PEOPLE V.

PEREZ

FACTS:

-Susano Perez alias Kid Perez was convicted of treason and was sentenced to death by
electrocution.

-TC found the accused, together with the other Filipinos, recruited, apprehended and
commandeered numerous girls and women against their will for the purpose of using them, to
satisfy the sexual desire of the Japanese officers.

-The Solicitor General submitted an opposite view stating that the deeds committed by the
accused do not constitute treason. It further discussed that if furnishing women for immoral
purposes to the enemies was treason because women’s company kept up their morale, so
fraternizing them, entertaining them at parties, selling them food and drinks, and kindred acts,
would be treason . Any act of hospitality produces the same result.

ISSUE: Whether the acts of the accused constituted the crime of treason.

HELD: NO. The law of treason does not prescribe 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.

His “commandeering” of women to satisfy the lust of Japanese officers or men or to enliven
the entertainment helped to make life more pleasant for the enemies and boost their spirit.

Sexual and social relations with the Japanese did not directly and materially tend to improve
their war efforts or to weaken the power of US. Whatever favorable effect the defendant’s
collaboration with the Japanese might have in their prosecution of the war was trivial,
imperceptible, and unintentional. Intent of disloyalty is a vital ingredient in the crime of
treason, which, in the absence of admission, may be gathered from the nature and
circumstance of each particular case.

But the accused may be punished for the rape as principal by direct participation. Without his
coordination in the manner above stated, these rapes could not have been committed.
Santos vs. Misa
G.R. No. L-319, March 28, 1946
76 Phil 415
Ponente: Bengzon=, J.
Facts:
 Santos 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. He was
detained due to active collaboration with the Japanese.
 Santos claims that the detention 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 because he does not owe allegiance to the US or the Commonwealth of the
Philippines.
 The Solicitor-General declared that Santos may be charged for espionage, a crime against
national security wherein allegiance is immaterial, and may, therefore, be held in custody
under Commonwealth Act No. 682
Issue: Whether or not Santos is covered by Commonwealth Act No. 682. (With regard to
detention of political prisoners)
Held: Yes.
Ratio:
Section 19, Commonwealth Act No. 682:
Upon delivery the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States in the
Philippines of the persons detained by him as political prisoners, to the Commonwealth
Government, the Office of Special Prosecutors shall receive all records, documents, exhibits and
such other things as the Government of the United States may have turned over in connection
with and/or affecting said political prisoners, examine the aforesaid records, documents,
exhibits, etc., and take, as speedily as possible, such action as may be proper: Provided, however, .
. .. And, provided, further, That, in the interest of public security, the provisions of article one
hundred twenty-five of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall be deemed, as they are hereby
suspended, insofar as the aforesaid political prisoners are concerned, until the filing of the
corresponding information with the People's Court, but the period of suspension shall not be
than six (6) months from the formal delivery of said political prisoners by the Commander-in-
Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States in the Philippines to the Commonwealth
Government.

Santos may be prosecuted for espionage, a crime not conditioned by the citizenship of the
offender and considered as an offense against national security.

Ruling: Petition denied.

People v Abad
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs.
FRANCISCO M. ABAD (alias PAQUITO)
G.R. No. L-430
July 30, 1947
PERFECTO, J.
FACTS:
Accused Francisco Abad was found guilty of the complex crime of treason with homicide and
sentenced to death, to pay a fine of P15,000, to indemnify the heirs of Osias Salvador in the
amount of P2,000, and to pay costs.
1. December 24, 1943: as an informer and spy of the Japanese Army, join participate in a raid
conducted by about fifteen Japanese soldiers of the Military Police at the house of Magno Ibarra,
apprehended the said Magno Ibarra, charging him of possession of a revolver which had been
previously surrendered by Magno Ibarra to the Japanese that Magno Ibarra still had the
revolver.

2. March 11, 1944, caused the arrest and incarceration for more than two months, of one Mr.
Francisco, for having remarked that the Americans would soon return many places in the
Philippines had already been retaken.

3. September 28, 1944: forced, coerced, and compelled Osias Salvador and his two brothers to
go to the Japanese garrison where in accused’s presence, were tortured as guerrilla suspects,
and although Epifanio and Liberto Salvador managed later to escape from imprisonment, the
said Osias Salvador was unable to do so and died.

4. November 12, 1844: handed over one Francisco Donato to the Japanese soldiers who slapped
and kicked the said Donato, for an incident in which the accused was entirely to blame in that
the said accused annoyed Flora Esteban, wife of Francisco Donato, by throwing sugar cane butts
at her.

The lower court found the accused guilty on the first three counts.

