Laurel v.

Misa inhabitants without them risking being

Facts prosecuted for treason (then no one would
 Petitioner Laurel is a Filipino citizen who fight for their freedome & independence)
adhered to the japanese enemy and gave
aid and comfort 2. W/N there was a change of sovereignty: NO
 He filed a petition for habeas corpus and  The change of form of government from
argued that he can’t be prosecuted for Commonwealth to Republic does not affect
treason under the RPC because: the prosecution of those charged with
o The sovereignty of the PH and the treason committed during the
allegiance of its citizens was Commonwealth bc it is an offense against
suspended the same government and people
o There was a change of sovereignty
upon proclamation of the PH Article XVIII of our Constitution provides
republic that 'The government established by
this Constitution shall be known as the
Issues
Commonwealth of the Philippines. Upon
the final and complete withdrawal of
1. W/N the sovereignty & allegiance were
suspended: NO the sovereignty of the United States
and the proclamation of Philippine
 A citizen owes ABSOLUTE and independence, the Commonwealth of
PERMANENT allegiance to his government, the Philippines shall thenceforth be
not like foreigners who owe temporary known as the Republic of the
allegiance to the gov where they reside Philippines';
o When there is an occupation, this
allegiance persists pa rin!! Because
the sovereignty of the LEGIT  The United States recognized the
government (de jure) is not Republic of the Philippines as an
transferred to the occupier (Co independent state on July 4,
Cham v. Valdez)  this theory 1946, when President Harry S.
would be diff if Japanese LOST Truman did so in a proclamation.
LOOOL
 What is suspended is the exercise of the
 Court says if you win, then change of
rights of sovereignty  control and
sovereignty is true but if u lose then
government passes temporarily to occupant
 One of the rules of international law (Hague everything u did was treason
regulation): sovereignty of the legitimate
government subsists even during  Basically treason is a crime committed by
occupation the losing side
 Naturally, if sovereignty is not suspended
and subsists, allegiance also subsists People v. Perez – SIR ASKED WHERE IT
 As such, Art. 114 is still in effect WAS COMMITTED WTF
Facts
 The court also gives an analogy: just like  Accused Susano Perez was
how a foreigner owes temporary allegiance
convicted of treason by the
to where they reside but maintains
permanent allegiance to their own country, People’s Court in Cebu and
in the same way, inhabitants owe a sort of sentenced to death. 5 counts were
temporary allegiance to the military substantiated with evidence
government that occupied them but it does  Count 1: alleges that accused
not do away with the absolute and commandeered numerous women
permanent allegiance owed to their country to satisfy desire of Colonel Mini.
Eriberta Ramo testified that she
 If we follow petitioner’s theory, it would be was Colonel Mini wanted her to be
disastrous for small nations as it would
allow invaders to legally recruit the
 his wife, he threatened her with a  Sec. 2 of Commonwealth Act 682
word, tied and raped her says that if evidence is insufficient
 2: accused took Eriberta and sister to support charge of treason,
to a banquet and dance for Colonel peoples court can still convict
Mini and by force were brought to accused for any crime included in
the headquarters of the Jap the acts alleged in the information
Commander and Eriberta was o He argued that he had the
forced to live a life of shame right to be informed of the
 3: Eduarda Daohog and Eutiquia nature and cause of
Lamay were taken and raped by accusation against him but
jap offciers and the accused court says theres no surpise
 4: Accused commandeered here. This enactment warned
Feliciano Bonalos and Flaviana him that if he was innocent of
Bonalos saying theyd be witnesses treason he might be found
in a case but brought them to guilty of rape
colonel mini where Flaviana was People v. Prieto
raped, accused raped he too and Facts
Feliciana.  Appellant was found guilty of
 6: nurses of provincial hospital treason on 5 counts by the People’s
forced to atentd dance and court
banquet where they could be Issue
chosen to be raped 1. W/N accused is guilty on count 4:
Issue NO
 W/N the deeds committed by the  two witnesses gave evidence on
accused constitute treason count 4 but their didn’t statements
Ratio didn’t coincide at all
1. W/N the deeds committed by the o First witness (Juanito Albano):
accused constitute treason: NO Accused caught an American
 If furnishing women to enemies for aviator and made him carry
immoral purposes is treason bc it the American to town on a
kept up morale, then so would sled pulled by carabao
entertaining them at parities or o 2nd (Valentin Cuison): saw
fraternizing with them accused following an
 It is only treasonous when aid and American with tied hands and
comfort are given to render that accused struck him with
assistance to them as enemies not rope and that there were
merely as individuals Japanese and other Filos as
 Court cites example: lending well
enemy money to buy personal  Clearly talking abt two diff
necessities is not treasonous. occasions, thus doesn’t satisfy two-
Treasonous if u lend money so they witness principles  didn’t
