I. CASE DETAILS (Laurel V.

Misa)

II. Created by: Clyne Alvar

III: TOPIC: Treason

IV. DOCTRINE: Assisting an enemy of the state during Japanese occupation is still considered
treason

V. FACTS
- Anastacio Laurel filed a petition for habeas corpus since he was guilty of Art 114 of the
Revised Penal Code
- Laurel argued that a Filipino couldn’t be guilty of giving aid to the enemy of the state during
the Japanese occupation since the rule of law of the Filipino people was not in force
- Laurel further avers that there was a change of sovereignty during the time when such crime
was committed

VI. ISSUE
Whether Laurel is still subjected to the consequences of Art. 114 during the time of commission

VII. HELD/RULING
Yes

VIII. RATIO
The Supreme Court held that a person’s allegiance is not severed despite enemy occupation since
it is considered as absolute and permanent. The principle of de jure triumphs over the assumption
that even though an enemy has successfully taken over such country, it is still the duty of such
person to give total allegiance to his country. What is only observed during the enemy
occupation is that a person may not exercise his rights, reciprocal rights, duties and obligation of
government and citizens may not be observed since it is suspended in abeyance during the
military occupation.

Art. 114 of the Revised Penal Code provides that “any person who, owing allegiance to (the
United States or) the Government of the Philippine Islands, not being a foreigner, levis war
against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort within the Philippine
Islands or elsewhere, shall be punished by reclusion temporal to death and shall pay a fine not to
exceed P20,000. Hence from such point, change of form of government does not affect the
prosecution of those charged with the crime of treason because it is an offense to the same
government and the same sovereign people thereby making the petitioner herewith guilty.

People of the Philippines vs Pedro Manayao

1
G.R. No. L-322 July 28, 1947
By: Ralph Atmosfera

Doctrine: The defense of the state is a prime duty of the government, in the fulfillment of this
duty all citizens may be required to render personal, military or civil service

Facts:

- Pedro Manayao was a member of the Makapili (a group of Filipino traitors aiding the
Japanese cause). Manayao conspired together with his Japanese comrade soldiers
to inflict terror upon the barrio of Banaban in Bulacan where they killed 60 to 70
residents.

- The residents they killed were alleged to be supporters, wives and relatives of
guerillas fighting the Japanese forces. Manayao was positively identified by credible
witnesses and he was later convicted with the high crime of treason with multiple
murder. He was sentenced to death and to pay the damages.

- Manayao’s counsel argued that his client cannot be tried with treason because
Manayao has already lost his Filipino citizenship due to his swearing of allegiance to
support the Japanese cause.

- Hence, Manayao cannot be tried under Philippine courts for any war crimes for only
Japanese courts can do so.

Issue: whether or not Manayao is guilty of treason

Held/Ruling: NO

- Manayao’s swearing of allegiance to Japan was not proven as a fact nor is it proven
that he joined the Japanese Naval, Army or Air Corps.
- What he joined is the Makapili, a group of Filipino traitors pure and simple.
- The Supreme Court also emphasized that in times of war when the state invokes the
Constitutional provision which state
- no one can effectively cast off his duty to defend the state by merely swearing
allegiance to an enemy country, leaving and joining the opposite force, or by
deserting the Philippine Armed Forces. Or even if Manayao did lose his citizenship it
is also indicated that no such person shall take up arms against his native country;
he shall be held guilty of a felony and treason, if he does not strictly observe this
duty.

2
3. People v Perez
GR L-856
Topic: I. Crimes Against National Security ( Treason and Espionage)

Petitioner: Benito Astorga

Respondent: People of the Philippines

Doctrine: 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. To make a simple distinction: To lend or give money to an enemy as a
friend or out of charity to the beneficiary so that he may buy personal necessities is to assist him as an
individual and is not technically traitorous. On the other hand, to lend or give him money to enable him
to buy arms or ammunition to use in waging war against the giver's country enhances his strength and
by the same count injuries the interest of the government of the giver. That is treason.

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.

Ruling: 
● 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

3
 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.

4. People v Prieto
G.R. No L-399
January 29, 1948

Petitioner:
People of the Philippines

Respondent:
Eduardo Prieto

Facts:

The appellant was prosecuted in the People's Court for treason on 7 counts. The defendant was
found guilty on count 4 as well as counts 1, 2, 3, and 7 and was sentenced to death and to pay the
fine of P20,000.

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”.

Count 1: 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.

Count 2: accused lead, guided and accompanied a group of Filipino undercovers for the purpose
of apprehending guerrillas and guerrilla suspects; that the herein accused and his companions did

4
 in fact apprehend Guillermo Ponce and Macario Ponce from their house; that said accused and
his companions did tie the hands of said Guillermo Ponce and Macario Ponce behind their backs,
giving them first blows on the face and in other parts of the body and thereafter detained them at
the Kempei Tai Headquarters; that Guillermo Ponce was released the following day while his
brother was detained and thereafter nothing more was heard of him nor his whereabouts known;

Count 3: a patrol of some 6 Filipinos and 2 Japanese soldiers to barrio Pakna- an, municipality of
Mandaue for the purpose of apprehending guerrillas and guerrilla suspects, and said patrol did in
fact apprehend as guerrilla suspects Damian Alilin and Santiago Alilin who were forthwith tied
with a rope, tortured and detained for 6 days; that on the 7th day said Damian Alilin and
Santiago Alilin were taken about 1/2 kilometer from their home and the accused did bayonet
them to death;

Count 7: In or about November 16, 1944, in Mandaue, in conspiracy with the enemy and other
Filipinos undercovers, said accused did cause the torture of Antonio Soco and the killing of Gil
Soco for guerrilla activities.

Issue: W/N murders and physical injuries were distinct crimes from treason

Held: NO

  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
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.

5. PEOPLE v. ADRIANO
[G.R. No. L-477. June 30, 1947.]
by: Cheska Dominguez

TOPIC: Treason

DOCTRINE: The treason rule is severely restrictive. Two witnesses shall testify to the same overt act
before one is held guilty of treason.

5
FACTS:
● During the Japanese invasion, Apolinario Adriano, a Filipino citizen, allegedly adhered to the
Military Forces of Japan. He was a member of the Makapili, a military organization established
to assist and aid militarily the Japanese Imperial Forces in the country.
● He allegedly bore arm, joined, and assisted the Japanese and Makapili army in armed conflicts
against the US and the Guerrillas of the PH Commonwealth in Nueva Ecija and in the mountains
of Luzon. He was even said to have participated with the Japanese soldiers in certain raids and in
confiscation of personal liberty.
● He was also seen wearing a Makapili military uniform and armed with rifle.
● Upon the liberation of Gapan by the American forces, the accused and others retreated to the
mountains with the enemy. Adriano later surrendered his rifle to the Americans.
● The People's court convicted Adriano of the crime of treason, sentencing him to life
imprisonment.

ISSUE: WON Adriano should be held guilty of treason - No.

RATIO:
● Membership to Makapili is an evidence of both adhering to the enemy and giving aid and
comfort. The enemy derived psychological comfort and courage knowing that he had on his side
the nationals of the country he is fighting against. Unless forced against his will, membership
imports treasonable intent.
● However, in this case, the two witnesses failed to support the act of treason imputed by them to
Adriano.
● For the defendant to be held guilty of treason, two witnesses shall testify to the same overt act.
Failing to do so, Adriano is therefore acquitted in this case.

NOTES:
● Treason (defined):
- putting oneself at the enemy's call to fight side by side with him
● Purpose of Makapili:
1. to accomplish the fulfillment of the obligations assumed by the Philippines in the Pact of
Alliance with the Empire of Japan
2. to shed blood and sacrifice the lives of our people in order to eradicate Anglo-Saxon influence in
East Asia
3. to collaborate unreservedly and unstinted with the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy in the
Philippines
4. to fight the common enemies
● The case didn't actually discuss what happened during the trial. But as required by law, two
witnesses need to testify and establish ONE and SAME OVERT ACT. In this case, the alleged overt
act is the membership. So both of them need to establish that Adriano is a member of the
Makapili. The case didn't say how they failed to do so.

6. PEOPLE v LOL-LO & SARAW

GR No. 17958 | February 27, 1922
GAYARES

6
PLAINTIFF:
People of the Philippine Islands

DEFENDANTS:
Lol-Lo and Saraw

DOCTRINE:
Therefore, by reading the statues, whenever Spain and Spaniards were mentioned, it must be replaced by United
States and the citizens of the United States and the Philippines, respectively.

