Laurel v.

Misa
GR No. L-409

Date of Promulgation: January 30, 1947

Ponente: --
Petitioner: Anastacio Laurel
Respondent: Eriberto Misa
Nature: Petition for habeas corpus
Digest By: MEMarcilla

Doctrine: A citizen owes an absolute and permanent allegiance to his

government and this absolute and permanent allegiance is not abrogated or
severed by the enemy occupation, because the sovereignty of the government
or sovereign de jure is not transferred to the occupier.

Brief: Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus, claiming that he cannot be
prosecuted for treason for giving the enemy aid and comfort during the Japanese
occupation. The court ruled that he still owed allegiance to the sovereign and that
sovereignty still resided in the people of the Philippines.

Facts:
 The accused was charged with treason as defined and penalized by Article 114 1 of the Revised Penal Code.
 Laurel filed a petition for habeas corpus based on the theory that a Filipino citizen who adhered to the enemy
giving the latter aid and comfort during the Japanese occupation cannot be prosecuted for the crime of treason
because:
o (1) that the sovereignty of the legitimate government in the Philippines and, consequently, the
correlative allegiance of Filipino citizens thereto was then suspended; and
o (2) that there was a change of sovereignty over these Islands upon the proclamation of the Philippine
Republic.

SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
Issue: WON the allegiance of Filipino citizens to the government was suspended during the occupation.
Held: NO.
Ratio: There was no suspended allegiance.
 A citizen owes an absolute and permanent allegiance to his government or sovereign. This absolute and
permanent allegiance should not be confused with the qualified and temporary allegiance which a foreigner
owes to the government of the territory where he resides, so long as he remains there, in return for the
protection he receives.
 This absolute and permanent allegiance is not abrogated or severed by the enemy occupation, because the
sovereignty of the government or sovereign de jure is not transferred to the occupier.
 Sovereignty itself was not suspended, what was suspended was merely the exercise of sovereignty.
Therefore, there was no suspended allegiance.

Issue: WON there was a change of sovereignty.

Held: NO
Ratio: Laurel is guilty of treason.

1 Art. 114. Treason. — Any person who, owing allegiance to (the United States or) the Government of the Philippine Islands, not being a foreigner,
levies 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 pesos.

No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses at least to the same overt act or on confession of the accused
in open court.

Likewise, an alien, residing in the Philippine Islands, who commits acts of treason as defined in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be punished by
prision mayor to death and shall pay a fine not to exceed P20,000 pesos.
  Sovereignty resides in the people of the Philippines.
 The change of the form of government from Commonwealth to Republic does not affect the prosecution of
those charged with the crime of treason committed during the Commonwealth, because it is an offense
against the same government and the same sovereign people. Only the name was changed. (Art. XVIII
of the Constitution2)

Dispositive:
Petition DENIED.

2Art. XVII. The government established by this constitution shall be known as the Commonwealth of the Philippines. Upon the final and complete
withdrawal of the sovereignty of the United States and the proclamation of Philippine independence, the Commonwealth of the Philippines shall
thenceforth be known as the Republic of the Philippines.
TOPIC: Crimes Against National Security and the Law of Nations – Treason

People v. Perez
G.R. No. L-856

Date of Promulgation: April 8, 1949

Ponente: Tuason, J.
Petitioner: People of the Philippines
Respondent: Susano Perez (alias Kid Perez)
Nature: Appeal from a judgment of the People’s Court
Digest By: MCamitan

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. Intent of disloyalty is a vital ingredient in the crime of treason, which,
in the absence of admission, may be gathered from the nature and circumstances
of each particular case.

Brief: The accused was convicted of treason for "commandeering" women to

satisfy the lust of Japanese officers and was sentenced to death by electrocution.
The SolGen appealed, saying that the deeds committed by the accused do not
constitute treason. The Court agreed, but found the accused guilty of four
separate crimes of rape, which were alleged in the information and established
by evidence.

Facts:
 Seven counts of treason were filed against Susano Perez alias Kid Perez for having recruited, apprehended
and commandeered numerous girls and women against their will for the purpose of using them to satisfy the
immoral purpose and sexual desire of Colonel Mini and other Japanese Officers.
 Only counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 were substantiated.
 Petitioner was convicted of treason and was sentenced to death by electrocution.
 The SolGen appealed, not questioning the findings, but claimed that the deeds did not constitute treason.

SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
Issue: WON the acts of the accused constituted the crime of treason
Held: NO
Ratio: What aid and comfort constitute treason must depend upon their nature degree and purpose.
 To be treasonous, the extent of the aid and comfort3 given to the enemies must be to render assistance to
them as enemies and not merely as individuals and in addition, be directly in furtherance of the enemies’
hostile designs.
 The acts of the accused of “commandeering” women to satisfy the lust of Japanese officers did not directly
and materially tend to improve the war efforts or to weaken the power of the United States.
 Intent of disloyalty is a vital ingredient in the crime of treason, which, in the absence of admission, may be
gathered from the nature and circumstances of each particular case.

Issue: WON the accused may be convicted of rape instead of treason

Held: YES
Ratio: Sec. 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 682 states, "… the evidence is not sufficient to support the offense (treason)

3 Art. 114. Treason. — Any person who, owing allegiance to (the United States or) the Government of the Philippine Islands, not being a foreigner,
levies 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 pesos.

No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses at least to the same overt act or on confession of the accused
in open court.

Likewise, an alien, residing in the Philippine Islands, who commits acts of treason as defined in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be punished by
prision mayor to death and shall pay a fine not to exceed P20,000 pesos. (As amended by E.O. No. 44, May 31, 1945).
charged, the People's Court may, nevertheless, convict and sentence the accused for any crime included in the acts
alleged in the information and established by the evidence."
 Since all the rapes were alleged in the information and substantiated by the evidence, 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.
 The defendant personally assaulted and abused two of the offended girls but these assaults are not charged
against him and should be ruled out.

Dispositive:
Guilty of four separate crimes of rape and sentence him for each of them to an indeterminate penalty of from 10 years
of prisión mayor to 17 years and 4 months of reclusión temporal, with the accessories of law, to indemnify each of the
offended women in the sum of P3,000, and to pay the costs
TOPIC: Crimes against Nat’l Security and the Law of Nations – Treason

People v. Prieto
GR No. L-399

Date of Promulgation: January 29, 1948

Ponente: Tuason, J.
Petitioner: People of the Philippines
Respondent: Eduardo Prieto (Eddie Valencia)
Nature: Appeal from a judgment of the People’s Court
Digest By: GRACEgar

Doctrine: When the deed is charged as an element of treason it becomes

identified with the latter crime and can not be the subject of a separate
punishment, or used in combination with treason to increase the penalty as Article
48 of the Revised Penal Code provides.

Brief: The appellant was prosecuted in the People's Court for treason on 7
counts. After pleading not guilty he entered a plea of guilty to counts 1, 2, 3 and
7, and maintained the original plea as to counts 4, 5 and 6. The special prosecutor
introduced evidence only on count 4, stating with reference to counts 5 and 6 that
he did not have sufficient evidence to sustain them. The defendant was found
guilty of count 4 as well as counts 1, 2, 3 and 7 and was sentenced to death and
to pay a fine of P20,000. The Court modified the judgment and sentenced
appellant to reclusion perpetua.

Facts:
 The appellant was prosecuted in the People's Court for treason on 7 counts. After pleading not guilty he
entered a plea of guilty to counts 1, 2, 3 and 7, and maintained the original plea as to counts 4, 5 and 6.
 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 counts of treason are as follows:
o Appellant lead, guide and accompany a patrol of Japanese soldiers and Filipino undercovers to the
barrio of Poknaon, for the purpose of apprehending guerrillas and locating their hideouts specifically
one Abraham Puno
o Appellant lead, guide and accompany a group of Filipino undercovers for the purpose of
apprehending guerrillas and guerrilla suspects specifically Guillermo Ponce and Macario Ponce
o Apellant lead, guide and accompany 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
specifically Damian Alilin and Santiago Alilin
o Apellant did cause the torture of Antonio Soco and the killing of Gil Soco for guerrilla activities.
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE
Issue: WON murder or physical injuries should be charged distinctly from treason
Held: NO
Ratio:
When the deed is charged as an element of treason it becomes identified with the latter crime and can not be the
subject of a separate punishment, or used in combination with treason to increase the penalty as Article 48 of the
Revised Penal Code provides. A defendant can not be made liable for murder as a separate crime or in conjunction
with another offense where, as in this case, it is averred as a constitutive ingredient of treason.