can buy arms corroborate each other only on the
 In this case, commandeering of whole overt act but on any part
women is not treasonous even if it 2. W/N accused is guilty on the other
boosted spirit. Sexual relations did counts: YES
not tend to improve their war  Count 1: Accused led Japanese to
efforts or weaken power of US hideouts of guerillas and joined in
 Whatever favaorable effect it may torturing them
have had is trivial  2: acted as an informer with the
 BUT accused may be punished by intent to give aid and comfort, tied
rape guerilla suspects and beat them
  3: led them again and killed Issues
guerilla suspects w bayonet 1. W/N appellant was a member of
 6: kill and torture the Armed forces of Japan
 Appellant argues that he’s a
 Giving of aid and comfort is member, and was subject to
accomplished by action– deed or military law & not subject to
physical activity– which is often in jurisdiction of people’s court
itself a criminal offense under  Court ruled that Makapili is not part
another statute of the Japanese Army, it is just an
 When deed is charged as an organization of Filipino traitors who
element of treason and becomes render aid
identified w it, it cant have a 2. W/N appellant lost his PH
separate punishment citizenship
 But ofc gov can still prosecute the  Appellant argues he lost his PH
culprit specifically for those crimes citizenship by invoking sec. 1 of
instead of looking at them as Commonwealth Act 63 which says
elements of treason a Filo can lose citizenship by
o subscribing to an oath of
3. W/N there is an aggravating allegiance to support
circumstance: YES consti or laws of foreign
country
 The brutality in the killing is o by accepting commission
aggravating circumstance  in the military, naval, air
torture instead of less painful service of a foreign
methods, augmented suffering country
unnecessarily o by having been declared a
 BUT compensated by mitigating deserter of the PH Army,
circ of plea of guilt to the counts navy, air corps during war
 Penalty: reclusion perpetua  Court ruled that theres no evidence
that appellant subscribed to oat of
People v. Manayao allegiance, his oath to enter
Facts Makapili is just swearing to help
 Filipinos affiliated with the Makapili, Japan in the war
including appellant, assembled  No evidence as well abt the
men, women, children in Barrio commission in the military, etc. or
Banaban in Bulacan that he was a member of PH army,
 Houses were set on fire and people navy, aircorps
killed in presence of the children  FURTHER, his contention goes
 Appellant killed 6 women, even against our Consti, Art. 2 Sec. 2
relatives and even wanted to kill which says that citizens have the
the children but the Jap soldiers duty to render personal, military or
intrercended civil service to help w State
 These were established by the defense
testimony of the eye-witnesses,  Citizens cannot be free to just cast
daughters of those killed, who have of loyalty and obligations towards
no motive to falsely testify against country
appellant. Also corroborated by  Plus, if an act of treason divests
another witness who saw the one of citizenship and places him
corpses and appellant himself who beyond our treason law then his
admitted participation in 2 very crime would be the shield
sttaements against punishment
 3. W/N the aggravating circumstances  One item they agree on: defendant
of aid of armed men and acting in a was Makapili and seen in the
band should be taken into account Makapili uniform carrying arms
separately: NO  Court holds that the mere fact of
 Band is when more than 3 armed having joined a Makapili org is
malefactors act together so aid evidence of BOTH adherence to
of armed men is automatically enemy and giving aid and comfort
included thus only band is o Membership shows
appreciated treasonable intent (one of
4. W/N appellant acted in obedience org’s goals: fulfill their
to an order issued by superior thus obligations from their pact of
exempt from liability: NO alliance w Japan)
 DUMBASS no obviously the o Being a Makapili is in itself
provision in RPC doesn’t pertain to an overt act!!! Not necessary
orders from a foreign sovereign that he went to battle, when
5. W/N appellant’s acts were he placed himself at enemys
committed under impulse of call to fight side by side, he
irresistible force or uncontrollable gave enemy aid and comfort
fear: NO 2. W/N the overt act of membership
 He voluntarily joined Makapili and was established by the deposition
was even more cruel than the of 2 witnesses: NO
Japanese  One witness saw him kasi in
uniform with a gun on one day and
People v. Adriano the 2nd witness saw him another
Facts day
 Accused is charged with treason for  Court looks to American sources
adherence to enemy and giving aid o Wigmore on Evidence 3d ed.:
and comfort. Information says that Each of the witnesses must
as a Mem of Makapili, he joined and testify to the whole of the
assisted the Japanese in conflicts over act, or, if it is separable
against US and guerillas there must be 2 witnesses to
 The prosecution only showed each part of the overt act
evidence of defendant joining o US v. Robinson: Every act,
Makapili movement, deed. Word of
 Lower court also said that the acts defendant charged to
had not been established by constitute treason must be
testimony of 2 witnesses, and just supported by testimony of 2
regarded their testimonbies as witnesses
