ANASTACIO LAUREL, PETITIONER, VS. ERIBERTO MISA, JOSE JINGGOY E.
JOSE JINGGOY E. ESTRADA, PETITIONER,
RESPONDENT.[ G.R. No. 409, January 30, 1947 ] 77 Phil. 856
Facts:
Anastacio 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 defined and penalized by article 114 of the Revised
Penal Code, for the reason (1) that the sovereignty of the legitimate
government in the Philippines and, consequently, the correlative
allegiance of Filipino citizens thereto was then suspended; and (2) that
there was a change of sovereignty over these Islands upon the
proclamation of the Philippine Republic.
Issue:
Is Laurels contention correct?
Decision:
No. A citizen or subject owes, not a qualified and temporary,
but an absolute and permanent allegiance. The absolute and permanent
allegiance of the inhabitants of a territory occupied by the enemy to their
legitimate government or sovereign is not abrogated or severed by the
enemy occupation, because the sovereignty of the government or
sovereign de jure is not transferred thereby to the occupier.
Title I CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAWS OF NATIONS Page 1 of 14
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE,
VS.SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION), PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES AND OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN,
RESPONDENTS.[ G.R. No. 148965, February 26, 2002 ]
Facts:
Petitioner invokes the equal protection clause of the
Constitution in his bid to be excluded from the charge of plunder under
Republic Act No. 7080 filed against him by the respondent Ombudsman.
Issue:
Is the petitioner denied of the equal protection of the laws?
Decision:
No. Petitioners 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 is patently false. To insist that
the Amended Information charged the petitioner with the commission of
only one act or offense despite the phrase several instances is to
indulge in a twisted, nay, pretzel interpretation. It is too late in the day
for the petitioner to argue that the Ombudsman failed to establish any
probable cause against him for plunder. The respondent
Sandiganbayan itself has found probable cause against the petitioner for
which reason it issued a warrant of arrest against him. The time to
assail the finding of probable cause by the Ombudsman has long
passed.
VS.FRANCISCO M. ABAD (ALIAS PAQUITO), DEFENDANT AND
APPELLANT.[ G.R. No. L-430, July 30, 1947 ]78 Phil. 766
Facts:
Francisco Abad was found guilty on three counts of the
complex crime of treason with homicide. The information charged
appellant of the crime of treason by giving aid and comfort to the Empire
of Japan and the Japanese Imperial Forces. The first question raised by
appellant is that the lower court erred in finding the accused guilty on the
first count, notwithstanding the fact that only one witness testified to the
overt act alleged therein.
Issue:
Is the appellant correct?
Decision:
Yes. 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 stages of the same overt act.
Although both acts may logically be presumed to have answered the
same purpose, the singleness of purpose is not enough to make one of
two acts.
THE UNITED STATES, COMPLAINANT AND APPELLEE,
VS.DALMACIO LAGNASON, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.[ G.R.
No. 1582, March 28, 1904 ] 3 Phil. 472
Facts:
The defendant with this band made an attack upon the pueblo
of Murcia in the Province of Occidental Negros, but was driven off by the
force of Constabulary there stationed. During that night two inspectors of
the Constabulary arrived with additional fortes and early in the morning
they left the pueblo in search of the defendant. He was encountered with
his party about three kilometers from the pueblo and was attacked by
the Constabulary.The defendant was captured in the battle.
Issue:
Did the defendant commit treason?
Decision:
Yes. 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.
Title I CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAWS OF NATIONS Page 2 of 14
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE,
VS. MAXIMO BATE (ALIAS BORJA, ALIAS PATSO), DEFENDANT
AND APPELLANT. [ G.R. No. L-1547, January 28, 1949 ]82 Phil. 716
Facts:
Bate was found guilty on six counts of treason. On one count,
the appellant who was then armed and who was accompanied by
several undercover men arrested Francisca Bacalla and took her to Sgt.
Yoshida, chief of the Japanese Military Police, where she was
investigated and maltreated. As pointed out by the Solicitor General,
only one witness FelisaTaboado testified as to Bacalla's arrest by the
appellant and only one witness, ConradoBao, the cook of Sgt. Yoshida
testified about her investigation at Yoshida's house by the defendant.
Issue:
Can the appellant be held guilty of treason?
Decision:
Yes. Although not sufficient to prove the overt acts of which
Bate is accused, nevertheless, the evidence may be considered as proof
of his adherence to the enemy.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE,
VS.LORENZO MORALES, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.[ G.R. No.