ISSUES:

· Whether or not the accused is guilty of the first count. Defense maintains that only one
witness testified to the overt act alleged therein.
o HELD: Not guilty.
o RATIO: Two witnesses were called by the prosecution to prove the first count, Magno Ibarra
and his wife, Isabel. Appellant's going to the Ibarra house, in search of the revolver (testimony of
Isabel), is a single overt act, distinct and independent from appellant's overt act in requiring
Magno Ibarra, when the latter went to the garrison, to produce his revolver (testimony of
Magno). Although both overt acts are inter-related. it would be too much to strain the
imagination if they should be identified as a single act or even as different manifestations,
phases, or stage of the same overt act.

· Whether or not the arrest and incarceration of Francisco was caused by accused. Defense
maintains that there could be other spies who heard Francisco’s remarks.
o HELD: Guilty.
o RATIO: The fact that appellant caused the arrest of Francisco at the auditorium night dance,
by pointing him as the man sought for to the Japanese soldiers who accompanied him and his
brother Mariano, in itself alone is sufficient to find him guilty of adherence to the Japanese
enemies and of giving them aid in the attainment of their was purposes.
· Whether or not the accused caused the arrest of Salvador brothers. Defense maintains that
it was improbable for Liberato Salvador to have seen the accused making signs to Japs to arrest
the Salvador brothers.
o HELD: Guilty.
o RATIO: It is satisfactorily explained by Liberato that "because a man wanted to by the
Japanese begins to observe everything," he had to observe "because I knew they were making
signs"

· In relation to the above, whether or not accused is responsible for the death of Osias
Salvador.
o HELD: Not responsible.
o RATIO: It was the escape of Epifanio, and later the escape of Liberato, which must have
enraged the Japanese to the extent of killing Osias Salvador, who, were not so weak, had the
same chance as his brothers to escape. If his brothers did not escape, there is no ground to
presume that Osias would have been killed by the Japanese if we take into consideration that,
after almost two and a half months of confinement, the Japanese allowed Fausto Francisco to be
released. There is absolutely no evidence that appellant was present or had anything to do with
the killing of Osias Salvador.

· Whether or not the court erred in admitting evidence of supposed treasonable acts not
specifically alleged in the information (referring to the gathering of info on the whereabouts of
guerrilla army members and the shooting of Domingo)
o HELD: Yes, the court erred. Not guilty.
o RATIO: The fact that accused is described therein as an informer is not enough, because the
description is a conclusion made by the author of the information based on the facts specifically
alleged in the four counts. Also, the lower court erred in finding the facts proven when the
testimony of has not been corroborated by any other witness, thus violating the two-witness
rule in treason cases.

· Whether or not the trial court erred in finding accused as informer based on mere
assertions of witnesses on charges not alleged in the information
o HELD: Yes, the trial court erred. Not guilty.
o The pronouncement appears to be based on the testimonies of Publio Dumaual, Rafael
Guillermo, and Agustin de la Cruz, each one of whom testified about facts not alleged in any of
the counts of the information, and their testimonies on said facts appear not to be corroborated
by another witness, as required by the two-witness rule.

· Whether or not the court erred in not appreciating 2 mitigating circumstances: the fact that
the Abad family was persecuted by guerrillas, the persecution ending in the killing of Lino Abad
Pine and Antonio Abad, father and brother, respectively, of the accused, and, appellant's age.
o HELD: First circumstance not appreciated. Age is appreciated.
o RATIO: The killing of the father and brother of accused is not considered to mitigate
appellant's guilt as they are not of a similar nature or analogous to those mentioned in article 13
of the Revised Penal Code.Appellant's age can be considered. He was born on October 20, 1924,
and when he committed the acts alleged in counts two and three, the latter on September 28,
1944, he was not yet 20 years old. The circumstances of this case justify crediting appellant with
a mitigating circumstance of similar nature to that of number 2 of article 13 of the Revised Penal
Code.