It is where murder or physical injuries are charged as overt acts of treason that they can not be regarded separately
under their general denomination.
However, the brutality with which the killing or physical injuries were carried out may be taken as an aggravating
circumstance. 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 under the provision of article 14, paragraph 21, of the
Revised Penal Code, since they, as in this case, augmented the sufferings of the offended parties unnecessarily to the
attainment of the criminal objective.
TOPIC: Crimes against National Security and the Law of the Nations – Treason

People v Manayao
GR No. L-322

Date of Promulgation: July 28, 1947

Ponente: Hilado, J.
Petitioner: People of the Philippines
Respondent: Pedro Manayao
Nature: Automatic review
Digest By: KMPGarcia

Doctrine:Joining a group organized to render military aid to other country’s

forces does not remove Philippine’s jurisdiction over the person accused.

Brief: Manayao was charged with the crime of treason with multiple murder. He,
together with Japanese soldiers and members of Makapili (a group of Filipinos
dedicated to helping the Japanese), participated in the butchering of the residents
in Banaban.

Facts:
 In 1945, guerrillas raided the Japanese in a town in Bulacan. In reprisal, Japanese soldiers and a number of
Filipinos affiliated with Makapili gathered around 70 residents of Banaban behind the barrio chapel. The men,
women, and children were separated. All of the residents were butchered except for the group of children.
 The defendant in this case was a member of Makapili and was involved in the murder of the residents.
 The prosecution witnesses, Maria Paulino and Clarita Perez, were among the children that were not killed.
They testified that the Japanese and their Filipino comrades set the houses on fire and proceeded to butcher
all the persons assembled, save for the small children.
 The witnesses also testified that Manayao alone killed about six women, two of whom were Patricia and Dodi
whom he bayoneted to death in the presence of their daughters Maria and Clarita. Patricia and Dodi pleaded
for mercy, he being their relative, but he gave the callous answer that no mercy would be given them because
they were wives of guerrillas. Appellants would also have killed the small children had he been allowed to
have his way.
 Manayao was convicted of the high crime of treason with multiple murder in the People’s Court, with the
aggravating circumstances of 1) aid of armed men, and 2) employment or presence of a band.
 Manayao appealed and identified three errors:
o Appellant was a member of Armed Forces of Japan, thus not subject to jurisdiction of People’s Court
o Appellant had lost his Philippine citizenship and was therefore not amenable to the Philippine law of treason
o It was improper to take the aggravating circumstances of aid of armed men and employment of a
band
o Appellant acted in obedience to an order by a superior

SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
Issue: WON Manayao was subject to the jurisdiction of the People’s Court
Held: YES
Ratio:
 Makapili, although organized to render military aid to the Japanese Army during the war, was not a part of
Armed Forces of Japan. Hence, the contention that Manayao was a member of the Armed Forces and thus
not subject to Philippine jurisdiction, is untenable.

Issue: WON Appellant had lost his Philippine citizenship and was therefore not amenable to the Philippine law of
treason
Held: NO
Ratio:
 Appellant invoked CA 63 which provided that a Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship by:
o Subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the constitution or laws of a foreign country upon
attaining 21 years or more
o By accepting commission in the military, naval, or air service of a foreign country
o By having been declared, by competent authority, a deserter of the Philippine army
 Court held that there was no evidence that appellant has subscribed to an oath of allegiance to support the
 constitution or laws of Japan. The oath that Manayao subscribed to when he joined Makapili was not
tantamount to an oath of allegiance to Japan.
 Neither was there any showing of the acceptance by appellant of a commission in the military, naval, or air
service of Japan. Much less is there an evidence that appellant had ever been a deserter in the Philippine
army.

Issue: WON the aggravating circumstances of aid of armed men and employment of a band were properly accounted
for
Held: NO
Ratio:
 Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of an offense, it
shall be deemed to have been committed by a band. So the three armed men is automatically included, there
being only the aggravating circumstance of band to be considered.

Issue: WON he acted in obedience to an order of a superior

Held: NO
Ratio:
 The modifying circumstance of obedience to a lawful order does not include order to a foreign superior. A
construction to the contrary would lead to the destruction of the Republic.

Dispositive: Judgment affirmed. Penalty modified from death penalty to reclusion perpetua.