L-4533, May 28, 1952 ]91 Phil. 445
Facts:
Morales was charged with the crime of treason. He insists that
his mere presence is not sufficient to constitute treason.
Issue:
Can the appellant be held guilty of treason?
Decision:
Yes. Morales was carrying a firearm and was seen behaving
as a guard. During the Japanese occupation, nobody could carry a gun
freely in the presence of Japanese soldiers, unless he was an agent of
or in cahoots with the enemy. It is far-fetched to suppose that the
defendant happened to be in the place above mentioned as a mere
spectator. Openly carrying a firearm, while going with Japanese soldiers,
can only be reconciled with the idea that the man was in league with and
had the confidence of the enemy.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE,
VS.PEDRO T. VILLANUEVA, DEFENDANT AND APPELALNT.[ G. R.
No. L-9529, August 30, 1958 ]104 Phil. 450
Facts:
The prosecution established that during the Japanese
occupation, appellant, who is a Filipino citizen, and owing allegiance to
the United States of America and the Commonwealth of the Philippines,
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:
Can the appellant be held guilty of treason?
Decision:
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.
Title I CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAWS OF NATIONS Page 3 of 14
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE,
VS.ANTONIO RACAZA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.[ G.R. No.
L-365, January 21, 1949 ]82 Phil. 623
Facts:
Racaza was found guilty on fourteen counts of treason. The
trial court found the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation,
superior strength, treachery and employment of means for adding
ignominy to the natural effects of the crime.
Issue:
Is the finding of the trial court proper as regards the
aggravating circumstances?
Decision:
No. Evident premeditation, superior strength, and treachery
are, by their nature, inherent in the offense of treason and may not be
taken to aggravate the penalty. Adherence and the giving of aid and
comfort to the enemy is a long, continued process requiringfixed,
reflective and persistent determination and planning. Treachery is
merged in superior strength. To overcome the opposition and wipe out
resistance movements, the use of a large force and equipment was
necessary. The enemy to whom the accused adhered was itself the
personification of brute, superior force, and it was this superior force
which enabled him to overrun the country and for a time subdue its
inhabitants by his brutal rule.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE,
VS.ELEUTERIO ICARO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.[ G. R. No.
L-2956, May 23, 1951 ]89 Phil. 12
Facts:
Icaro was found guilty of treason. He denies that he was a
Makapili.
Issue:
Can the appellant be held guilty of treason?
Decision:
Yes. The point becomes unnecessary, since adherence to the
enemy may be inferred from the overt acts of treason committed by the
appellant, consisting in the arrest of persons suspected of being
guerrillas who, with the exception of one Emilio Biscocho, were never
seen again, especially because the appellant was armed and in
company with armed Japanese soldiers and other Filipinos.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE,
VS.GAUDENCIO ROBLE, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.[ G.R. No.
L-433, March 02, 1949 ]83 Phil. 1
Facts:
Charged with treason on three counts, the defendant pleaded
guilty and was sentenced to death by the First Division of the People's
Court. The court held that the facts alleged in the information is a
complex crime of treason with murders, with the result that the penalty
provided for the most serious offense was to be imposed on its
maximum degree. It opined that the killings were murders qualified by
treachery and aggravated by the circumstances of evident
premeditation, superior strength, cruelty, and an armed band.
Issue:
Is the penalty correct?
Decision:
No. As decided in People v. Racaza, evident premeditation,
superior strength, and treachery are, by their nature, inherent in the
offense of treason and may not be taken to aggravate the penalty.
Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant's
spontaneous plea of guilty is sufficient to entitle him to a penalty below
the maximum. The appealed decision is therefore modified and the
sentence reduced to reclusion perpetua.
Title I CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAWS OF NATIONS Page 4 of 14
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE,
VS.CAYETANO MANGAHAS AND MARIANO DE LOS SANTOS
MANGAHAS, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.[ G.R. Nos. L-5367
& L-5368, June 09, 1953 ]
Facts:
The defendants were found guilty of the crime of treason. They
claim that there is no proof of adherence to the enemy.
Issue:
Can the defendants be held guilty of treason?