FACTS:
● Two boats left Matuta. The first boat was boarded by one individual while the second boat had men,
women, and children on board.
● The second boat, which carried multiple passengers, arrived between the islands of Buang and Bukid in the
Dutch East Indies. The boat was then surrounded by 6 vintas, which was manned by 24 armed Moros.
● The Moros asked for food but upon boarding the Dutch boat, they demanded themselves of all the cargo.
They also attacked some of the men and brutally violated two of the women.
● They left the boat and opened holes so that it would sink together with its passengers.
● The Moros arrived at Maruro.
● The two Moros were identified as Lol-lo, who was the rapist of one of the women, and Saraw. The two
women taken captive by the Moros were able to escape in Maruro.
● Lol-lo and Saraw then returned home in South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi, Sulu, Philippines. They were arrested
and charged in the CFI of Sulu with the crime of piracy.
● All the elements of the crime of piracy are present:
1. Piracy is robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas, without lawful authority and done in
animo furandi (intention to steal) and in spirit and intention of universal hostility.

ISSUE:
W/N the provisions of the Penal Code in dealing with the crime of piracy are still in force?

HELD:
YES – The penal code, specifically Arts. 153 and 154, are still in force in the Philippines.

RATIO:
Pirates are hostis humani generis (enemy of mankind). Piracy is a crime not against any particular state but against
all mankind. It may be punished in the competent tribunal of any country where the offender may be found or into
which he may be carried. The jurisdiction of piracy is unlike other crimes since it has no territorial limits. As it is
against all, so it may be punished by all. Nor does it matter that the crime was committed within the jurisdictional 3-
mile limit of a foreign state, for those limits, though neutral to war, are not neutral to crimes.”

Arts. 153 and 154 mentions Spaniards and Spanish Citizens when discussing the crime or piracy and its penalties,
which ranges from presidio mayor if the crime is committed against nonbelligerent subjects of another nation at war
with Spain or cadena temporal, cadena perpetua, or death.

The general rules of public law are recognized and acted upon by the United States. Therefore, the municipal law as
so far as it is consistent with the Constitution remains in force. The laws existing to design and secure good order
and peace in community, which are strictly municipal, shall continue until direct action of the new government alters
or repeals it.

This principle of public law was given specific application to the Philippines by the instructions of Pres. McKinley.

The Spanish Penal Code, which was enforced in the Philippines, clearly included the Republic when it dealt with the
crime of piracy. Additionally, the opinion of Grotius is that the specific provisions of the Penal Code are similar in
tenor to provisions elsewhere and to the concepts of public law. Therefore, by reading the statues, whenever Spain
and Spaniards were mentioned, it must be replaced by United States and the citizens of the United States and the
Philippines, respectively.

7
In this case, the crime was committed with (1) offense against chastity and (2) abandonment of persons without
apparent means of saving themselves, hence, the punishment of death. The presence of 3 ACs are also recognized:
(1) causing other wrongs not necessary for its commission; (2) advantage of superior strength; and (3) presence of
ignominy.

7.
PEOPLE v. RODRIGUEZ
GR NO. L-60100
MARCH 20, 1985
Created by: JULIUS GUZMAN
Topic: PIRACY AND MUTINY ON THE HIGH SEAS OR IN PHILIPPINE WATERS
Petitioners: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Respondents: JAIME RODRIGUEZ, RICO LOPEZ, DARIO DE REYES, PETER PONCE
Ponente: (PER CURIAM)

DOCTRINE: Under PD No. 532 amending, Art. 532 of the RPC, persons found guilty of the crime of piracy committed in the
Philippine waters, where rape, murder or homicide actually committed, the penalty of death penalty shall be imposed.

FACTS
● The case is an automatic review finding the 4 accused-appellants, guilty of the crime of piracy and sentenced them to
death.
● It started when in the evening of August 30, 1981, the M/V Noria 767, left for Labuan from Cagayan de Tawi-Tawi
where several traders and crew member were on-board. After its departure, a commotion occurred in one of the
cabins. Three witnessed were involved in this case:
o First Witness: Saw the accused-appellants firing his companions. He was ordered to pilot the vessel but later
on ordered him to throw some kopras and dead bodies.
o Second Witness: As he heard the commotion, he hid by laying down among the sacks of copra. He saw the
accused-appellants coming down the stairs and fired some other passengers, hence the dead bodies falling
upon him, and realized he was shot also, therefore he pretended to be dead until daytime.
o Third Witness; was the skipper of the vessel, when he ordered his men to open the door, it wouldn’t be
opened but after a while, the door was opened by the accused-appellants and fired at them. Fortunately,
the witness was not hit. While in hiding, the witness was persuaded to come out due to the threats.
Thereafter, he was ordered to throw some copras and dead bodies overboard.
● The 3 accused-appellants claimed that the TC erred in imposing death penalty despite their plea of guilty.
● While accused-appellant, Ponce, claimed that the TC erred in holding him guilty of the crime charged against him.

ISSUE
(1) WON the TC erred in imposing death penalty despite their plea of guilty.
(2) WON the TC erred in holding accused-appellant, Ponce, guilty of the crime charged against him.

HELD/RATIO
(1) NO. Because the law is clear. Under PD No. 532, otherwise known as the Anti-Piracy Law, amending Art. 134 of the
RPC provides that the penalty imposable upon person found guilty of the crime of piracy where rape, murder or
homicide is committed is mandatory death penalty. Thus, the lower court committed no error in not considering the
plea of the 3 defendants as a mitigating circumstance. Art. 63 of the RPC, provides, where a law prescribes a single
indivisibility penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that
may be attended.
(2) NO. Because the evidence is clear. Considering the testimonies of Clyde Que and Emil Macasaet, Jr. who actually saw
appellant Peter Ponce firing his weapon indiscriminately at the passengers and crew members in wanton disregard of
human lives and the fact that after the looting and killing, appellant Peter Ponce, still armed, joined Dario Dece in one
pumpboat, there can be no question that he was in conspiracy with the three other defendants. After his arrest,
Ponce gave a statement to the authorities stating therein his participation as well as those of his companions.

8
 Therefore, Peter Ponce before, during and after the commission of the crime is a circumstance showing the presence
of conspiracy in the commission of the crime. As a consequence, every one is responsible for the crime committed.

8. People vs. Siyoh

G.R. L-57292 Feb. 18, 1986
By: Madrid
Accused: Juliade Siyoh, Omar-Kayam Kiram, Namli Idanan, and Andaw Jamahali

Doctrine:
Number of persons killed in a crime of piracy is immaterial. It is a special
complex crime punished by death regardless of the number of victims.

Facts:
- Antonio de Guzman together with Danilo Hiolen, Rodolfo de Castro, and Anastacio de
Guzman were on their way to Pilas Island to sell goods.
- They were on a pumpboat. They took dinner and slept at the house of Omar Kiram
who was helping them sell their goods.
- Before the incident, Antonio saw Kiram and Siyoh talking to 2 other persons.
- On their way to their destination, shots were fired from another pumpboat.
- 2 armed persons were on the other pumpboat. Antonio recognized them to be the
persons Kiram was talking to earlier.
- They boarded the pumpboat and started looting the goods and even ordering the
victims to undress.
- After undressing, Kiram said “It was good to kill all of you.”. After that, Siyoh hacked
Danilo and Karim hacked Rodolfo. Antonio jumped in the water and swam away from
the pumpboat while the accused were shooting at him.
- Antonio eventually was rescued and made it back to the Philippine Army station in
Basilan. After recovering, he saw Kiram and Siyoh in the area and pointed them out to
the Phil Constabulary where the accused were arrested.
- They were guilty beyond reasonable doubt of piracy with triple murder and
frustrated murder, meted with the punishment of death. Hence this automatic review.

Issue:
WON accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION:
1. Prosecution failed to present evidence that the accused were also the ones who
killed Anastacio de Guzman because his remains are never recovered.
2. Credibility of Witness (Only 1 witness was presented).
3. Appellants claim that they were also victims.

Held:
Yes.

9
Ratio:
1. The number of persons killed in a crime of piracy is immaterial. PD 532 considers
qualified piracy. Rape, murder, homicide, is committed as a result of piracy. It is a
special complex crime punished by death regardless of the number of victims.
2. No evidence was presented and nothing can be inferred from the evidence of the
defense so far presented showing reason why the lone survivor should pervert the
truth or fabricate or manufacture such heinous crime as qualified piracy with triple
murders and frustrated murder.
3. Appellants’ claim that they were victims too is baseless since the conspiracy of the
crime of piracy was proven by the lone witness

Decision:
For lack of necessary votes to impose death, the penalty therefore shall be reclusion
perpetua.