TOPIC: Crimes against Nat’l Security and the Law of Nations – Treason

People v. Adriano
GR No. L-477

Date of Promulgation: June 30, 1947

Ponente: Tuason, J.
Petitioner: People of the Philippines
Respondent: Apolinario Adriano
Nature: Appeal from a judgment of conviction
Digest By: AJLCardeño

Doctrine: For cases of treason, we have the two-witness rule. Each of the
witnesses must testify to the whole of the overt act; or, if it is separable, there
must be two witnesses to each part of the overt act.

Brief: A certain Filipino, Apolinario Adriano, was captured after World War II and
put to trial for being a member of the Makapili organization (an army of pro-
Japanese Filipinos). Membership to such organizations supporting the enemy is
TREASON. However, to prove treason we must use the two-witness rule (this
concept was copied from the US). There were several witnesses but they had
varying testimonies so this failed the two-witness rule for a specific act. So
Adriano was acquitted.

Facts:
 A Filipino, Apolinario Adriano, was captured after World War II.
 He was put to trial for supporting the Japanese.
 Membership to Pro-Japanese organizations is TREASON.
 To prove treason we must use the two-witness rule.
 There were several witnesses but they had varying testimonies.

SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
Issue: WON Membership to Makapili is treason
Held: YES
Ratio:
 Makapili membership is treasonous because the organization is a Pro-Japanese army of Filipinos (during
World War II).
  Membership to such organization is adherence to the enemy and giving them comfort and aid, violating
Art. 1144 of the RPC.

Issue: WON the two-witness rule for treason was met

Held: NO
Ratio:
 There were many witnesses but they had varying testimonies regarding Adriano (raiding, property seizure,
sentry on Japanese camps, etc.)
 No two witnesses had a coinciding testimony of a specific act, therefore failing the two-witness rule.

Dispositive:
The judgment is REVERSED and the appellant ACQUITTED with costs charged de oficio.

Notes:
 Hilado, J. dissented, stating that membership to Makapili is an overt act and therefore does not need to have
two witnesses having the same testimony on one specific act. Day one membership is no different from Day
X membership to Makapili, even if there were different activities in those respective days.

4
Art. 114. Treason. — Any person who, owing allegiance to (the United States or) the Government of the Philippine Islands, not being a foreigner,
levies 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 pesos.
No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses at least to the same overt act or on confession of the accused
in open court. xxx
TOPIC: CRIM 2 – Piracy

People v. Lol-lo and Saraw

GR No. 17958

Date of Promulgation: February 27, 1922

Ponente: Malcolm, J.
Petitioner: The People of the Philippine Islands
Respondent: Lol-lo and Saraw
Nature: Not mentioned in the case.
Digest By: JCFMagsino

Doctrine: There is a crime of piracy is at least one of these circumstances are

attendant to a case: (1) the pirates have seized some vessel by boarding or firing
upon the same; (2) the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, or by any
physical injuries; (3) it is accompanied by any of the offenses against chastity;
and (4) whenever the pirates have abandoned any persons without means of
saving themselves. In every case, the captain or skipper of the pirates shall be
punished with cadena perpetua or death.

Brief: A boat was attacked by the Moros. The marauders took some of the cargo,
hurt some of the men on board, and raped two of the women. After the attack,
the Moros made holes on the boat and left passengers, except for the two
women, to drown. After this, the Moros escaped and went to the island of Maruro
wherein the two women were able to escape. Later on, Lol-lo and Saraw returned
to Tawi-Tawi, and there they were arrested and charged with the crime of piracy.

Facts:
 On June 30, 1920, two boats left Matuta for Peta, both Dutch terrirories.
 In one of the two boats were eleven Dutch men, women, and children.
 After a number of days of navigation, at about 7 o'clock in the evening, the boat arrived between the Islands
of Buang and Bukid in the Dutch East Indies.
 There the boat was surrounded by six vintas manned by twenty-four Moros all armed.
 At first, the Moros asked for food, but once they were allowed to go on deck, they took for themselves all the
cargo, attacked some of the men, and raped two of the women.
 Placing holes on the boat, with the idea of drowning its passengers, the Moros asked the people, with the
exception of the two women, to ride the boat once again.
 When the Moros finally arrived at Maruro, a Dutch possession, the two women were able to escape.
 Two of the Moro marauders were Lol-lo, who raped one of the women, and Saraw.
 Lol-lo and Saraw later returned to their home in South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi, Sulu, Philippine Islands.
 There they were arrested and were charged in the CFI Sulu with the crime of piracy.
 A demurrer was interposed by counsel de officio for the Moros, based on the grounds that:
(1) the offense charged was not within the jurisdiction of the CFI, nor of any court of the Philippine Islands,
and
(2) the facts did not constitute a public offense, under the laws in force in the Philippine Islands.
 After the demurrer was overruled by the trial judge, trial was had, and a judgment was rendered finding the
two defendants guilty and sentencing each of them to:
o life imprisonment, cadena perpetua
o to return together with Kinawalang and Maulanis, defendants in another case, to the offended parties,
39 sacks of copras which had been robbed, or to indemnify the victims in the amount of 924 rupees,
and to pay a one-half part of the costs.

