People vs Camerino GR-No.

L-13484 Facts: The accused, Dominador Camerino together with the other 86 were being charged of the crime o=f sedition in the cout of first instance. They said that it was committed during the period comprised by between Ocotber 1953 to Novemeber 1953 wherein thet have been allegedly perpetrated the political and social ends, insistent, repeated and continuously done the acts of terrorism and revenge against private person,leader, members and sympatahizers of the nacionalista party in the town of cavite. Before the arraignment, Dominador Camerino and the other 86 accused filed a motion to quash the information on the ground of double jeopardy claiming that they have been previously convicted in the same nature of the court. However, the asst, provincial fiscal filed a written opposition saying that although they have been charged with various crimes under different and separate information, it would not be called double jeopardy. Issue. 1. 2. Rulings: On March 14, 1956, the trial court issued an order sustaining the reasons of the motion to quash and dismissing the information on the grounds:(1) that the information charged more than one offense, (2) that it was vague, ambiguous and uncertain, (3) that it described crimes for which some of the accused had either been convicted or acquitted, and (4) some violation of the election law described in the specification had already prescribed. A motion for reconsideration filed by the Fiscal was denied. The Government is appealing from that order of dismissal, as well as the order denying the motion for reconsideration. US vs Cabanag GR No. 3241 Whether or not Dominador camerino and the other 86 accused is guilty of sedition? Whether or not it could be considered as double jeopardy?

Facts: The accused, tomas cabanag, was charged with unlawful detention whereby an act of depriving a private person in his/her liberty. An orphan named Gumaya 13 yrs.of age has been taken from possession of her grandmother in the province of Nueva Vizcaya. In order to pay the debt of her family and to consider it a help on them , a guy named eusebio sold her to tomas Canag for 100 pesos. In respect to the sale, the testimony of Tomas, Antonia and the girl agreed that Cabanag has been instructed to buy the girl by one name Mariano Lopez of Caoayan Isabela.Gumaya has become the house servant and was deprive d with her liberty. Issue: Whether or not the accused is guiltyof unlawful detention? Rulings: Tomas Cabanag has been acquitted for there are no law for punishing the offense made by the accused,. Aside from that, there can be no unlawful detention under the Art.481 without the confinement or restraint of person, such did not exist in this case.

People vs Gungon Facts: January 12,1994 , Roberto Gungon, the accused conspired, confederate and mutually helped one another by means of force violation and intimidation. He then willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kidnap, carry away and detain Agnes Gurindola, a De La sale student making her deprive of her liberty and thereafter brought her to an uninhabited place in BRgy. Bagong pook san jose Batangas wherein she has been shot on her face producing the crime of murder. Due to timely medical assistance, she has been prevented to death and then file a case against the accused. Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty on the following: 1. Kdinaaping and seious illegal detention? 2. Carnapping Rulings: The court has decided that the accused is guilty of the said grounds making him sentenced to death, penalty of 18 to 25 years of imprisonment, and prision correctional.

Ilagan vs Enrile GR No.70745 October 21,1985

Facts: May 10,1985, atty. Laurente Ilagan was errested in davao city by elements of PC-INP and detained at the camp catititpan on the basis of Mission Order issued by the Ministry of national defense.During that day, atty, Antonio arellano and the other 14 lwayers visited him, wherein he was then arrested and detained on the basis of unsigned mission order. On may 13,1985, the military sent a word to the IBP davao Chapter that Atty. Marcos Risonar should likewise be arrested. Atyy Bisonar verify hi spapers and was detained to camp catititpan on the basis of a Mission Order by General Echevarria., the Regional Unified Commander. The case of rebellion has been charged against them. The three arrested lawyers filed for habeas corpus on the ground that the arrest is illegal and violative of the constituition since the said arrests cannot be made based on the Mission Orders and that there appears to be a military campaign to harass lawyers involved in national security cases. The court then issued a writ, reuired a return and set the petition hearing on may 23,1985. During the said return, they have been arrested on the basis issued PDA by the President. The writ of habeas corpus has been suspneded on the proclamation no 2045-a pursuant to the ruling in Garcia vs Enrile. Issue: 1. Whether or not they have been lawfully arrested? 2. Whetehr or not they are guilty of rebellion? Rulings: The said petition for Habeas Corpus is hereby dismissed for having become moot and academic. The petitioners are now detained by virtue of warrant of arrest issued by the RTC of davao City in relation to criminal case for rebellion filed against them. US vs Samonte GR No. 5649