Decision of the lower court modified (1 mitigating). Sentenced to 14 years, 8 months, and 1 day
of reclusion temporal and to pay a fine of P5,000 and the costs.
United States Vs. Apolonio Caballeros
Mapa, J.; March 29, 1905
G.R. No. 1352
FACTS:
§ Roberto Baculi was in his banana plantation gathering bananas when he heard some shots
fired. He tried to run, but was seen by Damaso and Isidro, leaders of the band who fired the
shots and striking him with the butts of their guns, forced him to bury the victims: four
American school teachers shot to death.
§ Apolonio Caballeros and Baculi was then arrested for the crime.
§ The two confessed their guilt and was sentenced to seven years of presidio mayor as
accessories.
Issues:
§ Whether or not the penalty was correct.
Held:
§ No. Decision reversed and defendants acquitted.
Ratio:
§ Baculi is exempt from liability for he acted under the compulsion of an irresistible
force since he was under threat by the band.
§ As for Caballeros, ther was no proof of his participation in any way to the crime
charged. Witnesses confirm that he was not even in the place where the burial took
place. Covarrubias, a witness, said that his confession of guilt was made through a
promise that “nothing will be done to them”. Under such circumstance, the confession
cannot be accepted as proof on trial, for it was not made freely and voluntarily.
§ Their failure to report the crime to the authorities is not a crime punishable by the
RPC.

People v Catantan

- Emilio Catantan and Jose Macven Ursal were convicted of violating PD 232 Anti-
Piracy and Highway Robbery Law. Only Catantan appealed.
- June 27 1993, The Pilapil brothers were fishing some 3km away from the shores of
Tabogon Cebu.
- Suddenly, another boat caught up to them. Catantan borded the pumpboat of the
Pilapils, leveled a revolver at Eugene, and ordered them to lie down
- Then, Ursal boarded the pumpboat and they hogetied Eugene. The accused left
behind
their pumpboat with its passengers one of whom was also tied.
- While travelling to Daan Tabogon as compelled by the accused , the engine stalled
twice
and the brothers were ordered to row the boat.
- As they passed by the shoreline of Nipa, They saw another boat operated by a
certain Juanito. The Pilapils told the accused that the engine was new.
- Catantan ordered the Pilapils to approach the boat cautioning them not to speak or
move
- On the pretext that they were buying fish, Catantan boarded the new pumpboat
and
ordered them to bring them to Mungaz, Cebu.
- As Ursal was transferring to Juanito’s pumpboat, he kicked the front part of the
Pilapil’s
boat.
- The jolt threw Eugene off, Juan Jr untied his brother’s leg and they swam together
clinging to their boat.
- Another pumpboat passed, they were towed ashore and reported to the authorities
- The accused were caught when Juanito’s pumpboat ran out of gas, but the revolver
was
not found.

Issue:
W/N the accused was guilty of piracy 1as defined by PD 532 or grave coercion2
as defined by
RPC 286.

Despite the accused argument that he and his companions did not attach or seize the
fishing
boat, nor had any intention of permanently taking possession or depriving the
complainants of
their boat, they are guilty of piracy. The act of compelling the Pilapils to take them
elsewhere
other than their original place of destination was part of the act of seizing the boat.
The accused insists that they had no intention of depriving the Pilapils permanently
of their
boat, proof of which they left behind the brothers with their boat, the truth is, the
accused
abandoned the Pilapils only because the engine broke down and they needed
another mean to
return to their lair.

1 P.D. 532 defines piracy as: any attack upon or seizure of any vessel, or the taking
away of the
whole or part thereof or its cargo, equipment, or the personal belongings of its
complement or
passengers, irrespective of the value thereof, by means of violence against or
intimidation of
persons or force upon things, committed by any person, including a passenger or
member of the
complement of said vessel, in Philippine waters, shall be considered as piracy. The
offenders shall
be considered as pirates and punished as hereinafter provided
2 RPC Art. 286 defines graver coercion as: imposing upon any person who, without
authority o law, shall by means of violence threats or intimidation, prevent another
from
doing something not prohibited by law, or compel him to do something against his
will,
whether it be right or wrong.

008. PEOPLE v. SIYOH G.R. No. L-57292 | February 18, 1986 |

Antonio de Guzman was part of a group of 4 travelling merchants (the others were Anastacio de Guzman,
Danilo Hiolen, and Rodolfo de Castro), selling goods in Basilan. From July 10 to 14, 1979, they would sell
their wares in the area of Pilas Island, returning to it every night to sleep at Kiram’s house. Kiram and
Siyoh would accompany the group [the case does not explicitly state it, but it can be inferred that Kiram
and Siyoh manned the pumpboats and acted as their guides.] Kiram did not sleep in his own house on July
12 and 13. In the morning of July 14, the group went to Baluk-Baluk, where they saw Kiram and Siyoh
talking with 2 persons whom the group did not recognize. As they were returning to Pilas Island, Antonio
saw another pumpboat approaching, and Kiram turned off their engine. The persons on the other pumpboat
fired 2 shots using armalites. It turned out that the persons on the other pumpboat were the ones talking
with Kiram and Siyoh earlier. Kiram then threw a rope to the other pumpboat, towing it to Mataja Island,
where Kiram divested the merchants of their money and goods. Kiram and his companions also ordered the
merchants to undress. Kiram put on Antonio’s pants. As the merchants were naked [birthday suit, as Sir
would say], Kiram said “It was good to kill all of you,” and then Siyoh and Kiram hacked at Antonio’s
companions (Danilo and Rodolfo, respectively.) Antonio jumped into the water and swam away. Kiram’s
companions fired at and hit Antonio’s back. Antonio passed the night at a mangrove and was picked up by
a fishing boat. The next day (July 15,) Antonio saw Kiram and Siyoh at the wharf, while Antonio was
waiting for the dead bodies of his fellows. Antonio pointed out Kiram and Siyoh to the PC, who managed
to arrest them before they could run. Kiram was wearing Antonio’s pants. The Basilan CFI convicted the
accused of Qualified Piracy with Triple Murder and Frustrated Murder under The 1974 Anti-Piracy and
Highway Robbery Law (PD 532). On automatic review by the SC, the SC affirmed the decision but
modified the penalty imposed and the damages awarded.