PROCEDURAL ISSUES
Issue: WON the CFI has jurisdiction over the case
Held: YES
Ratio:
  Piracy is hostes humani generis; it is not a crime against a state, rather it is a crime against all mankind and
may be punished in a competent tribunal where the offender may be found guilty or into which he may be
carried.
 It does not matter that the crime was committed within the jurisdictional 3-mile limit of a foreign state “for those
limits, though neutral, are not neutral to crimes” (US v. Furlong [1820], 5 Wheat. 184)

SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
Issue: WON the provisions5 of the Penal Code with regard to the crime of Piracy are still in force
Held: YES
Ratio:

 Art. 153 to 156 of the Penal Code is still enforceable upon the defendants.
 As a general rule, laws subsisting at the time of transfer, designed to secure good order and peace in the
community, continue until direct action of the new government they are altered or repealed. (Chicago, Rock
Islands, etc., R. Co. v. McGlinn [1885], 114 U.S., 542)
 The Spanish Penal Code is applicable not only to the Spaniards, but also the the Filipinos by virtue of Art. 1
of the Constitution of the Spanish Monarchy.
 These principles of public law were given specific application to the Philippines by the Instructions of Pres.
McKinley on May 19, 1898 to Gen. Wesley Meritt, the Commanding General of the Army of Occupation in the
Philippines.
 Moreover, the US Constitution provides that its Congress shall have the power to deal with piracies and
felonies committed on the high seas, and committed against the law of nations.
 With these two points in consideration, it is evident that the Penal Code, now in force in the Philippines, and
its provisions on piracy are not inconsistent with the corresponding provisions in force in the United States.
 Under the Treaty of Paris, Spain ceded the Philippines to the US. Therefore a logical construction of the Penal
Code will provide that whenever “Spain” is mentioned, it should be substituted with “United States,”
“Spaniards” with “citizens of the United States and of the Philippine Islands.”

Issue: WON the Crime of Piracy was attendant to the case at bar
Held: YES
Ratio:
 The crime falls under the first paragraph of Article 153 of the Penal Code in relation to Article 154.
 There are present at least two of the circumstances named in the last cited article as authorizing either cadena
perpetua or death.
(1) an offense against chastity; and
(2) the abandonment of persons without apparent means of saving themselves.
 In this connection, the trial court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment, finding present:
(1) aggravating circumstance of nocturnity; and

5Art. 153, PC. The crime of piracy committed against Spaniards, or the subjects of another nation not at war with Spain, shall be punished with a
penalty ranging from cadena temporal to cadena perpetua.

If the crime be committed against nonbelligerent subjects of another nation at war with Spain, it shall be punished with the penalty of presidio
mayor.

Art. 154, PC. Those who commit the crimes referred to in the first paragraph of the next preceding article shall suffer the penalty of cadena
perpetua or death, and those who commit the crimes referred to in the second paragraph of the same article, from cadena temporal to cadena
perpetua:

1. Whenever they have seized some vessel by boarding or firing upon the same.
2. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, or by any of the physical injuries specified in articles four hundred and fourteen and
four hundred and fifteen and in paragraphs one and two of article four hundred and sixteen.
3. Whenever it is accompanied by any of the offenses against chastity specified in Chapter II, Title IX, of this book.
4. Whenever the pirates have abandoned any persons without means of saving themselves.
5. In every case, the captain or skipper of the pirates.

Art. 155, PC. With respect to the provisions of this title, as well as all others of this code, when Spain is mentioned it shall be understood as including
any part of the national territory.