evidence of adherence to enemy  Court now rules appellant is
(which does not need corroboration acquitted aw
of 2 witnesses bc adherence is in  Justification: authors of the one
the mind HUH) who made treason law, on which
Issues we based ours, purposely made
1. W/N there is evidence of adherence conviction for treason difficult and
to the enemy and giving aid and restrictive  prosecutions for
comfort: YES reason were generally virulent
 No 2 witnesses testified to a single
one of the various acts of treason, ESPIONAGE
they referred to acts committed on Definition
diff dates  Offense of gathering, transmitting,
or losing info respecting the
 national defense with intent or said he was forcibly recruited by
reason to believe that the the accused into the NPA and
information is to be used to the threatned him if he refused
injury of the Rep. of PH or to the  Acting on this info, a team was
adv of any foreign nation dispatched to the house of the
2 ways of committing espionage accused and the accused was
1st way: asked abt his firearm. He denied
1. By entering, without authority possession but later his wife
therfor, a warship, fort, or naval or pointed to the ground wehre the
military establishment or gun was buried
reservation to obtain any info,  Cesar testified to the accused’s
plans, photographs, other data or subversive activites by claiming
confidential nature relative to the that they threatened to kill his
defense of the PH family if he didn’t join and not to
Elements tell gov authorities, invited him to
 Offender enters any of the places seminar where they were
mentioned encouraged to overthrow the gov
 He has no authority therfor  Accused also made an extra
 His purpose is to obtain info, plans, judicial confession in presence of
photographs, other confidential attorney
data relative to the defense of PH  ON THE OTHER HAND, this is
2 way:
nd
appellant’s ver:
2. By disclosing to the representative  Military personnel in civilian attire
of a foreign nation the contents of brought him to PC Barracks where
the articles, data, or info referred they told him to admit ownership of
to in par 1, which he had in his the firearm and beat him when he
possession by reason of the public refused
office he holds  Said he only made extra-judicial
Elements confession out of fear
 Offender is public officer  Wife also testified that the firearm
 Has in his possession the articles, was left in their house by Cesar
data, info by reason of the public Issues
office he holds 1. W/N the arrest of Ruben Burgos
 Discloses their contents to rep of was lawful: NO
foreign nation  Authorities came to his house w/o
CA 616: An act to punish Espionage and search warrant or warrant of arrest
Other Offenses against National Security  Warrantless arrest can be made in
Sec. 1 Unlawfully obtaining or permitting certain cases (Rule 113) but this
PIRACY case does not fall witin these
exceptions bc under Sec. 6A, the
Arbitrary Detention officer arresting a person who has
People v. Burgos just committed, is committing, or
Facts about to commit an offense must
 Defendant appellant Ruben Burgos have personal knowledge of the
y Tito was convicted of illegal fact. Should also be committed
possession of firearm in within his presence or view
furtherance of subversion  NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE IN
 The prosecution’s evidence came THIS CASE, came only from Cesar
from Cesar Masalok, an ex-member  At time of arrest, Ruben was not in
of the NPA who personally actual possession of any firearm or
surrendered to the authorities and
 subversive document. He was o Firearm and alleged
plowing his field!! subversive docs were
 Rule providing exceptions to obtained in violation of right
warrants of arrest is strictly against unreasonable
construed bc liberty is fundamental searches and seizures
right o Extra judicial admission
 SG says pwede pa rin under Sec.6B obtained in violation of right
bc Cesar’s info induced reasonable against self-incrimination
ground that a crim has been
committed
 Court says under Sec. 6B, not
enough that there is reasonable Milo v. Salanga
ground to believe that person to be Facts
arrested has committed a crime. A  An information was filed accusing
crime must actually have been Juan Tuvera Sr., a barrio captain,
committed  NOT ENOUGTH TO and other private persons and
SUSPECT A CRIM WAS COMMITTED police officers for maltreating
 In this case, they arrested him Armando Valdez and locking him in
solely based on Cesar’s report. the municipal jail of Pangasinan for
There was no crime ascertained yet 11 hours. Tuvera then filed a
and they were actually fishing for motion to quash the information.
evidence  Respondent judge (CFI of
 Fact that wife pointed out gun Pangasinan) granted the motion to
doesn’t make arrest lawful. If an quash, saying that Tuvera was not
arrest without warrant is unlawful a public officer who can be charged
at the moment it is made, with Arbitrary Detention
generally nothing that happened or  Hence, petitioners (fiscal and
is discovered afterwards can make Valdez), filed a petition for review
it lawful. on certiorari
 Also no compelling reason for them Issue:
to hastily arrest accused. He wasn’t 1. W/N a barrio captain is a public
on verge of flight or escape so they officer who can be liable for
could’ve obtained warrant of arrest Arbitrary Detention: YES
first.
