CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGESTS ON TITLE I
ESTREMOS
Laurel v Misa
TREASON
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 (defenses):
1. that the sovereignty of the legitimate government in the
Philippines and, consequently, the correlative allegiance of
Filipino citizen thereto were then suspended; and
2. that there was a change of sovereignty over these Islands
upon the proclamation of the Philippine Republic.
HELD:
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.
Notes:
Absolute and permanent allegiance – consists in the obligation of
fidelity and obedience to his government or sovereign
Qualified and temporary allegiance – [this is] which a foreigner
owes to the government or sovereign of the territory wherein he
resides, so long as he remains there, in return for the protection he
receives, and which consists in the obedience to the laws of the
government or sovereign
 obligation of fidelity and obedience which a resident alien
owes to our government
People v Perez
TREASON
Susano Perez (alias Kid Perez) was convicted of treason, for
recruiting, apprehending, and commandeering women against their
will to satisfy the immoral purpose and sexual desire of Colonel Mini
and other Japanese Officers.
Seven counts were alleged in the information but the prosecution
offered only on counts 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6.
Susano Perez was convicted of treason and sentenced to death by
electrocution by the People’s Court.
ISSUE: WON the acts of the accused constitute treason.
HELD: No.
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.
The act of the accused of providing the enemies with women and
entertainment, boosting their (the enemies’) morale and making
their lives more pleasant, is not treason.
Sexual and social relations with the Japanese did not directly and
materially tend to improve their war efforts or weaken the power of
the government.
BY: DOMINIC B.
Any favorable effect toward the Japanese that the accused might
have made 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
circumstances of each particular case.
In this particular case, it was not evident that the intent of the
accused in providing the enemies with women was to help them
overthrow the government.
Note: But the accused (Perez) may be punished for the rape of
Ramo, Daohog, Lamay and Bonalos as principal by direct
participation. Without his cooperation in the manner above stated,
these rapes could not have been committed.
People v Prieto
TREASON
Eduardo Prieto (or Eddie Valencia) was prosecuted for 7 counts of
treason. Initially, he pleaded not guilty to every charge. Later on, he
entered a plea of guilty to counts 1, 2, 3 and 7, but maintained his
original plea to counts 4, 5, and 6.
The prosecutor only presented evidence to count 4 as he admitted
insufficiency of evidence as to counts 5 and 6.
Two witnesses gave evidence on count 4 but their statements do
not coincide on any detail.
Juanito Albano 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
Valentin Cuison testified that he saw the accused following an
American while walking, and the accused were with the
Japanese and other Filipinos.
The court finds him guilty to all counts except 5 and 6 of “treason
complexed by murder and physical injuries”
HELD:
Prieto is acquitted on count 4 as the two-witness principle
requirement was not satisfied. They failed to corroborate with each
other.
There is no crime of treason complexed with other felonies because
these were not separate offenses from treason.
 When a deed is charged as an element of treason, it
becomes identified with it and cannot be subject of a
separate punishment, or used in combination with treason
to increase the penalty
 Murder or physical injuries are charged as overt acts of
treason and cannot be regarded separately under their
general denomination
 But the brutality which accompanied the killing and the
physical injuries are taken as aggravating circumstances
since it augmented the sufferings of the offended parties
unnecessarily to the attainment of the criminal objectives
 But there is a mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty,
hence, the punishment should be reclusion perpetua
Title I - 1
 CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGESTS ON TITLE I
US v Bautista
TREASON
In 1903, a junta was organized and a conspiracy entered into by a
number of Filipinos in Hongkong, for the purpose of overthrowing
the Government by force and arms and establishing in its stead a
government to be known as Republica Universal Democratica
Filipina
Primo Ruiz was recognized as the titular head of this conspiracy
and Artemio Ricarte as chief of the military forces to be organized in
the Philippines in furtherance of the plans of the conspirators.
Ricarte came to Manila from Hongkong; that after his arrival in
Manila, he held a number of meetings where it perfected the
conspiracy hatched in Hongkong.
The defendant Francisco Bautista took part in several of the
meetings whereat the plans of the conspirators were discussed and
perfected; and that one of these meetings, Bautista assured Ricarte
that the necessary preparation had been made and that he “held
the people in readiness.”
Tomaz Puzon held several conferences whereat plans are made
for the coming insurrection. He was appointed Brigader-General of
the Signal Corps of the revolutionary forces by Jose Munoz.
He contended that he had accepted the appointment with no
intention of ever taking any further action. When Munoz offered him
the appointment, he did so in a “joking tone,” and that Puzon did not
know that Ricarte was in Manila organizing the conspiracy at that
time.
Aniceto de Guzman accepted some bonds from one of the
conspirators for the purpose of raising funds for carrying out the
plans of the conspiracy.
ISSUE: WON the 3 accused are guilty of conspiracy.
HELD:
Yes. For Bautista and Puzon, they are guilty of conspiraacy.
Bautista was fully aware of the purposes of the meetings he
participated in, and even gave an assurance to the chief of police
that he is making the necessary preparations.
Puzon actually and voluntarily accepted the appointment in question
and, in doing so, assumed all the obligations implied by such
acceptance.
However, de Guzman is not guilty of conspiracy.
He might have been helping the conspirators by accepting the
bundles, but he has not been aware of the contents nor assumed
any obligation with respect to these bonds.
He stated that when he opened the bundle and discovered the
nature of the contents, he destroyed them with fire.
BY: DOMINIC B. ESTREMOS
People v Lol-lo & Saraw
PIRACY
Six vintas intercepted one of the two Dutch boats, carrying eleven
men, women and children. The six vintas were manned by 24
moros all armed.