Decision:
Yes. The acts of arresting guerrillas, commandeering
foodstuffs, doing sentry work, drilling in the plaza, going around the town
carrying firearms, and the fact that before the outbreak of the war they
were members of the Ganap Party and in the latter period of the
Japanese occupation of the Makapili organization, are more than
sufficient proofs of adherence to the enemy.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE,
VS.SUSANO PEREZ (ALIAS KID PEREZ), DEFENDANT AND
APPELLANT.[ G.R. No. L-856, April 18, 1949 ]83 Phil. 314
Facts:
Perez furnished women for immoral purposes to the enemies.
He was convicted of treason.
Issue:
Can Perez be held guilty of treason?
Decision:
No. The law of treason does not proscribe all kinds of social,
business and political intercourse between the belligerent occupants of
the invaded country and its inhabitants. What aid and comfort constitute
treason must depend upon their nature; degree and purpose. As a
general rule, to be treasonous the extent of the aid and comfort given to
the enemies must be to render assistance to them as enemies and not
merely as individuals, and, in addition, be directly in furtherance of the
enemies' hostile designs. Sexual and social relations with the Japanese
did not directly and materially tend to improve their war efforts or to
weaken the power of the United States.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE,
VS.JOSE FERNANDO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.[ G.R. No. L-
1138, December 17, 1947 ] 79 Phil. 719
Facts:
Fernando was found guilty of the crime of treason. He claimed
that he was forced into the service of the Kempei-tai, the Japanese
military police organization.
Issue:
Can the appellant be held guilty of treason?
Decision:
Yes. It is incredible that, while appellant was undergoing
detention and maltreatment for his alleged connection with the
resistance movement, the Japanese should, without much ceremony,
upon appellant's show of willingness to abide by their order to serve
them, release him, provide him with firearms, and put under his charge a
group of Filipino informers in the service of the Kempei-tai. To place
appellant in such a responsible position, full of opportunity and means
either of helping the Japanese or sabotaging their military efforts,
appellant must beforehand have shown them strong evidence of
adherence and loyalty for the Japanese to trust him.
Title I CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAWS OF NATIONS Page 5 of 14
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE,
VS.FORTUNATO MUOZ (ALIAS FORTUNATO VIZCARRA),
DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.[ G.R. No. L-880, December 17, 1947
]79 Phil. 702
Facts:
Muoz was found guilty of treason. He alleged his presence at
about one hundred yards from the raided hideout was due not to his own
will but to the fact that the Japanese brought him to the place to carry
foodstuffs, with hands tied at his back.
Issue:
Can the appellant be held guilty of treason?
Decision:
No. The inherent inverisimilitude of appellant's testimony is
evident. There was no reason for the Japanese to carry foodstuffs not
needed for such a short expedition and it is inconceivable that they
should let him bring them on his shoulders with his hands tied and as
prisoner, needing to be guarded by soldiers who had to fight against the
guerrillas. By said testimony, it appears absolutely certain that appellant
had voluntarily rendered effective service as an agent of the Japanese.
Even crediting to him whatever benefits some individuals, including his
witnesses, derived from the help he rendered them, the fact that he was
thus able to help them shows his influence upon the Japanese, gained
through his usefulness to the latter.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE,
VS.ARSENIA NUEZ, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.[ G.R. No. L-
2321, January 31, 1950 ] 85 Phil. 448
Facts:
Nuez was convicted of the crime of treason and sentenced to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The counsel for defendant
pleaded the attendance of the privileged mitigating circumstance of
minority when she committed those treasonable acts.
Issue:
Was the penalty proper?
Decision:
No. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, when the
culprit is over 15 and under 18 years of age, the penalty next lower than
that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period,
upon this culprit. Treason is punished by reclusion temporal to death.
According to the rules for graduating penalties provided in Article 61 of
the Revised Penal Code, "when the penalty prescribed for the crime is
composed of two indivisible penalties, or of one or more divisible
penalties to be imposed to their full extent, the penalty next lower in
degree shall be that immediately following the lesser of the penalties
prescribed in the respective graduated scale." In this instance, the
penalty next lower in degree is prision mayor, to be imposed in its
medium period, on account of the absence of modifying circumstances.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE,
VS.FLORENTINO CANIBAS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.[ G.R.
No. L-2193, February 01, 1950 ] 85 Phil. 469
Facts:
Canibas was found guilty of treason on two counts. The first
count has not been established by the oaths of at least two witnesses.
There are no two direct witnesses to any of the component parts that
made up the whole overt act of appellant's membership in the Makapili.
Issue:
Can the appellant be held guilty of treason?