2. W/N the search of his house and  3 elements of AD:
confiscation of forearm and o offender is public officer
documents allegedly found was o detains a person
conducted in a lawful and valid o w/o legal grounds
manner: NO  Last two are present  In tuvera’s
 The arrest being unlawful, the motion to quash, he didn’t say that
search and seizure which the facts don’t constitute an
transpired afterwards could not offense (essentially he’s admitting
likewise be deemed legal as being them) but that the facts don’t
mere incidents to a valid arrest. constitute the elements of AD
 Neither can it be presumed that  Public officers must have authoring
there to detain persons, such as police
3. W/N the evidence prove guilt officers, judges, mayors, other
beyond reasonable doubt: NO agents of law
 Accused was not apprised of his  Court ruled that first, history
constitutional rights thus evidence and past cases show that
is inadmissible barrio captains have always
 been recognized by persons in  The facts presented were that one
authority night, the victim, Samson Sayam,
o US v. Braganza, barrio joined the accused in drinking beer
lieutenant arrested a priest and they all left together.
for no reason. Convicted of Witnesses say they heard a
AD gunshot from the direction of the
o US v. Gellada: barrio detachment HQ and the victim was
lieutenant tied houseboy and never seen again
caused his detention.  Trial court gave credence to the
Convicted of AD testimonial evidence and ruled that
 RA 3590 (The Revised Barrio 3 of the accused were guilty
Charter) shows that barrio beyond reasonable doubt of
captain’s duty includes maintaining kidnapping and serious illegal
public order, look after general detention
welfare, enforce all laws  Appeal filed
 Just like mayors (who are public ISSUE
officers w/ authority to detain) who 1. W/N the appellants can be charged
have similar powers, barrio captain or convicted of Kidnapping and
has duty of maintaining peace and Serious Illegal Detention: NO
order and both are given authority
to detain or order detention.  First element of Kidnapping and
 Tuvera himself admitted that with Serious Illegal Detention is that the
the aid of the rural police, he offender must be a private
could’ve led the arrest individual
 Thus he is liable for AD  In this case, the accused appellants
were members of the local Citizen
Extra: Armed Force Geographical Unit
 Tuvera says he only sought aid and which was created by EO 264 to
assistance of the Manaoag Police maintain peace and order in
force and that he only accompanies localities and respond to thereats
Valdez to town for Valdez’s safety to natl. security, thus they were
 Court says that they have given weapons and authority to
repeatedly held that the Court, in detain
resolving a motion to quash, can’t  So yes public officers
consider facts contrary to those  SG submits that accused appellants
alleged in the information or which can only be liable for AD
don’t appear on the face of the
information  This is bc a motion 2. W/N the evidence adduced before
to quash is a hypothetical the trial court proved that Samson
admission of the facts alleged in Sayam was arbitrarily detained by
the information the accused: NO

People v. Flores  Detention is actual confinement of

Facts a person in an enclosure, depriving
 Sgt. Tampioc (Detachment him of liberty. Records don’t show
Commander of Infantry Brigade in sufficient evidence to prove that
Negros Occi) and 3 mems of local victim was arbitrarily detained
Citizen Armed Force Geographical  Prosecution witnesses just testified
Unit were charged with Kidnapping that they saw them walking to
and Serious illegal detention headquarters but no evidence that
he was actually detained
 Fact that victim hasn’t been seen
since then doesn’t mean he was
detained
 Prosec argues that Sayam was
deprived of liberty bc he was
forced to go w them
 This is not proven by witnesses’
testimonies  did not state that
Sayam was pulled, dragged,
coerced
 Most damaging is that witnss did
not see Sayam in the detachment
HQs with any or all the accused

 Another witness said the accused

and victim had a heated argument
that that Sayam was pulled
towards the road
 But upon cross examination,
witness said smthg diff LOL said he
didn’t hear them arguing
 Puzzling also that he didn’t help
victim who was his cousin and that
Sayam did not cry out for help,
considering it was a public place
 Thus, Court ruled that the evidence
was insufficient to show the fact of
detention. No proof of intent on the
part of the accused to arbitrarily
deprive Sayam of his liberty