Topical Issue(s) + Discussion: Whether…

1) The fact that Anastacio’s remains were never recovered is a material fact that the Court should take into
account – NO. The number of persons killed on the occasion of piracy is immaterial.
A) The law (1974 Anti-Piracy and Highway Robbery Law) considers qualified piracy (i.e., where there is
rape, murder, or homicide committed as a result of or on the occasion of piracy) as a special complex crime
punishable by death regardless of the number of victims. B) [Not stated in the case] Section 3(a) of the
1974 Anti-Piracy and Highway Robbery Law (PD 532) is the applicable provision:
Any person who commits piracy x x x as herein defined, shall, upon conviction by competent court be
punished by: x x x reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods x x x. 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.

People v Siyoh
G.R. No. L-57292
February 18, 1986
The People Of The Philippines
vs.
Julaide Siyoh, Omar-Kayam Kiram, Namli Indanan & Andaw Jamahali,
ABAD SANTOS, J.:
FACTS:
Siyoh, Kiram, Indanan and Jamahali were accused of qualified piracy with triple murder and
frustrated murder. On July 14, 1979, accused fired their guns into the air and stopped the
pumpboat wherein de Castro, Hiloen and 2 de Guzmans were riding, boarded the said pumpboat
and took, stole and carried away all their cash money, wrist watches, stereo sets, merchandise
and other personal belongings amounting to the total amount of P 18,342.00, Philippine
Currency, ordered them to jump into the water, whereupon, the said accused, fired their guns at
them which caused the death of de Castro and one de Guzman while wounding the other de
Guzman. It appears that Siyoh and Kiram were with the victims, also selling their goods, before
the incident happened.
Lower court decision: Sentenced to DEATH. However, considering the provision of Section 106
of the Code of Mindanao and Sulu, the illiteracy or ignorance or extreme poverty of the accused
who are members of the cultural minorities, under a regime of so called compassionate society,
a commutation to life imprisonment is recommended.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Siyoh and Kiram are guilty beyond reasonable doubt, considering the credibility
of the witness
HELD:
Yes, they are guilty BRD.
RATIO:
Appellants contentions are unconvincing:
1. That if they were the culprits they could have easily robbed their victims at the Kiram house
or on any of the occasions when they were travelling together. Suffice it to say that robbing the
victims at Kiram's house would make Kiram and his family immediately suspect and robbing the
victims before they had sold all their goods would be premature. However, robbing and killing
the victims while at sea and after they had sold all their goods was both timely and
provided safety from prying eyes.
2. That the accused immediately reported the incident to the PC. The record does not support
this assertion.
3. That the affidavits of Dolores de Guzman, wife of the deceased Anastacio de Guzman, and
Primitiva de Castro, wife of the deceased Rodolfo de Castro, state that Antonio de Guzman
informed them shortly after the incident that their husbands were killed by the companions of
Siyoh and Kiram. The thrust of the appellants' claim, therefore, is that Namli Indanan and Andaw
Jamahali were the killers and not the former. But this claim is baseless in the face of the proven
conspiracy among the accused.
4. That there is no evidence Anastacio de Guzman was killed together with Rodolfo de Castro
and Danilo Hiolen because his remains were never recovered. There is no reason to suppose
that Anastacio de Guzman is still alive or that he died in a manner different from his
companions. The incident took place on July 14, 1979 and when the trial court decided the case
on June 8, 1981 Anastacio de Guzman was still missing. But the number of persons killed on the
occasion of piracy is not material. P.D. No. 532 considers qualified piracy, i.e. rape, murder or
homicide is committed as a result or on the occasion of piracy, as a special complex crime
punishable by death regardless of the number of victims.
5. That the death certificates are vague as to the nature of the injuries sustained by the victims;
were they hacked wounds or gunshot wounds? The cause is consistent with the testimony of
Antonio de Guzman that the victims were hacked; that the appellants were armed with
"barongs" while Indanan and Jamahali were armed with armalites.
Decision affirmed with the following modifications: (a) for lack of necessary votes the penalty
imposed shall be reclusion perpetua; and (b) each of the appellants shall pay in solidum to the
heirs of each of the deceased indemnity in the amount of P30,000.00. No special pronouncement
as to costs.
 People vs. Lol-lo and Saraw
Two Dutch boats sailed for Peta in the Dutch East Indies (present day Indonesia). The
second boat, which carried several passengers, arrived between the islands of Buang and
Bukid. Six vintas with 24 armed men surrounded the vessel. The armed men initially
asked for food. However, once they were on the Dutch boat, the armed men attacked the
passengers, raped two women, and stole all the cargo. They drilled holes into the boat to
make it sink. They also took the two women and repeatedly raped them. The two women
escaped at Maruro, where the armed men landed. Left with no provision, the passengers
were rescued after 11 days.

