TABLE OF CONTENTX (TITLE I)

1
 2

Case Title Page

No. No.
1 ANASTACIO LAUREL, vs. ERIBERTO MISA, 3
2 JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN 3
(Third Division) and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
3 THE PEOPLE vs. FRANCISCO M. ABAD 4
4 THE UNITED STATES, , vs. DALMACIO LAGNASON 5
5 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MAXIMO BATE 5
6 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs PARDALES 6
7 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESvs. LORENZO 7
MORALES
8 THE PEOPLE vs. AQUILINO VILLANUEVA, 7
9 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. ELEUTERIO 8
ICARO
10 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. CAYETANO 9
MANGAHAS AND MARIANO DE LOS SANTOS
MANGAHAS,
11 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESvs. JOSE 10
FERNANDO
12 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FRANCISCO DE 10
LOS SANTOS,
13 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. APOLINAR 11
ADRIANO
14 THE UNITED STATES VS. SIMEON MAGTIBAY, 11
15 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESS. ROGER P. TULIN, 12
VIRGILIO I. LOYOLA, CECILIO O. CHANGCO, ANDRES
C. INFANTE, CHEONG SAN HIONG, AND JOHN DOES,
16 EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS VS PEDRO MARCAIDA, 12
17 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. EMILIANO 13
CATANTAN Y TAYONG
18 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS VS. LOL- 13
LO AND SARAW
19 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. LAURO 14
TOLENTINO AND VIDAL TOLENTINO
20 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. DANILO CORBES Y 14
OLAZO, MANUEL, VERGEL Y PASCUAL, AND SIX (6)
JOHN DOES, ACCUSED. DANILO CORBES Y OLAZO
AND MANUEL VERGEL Y PASCUAL

21 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. DOMINGO 15

ELEFAÑO, JR., ET AL.,
22 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. CUCUFATE 15

2
 3

ADLAWAN
23 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. EDUARDO 16
PRIETO (ALIAS EDDIE VALENCIA
24 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ROQUE BADILI, 16
25 THE UNITED STATES VS. FRANCISCO BAUTISTA ET 17
AL.,
26 THE UNITED STATES VS. APOLONIO CABALLEROS ET 17
AL.,
27 GO TIAN SEK SANTOS VS. ERIBERTO MISA, 18
DIRECTOR OF PRISONS
28 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JAIME RODRIGUEZ 18
ALIAS JIMMY ALIAS WILFRED DE LARA Y MEDRANO
AND RICO LOPEZ
29 EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS vs. ANG CHO KIO, alias KI 19
WA, alias LUCIO LEE, alias PHILIP ANG, alias Mr.
ANG, alias GO ONG, y alias Mr. ONG,
30 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JULAIDE 20
SIYOH, OMARKAYAM KIRAM, NAMLI INDANAN AND
ANDAW JAMAHALI
31 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESVS. EMILIANO 20
CATANTAN Y TAYONG
32 RAMON S. MILO and ARMANDO VALDEZ vs. 21
ANGELITO C. SALANGA
33 JOSE BURGOS, SR., JOSE BURGOS, JR., BAYANI 21
SORIANO and J. BURGOS MEDIA SERVICES, INC. vs.
THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE
PHILIPPINES, THE CHIEF, PHILIPPINE
CONSTABULARY, THE CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER,
PRESIDENTIAL SECURITY COMMAND, THE JUDGE
ADVOCATE GENERAL, ET AL
34 RODOLFO SORIA and EDIMAR BISTA, vs. HON. 22
ANIANO DESIERTO, HON. ORLANDO C.
CASIMIRO,P/INS. JEFFREY T. GOROSPE, SPO2
ROLANDO G. REGACHO, SPO1 ALFREDO B. ALVIAR,
JR., PO3 JAIME D. LAZARO, PO2 FLORANTE B.
CARDENAS, PO1 JOSEPH A. BENAZA, SPO1
FRANKLIN D. CABAYA and SPO4 PEDRO PAREL,
35 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESvs. REDENTOR DICHOSO 23
y DAGDAG, SONIA DICHOSO y VINERABLE and JAIME
PAGTAKHAN y BICOMONG,

3
 4

ANASTACIO LAUREL, petitioner, vs. ERIBERTO MISA, respondent.