9. PEOPLE VS. TULIN

GR 111709
August 30, 2001
TOPIC : Qualified Piracy (Art. 123)
Petitioner : People of the Philippines
Respondent : Roger Tulin, Virgilio Loyola, Cecilio Changco, Andres Infante,
Cheong San Hiong, John Does

DOCTRINE : Piracy - 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.

10
FACTS:
● This case is in pursuance of AM 00-9-03-SC
● March 2, 1991: M/T Tabangao (cargo vessel) owned by PNOC Shipping, loaded with
2,000 barrels of kerosene, 2,600 barrels of regular gasoline and 40,000 barrels of diesel
(total value of P40.42M) sailing coast of Mindoro
● Manned by 21 crew members
● Suddenly boarded by 7 armed pirates led by Emilio Changco (older borther of Cecilio)
● Pirates with Tulin, Loyola and Infante Jr. armed with M-16 rifles, .38 caliber and bolos.
● Detained the crew and took control of the vessel
● Forced to sail to Singapore, sending misleading radio messages to PNOC that ship was
undergoing repairs
● PNOC reported disappearance of vessel after losing radio contact to Phil. Coast Guard
● Rescue operations yielded negative
● March 9, 1991: arrived in Singapore and cruised around presumably to wait another
vessel but failed to arrive.
● March 14: went back to PH
● March 20, remained at sea (Batangas)
● March 28: went back 10-18 NM from SG’s shoreline and “Navi Pride” anchored beside
them.
● Emilio Changco order crews to transfer the cargo to Navi Pride supervised by Cheong
San Hiong. Completed on March 30
● April 8: MT Tabangao arrived at Batangas, remained at sea.
● April 10: crew were release with warning not to report with government for 2 days or until
April 12 or they will be killed.
● April 12: crew members reported the incident
● Series of arrest followed:
o Tulin, then Infante Jr. and Loyola, then Hiong and Changco
● Charged with Qualified Piracy or PD 532 Piracy in Philippine Waters
● Pleaded not guilty and had different defenses

● Day before MT Tabangao was seized, Hiong’s name was listed in company’s letter to
Singapore government as the radio telephone operator of vessel Ching Ma.
● Company was then dealing with Paul Gan (Singaporean broker) to sell bunker oil for
300k SGD and company paid over ½ of said amount and proceeded to high seas on
board “Navi Pride” but failed to locate vessel
● Transaction pushed through on March 27. Hiong, upon return on board Ching Ma, was
assigned to supervise ship-to-ship transfer of diesel oil.
● Sailed toward vessel call M/T Galliee and met “Captain Bobby” – who is actually Emilio
Changco. Hiong claimed he did not ask for captain’s full name

● Tulin, Infante, Jr., Loyola, Changco – RECLUSION PERPETUA as principals and Hiong
– RECLUSION PERPETUA as accomplice

● Elevated to SC
● Accused-appellants’ contention: TC erred in allowing them to adopt proceedings being
represented by non-lawyers depriving them constitutional right to procedural due
process and that they were subjected to physical violence during investigation (forced to
sign docs without given the opportunity to read the contents

11
 ● Hiong’s contention: that acts allegedly committed by him is executed outside PH waters
and territory and that he had no knowledge that Changco and company attacked and
seized MT Tabangao and that cargo and vessel were stolen and subject of piracy

ISSUE: Whether or not the court was correct in convicting them of Qualified Piracy - YES

RULING:
● SC affirmed trial court’s conviction
o Article 122, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 January 1, 1994
▪ Article 122. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine
waters. -The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be inflicted upon any
person who, on the high seas, or in Philippine waters, shall attack or
seize a vessel or, being a member of its complement nor a
passenger, shall seize the whole or part of the cargo of said vessel, its
equipment, or personal belongings of its complement or passengers.
● Piracy. -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 (PD 532 Sec. 2)
● 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.
● 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. 
● Emphasis must also be placed on the last paragraph of Section 4 of Presidential Decree
No 532 which presumes that any person who does any of the acts provided in said
section has performed them knowingly, unless the contrary is proven. In the case at bar,
accused-appellant Hiong had failed to overcome the legal presumption that he knowingly
abetted or aided in the commission of piracy, received property taken by such pirates
and derived benefit therefrom.

10. MILO vs SALANGA

G.R. No. L-37007 ; July 20, 1987

TOPIC: Arbitrary Detention

RAMON S. MILO, in his capacity as Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Pangasinan, and ARMANDO VALDEZ,
petitioners,
ANGELITO C. SALANGA, in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan (Branch IV),
and JUAN TUVERA, SR., respondents

DOCTRINE:
A barrio captain is a public officer who can be liable for the crime of Arbitrary Detention

12
 FACTS:
1. 1 evening, at around 10:00 o'clock, accused Juan Tuvera, Sr., a barrio captain, with the aid of some
other persons maltreated Armando Valdez by hitting the latter with the butts of their guns and fists
blows and, without legal grounds, deprived said Valdez of his liberty. Accused Barrio captain Juan
Tuvera, Sr., Cpl. Tomas Mendoza and Pat. Rodolfo Mangsat, members of the police force of Mangsat,
Pangasinan conspired to lodge and lock said Armando Valdez inside the municipal jail of Manaoag,
Pangasinan for about eleven (11) hours.
2. An information for Arbitrary Detention under Art. 124 of the RPC was then filed against Juan Tuvera,
Sr. and the others for arbitrary detention
3. All the accused, including respondent Juan Tuvera, Sr., were arraigned and pleaded not guilty
4. Tuvera filed a motion to quash the information on the ground that the facts charged do not
constitute an offense and that the proofs adduced at the investigation are not sufficient to support
the filing of the information.
5. Respondent Judge Angelito C. Salanga, however, granted the motion to quash by concluding that
Tuvera was not a public officer.
➢ Granting that it was Tuvera, Sr., who ordered Valdez arrested, it was not he who detained and
jailed him because he has no such authority vested in him as a mere Barrio Captain
6. Hence, this is a petition for review on certiorari by Ramon Milo in his capacity as Assistant Provincial
Fiscal of Pangasinan, and ARMANDO VALDEZ as petitioners

ISSUE: Whether or not a barrio captain is a public officer who can be charged with Arbitrary Detention…
YES

RATIO:
7. Arbitrary Detention is committed by a public officer who, without legal grounds, detains a person.
8. The elements of this crime (Arbitrary Detention) are the following:
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee.
2. That he detains a person.
3. That the detention is without legal grounds

9. RA 3590 (The Revised Barrio Charter) the duties and powers of a barangay captain include the
following:
• To look after the maintenance of public order;
• Enforce laws and ordinances
10. “He is a peace officer in the barrio considered under the law as a person in authority. As such, he may
make arrest and detain persons within legal limits.”
11. Also, one need not be a police officer to be chargeable with Arbitrary Detention. Public officers who
act with abuse of power may be guilty of the crime. A mayor and a barrio captain have similar
powers, differing only in the extent of their territorial jurisdiction. They have the same duty of
maintaining peace and order, as such, both have the authority to detain or order detention.
12. Also, time barrio lieutenants (who were later named barrio captains and now barangay captains)
were recognized as persons in authority. In various cases, this Court deemed them as persons in
authority, and convicted them of Arbitrary Detention

HELD:

13
Petition for certiorari is GRANTED. The questioned Order of April 25, 1973 in Criminal Case No. D-529 is
hereby set aside. Let this case be remanded to the appropriate trial court for further proceedings. No
pronouncement as to costs.

