1. People v. Perez, 83 Phil.

1 (SUNGCAD)

People v Perez
G.R. No. L-856
April 18, 1949
Ponente: Tuason, J.
Facts
1. The accused, Susano Perez, was convicted of treason by the People’s Court sitting in
Cebu City, and sentenced to death by electrocution. There were 7 counts, but the prosecution
only offered evidence for counts 1, 2, 4 , 5 and 6.
2. Each of the counts presented testimonies of women who testified that the accused and his
Filipino companions commandeered them to the Puppet Governor of Bohol, Colonel Mini, a
Japanese Colonel, where they were to satisfy his carnal desires. Some women testified even to
being raped by the accused and his companion.
3. The accused-appellants do not dispute the testimonies of the women, but they are
contending that their acts do not constitute Treason. Hence, this appeal
Issues
1. W/N the accused committed treason? NO.
Disposition
GUILTY of four separate crimes of rape and sentence him for each of them to an indeterminate
penalty of from 10 year of prision mayor to 17 year and 4 months of reclusion temporal, with the
accessories of law, to indemnify each of the offended women in the sum of P3,000,
Rationale
1. NO. The SolGen argues that the actions of the accused DO constitute treason since it
preserves and maintains the morale of the Japanese Soldiers. However, that would mean any act
of befriending or keeping the morale of the enemy would constitute treason. Treason does not
prescribe all kinds of social business and political intercourse between the belligerent
occupants of the invaded country and its inhabitants. It is natural for the invaders of a place
to establish relations with the locals. As a general rule, to be treasonous, the extent of the aid and
comfort given to the enemies must be to render assistance to them as enemies and not merely as
individuals and in addition, be directly in furtherance of the enemies’ hostile designs. The
accused’s commandeering of the women to satisfy the Japanese officers does not constitute
Treason. They are no more guilty than if women were to give themselves to the Japanese
Officers willingly. However, they may be charged of rape as it is undisputed.
Opinion
Pablo, J. Dissenting opinion
His dissenting opinion is basically saying that in war, destruction is used for triumph, and the
accused have aided the enemies in the destruction of their country. To violate or dishonor women
is also to destroy them materially and morally. The accused aided the Japanese in doing so by
relieving the latter of the hassle of finding the women for themselves.
2. People v. Adlawan, 83 Phil. 194 (DY)
Petitioner: People of the Philippines
Respondent: Cucufate Aldawan
Ponente: Reyes, J.

Facts: The respondent was charged with treason but was convicted of 23 counts of “complex crime
of treason with murder, robbery and rape”

He pleaded guilty to committing treasonous acts but he pleads modification of the sentence,
contending that the court:

1. Did not consider mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender, he served as witness

against Japanese soldiers and that he helped save lives of both civilians and soldiers from
Japanese.
2. Upon surrendering he was assured that death penalty will not be imposed
3. That aggravating circ. of treachery, abuse of superiority and unnecessary cruelty were
appreciated.
4. Erred in holding that he was guilty of “treason with murder, robbery and rape”.
5. sentenced to death and pay a fine of 25k

Issue: Were there errors in the decision of the lower court?

Held: For the fourth item, the respondent should not have been convicted of “treason with murder,
robbery and rape.” The killings robbery and raping were not alleged as specific offenses but as mere
elements of the crime of treason. Therefore, these cannot be used in combination of treason.
Aldawan is only guilty of Treason.

The mitigating circumstance of surrender cannot be appreciated because it was not proven.
However, since Aldawan admitted that he was taken from his mother’s house by agents of CIC, it
will be considered as arrest; voluntary surrender cannot be invoked.

On the meritorious acts that Aldawan claimed he did were also not proven and are not mitigating
circumstances under the RPC.

There was also no proof to support that Aldawan was assured that he would not be sentenced to
death. The prosecution and the TC denied the same and the TC even denied Aldawan’s MR.

There is merit to his contention about the aggravating circumstances since all 3 are inherent to
treason. However, the information show that aggracating circ. of cruelty and ignominy should be
appreciated since he implored barbaric torture on guerrillas and chose to add ignominy when raping
Filipinas. Such is given in the case of People v Racaza.

The penalty for Treason is Reclusion Temporal to Death + 20k. The penalty should have been
applied to its maximum because even if voluntary surrender is an MC, cruelty and ignominy is are
aggravating circumstances. But since 5 members are against applying death penalty, the sentence if
only RP with fine of 20k.