[G.R. No. L-409 January 30, 1947]

FACTS:
Petitioner Anastacio Laurel sought habeas corpus, contending that a
Filipino citizen aiding the enemy during the Japanese occupation cannot
be prosecuted for treason under Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code.
The argument rested on the suspension of the sovereignty of the
legitimate government and a claimed change of sovereignty upon the
proclamation of the Philippine Republic.
ISSUE:
The main issue was whether the petitioner could face prosecution
for treason by providing aid and support to the enemy during the
Japanese occupation.
HELD
Yes. The court ruled affirmatively, stating that Article 114 of the
Revised Penal Code applied to treason committed against the national
security of the legitimate government. The court emphasized that the
inhabitants of the occupied territory remained bound by their allegiance to
the legitimate government despite the enemy's occupation. Drawing a
parallel with the concept that a citizen can be prosecuted for treason
committed in a foreign country, the court asserted that an inhabitant of a
territory occupied by the enemy may commit treason against their
legitimate government by supporting the enemy. Consequently, the
petitioner could be prosecuted for treason for aiding and supporting the
enemy during the Japanese occupation.

JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA, petitioner, vs. CRIMINAL LAW II CASE

DIGEST SANDIGANBAYAN (Third Division) and PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents. [G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001]

FACTS:
Joseph Ejercito Estrada, petitioner, versus Sandiganbayan (Third
Division) and People of the Philippines, respondents, criminal complaints
were filed with the Ombudsman as a result of the impeachment
proceedings against Joseph Estrada. Among the charges was plunder, and
petitioner Jinggoy Estrada, then mayor of San Juan, Metro Manila, was

4
 5

named as one of the respondents. Estrada filed various motions, including

a motion to quash and suspend, all of which were denied. He argued that
the Sandiganbayan acted without jurisdiction or in excess of it, claiming
violations of his equal protection rights, lack of sufficient standards in the
Plunder Law, and denial of substantive due process due to alleged
improper charging.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner is denied of the equal protection of the
laws.
HELD
No. The court ruled in the negative, rejecting the petitioner's claim
that R.A. No. 7080 was unconstitutional as applied to him. The court
emphasized that the Amended Information did not charge him with only
one act or offense but rather included "several instances" of alleged
offenses. The argument that the Ombudsman failed to establish probable
cause against him was dismissed, as the Sandiganbayan had already
found probable cause and issued a warrant of arrest. The court concluded
that it was too late for the petitioner to contest the Ombudsman's finding
of probable cause.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

FRANCISCO M. ABAD (alias PAQUITO), defendant-appellant. [G.R.
No. L-430 July 30, 1947]

FACTS:
Abad was convicted on three counts of the complex crime of treason
with homicide. The accusation against the appellant involved the crime of
treason for providing aid and comfort to the Empire of Japan and the
Japanese Imperial Forces. The appellant contested the guilty verdict on
the first count, arguing that the lower court erred in finding him guilty
despite only one witness testifying to the alleged overt act.
ISSUE:
Whether the accused can be deemed guilty of the first count of
treason, considering that only one witness testified to the alleged overt
act.
HELD
No. The adherence to the two-witness rule is imperative for each
external manifestation of the overt act in question. While the two overt
acts are interconnected, it would be a stretch to consider them as a single
act or even as distinct manifestations, phases, or stages of the same overt

5
 6

act. Although both acts may serve the same purpose logically, the shared
intent alone does not suffice to treat them as a singular act.

THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. DALMACIO

LAGNASON, defendant-appellant. [G.R. No. 1582 March 28, 1904]

FACTS:
Defendant and his group attacked the pueblo of Murcia in the
province. However, they were repelled by the Constabulary forces
stationed there. Later that night, two Constabulary inspectors arrived with
reinforcements and, in the morning, set out to locate the defendant. A
confrontation occurred about three kilometers from the pueblo, resulting
in a one-and-a-half-hour battle. The defendant was captured,
approximately twenty of his men were killed, and two local policemen
acting as guides for the Constabulary were also killed. The defendant's
group, consisting of seventy to eighty men, was armed with rifles, bolos,
daggers, and a small cannon. The defendant, armed with a rifle, a
revolver, and a bolo, was dressed in black shirts, white pantaloons, and a
black cap. Although they had no banners, two large wooden crosses and
the cannon were seized.
ISSUE:
Whether the defendant is guilty of treason.
HELD
Yes. According to Act No. 292 of the Philippine Commission, any
person in the Philippine Islands owing allegiance to the United States or
the Government of the Philippine Islands, who engages in war against
them or supports their enemies, providing aid and comfort within or
outside the Philippine Islands, is deemed guilty of treason.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MAXIMO

BATE (alias BORJA, alias PATSO), defendant-appellant. [G.R. No. L-
1547 January 28, 1949]

FACTS:
Bate was convicted on six counts of treason. On one count, the
appellant, armed and accompanied by several undercover individuals,
apprehended Francisca Bacalla and brought her to Sgt. Yoshida, the chief
of the Japanese Military Police, where she underwent investigation and
mistreatment. The prosecution relied on the testimony of only one
witness, Felisa Taboado, regarding Bacalla's arrest by the appellant.

6
 7

Additionally, Conrado Bao, Sgt. Yoshida's cook, was the sole witness to
testify about her interrogation at Yoshida's residence by the defendant.

ISSUE:
Whether the accused is guilty of treason.
HELD
Yes. While the evidence may not be sufficient to establish the overt
acts attributed to Bate, it can still be considered as proof of his allegiance
to the enemy.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs PARDALES [GR NO. L-5611

May 21, 1957]

FACTS:
The appellant, was found guilty of treason by the Court of First
Instance of Bohol. He was sentenced to suffer reclusión perpetua, pay a
fine of P10,000 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency,
indemnify the heirs of the victims in the amount of P6,000, indemnify the
widow and heirs of deceased Racaza with P200 as the value of personal
property taken from the victim, and pay the costs. The evidence
presented showed that Pardales, a Filipino, joined the Japanese-sponsored
constabulary and served as a detachment commander in Ubay, Bohol. He
actively participated in aiding the enemy by leading patrols that resulted
in the capture and subsequent liquidation of three victims by the enemy
forces.
ISSUE:
Whether the appellant committed the crime of treason by actively
aiding and collaborating with the enemy.

HELD
The judgment of the lower court was affirmed. The evidence clearly
demonstrated Pardales' adherence to and collaboration with the enemy,
constituting the crime of treason. His active participation in leading patrols
that led to the capture and liquidation of victims provided aid and comfort
to the enemy. Additionally, the defense's allegation regarding the
jurisdiction of the judge was dismissed, as there is no prohibition for a

7
 8

judge to decide a case within his jurisdiction, even if previously tried by

another judge who has been transferred to another district.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LORENZO

MORALES, Defendant-Appellant. [G.R. No. L-4533. May 28, 1952]

FACTS:
Lorenzo Morales was charged with treason in a two-count
information, with the prosecution abandoning count one. The Court of First
Instance of Bulacan, after trial, found Morales guilty as charged and
sentenced him to 20 years of imprisonment, reclusion temporal, a
P10,000 fine, and costs. Morales appealed this decision. The raid, which
took place on December 12, 1944, in Santa Lucia, San Miguel, Bulacan,
resulted in the arrest and subsequent torture to death of several
individuals, all guerrillas, including Ricardo and Rufino Velayo. Morales,
armed with a gun, acted as a guard during the raid but did not directly
participate in the fatal ceremony.
ISSUE:
Whether the appellant can be held guilty of treason based on his
mere presence.
HELD
The trial court's decision was accurate. The two-witness rule was
satisfied. Although Salvador Eusebio was not mentioned in the
information, his credibility was questioned by the appellant's counsel.
Additionally, the argument that mere presence is insufficient for treason
was rejected, as Morales was armed with a firearm and acted as a guard.
During the Japanese occupation, carrying a gun openly in the presence of
Japanese soldiers implied collaboration or alliance with the enemy.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AQUILINO