Facts: September 6, 1908, the appellant , Issac samonte and basilio Rabe were together in the house of Demetrio Pandeio for a meeting in the barrio of Macalalong,jurisdiction of Pitogo, Tayabas. During the meeting, they had a heated argument wherein rabe was maltreated and shouted for help. Upon hearing this, a municipal policemen Gregorio Glindo,patrolling during the night rescued for help. He then attempted to arrest the appellant however samonte told the police not to come near or else he will take away his life. Due to this instance, Glindo went to Pandenio and reported the matter who then orderd for his arrest. Samonte has been found in Muntingbayan wherein another attempt for arrest has been tried and again the appellant resisted struck the councilman with knife. During the night,the appellant was not arrested but did not lay hands on the knife but still did refuse and resisted against the authorities. However a priest has been knock down by Samonte and called for help, With these, they immediately made action for his immediate arrest. Isaac samonte was charged of criminal attempt against an agent of authoritiesin the province of Tayabas. Issue: 1. Rulings: An offense is committed in the presence or within the view of an officer, within the meaning of the rule authorizing an arrest without a warrant, when the officer sees the offense, although at a distance, or hears the disturbances created thereby and proceeds at once to the scene thereof; of the offense is continuing, or has not been consummated, at the time the arrest is made. Prudente vs Judge Dayrit GR No. 82870 Whether or not a policeman can arrest without waarant?

Facts: The case is a petition for certiorari to annul and set aside the order of respondent Judge dated 9 March 1988 which denied Dr. Nemesis E. Prudentes (PUP President) motion to quash Search Warrant No. 87 -14, as well as his order dated 20 April 1988 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the earlier order. It appears that on 31 October 1987, P/Major Alladin Dimagmaliw, Chief of the Intelligence Special Action Division (ISAD) of the Western Police District (WPD) filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 33, presided over by respondent Judge Abelardo Dayrit, now Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals, an application for the issuance of a search warrant, docketed therein as SEARCH WARRANT NO. 87-14, for VIOLATION OF PD NO. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms, etc.) entitled "People of the Philippines, Plaintiff, versus Dr. Nemesis E. Prudente, Defendant." In his application for search warrant, P/Major Alladin Dimagmaliw alleged the following: that in PUP he has in his control or possession firearms, explosives handgrenades and ammunition which are illegally possessed or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense. That the undersigned has verified the report and found it to be a fact, and therefore, believes that a Search Warrant should be issued to enable the undersigned or any agent of the law to take possession and bring to the Honorable Court. Issue: Whether or not a warrant issued based on verified information to the police is valid ? Rulings:

Probable cause must be shown to be within the personal knowledge of the complainant or the witnesses and not simply on hearsay. Sayo vs Chief of Police GR No. L-2128 Facts: Bernardino Manilao filed a complaint charging the petitioners having committed the crime of robbery. Benjamin Dumlao, a policeman in the City of Manila, arrested the petitioners on april 2, 1948 and presented a complaint against them with the fiscal of Manila. The petitioners has been detained until April 7, 1948 when the petition for habeas corpus filed with this court was heard. The case has not been decided before this time because of insufficient number of justices to form a quorum in Manila. Said case has been transferred to the SC in the division of baguio for deliberation and decision. Issue: 1. 2. Whether or not the the petitioners are illegally restrained from their liberty? Whether or not the city fiscal of Manila a judicial authority within the meaning of the provisions of Art. 125 of RPC? Rulings: Without making any pronouncement as to the responsibility of the officers who intervened in the detention of the petitioners, for the policeman Dumlao may have acted in good faith, in the absence of a clear cut ruling on the matter in believing that he had complied with the mandate of article 125 by delivering the petitioners within six hours to the office of the city fiscal, and the latter might have ignored the fact that the petitioners were being actually detained when the said policeman filed a complaint against them with the city fiscal, we hold that the petitioners are being illegally restrained of their liberty, and their release is hereby ordered unless they are now detained by virtue of a process issued by a competent court of justice.