Decision:
Yes. The testimony on this branch of the case is sufficient
proof of adherence to the enemy. Adherence, unlike overt acts, need not
be proved by two witnesses. Clear intent and knowledge may be
gathered from the testimony of one of the witnesses, or from the nature
of the act itself, or from the circumstances surrounding the act.
Title I CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAWS OF NATIONS Page 6 of 14
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
FRANCISCO DE LOS SANTOS, defendant-appellant.G.R. No. L-1975
December 21, 1950
Facts:
Francisco de los Santos was charged with treason. He
contends that he did not participate in the killings of Castro de la Vega
and there is no evidence that he took part in the killing of the other three
persons.
Issue:
Can the appellant be held guilty of treason?
Decision:
Yes. His participation in the apprehension, investigation and
torture of the victims, makes him responsible for the acts of his
companions. There is evidence sufficient in law for a finding that there
was conspiracy, common purpose and concerted action by and between
the appellant and his companions which render each and everyone of
the participants in the unlawful acts perpetrated, no matter how minor or
insignificant be his part, responsible for all such acts.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE,
VS.APOLINAR ADRIANO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.[ G.R. No.
L-477, June 30, 1947 ] 78 Phil. 561
Facts:
Adriano was convicted of treason. The prosecution did not
introduce any evidence to substantiate any of the facts alleged except
that of defendant's having joined the Makapili organization. Even the
findings of the court are not borne out by the proof of two witnesses. No
two of the prosecution witnesses testified to a single one of the various
acts of treason imputed by them to the appellant.
Issue:
Can the appellant be held guilty of treason?
Decision:
No. Membership as a Makapili, as an overt act, must be
established by the deposition of two witnesses. Where two or more
witnesses give oaths to an overt act and only one of them is believed by
the court or jury, the defendant, it has been said and held, is entitled to
discharge, regardless of any moral conviction of the culprit's guilt as
gauged and tested by the ordinary and natural methods, with which we
are familiar, of finding the truth.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE,
VS.FILEMON ESCLETO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.[ G.R. No.
L-1006, June 28, 1949 ] 84 Phil. 121
Facts:
Escleto was charged with treason on three counts. No two
witnesses testified in any specific act of the defendant. The Peoples
Court believed, however, that the same evidence is sufficient to prove
beyond question defendant's adherence to the enemy.
Issue:
Can the appellant be held guilty of treason?
Decision:
No. As held in People v. Adriano, the authors of the two-
witness provision in the American Constitution, from which the Philippine
treason law was taken, purposely made it severely restrictive and
conviction for treason difficult. Each of the witnesses must testify to the
whole overt act; or if it is separable, there must be two witnesses to each
part of the overt act. Every action, movement, deed, and word of the
defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the
testimony of two witnesses.
Title I CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAWS OF NATIONS Page 7 of 14
THE UNITED STATES, COMPLAINANT AND APPELLEE,
VS.SIMEON MAGTIBAY, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.[ G.R. No.
1317, November 23, 1903 ] 2 Phil. 703
Facts:
Magtibay was convicted of the crime of treason. There was no
other evidence in the case to show that he had ever joined the forces of
General Montalon, except the testimony of the inspector as to the
confession made when he was captured and the commission as second
lieutenant found upon his person.
Issue:
Can the appellant be held guilty of treason?
Decision:
No. There can be no conviction, unless two witnesses testify
to the same overt act of treason. There is no such testimony in this case.
The evidence of the Government related exclusively to the desertion of
the defendant and his capture.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROGER
P. TULIN, VIRGILIO I. LOYOLA, CECILIO O. CHANGCO, ANDRES C.
INFANTE, CHEONG SAN HIONG, AND JOHN DOES, ACCUSED-
APPELLANTS. [ G.R. No. 111709, August 30, 2001 ]
Facts:
Cheong San Hiong was found guilty as an accomplice to the
crime of piracy. He argues that he was convicted for acts done outside
Philippine waters or territory. For the State to have criminal jurisdiction,
the act must have been committed within its territory.
Issue:
Is the contention of the appellant correct?
Decision:
No. Suffice it to state that unquestionably, the attack on and
seizure of M/T Tabangao and its cargo were committed in Philippine
waters, although the captive vessel was later brought by the pirates to
Singapore where its cargo was off-loaded, transferred, and sold. And
such transfer was done under accused-appellant Hiong's direct
supervision. Moreover, piracy falls under Title One of Book Two of the
Revised Penal Code. As such, it is an exception to the rule on
territoriality in criminal law.
EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, QUERELLANTE Y APELADO, CONTRA
PEDRO MARCAIDA, ACUSADO Y APELANTE. [ G.R. No. L-953,
September 18, 1947 ]79 Phil. 283
Facts:
Marcaida was found guilty of treason. It appears that, although
three witnesses testified, for all legal purposes, it is the same as if no
witness had testified at all. The second witness contradicted the first one
on very important facts, and the third contradicted both the first and the
second.
Issue:
Can the appellant be held guilty of treason?
Decision:
No. Each and every one of the three witnesses for the
prosecution testified to the effect of belying the testimonies of the other
two, in such a way that it is not possible to accept the testimony of one
of them without rejecting at the same time the testimonies of the other
two. Even without the two-witness rule in treason cases, there is no legal
basis to convict appellant upon the testimony of any one of the three
witnesses, as each one is belied by the other two.
Title I CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAWS OF NATIONS Page 8 of 14
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
VS.EMILIANO CATANTAN Y TAYONG, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.[
G.R. No. 118075, September 05, 1997 ] 344 Phil. 315
Facts:
Catantan was found guilty with violation of Presidential Decree
No. 532 otherwise known as the Anti-Piracy and Highway Robbery Law
of 1974. He contends that the trial court erred in convicting him of piracy
as the facts proved only constitute grave coercion. He further argues
that in order that piracy may be committed it is essential that there be an
attack on or seizure of a vessel.
Issue:
Is the contention of Catantan correct?
Decision:
No. Under the definition of piracy in PD No. 532 as well as
grave coercion as penalized in Art. 286 of the Revised Penal Code, this
case falls squarely within the purview of piracy. While it may be true that
victims were compelled to go elsewhere other than their place of
destination, such compulsion was obviously part of the act of seizing
their boat. The testimony of one of the victims shows that the appellant
actually seized the vessel through force and intimidation.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND
APPELLEE, VS.LOL-LO AND SARAW, DEFENDANTS AND
APPELLANTS.[ G. R. No. 17958, February 27, 1922 ] 43 Phil. 19
Facts:
Lol-lo and Saraw were charged with the crime of piracy. They
demurred that based on the grounds that the offense charged was not
within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, nor of any court of
the Philippine Islands.
Issue:
Is the contention of the appellants correct?
Decision:
No. It cannot be contended with any degree of force as was
done in the lower court and as is again done in this court, that the Court
of First Instance was without jurisdiction of the case. Piracy is a crime
not against any particular state but against all mankind. It may be
punished in the competent tribunal of any country where the offender
may be found or into which he may be carried. The jurisdiction of piracy
unlike all other crimes has no territorial limits. As it is against all so may
it be punished by all. Nor does it matter that the crime was committed
within the jurisdictional 3-mile limit of a foreign state, for those limits,
though neutral to war, are not neutral to crimes.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
VS.LAURO TOLENTINO AND VIDAL TOLENTINO, DEFENDANTS,
VIDAL TOLENTINO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.[ G.R. No. L-29419,
August 31, 1971 ] 148-B Phil. 430
Facts:
Tolentino was found guilty of the crime of murder. He contends
that there was no conspiracy, as it was through sheer chance that he
made his appearance at the scene of the crime when the combatants
were confronting each other and that all he did was to hold the deceased
by the collar with the intention of pacifying them.
Issue:
Is the contention of Tolentino correct?
Decision:
Yes. What was done by him did not entail the responsibility
that the law imposes on a principal. His criminal liability amounts at most
to that of accomplice. Lack of complete evidence of conspiracy creates
the doubt whether he had acted as principal or accomplice in the
perpetration of the offense, which resolves the question in his favor, by
holding that he was guilty of the milder form of responsibility,that is guilty
as a mere accomplice.
Title I CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAWS OF NATIONS Page 9 of 14
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DANILO
CORBES Y OLAZO, MANUEL, VERGEL Y PASCUAL, AND SIX (6)
JOHN DOES, ACCUSED. DANILO CORBES Y OLAZO AND MANUEL
VERGEL Y PASCUAL, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.[ G.R. No. 113470,
March 26, 1997 ] 337 Phil. 190
Facts:
Corbes was found guilty as principals by conspiracy of the
crime of robbery with homicide. He contends that conspiracy was not
sufficiently proved since it cannot be inferred solely from his mere
presence at the crime scene.
Issue:
Is the contention of the appellant correct?