VILLANUEVA, defendant-appellant. [G.R. No. L-5838 February 9,
1953]

FACTS:
Around midnight on December 24, 1944, the defendant escorted
eight or nine Japanese soldiers to the location where Pablo Parungao,

8
 9

Eugenio Maliwat, and Jose Maliwat were on guard duty in Talavera, Nueva
Ecija. The Japanese soldiers arrested Jose Maliwat, then returned to arrest
Pablo Parungao. Both individuals were taken to the Japanese garrison in
Talavera, where they were detained for forty-eight hours before being
released upon the request of Mayor Jose B. David. The defendant, in late
December 1944, organized a unit of the "Makapili" organization, serving
as its chief with the rank of captain. This unit patrolled the town, seeking
guerrillas and those suspected of aiding the underground movement
against the Japanese. Members wore uniforms resembling those of
Japanese soldiers and arm bands with Japanese characters, symbolizing
Makapili membership. At the time of the guards' arrest, the defendant
wore such an arm band. These facts were corroborated by the mayor and
other prosecution witnesses. In his defense, the defendant claimed to be
the head of the "Gana" religious organization in Talavera, having moved to
Cabanatuan to escape the Japanese, engaging in tinsmith business from
June 12, 1942, to January 6, 1945, and denying any involvement in
arrests.
ISSUE:
Whether the defendant-appellant is guilty of treason.

HELD
Yes, the defendant-appellant is guilty of treason. The trial court
rejected the defendant's testimony, considering it a mere denial without
credence. The alleged alibi was also disregarded. While the prosecution
did not establish the appellant's direct or indirect participation in killings
or disappearances, the judgment was upheld without modification.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

ELEUTERIO ICARO, defendant-appellant. [G.R. No. L-2956 May 23,
1951]

FACTS:
The appellant was convicted of treason by the trial court based on
the following facts: During the latter part of 1944 and early 1945, while
the United States, the Philippines, and Allied nations were at war with the
Japanese Empire, the appellant, Eleuterio Icaro, a Filipino citizen, openly
adhered to the enemy and provided aid and comfort. Armed with a rifle
and accompanied by other Filipinos and Japanese soldiers, he participated
in raids against guerrilla suspects, leading to their arrest. Notably, those
arrested, except for Emilio Biscocho, disappeared. The appellant denies
being a Makapili.

9
 10

ISSUE:
Whether or not the appellant can be held guilty of treason.
RULING:
Yes, the appellant is guilty of treason. The trial court found no direct
and conclusive proof that the appellant was a Makapili. However, the
Solicitor General challenges this finding, asserting that witness
testimonies unanimously claim the appellant's affiliation with the Makapili.
The court deems this point unnecessary, as adherence to the enemy can
be inferred from the overt acts of treason committed by the appellant,
such as the arrest of suspected guerrillas, who, except for one, were never
seen again. This inference is strengthened by the appellant being armed
and in the company of armed Japanese soldiers and fellow Filipinos.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, VS.

CAYETANO MANGAHAS AND MARIANO DE LOS SANTOS
MANGAHAS, defendant-appellant. [G.R. Nos. L-5367 & L-5368,
June 09, 1953]

