corporation.
Estrada v. Desierto Freezing of accounts by the
BIR
Petitioner alleges that the Officer
of the BIR is usurping the position
of Commissioner of the BIR.
Article 178-Using Fictitious Name
Hock Lian v. Accused is applying for
Republic naturalization. In connection to
this, he used the alias Julian Ong in
his application. He was not
baptized of such name.
Legamia v. IAC Live-in Arrangement
Woman claims to be the wife and
claims death benefits of dead
husband. Husband is married to
someone else but they
represented themselves as
married couple for 19 years and
has a child.
Limson v. Juan Use of Different name in the
Gonzalez Practice
Petitioner charges Respondent for
the use of a Fictitious name in his
practice as an Architect.
Article 183-Perjury
Diaz v. People Civil Service Commission,
reappointment as school
administrator
Accused misrepresented himself to
have graduated from
function of the officers that were
supposed to inform him. Therefore,
he did not knowingly portray
himself under an unauthorized
position
The accused is not guilty of Usurpation of official functions
usurpation because she was made
officer-in-charge by the President.
Accused is found guilty for the use Under the law, except as a
of a fictitious name pseudonym for literary purposes,
no person shall use any name
different from the one with which
he was christened or by which he
has been known since childhood,
or such substitute name as
allowed by Court.
The accused is not guilty. The use In order to be guilty under
of last names by live-in couples is fictitious name, the accused
not uncommon in Philippine must assume the role with
society. The accused did not use sinister purpose.
such name for a sinister purpose,
but for the benefit of her child
The Respondent is NOT GUILTY
because the names used were his
genuine name. The mere addition
of the Juan does not constitute
the use of fictitious name.
The accused is found guilty for He is not guilty of falsification
Perjury. because such act was done in a
CSC application form (affidavit).
This is well presented in the case
of People v. Cruz
 Cosmopolitan and Harvardian
college when in fact he was not.

Article 183-Subornation of Perjury

People v. Pudol Pudolprincipal by direct Pudolused as a witness, Subornation of perjury is no
participation; considered innocent longer punished under the RPC.
Albertoprincipal by inducement Albertoguilty under Article 17 of It is now punished under Article
inducement of perjury 17
Article 185-Machination in Public Actions
Ouano v. CA Auction Guilty.Agreement that one will refrain from taking part in auction and
inducing another bidder to not bid is considered machination in public
Ouano and Echavez agreed that auctions.
only the latter would bid and if
accepted they will divide the
property. They also induce the
other party to withdraw.