Lol-lo and Saraw, two of the armed men, later went back to their home in Sulu.
Subsequently, they were arrested and charged with piracy. After trial, both were found
guilty of the crime.

On appeal, defendants argued that Philippine courts do not have jurisdiction over their
case since the crime was committed in the high seas.

ISSUES/HELD:

1. Whether the accused committed the crime of piracy – YES

1. The accused are guilty of priracy.

Piracy is robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas, without lawful authority and
done animo furandi, and in the spirit and intention of universal hostility. All of the
elements of the crime of piracy are present.

Piracy
People v. Lol-lo and Saraw
GR#17958 – Feb. 27, 1922
Ponente: Malcolm, J.
FACTS: Days after leaving Matuta, Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia) on Jun. 30, 1920, two
boats carrying 12 Dutch nationals (1 person in one boat, 11 men, women and children in
another) were boarded by 24 armed Moros (including the accused Lol-lo and Saraw) at around
7:00 PM. The Moros took all the cargo from the Dutch. They also raped and abducted the two
women on board. The Moros poked holes in the boat and left the rest of the Dutch in it (they
were later rescued). The two women were able to escape once the Moros docked in the island of
Maruro (also a Dutch possession). Lol-lo and Saraw were arrested after returning to their home
in South Ubian, Tawi-tawi. They were charged w/ Piracy before the Sulu CFI and were found
guilty, with punishment of life imprisonment; and to return the stolen 39 sacks of copra plus 924
rupees in damages, plus costs.
ISSUES: 1) W/N the Sulu CFI has jurisdiction over the crime 2) W/N the defendants are guilty
HELD: 1) Yes 2) Yes
RATIO:
1) Piracy is a crime against all mankind. The jurisdiction of piracy has no territorial limits,
pirates being hostes humani generis (enemies of mankind). Piracy may be prosecuted in any
court where the offender may be found or into which he may be carried.
2) The provisions of the Spanish Penal Code on piracy (Arts. 153-154) remained in force after
the American takeover, by virtue of Pres. McKinley’s Instructions. Art. 154 specified that piracy
with rape shall be punished by cadena perpetua to death. Lol-lo, who was proven to have taken
part in the rape of the two women, should therefore be put to death - the crime being aggravated
by cruelty, ignominy, and abuse of superior strength (rape of the women, abandonment of the
other victims, 24 armed men vs. 12 men, women & children) with the mitigating circumstance of
lack of instruction.
DECISION: Judgment affirmed with respect to Saraw, modified with respect to Lol-lo.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 111709 August 30, 2001

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.

In the evening of March 2, 1991, "M/T Tabangao," a cargo vessel owned by the PNOC Shipping and Transport
Corporation, loaded with barrels of kerosene, regular gasoline, and diesel oil, was boarded by 7 fully armed
pirates. The pirates including the accused Roger P. Tulin, Virgilio Loyola, and Andres Infante Jr. detained the crew
and completely took over the vessel. The vessel was directed to proceed to Singapore where the cargoes were
unloaded transferred and sold under the direct supervision of accused Cheong San Hiong. Thereafter, the captive vessel
returned to the Philippines.