FACTS:
Makapilis conducted raids in Lawang, Norzagaray, apprehending
guerrilla members and stationing themselves in front of the municipal
building. Cayetano and Mariano Mangahas, among others, surrounded
Enriqueta de la Merced's house, taking food intended for guerrillas. On
December 29, 1944, armed Makapilis, including the defendants, looted
Primo S. Cruz's house and apprehended him, similar to the fate of Artemio
Nicolas. Moises Legaspi was also arrested on December 30, 1944. The
defendants, Cayetano Mangahas and Mariano de los Santos Mangahas,
were charged with treason in the Court of First Instance in Bulacan. Both
appealed the lower court's decision.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the defendants are guilty of treason.
HELD
Yes, the defendants are guilty of treason. While the arrests of Primo
S. Cruz and Artemio Nicolas lack two witnesses, establishing adherence to
the enemy, the evidence is insufficient. However, the presence of the
defendants during the arrest of Moises Legaspi, despite Cayetano
Mangahas' denial, is corroborated by the testimony of Legaspi's wife and
son. The defendants' acts, including arresting guerrillas, confiscating food,
sentry duty, drilling, and carrying firearms, provide ample evidence of
adherence to the enemy. Cayetano Mangahas' denial regarding the raid on

10
 11

Enriqueta de la Merced's house is overridden by the testimonies of the

victims. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirms the judgment appealed
from.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE

FERNANDO, defendant-appellant. [G.R. No. L-1138 December 17,
1947]

FACTS:
Fernando was convicted of treason, arguing that he was coerced
into serving the Kempei-tai, the Japanese military police organization.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the appellant can be held guilty of treason.
HELD
Yes, the appellant can be held guilty of treason. The claim that,
while undergoing detention and maltreatment for alleged ties to the
resistance movement, the Japanese would, without hesitation, release
him, arm him, and entrust him with a group of Filipino informers in the
service of the Kempei-tai, is implausible. For the Japanese to place him in
such a significant role, with the potential to aid or sabotage their military
efforts, the appellant must have previously demonstrated strong evidence
of allegiance and loyalty for the Japanese to trust him.

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 faced treason charges, arguing that he
wasn't involved in the killing of Castro de la Vega, and there's no evidence
of his participation in the other three killings.

11
 12

ISSUE:
Whether or not the appellant can be held guilty of treason.
HELD
Yes. Despite his denial of direct involvement in the killings, his role
in the apprehension, investigation, and torture of the victims holds him
accountable for the actions of his companions. The evidence supports a
legal finding of conspiracy, common purpose, and concerted action among
the appellant and his companions. In such cases, each participant,
regardless of the extent of their involvement, is deemed responsible for all
unlawful acts committed.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS.
APOLINAR ADRIANO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. [G.R. No. L-
477, June 30, 1947]

FACTS:
Adriano faced a conviction for treason, with the prosecution relying
solely on his alleged membership in the Makapili organization. None of the
various acts of treason attributed to the appellant were substantiated by
the proof of two witnesses, as required by law.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the appellant can be held guilty of treason.
HELD
No. Membership in the Makapili, considered an overt act,
necessitates the testimony of two witnesses for validation. In cases where
multiple witnesses testify to a single overt act, and only one is believed by
the court or jury, the defendant is entitled to discharge. This holds true
regardless of any moral conviction of the accused's guilt, as determined
through ordinary and familiar methods of finding the truth.

THE UNITED STATES, COMPLAINANT AND APPELLEE, VS. SIMEON

MAGTIBAY, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. [G.R. No. 1317,
November 23, 1903]

FACTS:
Magtibay faced a conviction for treason, with the sole evidence
being his confession upon capture and the commission as a second
lieutenant found on him. There was no other indication that he had joined
General Montalon's forces.

12
 13

ISSUE:
Whether or not the appellant can be held guilty of treason.
HELD
No. Conviction for treason requires the testimony of two witnesses
affirming the same overt act. In this case, such testimony was lacking, as
the government's evidence only pertained to the defendant's desertion
and subsequent 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 convicted as an accomplice to piracy,
claiming that the acts leading to his conviction occurred outside Philippine
waters. He argues that for criminal jurisdiction to apply, the act must have
taken place within the country's territory.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the appellant's contention is correct.
HELD
No. The unequivocal evidence establishes that the attack and
seizure of M/T Tabangao and its cargo transpired in Philippine waters, even
though the pirates later transported the captive vessel to Singapore for
cargo off-loading, transfer, and sale, all under accused-appellant Hiong's
direct supervision. Additionally, piracy, falling under Title One of Book Two
of the Revised Penal Code, is an exception to the general rule of
territoriality in criminal law.

EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, QUERELLANTE Y APELADO, VS PEDRO

MARCAIDA, ACUSADO Y APELANTE. [G.R. No. L-953, September
18, 1947]

FACTS:

13
 14

Marcaida faced a conviction for treason, with three witnesses

testifying. However, their contradictory statements rendered their
testimonies legally ineffective.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the appellant can be held guilty of treason.
HELD
No. All three prosecution witnesses contradicted each other on
crucial facts, making it impossible to accept the testimony of one without
rejecting the others. Even without the two-witness rule in treason cases,
there is no legal basis to convict the appellant based on any one of the
three witnesses, as each testimony is contradicted by the other two.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EMILIANO

CATANTAN Y TAYONG, ACCUSED-APPELLANT. [G.R. No. 118075,
September 05, 1997]

FACTS:
Catantan was convicted under Presidential Decree No. 532, the Anti-
Piracy and Highway Robbery Law of 1974, and argues that the actions
proven only constitute grave coercion, not piracy. He contends that piracy
necessitates an attack on or seizure of a vessel.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Catantan's contention is correct.
HELD
No. The case falls within the definition of piracy under PD No. 532
and grave coercion as penalized in Article 286 of the Revised Penal Code.
While the victims were compelled to deviate from their intended route,
this compulsion was integral to the act of seizing their boat. Testimony
from one of the victims affirms that the appellant forcefully and
intimidatingly seized the vessel.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND

APPELLEE, VS. LOL-LO AND SARAW, DEFENDANTS AND
APPELLANTS. [G. R. No. 17958, February 27, 1922]

FACTS:

14
 15

Lol-lo and Saraw faced charges of piracy and raised a demurrer,

asserting that the offense fell outside the jurisdiction of the Court of First
Instance or any court in the Philippine Islands.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the contention of the appellants is correct.
HELD
No. The argument that the Court of First Instance lacked jurisdiction
lacks merit. Piracy is a crime not specific to any state but against
humanity at large. It can be prosecuted in any country where the offender
is found or brought. Unlike other crimes, piracy has no territorial
boundaries; it can be punished by any nation. The fact that the crime
occurred within the 3-mile limit of a foreign state is inconsequential, as
these limits, although neutral to war, do not exempt crimes committed
within from prosecution.

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]

FACTS:
Tolentino was convicted of murder, arguing that there was no
conspiracy and his presence at the crime scene was a result of chance. He
claimed he merely tried to pacify the combatants by holding the
deceased's collar.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Tolentino's contention is correct.
HELD
Yes. Tolentino's actions did not meet the legal criteria for principal
responsibility. At most, he could be considered an accomplice. The lack of
conclusive evidence regarding conspiracy raises doubt about his role as
either a principal or accomplice. In favor of the milder form of
responsibility, Tolentino is deemed guilty as a mere accomplice.

15
 16

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]

FACTS:
Corbes was convicted as a principal by conspiracy in the crime of
robbery with homicide, arguing that conspiracy was inadequately proven,
as mere presence at the crime scene does not suffice.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the contention of the appellant is correct.
HELD
Yes. The evidence fell short of the legal standard required to
establish conspiracy, which necessitates clarity and conviction equivalent
to the commission of the crime itself. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is
indispensable. In cases where the required proof for conspiracy is lacking,
any doubt about whether the accused acted as a principal or accomplice
is resolved in favor of the milder form of liability, that of a mere
accomplice.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS.

DOMINGO ELEFAÑO, JR., ET AL., DEFENDANTS, ALFREDO ELEFAÑO
ALIAS “BOBBY”, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. [G.R. No. L-32573,
November 25, 1983]

FACTS:
Elefaño was found guilty of murder and argues that the prosecution
failed to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. He claims
that the lower court did not adhere to the constitutional mandate
requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt before overcoming such
presumption.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the contention of the appellant is correct.
HELD
No. The trial judge, having observed the witnesses testify about the
events, deserves full respect for the conclusion reached. The conviction
stands unless there is a demonstration that the judge failed to grasp the
importance of a relevant fact or circumstance or, worse, ignored it.