11. I. CASE DETAILS: (People V. Burgos)

II. Created by: Clyne Alvar

III: TOPIC: Arbitrary detention and expulsion

IV. DOCTRINE: Constitutional rights protect every man even though he is guilty of rebellion

V. FACTS
- Burgos was convicted of Illegal Possession of Firearms in Furtherance of Subversion
- Masamlok, who was a witness claimed that Burgos forcibly recruited him to join the NPA by
threatening to kill him and his family through the use of firearm
- Masamlok was also forced to attend a NPA seminar for which Masamlok attended
- Masamlok immediately went to the authorities after the day of the meeting in order to report
such incident
- The authorities went to arrest Burgos without any warrants while he was plowing his field
- It was found through the testimonies of the authorities who arrested Burgos that it was even
Burgos himself who told the authorities where the subversive documents and firearms were kept
- Hence, Burgos was arrested on the spot and that it was alleged he was forced and mauled to
admit to the extra judicial statement that was presented before him during his interrogation
- RTC convicted him of Illegal Possession in Furtherance of Subversion

VI. ISSUE
Whether Burgos can be held liable even without any warrants

VII. HELD/RULING
No, RTC’s decision is reversed

VIII. RATIO
The Supreme Court held that under Article 3 (2) of the Constitution, it safeguards a person from
any unreasonable invasion of the privacy and liberty of a citizen as to his persons and effects.
Furthermore, Rule 113 (6) of the Rules of Court provides that the exceptions to the warrant
requirement is not applicable in this case since it is important that the arresting officer should
have personal knowledge regarding about the commission of such crime or that the arresting
officer should’ve seen the person is about to commit or committed an offense within his view.

However in this case, Masamlok only corroborated such knowledge and not the authorities
themselves. Also, during the arrest, Burgos was not in actual possession of any firearm and that
he was only plowing his field during the arrest. The reason why he was incriminated in the first
place was that the authorities convinced him that he would be arrested since they have

14
 knowledge that Burgos was in possession of subversive documents and a firearm. Therefore, the
Supreme Court conclude that even though there is compelling evidences to persecute the
accused, it is still important to take note that every person is protected by the Bill of Rights and
that such rights shouldn’t be sacrificed just because he is alleged to be a member of a communist
movement. Lastly, there were insufficient evidences to adduce that Burgos was even guilty of
committing the alleged crime since Masamlok can only support such accusation.

12. Umil v Ramos

187 scra 311 Gr no. 81567
By: Ralph

Doctrine: The crimes of insurrection or rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit

such crimes, and other crimes and offenses committed in the furtherance (sic) on the occasion
thereof, or incident thereto, or in connection therewith under Presidential Proclamation No.
2045, are all in the nature of continuing offenses which set them apart from the common
offenses, aside from their essentially involving a massive conspiracy of nationwide magnitude.

Facts:

- On 1 February 1988, military agents were dispatched to the St. Agnes Hospital,
Roosevelt Avenue, Quezon City, to verify a confidential information which was received
by their office, about a "sparrow man" (NPA member) who had been admitted to the said
hospital with a gunshot wound.
- That the wounded man in the said hospital was among the 5 male "sparrows" who
murdered 2 Capcom mobile patrols the day before, or on 31 January 1988 at about

15
 12:00 o'clock noon, before a road hump along Macanining St., Bagong Barrio, Caloocan
City.
- The wounded man's name was listed by the hospital management as "Ronnie Javellon,"
22 years old of Block 10, Lot 4, South City Homes, Biñan, Laguna however it was
disclosed later that the true name of the wounded man was Rolando Dural.
- In view of this verification, Rolando Dural was transferred to the Regional Medical
Services of the CAPCOM, for security reasons. While confined thereat, he was positively
identified by the eyewitnesses as the one who murdered the 2 CAPCOM mobile patrols.

Issue: whether or not Rolando was lawfully arrested.

Held/Ruling: YES

- Petitioner Dural was arrested for being a member of the New Peoples Army (NPA), an
outlawed subversive organization. Subversion being a continuing offense, the arrest of
Rolando Dural without a warrant is justified as it can be said that he was committing an
offense when arrested.
- The crimes of rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and
crimes or offenses committed in furtherance thereof or in connection therewith constitute
direct assaults against the State and are in the nature of continuing crime.
- The right to preliminary investigation should be exercised by the offender as soon as
possible.Otherwise, it would be considered as impliedly waived and the filing of
information can proceed. This sort of irregularity is not sufficient to set aside a valid
judgment upon a sufficient complaint and after a trial free from error

13. People v Astorga

GR-154130
Topic: II. Crimes Against Fundamental Laws of the State (Arbitrary Detention and Expulsion )

Petitioner: Benito Astorga

Respondent: People of the Philippines

Doctrine:
Arbitary Detention is committed by any public officer or employee who without legal grounds to detains
a person. Elements are;
● Offenders is a public officer or employee
● Detains a person
● Detentions is without legal basis

Facts:
● The Office of the Ombudsman filed an information against Benito Astorga, Mayor of
Daram,Samar and a number of men for Arbitrary Detention by not allowing them to leave the

16
 place without any legal and valid grounds restraining and depriving them of their personal
liberty for 9 hours, but without exceeding 3 days.
● Regional Special Operations Group (RSOG) of DENR No. 8, Tacloban, Leyte sent a team to the
island of Daram, Western Samar to conduct intelligence gathering and forest protection
operations in line with the government’s campaign against illegal logging.  
●  The team was escorted by SPO3 Andres B. Cinco, Jr. and SPO1 Rufo Capoquian.  As
the team were passing through Brgy. Lucob-Lucob, they saw 2 boats being constructed.
● The team went to check out the site of the boat construction where they met Mayor
Astorga.Simon tried to explain the purpose of their mission. But Mayor Astorga slapped him
hard on the shoulder saying (in their dialect) “ I can make you swim back to Tacloban.Don’t you
know that I can box?  I can  box. Don’t you know that I can declare this a misencounter?” – PACOOL EH
●  Sometime later a banca arrived with 10 armed men in fatigue uniforms who surrounded the
team, guns pointed at them. Mayor Astorga said “ If you are tough guys in Leyte, do not bring it
to Samar because I will not tolerate it here you cannot go home now because I will bring you to
Daram.  We will have  many things to  discuss there”
● The team was brought to a house where they were told that they would be served dinner. The
team had dinner with Mayor Astorga.
● After dinner, Militante, Maniscan and SPO1Capoquian were allowed to go down from the
house, but not to leave the barangay.
● On the otherhand, SPO3 Cinco and the rest just sat in the house until the morning (2am) when
the team was finally allowed to leave
● Complainants filed a criminal complaint for arbitrary detention against Mayor Astorga and his
men Sandiganbayan found them guilty of Arbitrary Detention.
● Mayor Astorga contends, among others, that the mere presence of armed men at the scene
does not qualify as competent evidence to prove that fear was in fact instilled in the minds of
the team members, to the extent that they would feel compelled to stay in Brgy. Lucob-Lucob.

Issue:

● W/N there was arbitrary detention? – Yes

Ruling:
 
● Arbitrary Detention is committed by any public officer or employee who, without legalgrounds,
detains a person. The elements of the crime are: 1) That the offender is a public officer  or
employee; 2) That he detains a person  and 3) That the detention is without legal grounds
● The first element of Arbitrary Detention, that the offender is a public officer or employee, is
undeniably present. Astorga was a mayor
● The record are bereft of any allegation on the part of PET that his act were spurred by some
legal purpose. On the contrary, he admitted that his acts were motivated by his “instinct for self
preservation” and the feeling that he was being “singled out.”The detention was thus without
legal grounds, thereby satisfying the third element enumerated above.

● What remains is the determination of whether or not the team was actually detained. The
prevailing jurisprudence on kidnapping and illegal detention is that the curtailment of the
victim’s liberty need not involve any physical restraint upon the victim’s person. If the acts and

17
 actuations of the accused can produce such fear in the mind of the victim sufficient to paralyze
the latter, to the extent that the victim is compelled to limit his own actions and movements
inaccordance with the wishes of the accused, then the victim is, for all intents and purposes,
detained against his will.
o In the case at bar, the restraint resulting from fear is evident. Inspite of their pleas, the
witnesses and the complainants were not allowed by Astorga to go home. This refusal was
quickly followed by the call for and arrival of almost a dozen “reinforcements,” all armed
with military-issue rifles, who proceeded to encircle the team, weapons pointed at the
complainantsand the witnesses. Given such circumstances, we give credence to SPO1
Capoquian’s statement that it was not “safe” to refuse Mayor Astorga’s orders It was not
just the presence of the armed men, but also the evident effect these gunmen had on the
actions of the team which proves that fear was indeed instilled in the minds of the team
members, to the extent that they felt compelled to stay in Brgy. Lucob-Lucob.
o The intent to prevent the departure of the complainants and witnesses against their will is
thus clear.