Decision:
Yes. The evidence failed to meet the quantum of proof
required by law to establish conspiracy which jurisprudence dictates
must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of
the crime itself. No less than proof beyond reasonable doubt is required.
Where the quantum of proof required to establish conspiracy is lacking,
the doubt created as to whether accused acted as principal or
accomplice will always be resolved in favor of the milder form of liability,
that of a mere accomplice.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
VS.DOMINGO ELEFAO, JR., ET AL., DEFENDANTS, ALFREDO
ELEFAO ALIAS BOBBY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.[ G.R. No. L-
32573, November 25, 1983 ] 211 Phil. 50
Facts:
Elefao was convicted of murder. He contends that the
prosecution failed to overcome the constitutional presumption of
innocence. Hence the claim that the lower court failed to heed the
constitutional mandate as to the standard that must be satisfied, namely,
proof beyond reasonable doubt before such constitutional presumption
can be overcome.
Issue:
Is the contention of the appellant correct?
Decision:
No. As the trial judge had the opportunity to observe the
witnesses testify concerning the events that did take place, the
conclusion arrived at is entitled to full respect, unless, of course, it could
be demonstrated that he failed to appreciate the significance of a
relevant fact or circumstance or, what is worse, that it was ignored.
CO KIM CHAM (alias CO KIM CHAM), petitioner, vs. EUSEBIO
VALDEZ TAN KEH and ARSENIO P. DIZON, Judge of First Instance
of Manila, respondents. G.R. No. L-5 September 17, 1945
Facts:
Petitioner filed a petition for mandamus that the respondent
judge of the lower court be ordered to continue the proceedings in a civil
of said court, which were initiated under the regime of the so-called
Republic of the Philippines established during the Japanese military
occupation of these Islands.The respondent judge refused to take
cognizance of and continue the proceedings in said case on the ground
that the proclamation issued by General Douglas MacArthur had the
effect of invalidating and nullifying all judicial proceedings and judgments
of the court of the Philippines under the Philippine Executive
Commission and the Republic of the Philippines established during the
Japanese military occupation, and that, furthermore, the lower courts
have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of and continue judicial
proceedings pending in the courts of the defunct Republic of the
Philippines in the absence of an enabling law granting such authority.
Issue:
Is the contention of the respondent correct?
Decision:
No. The governments by the Philippine Executive Commission
and the Republic of the Philippines during the Japanese military
occupation being de facto governments, it necessarily follows that the
judicial acts and proceedings of the courts of justice of those
governments, which are not of a political complexion, were good and
valid, and, by virtue of the well-known principle of postliminy in
international law, remained good and valid after the liberation or
reoccupation of the Philippines by the American and Filipino forces
under the leadership of General Douglas MacArthur.
Title I CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAWS OF NATIONS Page 10 of 14
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHIUPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE,
VS.LAMBERTO SAN JUAN, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.[ G. R.
No. L-2997, June 29, 1951 ] 89 Phil. 359
Facts:
San Juan was found guilty of treason on eleven counts. He
insists that there is a discrepancy in the testimony of the witnesses.
Issue:
Can the appellant be held guilty of treason?
Decision:
Yes. Although the other counts have not been proven in
accordance with the two-witness rule, the first count is sufficient to
support a conviction, his adherence to the enemy being implied from the
overt acts charged and established thereunder, and confirmed by his
admission.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE,
VS.CARMELITO VICTORIA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.[ G.R.
No. 369, March 13, 1947 ] 78 Phil. 122
Facts:
Victoria was sentenced to the supreme penalty of death for
committing treason and that the commission of the acts was attended by
the aggravating circumstances of treachery, the aid of armed persons to
insure or afford impunity, and deliberately augmenting the crimes by
causing other wrongs not necessary in the commission thereof.
Issue:
Is the penalty proper?
Decision:
No. The circumstances in question are essential elements of
the treason he has committed. The crime is of such a nature that it may
be committed by one single act, by a series of acts, or by several series
thereof, not only in a single time, but in different times, it being a
continuous crime, so much so that there are some accused of treason
for just one count and there are others for several counts, their number
not changing the nature of the offense committed.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE,
VS.CucufateAdlawan, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.[ G.R. No. L-
456, March 29, 1949 ] 83 Phil. 194
Facts:
Adlawan was convicted of the complex crime of treason with
murder, robbery, and rape. He contends that the court erred holding that
the crime committed is a complex crime of treason with murder, rape
and robbery.
Issue:
Is the contention of the appellant correct?