Decision: Reclusion Perpetua +20k.

3. Santos v. Misa, 76 Phil. 415 (DOCTOR)

Go Kian Tek Santos v. Eriberto Misa
GR No. L-319 ; 28 March 1946
Bengzon, J.

Facts:
Santos, a Chinese citizen, was arrested in February 1945 (liberation period) by the Counter
Intelligence Corps of the US Army and was turned over to the Commonwealth government in
September and was detained by respondent (director of prisons). Santos claims that because of the
absence of any charge or conviction, he may not be detained under Act No. 682 (An Act Creating a
People’s Court and an Office of Special Prosecutors for the Prosecution and Trial of Crimes Against
National Security Committed During the 2nd World War) since he is neither a US or a Filipino Citizen.
Respondent counters by saying that regardless of a person’s citizenship, Santos may be charged for
espionage, a crime against national security (allegiance is immaterial).

Issue:
W/N Santos may be detained? YES.

Held:
Sec. 19 of CA 682
“Upon delivery the [US forces] of the persons detained by him as political prisoners, to the
Commonwealth Government, the Office of Special Prosecutors shall receive all records, documents,
exhibits and such other things as the Government of the United States may have turned over in
connection with and/or affecting said political prisoners, examine the aforesaid records, documents,
exhibits, etc., and take, as speedily as possible, such action as may be proper: Provided,
however, . . .. And, provided, further, That, in the interest of public security, the provisions of
article one hundred twenty-five of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall be deemed, as
they are hereby suspended, insofar as the aforesaid political prisoners are concerned, until
the filing of the corresponding information with the People's Court, but the period of
suspension shall not be than six (6) months from the formal delivery of said political
prisoners by the [US forces] to the Commonwealth Government.”
The foreign status does not exclude Santos from the scope of the provision. Espionage, which is
covered by CA 616, considered to be an offense against national security, may be charged
regardless of citizenship.
The aforementioned provision is not unconstitutional as explained in Laurel v. Director of Prisons.

Ruling:
Petition DENIED
Sep. Opinion
Perfecto, J. – Concurs with the application of the extension of scope of the mentioned provision but
disagrees with the denial of the liberty of Santos without any due and legal process.

4. United States v Caballeros, 4 Phil. 350 (YAO)

US vs. Caballeros GR 1352 March 29, 1905
Petitioners-Appellee: United States of America
Respondents-Appellants: Apolonio Caballeros, Roberto Baculi.

FACTS
The defendants (Apolonio Caballeros and Roberto Baculi) have been sentenced by the Court of First
Instance of Cebu to the penalty of 7 years of presidio mayor as accessories in the assassination of four
American school teachers. The defendants were alleged to have taken part in the burial of the deceased to
conceal the crime.

ISSUES
W/N the defendants are accessories to the crime? NO.
W/N there was evidence beyond reasonable doubt against convicting the defendants as accessories? NO.
W/N Caballeros’ confession of his crime to the Constabulary officer is conclusive evidence for his liability?
NO.

HELD
The evidence does not justify, in our opinion, this sentence. As regards Roberto Baculi, although he
confessed to having assisted in the burial of the corpses, it appears that he did so because he was compelled to
do so by the murderers of the four teachers. And not only does the defendant affirm this, but he is corroborated
by the only eyewitness to the crime, Teodoro Sabate, who, by the way, is a witness for the prosecution. This
witness says he was present when the Americans were killed; that Roberto Baculi was not a member of the
group who killed the Americans, but the he was in a banana plantation on his property gathering some
bananas; that when he heard the shots he began to run; that he was, however, seen by Damaso and Isidoro, the
leaders of the band; that the latter called to him and striking him with the butts of their guns they forced him to
bury the corpses.

The Penal Code exempts from liability any person who performs the act by reason of irresistible force
(par. 9, art. 8). Baculi acted, doubtless, under such circumstances when he executed the acts which are charged
against him.