A series of arrests was thereafter effected and all the accused were charged with qualified piracy or violation of
Presidential Decree No. 532 (Piracy in Philippine Waters). They were subsequently convicted of the crime
charged. Hence, this appeal. Meanwhile accused Cheong argues that the trial court erred in convicting and
punishing him as an accomplice when the acts allegedly committed by him were done or executed outside of
Philippine waters and territory, stripping the Philippine courts of jurisdiction to hold him for trial, to convict, and
sentence.

ISSUE:

WON the Philippines is without jurisdiction to try a crime committed outside the Philippine waters and territory?

RULING:

We affirm the conviction of all the accused-appellants.

Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code, before its amendment, provided that piracy must be committed on the high
seas by any person not a member of its complement nor a passenger thereof. Upon its amendment by Republic
Act No. 7659, the coverage of the pertinent provision was widened to include offenses committed "in Philippine
waters." On the other hand, under Presidential Decree No. 532 (issued in 1974), the coverage of the law on piracy
embraces any person including "a passenger or member of the complement of said vessel in Philippine waters."
Hence, passenger or not, a member of the complement or not, any person is covered by the law.

Republic Act No. 7659 neither superseded nor amended the provisions on piracy under Presidential Decree No.
532. There is no contradiction between the two laws. There is likewise no ambiguity and hence, there is no need to
construe or interpret the law. All the presidential decree did was to widen the coverage of the law, in keeping with
the intent to protect the citizenry as well as neighboring states from crimes against the law of nations. As
expressed in one of the "whereas" clauses of Presidential Decree No. 532, piracy is "among the highest forms of
lawlessness condemned by the penal statutes of all countries." For this reason, piracy under the Article 122, as
amended, and piracy under Presidential Decree No. 532 exist harmoniously as separate laws.

As regards the contention that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of accused-
appellant Hiong since the crime was committed outside Philippine waters, suffice it to state that
unquestionably, the attack on and seizure of "M/T Tabangao" (renamed "M/T Galilee" by the pirates) 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. Although Presidential Decree No. 532 requires that the
attack and seizure of the vessel and its cargo be committed in Philippine waters, the disposition by the
pirates of the vessel and its cargo is still deemed part of the act of piracy, hence, the same need not be
committed in Philippine waters.

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. The same principle applies even if Hiong, in the instant case,
were charged, not with a violation of qualified piracy under the penal code but under a special law,
Presidential Decree No. 532 which penalizes piracy in Philippine waters. Verily, Presidential Decree No.
532 should be applied with more force here since its purpose is precisely to discourage and prevent piracy
in Philippine waters (People v. Catantan, 278 SCRA 761 [1997]). It is likewise, well-settled that regardless of
the law penalizing the same, piracy is a reprehensible crime against the whole world (People v. Lol-lo, 43
Phil. 19 [1922]).

People v Ang Kio Cho

95 Phil 475
Jul 29 1954
FACTS:
· Ang Kio Cho: charged with murder of Eduardo Diago and murder of Pedro Perlas
· Dec 30 1952: Ang Cho is a passenger in PAL flight PI-C-38 from Laoag to Aparri
o Ang Cho shoots purser Diago
o Ang Cho coerces pilot Perlas into changing course for Amoy, in China. When Perlas refuses,
Ang Cho shoots him.
· Ang Cho pleads guilty to both cases.
o 12 years prision mayor to 20 years reclusion temporal, plus indemnification of Diago’s heirs
for the first case
o Reclusion perpetua for the second case
· Attorney General contends that the lower court committed errors in each of the two cases:
o Aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation should be offset by plea of guilty; proper
penalty should be reclusion perpetua
o Crime charged should be the complex crime of grave coercion with murder; proper penalty
should be death
· Supreme Court recognizes the error of the lower court in the first case, but rules that the
claim on the second case is baseless, as the coercion committed was not essential to the act of
murder.
ISSUE:
· Whether or not the appeal made by the Attorney General concerning the first case has
merit.
HELD/RATIO:
· No. Placing upon the accused the risk of being given a higher penalty that what is imposed
by the lower court, even if the lower court erroneously gives the wrong penalty, counts as
double jeopardy.
· "No error, however, flagrant, committed by the court against the state, can be reserved by it
for decision by the supreme court when the defendant has once been placed in jeopardy and
discharged, even though the discharge was the result of the error committed.”

LAUREL V. MISA

FACTS:

A petition for habeas corpus was filed by Anastacio Laurel. He claims that a Filipino citizen who
adhered to the enemy giving the latter aid and comfort during the Japanese occupation cannot
be prosecuted for the crime of treason for the reasons that the sovereignty of the legitimate
government in the Philippines and consequently the correlative allegiance of Filipino citizen
thereto were then suspended; and that there was a change of sovereignty over these Islands
upon the proclamation of the Philippine Republic.