Decision:
Yes. The killings, robbery, and raping mentioned in the
information are therein alleged not as specific offenses but as mere
elements of the crime of treason for which the accused is being
prosecuted. Being merged in and identified with the general charge, they
cannot be used in combination with treason to increase the penalty
under article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. Appellant should, therefore,
be held guilty of treason only.
Title I CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAWS OF NATIONS Page 11 of 14
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE,
VS.EDUARDO PRIETO (ALIAS EDDIE VALENCIA), DEFENDANT
AND APPELLANT.[ G.R. No. L-399, January 29, 1948 ] 80 Phil. 138
Facts:
Prieto was found guilty of the crime of treason complexed by
murder and physical injuries.
Issue:
Is the finding of the lower court proper?
Decision:
No. In the nature of things, the giving of aid and comfort can
only be accomplished by some kind of action. Its very nature partakes of
a deed or physical activity as opposed to a mental operation. This deed
or physical activity may be, and often is, in itself a criminal offense under
another penal statute or provision. Even so, when the deed is charged
as an element of treason it becomes identified with the 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
Code provides. So a defendant may not be made liable for murder as a
separate crime or in conjunction with another offense where, as in this
case, it is averred as a constitutive ingredient of treason.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE,
VS.ILDEFONSO DE CASTRO, JR., DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.[
G.R. No. L-3025, August 16, 1949 ] 84 Phil. 306
Facts:
On or about December 26, 1945, De Castro was caught in
possession of a Japanese pistol. He was charged with illegal possession
of firearm. He admitted the allegations but invokes the provisions of
Proclamation No. 1 of the President of the Philippines, dated July 20,
1946, as exempting him from criminal liability.
Issue:
Is the claim of the appellant correct?
Decision:
No. Proclamation No. 1 fixed the period within which any
person in possession of firearms might, without incurring any criminal
liability, surrender the same. Provided, that it shall not in any way affect
any case pending in court, on the date of the passage of this Act, for
violation of section twenty-six hundred and ninety-two of the Revised
Administrative Code. Since the present case was already pending in
court when Proclamation No. 1 was issued, the accused was not
exempted from criminal liability.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE,
VS.ROQUE BADILI, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.[ G.R. No. L-
565, June 27, 1949 ] 84 Phil. 71
Facts:
Badili was found guilty of treason. He served the enemy as a
secret agent to apprehend members of the resistance movement, and
that with the aid of two fellow agents he captured Lt. Pacifico Rosales,
who was a member of the Philippine Army and engaged in the
resistance movement; and that as a result of the treasonous acts of the
accused and his companions, Lieutenant Rosales was prevented from
pursuing his patriotic activities.
Issue:
Is the appellant guilty of treason?
Decision:
Yes. The act of the accused in apprehending and preventing
Lieutenant Rosales from pursuing his activities as a member of the
guerrilla forces constituted an aid to the enemy.
Title I CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAWS OF NATIONS Page 12 of 14
THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS.FRANCISCO
BAUTISTA ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.[ G.R. No.
2189, November 03, 1906 ] 6 Phil. 581
Facts:
Appellants were convicted of the crime of conspiracy to
overthrow, put down, and destroy by force the Government of the United
States in the Philippine Islands and the Government of the Philippine
Islands, as defined and penalized in Section 4 of Act No. 292 of the
Philippine Commission. Counsel for appellants contend that the
constitutional provision requiring the testimony of at least two witnesses
to the same overt act, or confession in open court, to support a
conviction for the crime of treason should be applied in this case.
Issue:
Is the contention of the appellant correct?
Decision:
No. In consonance with the decisions of the Federal courts of
the United States, the crime of conspiring to commit treason is a
separate and distinct offense from the crime of treason, and this
constitutional provision is not applicable in such cases.
THE UNITED STATES, COMPLAINANT AND APPELLEE,
VS.APOLONIO CABALLEROS ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND
APPELLANTS.[ G.R. No. 1352, March 29, 1905 ] 4 Phil. 350
Facts:
The defendants have been sentenced as accessories after the
fact in the crime of assassination or murder perpetrated on the persons
of American school-teachers because, without having taken part in the
said crime as principal or accomplices, they took part in the burial of the
corpses of the victims in order to conceal the crime. One of the motives
for the conviction which the lower court took into consideration in his
judgment is the fact of the defendants not reporting to the authorities the
perpetration of the crime.
Issue:
Is the finding of the lower court correct?