Art. 156, PC. For the purpose of applying the provisions of this code, every person, who, according to the Constitution of the Monarchy, has the
status of a Spaniard shall be considered as such.
 (2) mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction
 The SC found that an additional of at least three aggravating circumstances should be considered in fixing the
penalty:
(1) that the wrong done in the commission of the crime was deliberately augmented by causing other
wrongs not necessary for its commission;
(2) there was an abuse of superior strength; and
(3) means were employed which added ignominy to the natural effects of the act.
 Considering, therefore, the number and importance of the qualifying and aggravating circumstances here
present, which cannot be offset by the sole mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction, and the horrible
nature of the crime committed, the Court then imposes the capital punishment.

Dispositive:
CFI Decision AFFIRMED and is reversed as to the defendant and appellant Lol-lo, who is found guilty of the crime of
piracy and is sentenced to be hung until dead. The two appellants together with Kinawalang and Maulanis, defendants
in another case, shall indemnify jointly and severally the offended parties in the equivalent of 924 rupees, and shall pay
a one-half part of the costs of both instances.

Notes:
 The case happened during the early stages of American rule in the Philippine Islands. People were still
confused with regard to statutes that will be applicable to them, whether it be those which were already
enforced during the Spanish period, or will it be those that were promulgated during the American occupation.
TOPIC: Crimes Against National Security and the Law of Nations - Piracy

People v Rodriguez
GR No. L-60100

Date of Promulgation: March 20, 1985

Ponente: PER CURIAM
Petitioner: People of the Philippines
Respondent: Jaime Rodriguez, Rico Lopez, Dario De Reyes, Peter Ponce
Nature: Automatic review upon imposition of capital punishment
Digest By: MJCMartinez

Doctrine: The Anti-Piracy law (amending Art. 134 of the RPC) provides that
should a person be found guilty of the crime of piracy be committed with rape,
murder, or homicide, the mandatory penalty of death shall be imposed.

Brief: Respondents were crew members of a trade vessel. They were found
guilty of the crime of piracy after stealing properties from the crew members and
passengers of the vessel and in pursuance of such, causing the death of 30
people. The penalty of death was imposed on them. The case is raised to the SC
for automatic review. SC found no error on the penalty imposed. The Anti-Piracy
law provides for the mandatory penalty of death for Piracy committed with
murder.

Facts:
 Jaime Rodriguez, Rico Lopez, Dario De Reyes, Peter Ponce were crew members of the M/V Noria 767, a
barter trade vessel of Philippine registry.
 They have been charged with the crime of Piracy after stealing and carrying away properties belonging to
the crew members and passengers of the said vessel.
 Attending to the commission of this crime was the killing of 30 crew members and passengers and inflicting
injuries on 3 others.
 Rodriguez, Lopez and De Reyes pleaded guilty to the charge.
 Ponce entered a plea of not guilty.
 Following the testimonies of 3 witnesses, confirming that they saw the accused, armed with rifles, firing at
passengers of the vessel; Ponce was also found guilty of the crime.
 Having been found guilty of the crime of Piracy with the aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident
premeditation, night time and the use of superior strength, attended by the murder of 30 of the crew
members and passengers of the vessel, the CFI of Tawi-Tawi imposed upon the 4 accused the penalty of
death

SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
Issue: WON the CFI erred in imposing the penalty of death
Held: NO
Ratio:
 Presidential Decree No. 532, otherwise known as the Anti-Piracy
Law, amended Art. 134 of the RPC and provides that:
o SEC. 3. Penalties.—Any person who commits piracy or highway robbery/brigandage as herein
defined, shall, upon conviction by competent court be punished by:

a) Piracy.—The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed.
If physical injuries or other crimes are committed as a result or on the occasion thereof, the penalty
of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed. If rape, murder or no homocide is committed as a result or
on the occasion of piracy, or when the offenders abandoned the victims without means of saving
themselves, or when the seizure is accomplished by firing upon or boarding a vessel, the mandatory
penalty of death shall be imposed.

 Clearly, the penalty imposable upon persons found guilty of the crime of piracy where rape, murder or homicide
is committed is mandatory death penalty.
 The lower court committed no error in not considering the plea of the three (3) defendants as a mitigating
circumstance. Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code states that:
 o b) ART. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties.—In all cases in which the law prescribes
a single indivisible penalty, it shag be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or
aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.