16
 17

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS.

CUCUFATE ADLAWAN, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. [G.R. No. L-
456, March 29, 1949]

FACTS:
Adlawan was convicted of the complex crime of treason with
murder, robbery, and rape, contesting that the court erred in categorizing
it as such.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the contention of the appellant is correct.
HELD
Yes. The acts of killing, robbery, and rape mentioned in the
information are presented not as distinct offenses but as integral elements
of the crime of treason for which the accused is charged. Since they are
encompassed within the general charge, they cannot be combined with
treason to escalate the penalty under Article 48 of the Revised Penal
Code. Consequently, the appellant should only be held liable for the crime
of treason.

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]

FACTS:
Prieto was convicted of treason complexed by murder and physical
injuries, with conflicting statements from witnesses regarding the events.
The lower court considered the murders and injuries as separate crimes
modifying the circumstances of treason. The Solicitor General agreed with
the decision but suggested a different technical designation of the crime.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the finding of the lower court is proper.
HELD
No. Aid and comfort, inherent in the act of treason, involves physical
actions that may constitute separate criminal offenses. However, when
charged as an element of treason, it becomes integral to the crime and

17
 18

cannot be punished separately or combined to enhance the penalty. In

this case, charging murder as part of treason precludes its separate
punishment or combination to escalate the penalty.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS.

ROQUE BADILI, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. [G.R. No. L-565, June
27, 1949]

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:
Whether or not the appellant guilty of treason.
HELD
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.

THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. FRANCISCO

BAUTISTA ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS. [G.R. No. 2189,
November 03, 1906]

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:
Whether or not the contention of the appellant is correct.

18
 19

HELD
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:
Whether or not the finding of the lower court is correct.

RULING:
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]

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

19
 20

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:
Whether or not the contention of the petitioner is correct.
HELD
No. Petitioner’s 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.

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]

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:
Whether or not the contention of the appellants is correct.
HELD
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.

20
 21

EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, querellante-apelante, vs. ANG CHO KIO,

alias KI WA, alias LUCIO LEE, alias PHILIP ANG, alias Mr. ANG, alias
GO ONG, y alias Mr. ONG, acusado-apelado. [G.R. Nos. L-6687 y L-
6688, July 29, 1954]

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:
Whether or not the contention of the Attorney General is correct.
HELD
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]
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:
Whether or not the contention is correct.
HELD

21
 22

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.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EMILIANO

CATANTAN Y TAYONG, ACCUSED-APPELLANT. [G.R. No. 118075,
September 05, 1997]
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:
Whether or not the contention of Catantan correct.
HELD
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.
RAMON S. MILO, in his capacity as Assistant Provincial Fiscal of
Pangasinan, and ARMANDO VALDEZ, petitioners, vs. ANGELITO C.
SALANGA, in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of
Pangasinan (Branch IV), and JUAN TUVERA, SR., respondents.
[G.R. No. L-37007 July 20, 1987]

FACTS:
A petition for certiorari against the decision of the Court of First
Instance (CFI) Pangasinan, which granted the motion to quash the
information filed against accused Juan Tuvera, Jr. The issue revolves
around whether a barrio captain (Tuvera Sr.) can be charged with arbitrary
detention. The information alleged that, with the aid of private persons,

22
 23

the accused maltreated Armando Valdez and locked him inside the
municipal jail for 11 hours.
ISSUE:
WON a barrio captain can be held liable for the crime of Arbitrary
Detention.
HELD
Yes. The liability for Arbitrary Detention extends to public officers
vested with the authority to detain individuals accused of a crime. It is not
confined to police officers; other public officers, such as judges and
mayors, who abuse their functions, may also be held accountable. Barrio
captains, sharing similar responsibilities with mayors, possess the
authority to detain or order detention. Tuvera Sr., admitting that, with the
aid of rural police, he could have led the arrest, establishes his potential
liability as a barrio captain for Arbitrary Detention.