14. Sayo v Chief of Police

G.R. No L-2128
May 12, 1948

Petitioner:
Melencio Sayo and Joaquin Mostero

Respondent:
Chief of Police and Officer in Charge of Municipal Jail of Manila

Facts:
Upon complaint of Bernardino Malinao, charging the petitioners with having committed the
crime of robbery, Benjamin Dumlao, a policeman of the City of Manila, arrested the petitioners
on April 2, 1948, and presented a complaint against them with the fiscal's office of Manila. Until
April 7, 1948, when the petition for habeas corpus filed with this Court was heard, the
petitioners were still detained or under arrest, and the city fiscal had not yet released or filed
against them an information with the proper courts justice.

This case has not been decided before this time because there was not a sufficient number of
Justices to form a quorum in Manila, and it had to be transferred to the Supreme Court acting in
division here in Baguio for deliberation and decision. We have not until now an official
information as to the action taken by the office of the city fiscal on the complaint filed by the
Dumlao against the petitioners.

Issues:

18
W/N petitioners had been illegally restrained of their liberty
W/N city fiscal of manila is a judicial authority within meaning of RPC Art 125

Held:
First issue: Yes. Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code provides that "the penalties provided in
the next proceeding article shall be imposed upon the public officer or employee who shall
detain any person for some legal ground and shall fail to deliver such person to the proper
judicial authorities within the period of six hours."

Taking into consideration the history of the provisions of the above quoted article, the precept of
our Constitution guaranteeing individual liberty, and the provisions of Rules of Court regarding
arrest and habeas corpus, we are of the opinion that the words "judicial authority", as used in
said article, mean the courts of justices or judges of said courts vested with judicial power to
order the temporary detention or confinement of a person charged with having committed a
public offense, that is, "the Supreme Court and such inferior courts as may be established by
law".

Second issue: No. Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code was substantially taken from article
202 of the old Penal Code formerly in force of these Islands, which penalized a public officer
other than a judicial officer who, without warrant, "shall arrest a person upon a charge of crime
and shall fail to deliver such person to the judicial authority within twenty-four hours after his
arrest." There was no doubt that a judicial authority therein referred to was the judge of a court of
justice empowered by law, after a proper investigation, to order the temporary commitment or
detention of the person arrested; and not the city fiscals or any other officers, who are not
authorized by law to do so.

The judicial authority mentioned in section 125 of the Revised Penal Code cannot be construed
to include the fiscal of the City of Manila or any other city, because they cannot issue a warrant
of arrest or of commitment or temporary confinement of a person surrendered to legalize the
detention of a person arrested without warrant.

To consider the city fiscal as the judicial authority referred to in article 125 of the Revised Penal
Code, would be to authorize the detention of a person arrested without warrant for a period
longer than that permitted by law without any process issued by a court of competent
jurisdiction.

19
15. MEDINA v. OROZCO
[G.R. No. L-26723. December 22, 1966.]
by: Cheska Dominguez

TOPIC: Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper juridical authorities

DOCTRINE: When the succeeding days following the arrest are official holidays, detention
during said days does not constitute arbitrary detention.

FACTS:
● At about 12:00 am on Nov. 7, 1965, petitioner Arthur Medina was arrested and
thereafter imprisoned in the Caloocan city jail as one of those responsible for the death
of one Marcelo Sangalang. Nine hours after, the case was referred to a fiscal.
● At about 3:40 pm on Nov. 10, an information for murder was filed against Medina and
two others in the CFI. By court order, they were promptly committed to jail.
● During the trial, the petitioner claims violation of RPC 125 which provides that the
arresting officer's duty was either to deliver him to the proper judicial authorities within
18 hours, or thereafter release him. In this case, he was not released. From the time he
was arrested on Nov. 7 until the information was filed against him on Nov. 10, over 75
hours have elapsed.

ISSUE:
WON there was a delay in the delivery of Medina to the proper juridical authorities - No.

RATIO:
● Nov. 7 was a Sunday, while Nov. 8 and 9 (election day) were declared official holidays. In
these three no-office days, it was not easy for the fiscal to look for his clerk and
stenographer, to search for a Judge to have him act thereon, and to get the clerk of

20
 court to open the courthouse, docket the case, and have the order of commitment
prepared. These are considerations sufficient enough to deter the SC from declaring that
Medina was arbitrarily detained.
● Medina was brought to court on the very first office day following arrest, thus there was
no violation of the time provided for in RPC 125.

16. AGBAY v THE HONORABLE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE MILITARY, SPO4 NATIVIDAD
& SPO2 SOLOMON
GR No. 134503 | July 2, 1999
GAYARES

PETITIONER:
Jasper Agbay

RESPONDENTS:
The Honorable Deputy Ombudsman for the Military, SPO4 Nemesio Natividad, Jr., and SPO2 Eleazar Solomon

DOCTRINE:
Arbitrary Detention and Expulsion – Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial activities (Art.
125)

FACTS:
● Petition for certiorari seeks to nullify the Resolution of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military, which
recommended the dismissal of the criminal complaint filed by petitioner against respondent for violation of
Art. 125 of the RPC, which is delay in the delivery of detained persons.
● Agbay, together with a certain Jugalbot, was arrested and detained at the Liloan Police Station, Cebu for
alleged violation of RA 7610 or the Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act.
● The following day, a complaint for violation of the said RA was filed against the two by one Gicaraya in
behalf of her daughter Gayle.
● The complaint states that Agbay and Jugalbot sexually abused Gayle by fingering her vagina while the
latter blocked the sight of her mother during a tricycle ride. Jugalbot was released while Agbay is detained
in Liloan Police Station Jail.
● September 10: Petitioner’s counsel wrote to the Chief of Police, demanding the immediate release of
petitioner considering that the latter failed to deliver the detained to the proper judicial authority within 36
hours from September 7. Respondent did not act on this letter and detained petitioner.
● September 12: The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) issued an order committing petitioner to the jail
warden of Cebu City.
● September 17: Petitioner was ordered released by the said court after posting bond.

21
 ● September 26: Petitioner filed a complaint for delay in the delivery of detained persons against
respondents.
● Regarding the complaint for violation of RA 7610, petitioner obtained the resolution of MCTC, which
found probable cause for the crime and recommended that information be filed.

ISSUE:
W/N the authorities, specifically the respondents, committed delay in the delivery of the detained Agbay to the
proper judicial authorities?

HELD:
NO – Filing of the complaint with the MCTC interrupted the period prescribed in Art. 125, hence, delay was not
committed by the respondents in the case at bar.

RATIO:
Art. 125 – Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities:
● 12 hours for crimes punishable by light penalties;
● 18 hours for crimes punishable by correctional penalties;
● 36 hours for crimes punishable by afflictive or capital penalties.

In the case at bar, Agbay violated RA 7610, Sec. 5(b). This crime carries a penalty of reclusion temporal in its
medium period to reclusion perpetua; hence, a criminal complaint or information should be filed with the proper
judicial authorities within 36 hours.

Petitioner contents that the act or complainant filing the complaint before the MCTC was for purposes of
preliminary investigation since it has no jurisdiction to try the offense, thus, it did not interrupt the period prescribed
in Art. 125. As such, the arresting officers were now guilty of violating the law due to the expiration of the 36-hour
time limit. Additionally, the MCTC was acting contrary to law since there was no basis for continued detention.

The Court moved to address the issue of answering whether the filing of the complaint with the MTC constitutes
delivery to a proper judicial authority.

Art. 125 is intended to prevent any abuse resulting from confining a person without informing him of his offense
and without permitting him to go on bail. It punishes public officials who shall detain any person for some legal
ground and shall fail to deliver such person to proper judicial authorities within the prescribed periods. Continued
detention becomes illegal when the period expires.

Petitioner argues that when a MTC judge conducts a preliminary investigation, he is not acting as a judge but as
fiscal. Citing different jurisprudence, however, the Court denies his argument since his reliance on the cases he cited
is misplaced.

The Court explains that the delivery of a detained person is a legal one and consists in making a charge or filing a
complaint against the prisoner with the proper justice of the peace in provinces and in filing by the city fiscal of an
information with the corresponding city courts after an investigation if the evidence against said person warrants.

A MTC judge, even in the performance of conducting preliminary investigations, retains the power to issue an order
of release or commitment. The intent behind Art. 125 is satisfied upon filing of the complaint with the MTC.
Petitioner acknowledged this when he applied for bail. Art. 125 has been duly served. The period prescribed in Art.
125 has been interrupted after the filing of the complaint in the MTC.