Dispositive:
Decision appealed from AFFIRMED.
TOPIC: Crimes against national security and the law of the nations - Piracy

People v. Siyoh
GR No. L-57292

Date of Promulgation: February 18, 1986

Ponente: Abad Santos, J.
Petitioner: The People of the Philippines
Respondent: Julaide Siyoh, Omar-Kayam Kiram, Namli Indanan and Andaw Jamahali
Nature: Automatic review of imposed death penalty
Digest By: PSPambid

Doctrine: Number of persons killed on the occasion of piracy, not material; Piracy,
a special complex crime punishable by death—but the number of persons killed
on the occasion of piracy is not material. PD 532 considers qualified piracy as a
special complex crime punishable by death. Therefore, the guilt of respondent
were proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Brief: Antonio de Guzman, Danilo Hiolen, Rodolfo de Castro, and Anastacio de

Guzman were travelling merchants on a pumpboat, which was hijacked by Julaide
Siyoh and Omarkyam Kiram. Siyoh and Kiram took the goods and ordered them
to remove their clothes, Kiram even put on the pants of Antonio de Guzman. Siyoh
said “it was good to kill all of you” and they proceeded to kill the merchants. Antonio
de Guzman survived by jumping into the water and swimming to safety.

Facts:
 Julaide Siyoh and Omarkyam Kiram, together with Namli Indanan and Andaw Jamahali were accused of
qualified piracy with triple murder and frustrated murder
 On July 10, 1979, Antonio de Guzman together with his friends who were also travelling merchants like him
(Danilo Hiolen. Rodolfo de Castro and Anastacio de Guzman) were on their way to Pilas Island, Province of
Basilan, to sell goods they received from Alberto Aurea.
 They left for Pilas Island at 2:00 p.m. of July 10, 1979 on a pumpboat. They took their dinner and slept that
night in the house of Omar-kayam Kiram at Pilas Island. Who also helped them from selling their goods to
different Islands near Pilas.
 Before the incident happened, Antonio, the lone survivor saw that Kiram was talking with another two persons
that he can only recognize in their faces somewhere near the house where they were selling the goods
 On July 14, 1979, When they were heading back to Pilas Island from Baluk-Baluk Island through riding a
pumpboat where Siyoh positioned himself at the front while Kiram operated the engine.
 On the way to Pilas Island, Antonio de Guzman saw another pumpboat painted red and green about 200
meters away from their pumpboat Shortly after" Kiram turned off the engine of their pumpboat. Thereafter two
shots were fired from the other pumpboat as it moved towards them
 There were two persons on the other pumpboat who were armed with armantes. De Guzman recognized them
to be the same persons he saw Kiram conversing with in a house at Baluk-Baluk Island.
 When the boat came close to them, Kiram threw a rope to the other pumpboat which towed de Guzman's
pumpboat towards Mataja Island.
 On the way to Mataja Island, Antonio de Guzman and his companions were divested of their money and their
goods by Kiram. Thereafter Kiram and his companions ordered the group of de Guzman to undress. Taking
fancy on the pants of Antonio de Guzman, Kiram put it on.
 With everybody undressed, Kiram said 'It was good to kill all of you'. After that remark, Siyoh hacked Danilo
Hiolen while Kiram hacked Rodolfo de Castro. Antonio de Guzman jumped into the water. As he was
swimming away from the pumpboat, the two companions of Kiram fired at him, injuring his back. But he was
able to reach a mangrove where he stayed till nightfall. When he left the mangrove, he saw the dead bodies
of Anastacio de Guzman, Danilo Hiolen and Rodolfo de Castro. He was picked up by a fishing boat and
brought to the Philippine Army station at Maluso where he received first aid treatment. Later he was brought
to the J.S. Alano Memorial Hospital at Isabela, Basilan province.
 On July 15, 1979, while waiting for the dead bodies of his companions at the wharf, de Guzman saw Siyoh
and Kiram. He pointed them out to the PC and the two were arrested before they could run. When arrested,
Kiram was wearing the pants he took from de Guzman and de Guzman had to ask Pat. Bayabas at the
Provincial Jail to get back his pants from Kiram
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
Issue: WON the accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt
Held: YES
Ratio:
 Number of persons killed on the occasion of piracy, not material; Piracy, a special complex crime punishable
by death—but the number of persons killed on the occasion of piracy is not material. PD 532 considers
qualified piracy as a special complex crime punishable by death. Therefore, the guilt of respondent were
proven beyond reasonable doubt.
 There was no other evidence presented on why should the lone survivor tell lies and fabricate story as to
apprehend the accused.
 Appellants claim that they were not the assailants but also the victim and that the two persons they have
identified (Namli Indanan and Andaw Jamahali) is baseless as view in the proven conspiracy among the
accused. The Conspiracy was established through the testimony of the lone witness and survivor- De Guzman