As regards the other defendant, Apolonio Caballeros, there is no proof that he took any
part in any way in the execution of the crime with which he has been charged; there is
conclusive proof to the contrary, since Baculi, as well as one of the witnesses for the
prosecution, Teodoro Sabate, expressly declare that he, Caballeros, did not take any part in the
burial of the aforesaid corpses, nor was he even in the place of the occurrence when the burial
took place. The confession of his supposed liability and guilt, made before an official of the
division of information of the Constabulary, Enrique Calderon, as the latter states when
testifying as a witness, can not be considered as legal proof, because the same witness says
that Roberto Baculi was the only one of the defendants who made a confession to him
voluntarily. It appears besides, from the statements of another witness for the prosecution,
Meliton Covarrubias, that the confession of Apolonio Caballeros was made through the promise
made to him and to the other defendants that nothing would be done to them. Confessions
which do not appear to have been made freely and voluntarily, without force, intimidation, or
promise of pardon, can not be accepted as proof on a trial. (Sec. 4, Act No. 619 of the Philippine
Commission).

The fact of the defendants not reporting to the authorities the perpetration of the crime,
which seems to be one of the motives for the conviction and which the court below takes into
consideration in his judgment, is not punished by the Penal Code and therefore that can not
render the defendants criminally liable according to law.

DECISION – Defendants are ACQUITTED.

5. People v. Catantan, G.R. No. 118075, Sept. 5, 1997 (DELA ROSA)

Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-appellant: Emiliano Catantan y Tayong
Ponente: Bellosillo, J.

Facts:
At 3:00 o’clock in the morning of 27 June 1993, the Pilapil brothers Eugene, 21, and Juan, Jr., 18,
were fishing in the sea around 3 kilometers away from the shores of Tabogon, Cebu. Suddenly,
another boat caught up with them. They were later identified as the accused Emiliano Catantan and
Jose Ursal alias “Bimbo”. They boarded the pumpboat of the Pilapils and pointed his gun at Eugene.
With his gun, Catantan struck Eugene on the left cheekbone and ordered him and Juan, Jr. to
“dapa.”

They hogtied Eugene and covered him up with tarpaulin, stepped on him and ordered Juan to ferry
them to Daan Tabogon using their pumpboat. However, as they went farther out into the open sea
the engine stopped running. And as they passed the shoreline of Nipa, they saw another boat. This
was operated by Juanito and its engine was new. Catantan ordered the Pilapil brothers to approach
the boat cautioning them not to say anything. On a pretext that they were buying fish Catantan
boarded Juanito’s pumpboat. And ordered him to take them to Mungaz. Juanito tried to beg-off by
saying that he would still pull up his net and harvest his catch, but Catalan threatened to kill him. As
Ursal was transferring to the Juanito’s pumpboat, the Pilapil brothers got the chance to escape.

The Regional Trial Court of Cebu, found both accused Emiliano Catantan y Tayong and Jose
Macven Ursal alias “Bimbo” guilty of violating of PD No. 532 otherwise known as the Anti-Piracy and
Highway Robbery Law of 1974. They were charged and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Of the duo
only Emiliano Catantan appealed. He contends that the trial court erred in convicting him of piracy as
the facts proved only constitute grave coercion defined in Art. 286 of the Revised Penal Code and
not piracy under PD No. 532.

Issue:
Whether or not Emiliano Catalan violated PD No. 532 or Anti-Piracy and Highway Robbery Law?
YES
Held:
The court held that there was no reversible error in the decision appealed. They convicted
EMILIANO CATANTAN y TAYONG for the crime of piracy penalized under PD No. 532 and
sentenced him accordingly to reclusion perpetua. The costs against accused-appellant. There was
piracy, not grave coercion, where, as part of the act of seizing their boat, the occupants of the vessel
were forced to go elsewhere other than their place of destination. Grave coercion as penalized in
Art. 286 of the Revised Penal Code, this case falls squarely within the concept of piracy. While it
may be true that Eugene and Juan, Jr. were compelled to go elsewhere other than their place of
destination, such compulsion was part of the act of seizing their boat. Pilapil brothers are mere
fisherfolk whose only means of livelihood is fishing in sea waters. To impede the livelihood of small
fishermen would be to deprive them of their very survival, and the likes of the accused within the
purview of P.D. No. 532 are the obstacle to the “economic, social, educational and community
progress of the people.”

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the decision appealed from, the conviction of accused-
appellant EMILIANO CATANTAN y TAYONG for the crime of piracy penalized under PD No. 532
and sentencing him accordingly to reclusion perpetua, is AFFIRMED. Costs against accused-
appellant.