ISSUE: WHETHER THE ABSOLUTE ALLEGIANCE OF A FILIPINO CITIZEN TO THE GOVERNMENT

BECOMES SUSPENDED DURING OCCUPATION

HELD:

No. The absolute and permanent allegiance of the inhabitants of a territory occupied by the
enemy of 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. It remains vested in the legitimate government.

What may be suspended is the exercise of the rights of sovereignty with the control and
government of the territory occupied by the enemy passes temporarily to the occupant. The
political laws which prescribe the reciprocal rights, duties and obligation of government and
citizens, are suspended in abeyance during military occupation.

DISSENT:

During the long period of Japanese occupation, all the political laws of the Philippines were
suspended. This is full harmony with the generally accepted principles of the international law
adopted by our Constitution [ Art. II, Sec. 3 ] as part of law of the nation.

The inhabitants of the occupied territory should necessarily be bound to the sole authority of
the invading power whose interest and requirements are naturally in conflict with those of
displaced government, if it is legitimate for the military occupant to demand and enforce from
the inhabit ants such obedience as may be necessary for the security of his forces, for the
maintenance of the law and order, and for the proper administration of the country.

: People vs Alunan

Rafael Alunan is accused of treason because he accepted certain appointments in the

government during the regime of the Philippine Executive Commission (Japanese
Occupation Era) and served/performed acts and duties in accordance with the
positions he accepted.

Among the positions/acts are as follows:

 accepting and serving in the following positions: Minister of Agriculture and
Commerce; Member of the Executive Council; Member of the Preparatory
Commission on Philippine Independence which drafted the 1943
Constitution; Minister of Agriculture and Natural Resources; participating in
a gratitude mission to Tokyo;
 voting in favor of declaration of war against the Allied Powers;
 conferring with the Japanese emperor;
 and helping draft and circulate a “Letter of Response” which promised
cooperation with the Japanese, among others.

W/N the accused is guilty of the crime of treason. – NO

It is a basic rule that the crime of treason requires at least two witnesses to every
act. Therefore, other tests are merely secondary or corroborative without merit or
value for themselves in crimes of treason.

There was much emphasis in identifying the signatures of the accused in the
documents presented, and even an expert witness to verify that the signatures were
made by the accused was presented. However, this cannot override the general rule
of at least two witnesses as provided in the RPC.

Authenticity of the signatures on documents cannot be established by ordinary

means, but it requires the testimony of at least 2 witnesses who saw the defendant
materially sign. No such witnesses were presented. The law is clear and specific in
this regard.

Even if for the purposes of discussion that it was genuinely the accused’ signatures,
it does not constitute sufficient proof of adherence to the enemy.

“Although some of the charges or acts under the indictment, have been established
in the form and manner prescribed by law, such acts were executed by the
defendant in the performance of their official duties, that is, by reason of the public
office that played under abnormal circumstances, and therefore can not be
estimated as acts proper support and comfort to the enemy cause. We are of opinion
that the mere acceptance of a public office and perform the functions and duties
attached thereto in and during the Japanese military occupation of the Philippines,
not per se crime of treason. But even accepting that such acts alleged against the
accused here were really helpful and comfort to the enemy, are not punishable in
this particular case, since it has not been proven successful defendant's adherence
to the enemy because, as we have said above, is a prerequisite for a conviction for
the crime of treason.”
 Adherence to the enemy + acts that give the enemy aid and comfort must concur for
the accused to be convicted of treason. Mere acceptance of a public office and
performing the duties of such public office during the Japanese military occupation
does not prove adherence to the enemy.

PEOPLE V. PRIETO

FACTS:

-The appellant was prosecuted for treason.

-Two witnesses gave evidence but their statements do not coincide in any single detail. The
first witness testified that the accused with other Filipino undercovers and Japanese soldiers
caught an American aviator and had the witness carry the American to town on a sled pulled by
a carabao. That on the way, the accused walked behind the sled and asked the prisoner if the
sled was faster than the airplane; that the American was taken to the Kempetai headquarters,
after which he did not know what happened to the flier.

-The next witness, testified that he saw the accused following an American and the accused
were Japanese and other Filipinos.

-The lower court believes that the accused is “guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
treason complexed by murder and physical injuries”, with “the aggravating circumstances
mentioned above”. Apparently, the court has regarded the murders and physical injuries
charged in the information, not only as crimes distinct from treason but also as modifying
circumstances. The Solicitor General agrees with the decision except as to the technical
designation of the crime. In his opinion, the offense committed by the appellant is a “complex
crime of treason with homicide”.