At first, the Moros asked for food. But when they got on the Dutch
boat, they took for themselves all the cargo, attacked some of the
men, and brutally violated two of the women by methods too
horrible to be described.
All of the persons on the boat, with the exception of the two young
women, were again placed on it and holes were made in it, with the
idea that it would submerge. After eleven days of hardship and
privation, they were succored (saved).
Two of the marauders were Lol-lo, who also raped one of the
women, and Saraw.
They later returned to their home in South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi, Sulu.
They were arrested there and were charged in the CFI of Sulu with
the crime of piracy.
ISSUE: WON the Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the crime
of piracy alleged in this case.
HELD:
It cannot be contended with any degree of force that the CFI of Sulu
was without jurisdiction on 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. Nor
does it matter that the crime was committed within the jurisdictional
three-mile limit of a foreign state.
The crime of piracy was accompanied by (1) rape, and (2) the
abandonment of persons without means of saving themselves.
Lol-lo, who raped on of the women, was sentenced to death, there
being an aggravating circumstance of cruelty, abuse of superior
strength, and ignominy, without any mitigating circumstance.
Note:
Piracy – It is robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas,
without lawful authority and done with animo furandi(intention to
steal) and in the spirit and intention of universal hostility
Title I - 2
 CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGESTS ON TITLE I
People v Rodriguez
PIRACY
Jaime Rodriguez, et. al. were charged of the crime of piracy.
Within the territorial waters of Tawi-Tawi, Rodriguez and three
others, being crew members of M/V Noria 767, conspiring and
confederating together and mutually helping one another, armed
with bladed weapons and high caliber firearms.
With intent to gain and by means of violence and intimidation upon
persons, did then and there, willfully and unlawfully, take, steal and
carry away equipment and other personal belongings of the crew
and passengers.
By the reason of the said piracy, accused stab and shot the
persons, which produces the death of several persons and inflicted
several physical injuries to others.
Three of the accused pleaded guilty and sentenced to suffer the
extreme penalty of death.
Peter Ponce, however, entered the plea of not guilty.
HELD:
Under the Anti-Piracy Law (PD 532), it is clear that the penalty
imposable upon persons found guilty of the crime of piracy where
rape, murder or homicide is committed is mandatory death penalty.
Relative to the appeal of Ponce, which the Court declare to be
without merit, evidence shows that his participation in the
commission of the offense was positively testified to by the master
of the vessel, and a passenger. Another witness also pointed to
have seen Ponce armed with a M-14 rifle.
Thus, there can be no question that he was in conspiracy with the
three other defendants.
People v Siyoh
PIRACY
Julaide Siyoh and Omarkayam Kiram, together with Namli Indanan
and Andaw Jamahali, were accused of qualified piracy with triple
murder and frustrated murder
On 1979, Antonio de Guzman and his friends, who were also
travelling merchants like him, were on their way to Pilas Island,
Basilan to sell goods.
After selling goods in Pilas, they went to the house of accused
Kiram at Pilas. The following day, the group together with Kiram and
Siyoh started selling goods.
On July 13, 1979, Kiram suggested to the group to go to Baluk-
Baluk Island to sell their goods.
Upon arrival at Baluk-Baluk, Kiam and Siyoh went to a house about
15 meters away from the place where the group was selling their
goods. Kiram and Siyoh were seen talking with two persons whose
faces the group saw, but could not recognize.
On July 14, 1979, they were heading back to Pilas from Baluk-Baluk
through riding a pumpboat where Siyoh positioned himself at the
front while Kiram operated the engine.
On the way to Pilas, de Guzman saw another pumpboat painted red
and green about 200 meters away from their pumpboat
Shortly after, Kiram turned off the engine of their pumpboat.
Thereafter, two shots were fired from the other pumpboat as it
moved towards them.
There were two persons on the other pumpboat who were armed
with armalites. De Guzman recognized them to be the same
persons he saw Kiram conversing with.
BY: DOMINIC B. ESTREMOS
When the boat came close to them, Kiram threw a rope to the other
pumpboat which towed de Guzman’s pumpboat towards Mataja
Island
On the way to Mataja Island, de Guzman and his companions were
divested of their money and their goods by Kiram,. Thereafter ,
Kiram and his companions ordered the group of de Guzman to
undress. Taking fancy on the pants of de Guzman, Kiram put it on.
With everybody undressed, Kiram said “It was good to kill all of
you.” After that remark, Siyoh hacked Danilo Hiolen, while Kiram
hacked Rodolfo de Castro.
Antonio de Guzman jumped into the water. As he was swimming
away from the pumpboat, the two companions of Kiram fired at him,
injuring his back. But he was able to reach a mangrove where he
stayed till nightfall.
When he left the mangrove, he saw the dead bodies of his friends.
He was picked up by a fishing boat and brought to the Philippine
Army Station where he received first aid treatment. Later, he was
brought to a hospital.
An order of arrest was then issued against all of the accused but
only Siyoh and Kiram were apprehended. After trial, the accused
were convicted of the crime of Qualified Piracy
HELD:
They were guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified piracy with
triple murder and frustrated homicide.
The number of persons killed on the occasion or piracy is not
material. PD 532 (Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of
1974) 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.
Appellants’ claim that they were not the assailants but also the
victims is baseless as viewed in the proven conspiracy among the
accused. The conspiracy was established through the testimony of
the lone witness and survivor, de Guzman, and these facts:
 Both accused were talking to two armed strange-looking
men
 Du Guzman recognized their captors to be the same two
armed strangers to whom the two accused talked
 The two accused, without order from the two armed
strangers, transferred the unsold goods to the captor’s
banca
 De Guzman and companions were divested of their
jewelries and cash and undress while the two accused
remained unharmed and unmolested
Title I - 3