People v. Siyoh, 141 SCRA 356 (DOMINGO)

GR No. 579292 Feburary 18, 1986 Justice Abad Santos
FACTS (according to the Information):
On July 14, 1979, Julaide Siyoh, Omarkayam Kiram, Namli Indanan, and Andaw Jumali fired their
guns in the air in order to stop a pumpboat carrying traveling merchants Rodolfo de Castro, Danilo Hiolen,
Anastacio de Guzman, and Antonio de Guzman. Siyoh et. al. then boarded the pumpboat and stole
money, watches, stereo sets, and other articles from the traveling merchants. The stolen belongings
amount to P18,342. Afterwards, Siyoh et. al. ordered the traveling merchants to jump in the water, after
which Siyoh et. al fired their guns at them. Out of the four traveling merchants, only Antonio de Guzman
survived, despite suffering an otherwise mortal wound. De Guzman managed to swim to shore, and he
soon received timely medical assistance.
Only Siyoh and Kiram were arrested. After trial, the CFI of Basilan found them guilty of the crime
of Qualified Piracy with Triple Murder and Frustrated Murder. Hence this appeal.
FACTS (according to the Prosecution/People of the Philippines):
Antonio de Guzman and his fellow traveling merchants were to sell goods belonging to a
businessman, Alberto Aurea. In turn, De Guzman and company were to receive a part of the profits.
Siyoh and Kiram joined the traveling merchants on July 11, 1979. The traveling merchants spent one
night in the house of Kiram, but Kiram did not stay with them, saying that he spent the night in Siyoh’s
house. The group managed to sell many of Aurea’s goods. However, on July 14, 1979, Kiram and Siyoh
armed themselves with “barongs” and was seen talking to two other men unknown to the traveling
merchants. On the same day, the group saw another pumpboat approach. Kiram (who was then riding
with the merchants) turned off the engine of their pumpboat. After a short while, two gunshots were fired
from the other pumpboat. De Guzman recognized the men from the other pumpboat as the two men
Kiram and Siyoh were conversing. The other pumpboat towed De Guzman’s pumpboat to Mataja Island,
wherein De Guzman and company were divested of their belongings. De Guzman saw Siyoh and Kiram
hacking and killing Rodolfo de Castro and Danilo Hiolen, at which point he dove into the water and
attempted to swim away. However, he was hit by gunfire. Regardless of the wound, he managed to swim
to safety.
 Only Siyoh and Kiram were arrested. After trial, the CFI of Basilan found them guilty of the crime
of Qualified Piracy with Triple Murder and Frustrated Murder. Hence this appeal.
ISSUES:
- W/N the guilt of Siyoh and Kiram for the crime of Qualified Piracy with Triple Murder and
Frustrated Murder were proven beyond reasonable doubt? (YES)
RULING:
- A review of the record does not reveal any fact of circumstance which would justify a reversal
of the trial court’s decision. The trial court had the chance to personally examine the demeanor of the
witnesses, and in the absence of any crucial circumstance which the trial court may have overlooked,
its decision stands.
- Siyoh and Kiram argued that the real perpetrators is Indanan and Jumali, and that they were
actually victims of the crime. This is absurd, because conspiracy was adequately proven. Hence,
even if it were really Indanan and Jumali who killed the companions of De Guzman, still, Siyoh and
Kiram share the same criminal liability.
- Furthermore, Kiram and Siyoh assail that the death of Anastacio de Guzman is not proven, and
as such he may still be alive. This cannot be appreciated, because even though this event happened
in 1971 and the case was tried in 1981, Anastacio de Guzman remains missing. As a special complex
crime under PD 532, qualified piracy is punishable by death regardless of the number of the victims.
Hence, even if it was true that Anastacio de Guzman is still alive, Kiram and Siyoh would still be liable
for qualified piracy.