Decision:
No. The fact of the defendants not reporting to the authorities
the perpetration of the crime is not punished by the Penal Code and
therefore that cannot render the defendants criminally liable according to
law. Thus, defendants and appellants are acquitted.
GO TIAN SEK SANTOS, PETITIONER, VS. ERIBERTO MISA,
DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, RESPONDENT. [ G.R. No. L-319, March
28, 1946 ] 76 Phil 415
Facts:
The petitioner avers he is a Chinese citizen apprehended in
February, 1945, by the Counter Intelligence Corps of the United States
Army, turned over last September, to the Commonwealth Government,
and since then detained by the respondent as a political prisoner. Such
detention, he claims, is illegal, because he has not been charged before,
nor convicted by, the judge of a competent court, and because he may
not be confined under Act No. 682, as he owes allegiance neither to the
United States nor to the Commonwealth of the Philippines.
Issue:
Is the contention of the petitioner correct?
Decision:
No. Petitioners foreign status does not exclude him ipso facto
from the scope of Commonwealth Act No. 682. As stated by the
Solicitor-General, he might be prosecuted for espionage, a crime not
conditioned by the citizenship of the offender, and considered as an
offense against national security.
Title I CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAWS OF NATIONS Page 13 of 14
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JAIME
RODRIGUEZ ALIAS JIMMY ALIAS WILFRED DE LARA Y MEDRANO
AND RICO LOPEZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS. [ G.R. No. 60100,
March 20, 1985 ] 220 Phil. 162
Facts:
Appellants were convicted of the crime of piracy and were
sentenced to suffer the extreme penalty of death. They contend that the
trial court erred in imposing the death penalty despite their plea of guilty.
Issue:
Is the contention of the appellants correct?
Decision:
No. Presidential Decree No. 532 amending Article 134 of the
Revised Penal Code, provides that if rape, murder or homicide is
committed as a result or on the occasion of piracy, or when the
offenders abandoned the victims without means of saving themselves,
or when the seizure is accomplished by firing upon or boarding a vessel,
the mandatory penalty of death shall be imposed. Further, Article 63 of
the same Code provides that in all cases in which the law prescribes a
single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of
any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the
commission of the deed.
EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, QUERELLANTE Y APELANTE, CONTRA
ANG CHO KIO, ALIAS KI WA, ALIAS LUCIO LEE, ALIAS PHILIP
ANG, ALIAS MR. ANG, ALIAS GO ONG, Y ALIAS MR. ONG,
AEUSADO Y APELADO. [ G.R. Nos. L-6687 y L-6688, July 29, 1954 ]
95 Phil. 475
Facts:
The accused, then a passenger of Philippine Airlines plane en
route from Laoag to Aparri, compelled the pilot to change the route of
the plane and when the pilot failed to comply immediately with said
order, he shot the pilot. The lower court sentenced him to life
imprisonment. The Attorney General maintains in its allegation that the
lower court committed error in not declaring that the accused committed
the complex crime of grave coercion with murder.
Issue:
Is the contention of the Attorney General correct?
Decision:
No. Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code provides that in the
event that a single fact constitutes two or more offenses or when one of
them is necessary means for committing the other, the penalty is for the
most serious crime, applying it in its maximum degree. The accused ran
two different facts, and not just one; therefore, these two successive acts
cannot constitute the complex crime of coercion with murder. If the pilot
had followed the order of the accused, this would not have felt the need
to kill him; the pilot was put in the hard choice to comply with the order,
or die.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
VS.JULAIDE SIYOH, OMARKAYAM KIRAM, NAMLI INDANAN AND
ANDAW JAMAHALI, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.[ G.R. No. 57292,
February 18, 1986 ] 225 Phil. 313

Facts:

Appellants were found guilty of the crime of qualified piracy

with triple murder and frustrated murder. They contend that the lower
court erred in finding that their guilt has been proved beyond reasonable
doubt.

Issue:

Is the contention correct?

Decision:

No. As can be seen from the lone assignment of error, the

issue is the credibility of witnesses. The trial court which had the
opportunity of observing the demeanor of the witnesses and how they
testified assigned credibility to the former and an examination of the
record does not reveal any fact or circumstance of weight and influence
which was overlooked or the significance of which was misinterpreted as
would justify a reversal of the trial court's determination. Additionally,
the claims of the appellants are not convincing.

Title I CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAWS OF NATIONS Page 14 of 14