22
17. SORIA v. DESIERTO
GR Nos. 153524-25
JANUARY 31, 2005
Created by: JULIUS GUZMAN
Topic: ARBITRARY DETENTION AND EXPULSION; DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF DETAINED PERSONS TO THE PROPER JUDICIAL
AUTHORITIES
Petitioners: RODOLFO SORIA AND EDIMAR BISTA
Respondents: HON. ANIANO DESIERTO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS HEAD OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, HON. ORLANDO
CASIMIRO, DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR MILITARY, OTHERS
Ponente: (PER CURIAM)

DOCTRINE: Based on applicable laws and jurisprudence, an election day or a special holiday, should not be included in the
computation of the period prescribed by law for the filing of complaint/information in courts in cases of warrantless arrests, it
being a no-office day.

FACTS
● Petitioners Rodolfo Soria and Edimar Bista were arrested on May 13, 2001 (a Sunday and the day before May 14
elections) without a warrant by respondents for alleged illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. One police
identified Bista to have a standing warrant of arrest for violation of BP Blg. 6.From the time of Soria’s detention up to
the time of his release, 22 hours had already elapsed and Bista was detained for 26 days.
● The crimes for which Soria was arrested without warrant are punishable by correctional penalties or their equivalent,
thus, criminal complaints or information should be filed with the proper judicial authorities within 18 hours of his
arrest.
o The crimes for which Bista was arrested are punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or their equivalent,
thus, he could only be detained for 36 hours without criminal complaints or information having been filed
with the proper judicial authorities.
● Article 125 stated that Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities. - The penalties
provided in the next preceding article shall be imposed upon the public officer or employee who shall detain any
person for some legal ground and shall fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within the period
of: twelve (12) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent; eighteen (18) hours, for
crimes or offenses punishable by correctional penalties, or their equivalent; and thirty-six (36) hours, for crimes or
offenses punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or their equivalent.
● Petitioners filed with the Office of the Ombudsman for Military Affairs a complaint-affidavit for violation of Art. 125 of
the Revised Penal Code against herein private respondents. The office dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.
Petitioners then filed their motion for reconsideration which was denied for lack of merit in the second assailed
Resolution.
ISSUE

23
 ● WON officers of the Office of the Ombudsman gravely abused their discretion in dismissing the complaint for violation
of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code (Delay in the delivery of detained persons)

HELD/RATIO
● NO. No grave abuse of discretion can be attributed to the respondents. Their disposition of petitioners' complaint
for violation of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code cannot be said to have been conjured out of thin air as it was
properly backed up by law and jurisprudence.
● Regarding the complaint of Soria, based on applicable laws and jurisprudence, an election day or a special holiday,
should not be included in the computation of the period prescribed by law for the filing of complaint/information in
courts in cases of warrantless arrests, it being a 'no-office day. Hence, there could be no arbitrary detention or
violation of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.
● In the same vein, the complaint of Bista against the respondents for Violation of Article 125, will not prosper because
the running of the thirty-six (36)-hour period prescribed by law for the filing of the complaint against him from the
time of his arrest was tolled by one day (election day). Moreover, he has a standing warrant of arrest for Violation of
B.P. Blg. 6 and he could only be released if he has no other pending criminal case requiring his continuous detention.

18.Stonehill vs. Diokno

G.R. L-19550 June 19, 1967
By: Madrid
Petitioners: Harry Stonehill, Robert Brooks, John Brooks, Karl Beck
Respondent: Jose Diokno, Jose Lukban, Judges of Courts (Ang rami kasi)

Facts:
- Respondents secured a total of 42 search warrants against petitioners.
- The warrant searched for “books of accounts, financial records, vouchers,
correspondence, receipts, ledgers, journals, portfolios, credit journals, typewriters, and
other documents and/or papers showing all business transactions including
disbursements receipts, balance sheets and profit and loss statements and Bobbins
(cigarette wrappers)”, as “the subject of the offense; stolen or embezzled and proceeds or
fruits of the offense,” or “used or intended to be used as the means of committing the
offense,” which is described in the applications adverted to above as “violation of Central
Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and the Revised Penal
Code.”
- Petitioner contended that the search warrants are null and void since they are contrary to the
Constitution and the Rules of Court since: 1. They do not describe with particularity the
documents, books, and things to be seized; 2. Cash money, not mentioned in the
warrants, were seized; 3. The warrants were used to fish evidence against petitioners in
deportation cases; 4. The searches and seizure were done illegally; 5. The things seized
were not delivered to the courts that issued the warrants.
- In their answer, respondents argued that: 1. That the contested search warrants are valid
and have been issued in accordance with law; 2. That the defects of said warrants, if any,
were cured by petitioners' consent; and 3. That, in any event, the effects seized are
admissible in evidence against herein petitioners, regardless of the alleged illegality of
the aforementioned searches and seizures.

Issue:
WON the petitioners can validly assail the search warrants.

24
NOTE:
The documents, papers, and things seized under the alleged authority of the warrants in
question may be split into 2 major groups, namely:
1. Those found and seized in the offices of the aforementioned corporations, and
2. Those found and seized in the residences of petitioners herein.

Held:
1. No.
2. Yes.

Ratio:
1.
- Petitioners herein have no cause of action to assail the legality of the contested warrants and
of the seizures made in pursuance thereof because corporations have their respective
personalities, separate and distinct from the personality of herein petitioners.
- The legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party whose rights have been impaired
thereby, and that the objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and cannot
be availed of by third parties.
- Petitioners herein may not validly object to the use in evidence against them of the documents,
papers and things seized from the offices and premises of the corporations adverted to above,
since the right to object to the admission of said papers in evidence belongs exclusively
to the corporations, to whom the seized effects belong, and may not be invoked by the
corporate officers in proceedings against them in their individual capacity.

2.
- Section 2, Article 3, Constitution provides that: The right of the people to be secure… no
warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the judge after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
- Two points must be stressed in connection with this constitutional mandate, namely: (1) that
no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the judge in the manner
set forth in said provision; and (2) that the warrant shall particularly describe the things to be
seized.
- The search warrants issued were violative of the Constitution and the Rules, thus, illegal or
being general warrants.
- There is no probable cause and warrant did not particularly specify the things to be seized.
- The purpose of the requirement is to avoid placing the sanctity of the domicile and the privacy
of communication and correspondence at the mercy of the whims, caprice or passion of peace
officers.

BONUS (DI AKO SURE KUNG RELEVANT TO OR NOT)

- Respondents maintained that even if the searches and seizures were unconstitutional, all the
documents, papers, and things seized are admissible as evidence against petitioners, pursuant
to the Moncado vs. People’s Court doctrine.
- However, the SC chose to abandon that doctrine since documents seized from an illegal
search warrant is to be considered as a fruit of a poisonous tree.

Decision:
Moncado doctrine abandoned; search warrants in the residences of petitioners are null and
void.

25
Notes:
Sobrang haba ng case na to ang lala.
To summarize, so may 42 search warrants. Ngayon, the things seized in those warrants may be
classified into 2. Una, things seized in the petitioners’ offices; and things seized in their
residences. Sabi ng SC, with regards sa unang classification, the petitioners cannot assail the
validity of those search warrants kasi based sa law ang pwede lang mag assail nun is yung
corporation mismo, hindi pwede yung mga empleyado. Ngayon sa 2nd classification, Pwede ng
iassail ng petitioners since its their constitutional right. And yun nga, nung inassail nila yung 2nd
classification, yung mga search warrants na yun are to be considered as general warrants
which the law considers as illegal kasi dapat may probable cause and may particular description
of the things to be search and seized. Ngayon, may bagong pinaglalaban si respondent. Sabi
niya, kahit illegal yung search warrant, yung mga things na naconfiscate are admissible as
evidence sa court based sa Moncado doctrine. However, the SC is not satisfied with their claim
and as a consequence, chose to abandon the Moncado doctrine kasi parang it defeats the
purpose of section 2, Article 3 ng Consti which is the right against illegal search and seizure.
And also, dahil pag naging admissible as evidence yung mga things na na confiscate, it may be
considered as fruits of the poisonous tree which the law also considers as illegal.

19. BURGOS VS. CHIEF OF STAFF

GR L-64261
December 26, 1984
Topic : Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those
legally obtained (Art. 129)
Petitioner : Jose Burgos, Sr., Jose Burgos, Jr., Bayani Soriano and J.
Burgos Media Services, Inc.
Respondents : Chief of Staff, AFP, Chief, Philippine Constabulary, Chief
Legal Officer, Presidential Security Command, Judge Advocate General, Et
Al.