7. People v. Lol-lo and Saraw, 43 Phil. 19 (anyone)

8. People v. Tulin, G.R. No. 111709, August 30, 2001 (anyone)

People vs Tulin
Plaintiff: People of the Philippines
Accused: Roger Tulin, Virgilio Loyola, Cecilio Changco, Andres Infante, Chiong Sa-Hiong
Ponente: Justice Melo
GR 111709 August 30, 2001
FACTS:
M/T Tabangao is a cargo vessel owned by the PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation, loaded
with 2,000 barrels of kerosene, 2,600 barrels of regular gasoline, and 40,000 barrels of diesel oil,
with a total value of P40,426,793,87. was sailing off the coast of Mindoro near Silonay Island.The
vessel, manned by 21 crew members, was suddenly boarded, with the use of an aluminum ladder,
by seven fully armed pirates led by Emilio Changco. The pirates were armed with rifles, handguns,
and bolos. They detained the crew and took complete control of the vessel. Thereafter, they paint
over the name "M/T Tabangao" on the front and rear portions of the vessel, as well as the PNOC
logo, and then painted with the name "Galilee," with registry at San Lorenzo, Honduras.
The crew was forced to sail to Singapore, while sending misleading radio messages to PNOC that
the ship was undergoing repairs. They anchored about 10 to 18 nautical miles from Singapore's
shoreline where another vessel called "Navi Pride" anchored beside it. Emilio Changco ordered the
crew of "M/T Tabangao" to transfer the vessel's cargo to the hold of "Navi Pride". The company was
then dealing for the first time with Paul Gan, a Singaporean broker, who offered to sell to the former
bunker oil for the amount of 300,000.00 Singapore dollars. Accused-appellant Cheong San Hiong
supervised the crew of "Navi Pride" in receiving the cargo.
The members of the crew were released in three batches with the stern warning not to report the
incident to government authorities for a period of two days or until April 12, 1991, otherwise they
would be killed. They were fetched from the shoreline by a newly painted passenger jeep driven by
accused-appellant Cecilio Changco. On April 12, 1991, the Chief Engineer, accompanied by the
members of the crew, called the PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation office to report the
incident. The crew members were brought to the Coast Guard Office for investigation. The incident
was also reported to the National Bureau of Investigation where the officers and members of the
crew executed sworn statements regarding the incident.
A series of arrests was effected and on October 24, 1991 an Information charging qualified piracy or
violation of Presidential Decree No. 532 (piracy in Philippine Waters) was filed against accused-
appellants. The Branch 49 of the RTC of the National Capital Judicial Region rendered a decision
convicting accused-appellants of the crime charged.
ISSUES:
- W/N the accused are rightly charged with qualified piracy (YES)
- W/N conspiracy was established (YES)
RULING:
- On Piracy: The accused presented a weak alibi, in that the captain of M/T Tabangao recruited
them to work on the ship. This defense must fail in the face of the positive identification provided by
prosecution witnesses. Furthermore, the accused’s defense is contrary to human instinct, in that
they agreed to work on a ship without being appraised of the destination and without even saying
goodbye to their family. As for Chango, his defense that he was in his house in Bacoor when the
crime happened is patently weak, especially given the fact that his alibi was uncorroborated by other
witnesses.
- On Conspiracy: While it was Tulin, Loyola, and Infante, Jr. who actually attacked and seized
M/T Tabangao, Changco was to fetch the master and members of the crew from Calatagan and
bring them to Imus. While Chango did not actually participate in the seizing of the vessel, he
performed his task in view of a common objective. As for Hiong, he is liable because he aided the
pirates in disposing of the stolen cargo by personally directing its transfer from M/T Galilee to M/T
Navi Pride. He also falsified documents which enabled the illegal transfer to pass through the
Singapore Port Authorities. If Hiong was as “unaware” of the transfer as he claimed he is, then he
should have stopped the transfer given the irregularities present.
- The SC affirms the conviction of all of the accused as PRINCIPALS of the crime of PIRACY
in Philippine Waters.

9. United States v. Fowler, G.R. No. L-496, Dec. 31, 1902 (DOCTOR)
US v. William Fowler, et. al.
GR No. 496 ; 31 December 1902
Torres, J.

Facts:
Defendants Fowler (and another dude not named in the case) were accused of stealing 16 bottles of
Champagne valued at $20 from Julian Lindsay onboard the transport vessel Lawton which was then
navigating on the high seas.

Defendants presented a demurrer, claiming that the CFI of Manila (where the case was filed) did not
have original jurisdiction for a crime committed outside the city of Manila or within the territory
comprising Manila Bay or upon the 3-mile limit on the seas where the jurisdiction of the court
extends.

Prosecution countered that the court has original jurisdiction in all criminal cases wherein the penalty
exceeds 6 months of imprisonment or a fine of over $100 in accordance with the orders of the
Military Governor and the Civil Commission. All crimes committed on board vessels with the US flag
has been vested in the CFI of Manila under Acts Nos. 76 and 186 under the US Civil Commission.
The US President had authorized the commanding general and the Civil Commission to establish a
judicial system.