JOSE BURGOS, SR., JOSE BURGOS, JR., BAYANI SORIANO and J.

BURGOS MEDIA SERVICES, INC., petitioners, vs. THE CHIEF OF
STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE CHIEF,
PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, THE CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER,
PRESIDENTIAL SECURITY COMMAND, THE JUDGE ADVOCATE
GENERAL, ET AL., respondents. [G.R. No. L-64261 December 26,
1984]

FACTS:
Two warrants were issued against the petitioners for the search and
seizure of items allegedly used in subversive activities at the premises of
"Metropolitan Mail" and "We Forum" newspapers. The petitioners sought a
preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction for the return of the
seized articles, contending that the warrants lacked probable cause,
indicated only one address, and involved the seizure of real properties.
ISSUE:
Whether there is sufficient basis for the issuance of the search
warrants.
HELD
No, there is no sufficient basis for the issuance of the search
warrants. The Court agrees with the petitioners' argument. Probable cause
for a search requires facts and circumstances leading a reasonably
discreet and prudent person to believe that an offense has been
committed and that the objects sought are in the place to be searched. In
cases involving newspaper publishers or editors, the application must

23
 24

specify the alleged subversive material published. The broad statement in

Col. Abadilla's application lacked the necessary particulars to justify
probable cause, and thus, the search warrants were improperly issued.

RODOLFO SORIA and EDIMAR BISTA, petitioners, vs. HON. ANIANO

DESIERTO in his capacity as Head of the Office of the
Ombudsman, HON. ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO in his capacity as
Deputy Ombudsman for Military, P/INS. JEFFREY T. GOROSPE,
SPO2 ROLANDO G. REGACHO, SPO1 ALFREDO B. ALVIAR, JR., PO3
JAIME D. LAZARO, PO2 FLORANTE B. CARDENAS, PO1 JOSEPH A.
BENAZA, SPO1 FRANKLIN D. CABAYA and SPO4 PEDRO PAREL,
respondents. [G.R. Nos. 153524-25 January 31, 2005]

FACTS:
Petitioners Soria and Bista were arrested without a warrant for
alleged illegal possession of firearms on May 13, 2001, a Sunday
preceding the May 14, 2001 Elections. They were brought to Prosecutor
Viloria, and Soria was released after 22 hours, while Bista, having a
standing warrant for another offense, was released after 26 days.
Petitioners filed a complaint invoking Article 125, which the Ombudsman
dismissed, stating that Sundays, holidays, and election days are excluded
in the computation of periods under Article 125.
ISSUE:
Whether Sundays, holidays, and election days are excluded in the
computation of periods under Article 125.

HELD
No, election days or special holidays should not be included in the
computation of the period prescribed for filing complaints/information in
courts in cases of warrantless arrests, as they are "no-office days." Citing
the case of Medina v. Orozco, Jr., the Court reasoned that on these days, it
was challenging for prosecutors to locate personnel, draft information, and
perform necessary court procedures. These difficulties are sufficient to
justify excluding these days from the computation of periods for filing
complaints or information.

24
 25

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. REDENTOR

DICHOSO y DAGDAG, SONIA DICHOSO y VINERABLE and JAIME
PAGTAKHAN y BICOMONG, accused. [G.R. Nos. 101216-18 June 4,
1993]

FACTS:
Redentor Dichoso y Dagdag appealed his conviction for violating
Sec. 15, Art. II and Sec. 4, Art. II of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. The
RTC of San Pablo City sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, a fine of
P20,000, and the cost of suit. Jaime Pagtakhan was also charged with
illegal drug possession, while Sonia Dichoso y Vinerable remained at large.
The accused argued that the evidence was planted, the search warrant
was a general warrant, and the search was unconstitutional.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the search warrant is valid.
HELD
The search warrant is valid because it specifies the place, items to
be seized, and the offense involved—illegal possession of marijuana and
shabu with related paraphernalia. The argument that the warrant covers
more than one offense is unpersuasive, as the Dangerous Drugs Act deals
with closely related offenses, allowing for a single search warrant.

25