DOCTRINE :

FACTS:
● This is a petition for certiorari prohibition and mandamus with preliminary
injunction and prohibitory injunction for the validity of 2 search warrants of the of
Metropolitan Mail and We Forum newspapers and that printing machines,
equipment, paraphernalia, documents and things used for printing and
publication were seized (warrants release by Judge Cruz-Pano)
● Petition prayed for the return of seized articles and that respondents be enjoined
from using the articles seized as evidence against them in other criminal case
(People vs. Jose Burgos Jr., et al.)
● Respoondents’ contention to dismiss the petition:
o That petitioners haven’t sought quashal of the search warrants before the
judge since before impugning validity of warrant, petitioners should have
filed motion to quash said warrants first.
o That said petition must be dismissed on ground of laches – warrants
were issued Dec. 7, 1982 and petition was filed only on June 16, 1983 or
after the lapse of more than 6 months

26
 o That Jose Burgos, Jr. used as evidence some of seized documents in
the other criminal case which estopped him from challenging the validity
of search warrants
● Petitoners’ contention:
o Judge Cruz-Pano failed to conduct examination under oath/affirmation of
applicant and witnesses in compliance with Sec. 4 Rule 126 of RoC.
o That the search warrants were pinpointed to only one place (same
address in two different warrants)
o That search warrants were direceted against Jose Burgos, Jr. alone but
articles belonging to other petitioners were also seized
o That the machines and equipment seized were considered immovable
property and cannot be seized
o That there is no sufficient basis for finding a probable cause
o That the objects to be seized are in in general warrants (hindi specific
yung nakalagay sa warrant)
ISSUE : Whether or not the search warrant and seizure are valid and constitutional
- NO

● On the contention that petitioners must sought quashal first before umpugning of
the validity may be decided by the Court. In this case, the seriousness and
urgency of the constitutional must be considered and Court can exercise
inherent power to suspend such rule where quashal must first be obtained
before impugning validity. “It is alwaus in the power of the SC to suspend its
rules or to except a particular from its operation, whenever the purpose of justice
require it.
● On the issue of LACHES: there is an extrajuidicial efforts exerted by petitioners
by finding other remedies and this negate the presumption that they abandoned
their right to the possession of said property so laches may be refuted in this
case.
● On issue of Jose Burgos, Jr. using the documents seized as evidence: Jose
Burgos, Jr. is the lawful owner of said documents and he can whatever he
pleases with those within legal bounds. It does not in any way affect the validity
of search warrants
● Under Article IV Sec. 3 of 1973 Constituion, there must be probable cause
determined by the judge for a valid warrant. For the nature of business of
Metropolitan Mail and We Forum (newspaper publisher) there must be
specification and particular subversive material that would be seized.
● Stanford vs. State of Texas: “books, records, pamhplets, cards… etc” are too
general. General warrant are invalid.
● SC ruled that the search warrant and seizure is invalid and null and ordered
return of seized articles.

27
20. GALVANTE vs CASIMIRO
G.R. No. 162808 ; April 22, 2008

TOPIC: Violation of Domicile

Petitioner: FELICIANO GALVANTE

Respondents: HON. ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO, Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law
Enforcement Officers, BIENVENIDO C. BLANCAFLOR, Director, DENNIS L. GARCIA, Graft Investigation
and Prosecution Officer, SPO4 RAMIL AVENIDO, PO1 EDDIE DEGRAN, PO1 VALENTINO RUFANO, and
PO1 FEDERICO BALOLOT

DOCTRINE:
The complaint for warrantless search charges no criminal offense. The conduct of a warrantless
search is not a criminal act for it is not penalized under the Revised Penal Code or any other special
law.

FACTS:
1. One day petitioner left his house at around 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon for Agusan del Sur to
meet retired police Percival Plaza and inquire about the retirement procedure for policemen
2. That upon arrival at the house of retired police, petitioner immediately went down of the jeep but
before before he could call Mr. Plaza, four policemen in uniform blocked his way;
3. The 4 policemen were the private respondents PNP members of 1403 Prov'l Mobile Group of
Agusan del Sur; who all pointed their long firearms ready to fire at petitioner
4. That having heard the sound of the release of the safety lock; petitioner raised his arms
5. Petitioner heard [private respondent] PO1 Avenido saying, "ANG IMONG PUSIL, IHATAG" which
means "Give me your firearm," to which he answered, "WALA MAN KO'Y PUSIL" translated as "I
have no firearm," showing his waistline when petitioner raised his T-shirt;
6. Mr. Percival Plaza (retired police officer) then came down from his house and told them not to
harass the petitioner for he was also a former police officer; but the accused did not heed Mr.
Plaza's statements;
7. While he was raising his arms [private respondent] SPO4 Benjamin Conde, Jr. went near the
owner type jeep of petitioner and conducted a search. To which petitioner asked them if they
have any search warrant;
8. After a while, they saw petitioner’s super .38 pistol under the floormat of his jeep
9. The accused immediately left bringing his firearm with them
10. Later on, at about 2:30 p.m., petitioner left Mr. Percival's house and went to Trento Police Station
where he saw a person in civilian attire with a revolver tucked on his waist, to which he asked the
police officers including those who searched his jeep to apprehend him also;
11. Nobody among the policemen at the station made a move to apprehend the armed civilian
person so petitioner went to the office of Police Chief Rocacorba who immediately called the
armed civilian to his office and when already inside his office, the disarming was done;
12. That after the disarming of the civilian, petitioner was put to jail with the said person by Police
Chief Rocacorba and was released 2 days later after posting a bailbond;

28
 13. Petitioner then filed against private respondents
(1) an administrative case, docketed as Administrative Case for Grave Misconduct, before the
Internal Affairs Service (IAS) and
(2) a criminal case for Arbitrary Detention, Illegal Search and Grave Threats, before the
Ombudsman
14. The AIS then issued a decision finding all private respondents guilty of grave misconduct even if
they were merely being enthusiastic in the conduct of the arrest in line of duty
15. On the other hand, the Ombudsman, where respondent CASIMIRO was the Deputy Ombudsman,
dismissed the charges against the respondents for lack of probable cause and it appeared from
the records that the incident stemmed from a valid warrantless arrest

ISSUE: Whether the Ombudsman properly dismissed the criminal complaints filed against the private
respondents… YES

RATIO:
16. It is noted that the criminal complaint which petitioner filed with the Ombudsman charges private
respondents with warrantless search, arbitrary detention, and grave threats.
17. But the complaint for warrantless search charges no criminal offense. The conduct of a
warrantless search is not a criminal act for it is not penalized under the Revised Penal Code or any
other special law.

18. What the RPC punishes are only two forms of searches:
(1) Art. 129. Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those legally
obtained. - any public officer or employee who shall procure a search warrant without
just cause, or, having legally procured the same, shall exceed his authority or use
unnecessary severity in executing the same.
(2) Art. 130. Searching domicile without witnesses. - a public officer or employee who, in
cases where a search is proper, shall search the domicile, papers or other belongings of
any person, in the absence of the latter, any member of his family, or in their default,
without the presence of two witnesses residing in the same locality.
19. The remedy of petitioner against the warrantless search conducted on his vehicle is civil, under
Article 32, in relation to Article 221936 (6) and (10) of the Civil Code, which provides:
➢ Art. 32 of CC. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or
indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the
following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages:

xxxx

(9) The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures;

xxxx

The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated.

and/or disciplinary and administrative, under Section 41 of Republic Act No. 6975

29
 20. Public respondents' dismissal of the criminal complaint for illegal search which petitioner filed
with the Ombudsman against private respondents was therefore proper, although the reasons
public respondents cited for dismissing the complaint are rather off the mark because they relied
solely on the finding that the warrantless search conducted by private respondents was valid and
that the Affidavit of Desistance which petitioner executed cast doubt on the veracity of his
complaint.
21. Public respondents completely overlooked the fact that the criminal complaint was not cognizable
by the Ombudsman as illegal search is not a criminal offense. Nevertheless, the result achieved is
the same: the dismissal of a groundless criminal complaint for illegal search which is not an offense
under the RPC

HELD:
Public respondents did not act with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal complaint
against private respondents. PETITION IS DENIED

30
21. I. CASE DETAILS (People v Mandoriao Jr.)