Sept. 14, 1901 – the court sided with the defense and discharged the defendants. The prosecution
appealed, hence this case.

Issue:
W/N theft committed on the high seas is under the jurisdiction of the CFI of Manila? NO.

Held:
Act No. 136 of the organic law and Act No. 186 (which have repealed Act No. 76) by the Civil
Commission do not expressly give jurisdiction upon the court to take cognizance of crimes
committed on the high seas. The provisions only give reference to civil admiralty or maritime
cases, and not criminal cases. Act No. 400 which in Art. 1 adds to Art. 56 of Act No. 136 (which
organized the court system in the PH) another paragraph which reads:
“Of all crimes and offenses committed on the high seas or beyond the jurisdiction of any country, or
within any of the navigable waters of the Philippine Archipelago, on board a ship or water craft of any
kind registered or licensed in the Philippine Islands in accordance with the laws thereof.”
This provision defines the jurisdiction of the CFI in criminal cases done on vessels registered in the
Philippines. The ship Lawton does not belong to this class, therefore is not under the CFI’s
jurisdiction.

Ruling:
Order that was appealed is AFFIRMED.

10. People v. Ang Chio Kio, 95 Phil. 475 (find English version) (SUNGCAD)
People v Ang Cho Kio
G.R. No. L-6687 and L-6688
July 29, 1954
Ponente: Pablo, J.
Facts
1. FIRST CASE (L-6687): The accused hijacked a plane en-route from Laoag to Aparri.
The accused shot with treachery and premeditation the purser (head Steward) of the plane,
Eduardo Diago, killing him instantly.
2. SECOND CASE (L-6688): The same accused on the same plane en-route from Laoag to
Aparri, ordered the pilot, Pedro Perlas, against his will, to change the route and to take the
accused to Amoy instead. Because Perlas failed to comply, the accused with treachery and
premeditation shot Perlas, killing him instantly.
3. The accused pleaded guilty to both cases. For the first case, the lower court sentenced
him to an indeterminate sentence of 12 years prision mayor as the minimum to 20 years
reclusion temporal as the maximum with compensation to the heirs in the amount of P6000. And
for the second case, the lower court sentenced the accused to Reclusion Perpetua, with indemnity
to the heirs in the amount of P6000.
4. MRs were filed by the prosecution under the contention that:
a. The lower court failed to give the right penalties, because the lower court did not
sentence the accused to reclusion perpetua (1st Case) and not considering both the aggravating
circumstance of premeditation and the mitigating circumstance of the plead of guilty
b. The lower court failed to impose the penalty of Death (2nd Case), and by not considering
it (still 2nd case) a complex crime of serious coercion with murder.
5. The MRs were denied, hence this appeal.
Issues
1. W/N the lower court erred in imposing the penalties? YES (First case), NO (Second
Case)
2. W/N the prosecution is allowed to appeal? NO.
Disposition
Appeal DISMISSED
Rationale
1. YES. Since 1 GA (Premeditation) and 1 OM (Plead Guilty) are present, the penalty
imposed should be that stated in Art 248 of the RPC in its medium degree, or Recusion
Perpetua.
NO. In the second case, the accused forced the pilot to change routes, and because he didn’t
change routes, the accused killed him. The accused committed 2 separate acts. One when the
accused forced the pilot to change the route of the plane, and another when he shot him because
the pilot failed to comply. A complex crime is, “a single act [constituting] two or more crimes or
when one of them is necessary to commit the other…” The accused committed one act of
coercion when he forced the pilot to change routes, and another act when he didn’t follow the
orders. The accused could have killed him even if he didn’t order the pilot to do anything.
Coercion in murder is not indispensable. Thus, the penalty imposed cannot be elevated to death.
2. NO. In American jurisprudence, the prosecution cannot appeal to a decision where the
accused is favored, for the reason that it puts the accused in double jeopardy for the same offense
committed. "No error, however, flagrant, committed by the court against the state, may be
reserved by it for decision by the supreme court when the defendant has been placed in
jeopardy and discharged, even though the discharge was the result of the error
committed.” Since the lower court imposed upon the accused a penalty lower than what was
prescribed by the RPC, the decision is favorable to him. Thus, the prosecution may not file an
appeal because it will put the accused in jeopardy of the same offense and risk having
his(accused) penalty increased to reclusion perpetua. This is in accordance with the
constitutional mandate that “a person will not be put in danger of being punished twice for the
same offense.”