Dispositive: finding the decision under review to be in accord with both the facts and the law, it is affirmed with the
following modifications: (a) for lack of necessary votes the penalty imposed shall be reclusion perpetua; and (b) each
of the appellants shall pay in solidum to the heirs of each of the deceased indemnity in the amount of P30,000.00. No
special pronouncement as to costs.
TOPIC: Crimes against National Security and the Law of the Nations – Arbitrary Detention

Umil v. Ramos
187 SCRA 311

Date of Promulgation: July 9, 1990

Ponente: Per curiam
Petitioner: Roberto Umil, Rolando Dural, Renato Villanueva, Manolito Umil, Nicanor P. Dural and Felicitas Sese, et al.
Respondent: Fidel V. Ramos, Maj. Gen. Renato de Villa, Brig. Gen. Ramon Montano, Brig. General Alexander Aguirre
Nature: Petition for Habeas Corpus.
Digest By: Lowela Limbaring

Doctrine: As a general rule, a peace officer has no authority to arrest anyone

without a warrant EXCEPT in those cases authorized by law (See Sec 5 Rule
113 below).

Brief: Petitioners filed a petition for habeas corpus.6 Respondents, on the other
hand, contend that remedy of habeas corpus is not proper because the
petitioners have been legally arrested. Court ruled in favor of respondents.

Facts:
 Petitioners were arrested without a warrant.
 They filed a petition for habeas corpus ordering the respondents to produce their bodies and explain why they
should not be set at liberty.
 Respondents, on the other hand, contend that the remedy of habeas corpus is not proper as the petitioners
have been legally arrested and are detained by virtue of valid informations filed in court against them.

SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
Issue: WON the detention of the prisoners is illegal. Specifically, WON their questioned arrests without warrant were
made in accordance with law.
Held: NO - Detention of the prisoners is not illegal. YES - Warrantless arrests by the respondents were made in
accordance with law
Ratio:
1. As a general rule, a peace officer has no authority to arrest anyone without a warrant EXCEPT in those
cases authorized by law7.
2. The arrest of the petitioners fall under the exceptions provided by Section 5 Rule 113.
a. As to DURAL
 Dural was committing an offense (in flagrante delicto) when arrested for being a member of the NPA,
an outlawed organization where membership is penalized.
 Unlike other common offenses which generally end upon their commission, subversion and
rebellion are a continuing offense which are anchored on an ideological base which compels the
repetition of the same acts of lawlessness and violence until the overriding objective of overthrowing
the government is attained.
 He was also promptly placed under judicial custody after an information was filed against him in the
RTC.
b. As to UMIL
 His case falls under Section 5 par. b of Rule 113. Two conditions of which are:
i. The person arrested just committed an offense
ii. The arresting officer has personal knowledge of facts that the person to be arrested is the
one who committed the offense.
 Personal knowledge of facts is complied with by virtue of the confidential information received by
arresting officers that an NPA member was being treated for gunshot wound in St. Agnes Hospital

6 The writ of habeas corpus is a speedy and effective remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint. It inquires into the legality of one’s
detention.
7 Section 5. Rule 113. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that
the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
  Such arrest was also conducted in good faith considering that law enforcers are presumed to
regularly perform their official duties.
c. As to ROQUE & BUENAOBRA
 They were caught in flagrante delicto for possession of unlicensed firearms. 8
 They were searched pursuant to a search warrant issued by a court of law and were found with
unlicensed firearms and explosives.

3. IN SUM, the power to arrest without a warrant is without limitation as long as the requirements of Section 5
Rule 113 are met
 This rule is founded on an overwhelming public interest in peace and order in our communities.

Dispositive:
Petition DENIED.

Notes:
The court, in this case, only ruled upon the legality of the arrest and not with the conviction of the petitioners.

8Note that arrest warrant and search warrant are not the same. They were searched with a warrant but arrested without a warrant because they
were caught with unlicensed firearms.