II. Created by: Clyne

III: TOPIC: Offending the religious feelings

IV. DOCTRINE: A crime against religious feelings is based against a dogma or

ritual, or upon an object of veneration

V. FACTS
- Iglesia ni Cristo held a religious rally at a public place in Baguio
- 300 people attended such event but only 50 of them are members of the
Iglesia ni Cristo therefore making the rest outsiders
- Salvio, who was a minister of Iglesia ni Cristo preached that Christ is not
God but only a man
- The crowd became unruly whereby Mandoriao went up the stage and
grabbed the microphone thus challenging him to a debate about such topic
- Mandoriao was not able to speak immediately because the wiring was
abruptly disconnected
- RTC convicted Mandoriao of Art. 113 since he offended the religious
feelings of Salvio during a religious ceremony
- CA reversed RTC

VI. ISSUE
Whether the meeting is a religious ceremony

VII. HELD/RULING
No

VIII. RATIO
The Supreme Court held that such meeting was not a religious ceremony and
that it described a religious ceremony as an assembly of people meeting for
the purpose of performing acts of adoration to the Supreme Being or to
perform religious services in recognition of God as an object of worship.
However in this case, the meeting was not only limited to the members of
the Iglesia ni Kristo. The prayers and hymns were only incidental on the basis
that the main purpose of the rally was to persuade people to convert to their
religion. In order for Art. 113 to prosper, it is important that the act must be
done against a dogma or ritual, or upon an object of veneration. However,
there was no object of veneration during the meeting.

31
22. People vs Baes
Gr no. 46000, May 25, 1939
By: Ralph Atmosfera

Doctrine:
A crime against religious feelings is based against a dogma or
ritual, or upon an object of veneration. The offense imputed to the defendants herein is defined
in article 133

Facts:

- Baes, the parish priest of the Roman Catholic Church of Lumban, Laguna, charged the
accused with an offense against religion for causing the funeral of a member of the
“Church of Christ” to pass through the churchyard fronting the Roman Catholic Church,
belonging to said church and devoted to the religious worship thereof. The parish priest
opposed this, but through force and threats of physical violence by the accused, was
compelled to allow the funeral to pass through the said churchyard (MAIKSI LANG
TALAGA FACTS NIYA and maiksi talaga yung case)

Issue: whether or not the act complained of is notoriously offensive to the religious feelings of
the Catholics, thereby violating Article 133 of the RPC.

Held/Ruling: YES

- the facts alleged in the complaint constitute the offense defined and penalized in article
133 of the Revised Penal Code, and should the fiscal file an information alleging the said
facts and a trial be thereafter held at which the said facts should be conclusively
established, the court may find the accused guilty of the offense complained of, or that of
coercion, or that of trespass under article 281 of the Revised Penal Code.

- Whether or not the act complained of is offensive to the religious feelings of the
Catholics, is a question of fact which must be judged only according to the feelings of the
Catholic and not those of other faithful ones.

- Article 133 of the RPC provides

Offending the Religious Feelings. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon anyone who, in a place devoted
to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony shall perform acts
notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful. (Revised Penal Code)

32
NOTES:
Laurel dissent:

Offense to religious feelings should not be made to depend upon the more or less broad or
narrow conception of any given particular religion, but should be gauged having in view the
nature of the acts committed and after scrutiny of all the facts and circumstance which should
be viewed through the mirror of an unbiased judicial criterion. Otherwise, the gravity or leniency
of the offense would hinge on the subjective characterization of the act from the point of view of
a given religious denomination or sect, and in such a case, the application of the law would be
partial and arbitrary, withal, dangerous,
especially in a country said to be "once the scene of religious intolerance and persecution.”

33
23. People v Tengson
67 OG 1552
Topic: D. Crime against religious worship (Offending religious feelings)

Plaintiff: People of the Philippines

Accused: Alfonso Tengson

Doctrine:
Offending Religious Feelings Elements;
o That the acts complained of were performed in a place devoted to religious worship or during the
celebration of any religious ceremony
o That the act or acts must be notoriously offensive to those who are faithful in their religion

Facts:
- APPEAL OF JUDGEMENT OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT BAUAN BATANGAS CONVICTING TENGSON OF VIOLATION OF
ART 133 OF RPC
● Alfonso Tengson a minister of sect Christ is the Answer received a telegram from Leopoldo
Cepillo a resident of Bauan Batangas informing him the dead of Ines Cepillo wife of Tiburcio
Cepillio and her interment the following day
● Appellant and his assistant went to Bauan and went to the house of the where the deceased is
lay in state
● Upon request of Tiburcio , Tengson performed a religious serviced ( Singing of hymns, reading of
passages, and chant of Alleluia)
● Tiburcio then informed Tengson that the remains of Ines would be buried in the Roman Catholic
cemetery of Bauan, Batangas he also informed that he obtained a burial permit from the
Catholic Church of Bauan, Batangas
● On the afternoon before the Funeral cortege for Ines started from the house, Tiburcio requested
Tengson to hold another service in the barrio chapel of Christ is the Answer.
● After funeral service in the chapel, the funeral cortege headed for the Poblacion
● Upon reaching at the Municpal hall Tengson directed it to go direct to the cemetery and joined
it there. The funeral coach stopped in front of the unfinished chapel and the coffin of the
deceased was taken out and was buried.
● Upon the facts above narrated Tengson was guilty of violation of Article 133 of RPC

Issue:

● W/N Alfonso Tengson and Eduardo Olegario performed acts notoriously offensive to the feelings
of a Christian or Roman Catholic Faithful? – NO

34
Ruling:

● First element is present as the acts complained of took place inside the Roman Catholic
cemetery where there is a chapel, although unfinished, for performing the last rites before
burial of the dead in accordance with the Roman Catholic
● Second element that the act is notoriously offensive to the feeling of the faithful was not
present. Because second element must be directed against a religious practice or dogma or
ritual for the purpose of ridicule
o The acts done by Olegario ( Rules of Practice of Christ is the answer, reading passage
bibles, singing Alleluia and praying for the soul) is not notoriously offensive to the
feelings of religious persons provided there was no intent to mock, scoff at or desecrate
any religious acts or object venerated by the people of a particular religion
▪ The appellant and his assistant simply performed religious rites in accordance
with the practice of their Christian sect and such act may have offended the
Roman Catholic Priest of Bauan and some catholic adherents but since there
was permit for the burial of Ines Cepilllo in the Catholic Cemetery such act are
not offensive to the feelings of everybody who professes Christian religion
● SC believe that appellant had not incurred any criminal liability because he was requested by the
members of the family of the deceased to perform a certain kind of religious rite of a Christian
sect in their house, chapel and Roman Catholic Cemetery of Buan Batangas.
o The religious feelings should not just be viewed only to the witnesses who testified
against, Roman Catholic priest of Bauan but be viewed by large standpoint of all
Christian or believers of Jesus Christ.

35
24.
People v Nanoy
69 OG 8043
February 24, 1972

Petitioner:
People of the Philippines

Respondent:
Epifanio Nanoy

Facts:
On April 27, 1969 at 4:00pm, the congregation of the Assembly of God was having its afternoon
services in the chapel where Nanoy, who was in a drunken state, entered the said chapel with
uplifted hands then attempted to grab the song leader Levita Lapura, who ran away from him.

Romeo Zafra, a member of the congregation, then led him outside the church. The other
members of the sect also ran out of the church, causing the religious service to be discontinued.
Nanoy was charged in violation of Art 133 of the Revised Penal Code for offending religious
feelings but was later found guilty instead of public disturbance or interruption of a religious
ceremony penalized under Art 153 of the same code. He was sentenced to 10 months and 21
days of imprisonment and a fine of P50. Respondent argues that he should be only held in
violation of Art 287 for unjust vexation.

Issue: W/N accused is guilty of offending the religious feelings under Art 133

Held: NO

Art. 133. Offending the Religious Feelings. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum
period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon anyone who, in a
place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony shall
perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.

There must be deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the faithful. In this case, he did not
“perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful”, which is a necessary element
of the crim. The 4 elements are:
1. The offender is any person;

36
2. He performs an act in a place devoted to religious worship, or during the celebration of any religious
ceremony;
3. Such act is notoriously offensive to the religious feelings of the faithful;
4. There’s a deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the faithful, directed against religious tenet.

Likewise, he is not guilty under Art 153 since he did not cause such a “serious disturbance as to
interrupt or disturb the services”. All he did was enter the chapel with uplifted arms and
attempted to grab the song leader. Furthermore, he had no intention to disturb was evident when
he did not resist to be escorted out by Zafra.

He is guilty of unjust vexation under Art 287 par 2 of the RPC. The crime is only unjust vexation
when the act is not directed to the religious belief itself and there is no intention of causing so
serious a disturbance as to interrupt a religious ceremony.

37