-Accused being a member of the Japanese Military Police and acting as undercover man for the
Japanese forces with the purpose of giving and with the intent to give aid and comfort
feloniously and treasonably lad, guide and accompany a patrol of Japanese soldiers and Filipino
undercovers for the purpose of apprehending guerillas and locating their hideouts.

ISSUES;

1. Whether the “two-witness” rule was sufficiently complied.

2. Whether the TC erred in ruling that the murders and physical injuries were crimes distinct
from treason.

HELD:

1. NO, it was not sufficiently complied. The witnesses evidently referred to two different
occasions. The two witnesses failed to corroborate each other not only on the whole overt act
but on any part of it.

2. The execution of some of the guerilla suspects mentioned and the infliction of physical
injuries on others are not offenses separate from treason. There must concur both adherence
to the enemy and giving him aid and comfort. One without the other does not make treason.

In the nature of things, the giving 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.

However, the brutality with the killing or physical injuries were carried out may be taken as an
aggravating circumstances. Thus, the use of torture and other atrocities on the victims instead
of the usual and less painful method of execution will be taken into account to increase the
penalty.

G.R. No. L-1006 June 28, 1949

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FILEMON
ESCLETO, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The appellant, Filemon Escleto, was charged in the former People's Court with
treason on three counts. The record shows that on or about, March 11, 1944,
Japanese patrol composed of 17 men and 1 officer was ambushed and totally
liquidated by guerrillas in barrio Bibito, Lopez, Province of Tayabas, now
Quezon. As a result, some of inhabitants of Bibito and neighboring barrios,
numbering several hundred, were arrested and others were ordered to report at
the poblacion. Among the latter were Antonio Conducto, a guerrilla and former
USAFFE, and his family. Sinforosa Mortero, 40, testified that on March 18, 1944,
at about 5 PM, obedience to the Japanese order, she and the rest of her family
went to the town from barrio Danlagan. Still in Danlagan, in front of Escleto's
house, Escleto told them to stop and took down their names. With her were her
daughter-in-law, her son Antonio Conducto, and three grandchildren. After writing
their names, Escleto conducted them to the PC garrison in the poblacion where
they were questioned by some whose name she did not know. This man asked
her if she heard gunshots and she said yes but did not know where they were.
The next day they were allowed to go home with many others, but her son was
not released. Since then she had not seen him. On cross-examination she said
that when Escleto took down their names her son asked the accused if anything
would happen to him and his family, and Escleto answered, "Nothing will happen
to you because I am to accompany you in going to town." Her daughter-in-law
Patricia Araya declared that before reaching the town, Escleto stopped her, her
mother-in-law, her husband, her three children, her brother-in-law and the latter's
wife and took down their names; that after taking their names Escleto and the PC
soldier took them to the PC garrison; that her husband asked Escleto what would
happen to him and his family, and Escleto said "nothing" and assured Conducto
that he and his family would soon be allowed to go home; that Escleto presented
them to a PC and she heard him tell the latter, "This is Antonio Conducto who
has firearm;" that afterward they were sent upstairs and she did not know what
happened to her husband.
ISSUE
W/N the two witnesses required to convict a defendant for treason may testify to
separate parts comprising a whole overt act
RULING – People’s Court
The People’s Court convicted the defendant for treason on 3 counts.
RULING – SC
The SC REVERSED the decision of the People’s Court. The only evidence
against the appellant that might be considered direct and damaging is Patricia
Araya's testimony that Escleto told a PC soldier, "This is Antonio Conducto who
has firearm." But the prosecution did not elaborate on this testimony, nor was any
other witness made to corroborate it although Patricia Araya was with her
husband, parents and relatives who would have heard the statement if the
defendant had uttered it. 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. The
provision requires that 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.

People v Pedro Marcaida

79 Phil 283
Sept 18 1947
FACTS:
· Pedro Marcaida: charged with treason by the People’s Court
· Marcaida alleges that the court erred in saying that his citizenship was sufficiently proven.
· Defense claims that Marcaida testified in Tagalog that he is “taga-Lopez” (in Tayabas,
Quezon) and that he was born in Lopez, but there are no such details in the records.
ISSUE:
· Whether or not Marcaida can be convicted of treason.
HELD/RATIO:
· No. His citizenship is not sufficiently proven. The name Pedro Marcaida can be Filipino,
Spanish of South American. No evidence of citizenship of parents means there is no way to
ascertain whether or not he is a Filipino citizen, as he could be a descendant of Spanish subjects
who chose to retain Spanish citizenship even after the signing of the Treaty of Paris, or even by
South Americans who refused to go through the naturalization process.