Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Eriberto Misa Facts: the Supreme Court, in a resolution, acted on the petition for the writ of habeas corpus filed by petitioner Anastacio Laurel 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 defined and penalized by article 114 of the revised penal code for the reason that 1) that the sovereignty of the legitimate government in the Philippines and consequently, the correlative allegiance of Filipino citizens thereto was then suspended; and 2) that there was a change of sovereignty over these islands upon the proclamation of the Philippine republic. Issues: Whether or not the allegiance of the accused as a Filipino citizen was suspended and that there was a change of sovereignty over the Phil Islands. Held: No, a citizen or subject owes, not a qualified and temporary, but an absolute and permanent allegiance, which consists in the obligation of fidelity and obedience to his government of sovereign. The absolute and permanent allegiance of the inhabitants of a territory occupied by the enemy to their legitimate government or sovereign is not abrogated or severed by the enemy occupation, because the sovereignty of the government or sovereign de jure is not transferred thereby the occupier. Just as treason may be committed against the Federal as well as against the State Govt, in the same way treason may have been committed during the Japanese occupation against the sovereignty of the US as well as against the sovereignty of the Phil Commonwealth; and that the change of our form of govt 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 govt and the same sovereign people. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SUSANO PEREZ (alias KID PEREZ) Facts: Seven counts of treason were filed against Susano Perez aka Kid Perez, the accused, for recruiting, apprehending, and commandeering women (Eriberta Ramo, Eduarda Daohog, Eutiquia Lamay, and Flaviana Bonalos) against their will to satisfy the immoral purpose and sexual desire of Colonel Mini, and other Japanese of Officers. Only counts 1,2,4,5,6 were substantiated. In the 4th and 5th counts, the accused personally assaulted and abused two of the offended girls. Susano Perez was convicted of treason and sentenced to death by electrocution by the Peoples Court. Issue: Whether or not the acts of the accused constitute a crime of treason Held : NO. There is a dilemma in trying to draw a line between treasonable and untreasonable assistance, since the scope of adherence to the enemy is comprehensive, and its requirement indeterminate, but as a general rule acts providing aid and comfort to the enemies are considered treasonable when the aid and comfort rendered are directed to them as enemies not as mere individuals. To lend or give money to an enemy as a friend so that he may buy personal necessities is not
technically traitorous, but to lend or give money to an enemy to enable him to buy arms or ammunition to use against the government of the giver is treason. The act of the accused of providing the enemies with women and entertainment, boosting their (the enemies) morale and making their lives more pleasant, is not treason. Sexual and social relations with the Japanese did not directly and materially tend to improve their war efforts or weaken the power of the government. Any favourable effect toward the Japanese that the accused might have made was trivial, imperceptible and unintentional. Intent of disloyalty is a vital ingredient in the crime of treason, which in the absence of admission may be gathered from the nature and circumstances of each case. In this particular case, it was not evident that the intent of the accused in providing the enemies with women was to help them overthrow the government.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS vs. LOL-LO AND SARAW
FACTS: On or about June 30, 1920, six vintas intercepted two Dutch boats which was on its way between the islands of Buang and Bukid in the Dutch East Indies. The six vintas were manned by 24 armed Moros. The dutch boats were carrying men, women and children. At first, the Moros asked for food, but once on the Dutch boats, took for themselves all the vessels cargo, attacked some of the men and brutally violated 2 of the women by methods too horrible to be described. All of the persons on the boat, with the exception of the 2 young women, were again placed on it and holes were made on it and holes were made on it, with the idea that it would submerge. Two of the Moro pirates, late identified as Lol-lo and Saraw later returned to Tawi-tawi, Sulu where they were arrested. STATE: Piracy. ACCUSED: The offense charged was not within the jurisdiction of the CFI of Sulu nor any court of the Philippine Islands, and that the facts did not constitute a public offense, under the laws in force in the Philippine Islands. HELD: It cannot be contended with any degree of force that the CFI of Sulu was without jurisdiction on the case. Piracy is a crime not against any particular state but against all mankind. It may be punished in the competent tribunal of any country where the offender may be found or into which he may be carried. Nor does it matter that the crime was committed within the jurisdictional 3-mile limit of a foreign state. The crime of piracy was accompanied by rape and the abandonment of persons without means of saving themselves. LOl-lo was penalized with death by being hanged until dead while Saraw were penalized with life imprisonment. Other digest (Court of First Instance of sulu):
People vs Lol-lo and Saraw Overview: Moros surrounded a boat, took its cargo, took two women and left it for it to sink. The marauders, Lol-lo and Saraw, who were in Tawi-Tawi, were arrested for piracy. They questioned the jurisdiction of the Philippines to the case, but the court ruled that piracy is a crime against all mankind, so every court also has jurisdiction to try these cases. In addition, the Spanish Penal Code is still in force in the Philippines. Statement of Facts: -On or about 30 June 1920: Two boats left Matuta, a Dutch possession, for Peta, another Dutch possession.-Boat 1 had one Dutch subject-Boat 2 had 11 men, women and children, likewise from Holland.-After several days, at 7pm, Boat 2 arrived in Buang and Bukid in the Dutch East Indies.-Here, the boat was surrounded by 6 vintas, manned by 24 armed Moros.The Moros first asked for food, but once in the boat, took all the cargo, attacked some of the men, and brutally violated 2 of the women.-The Moros took the 2 women with them, placed holes in the ship to let it sink, and left the people there.-After 11 days, the Moros arrived at Maruro, a Dutch possession.-
The two Moro marauders were identified as Lol-lo, as the one who raped one of the women, and Saraw.-While in Maruro, the two women were able to escape. -One day, Lol-lo and Saraw went home to South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi, Sulu. Here, they were arrested and charged with piracy at the CFI. The Moros interposed a demurrer, saying that the charge was not within the jurisdiction of the CFI, nor of any court in the Philippines. They were saying that the facts did not constitute a public offense under Philippine laws.The demurrer was overruled, and Lollo and Saraw were found guilty, and were both sentenced to lifeim prisonment, together with Kinawalang and Maulanis, two other defendants in another case. In addition to imprisonment, they were ordered to return the 39 sacks of copra they robbed, or to indemnify the offended parties 924 rupees, and to pay one-half of the costs. Issue: Did the CFI in the Philippines have jurisdiction over Lol-lo and Saraw? YES Rationale -First of all, the facts cant be disputed. All the elements of the crime of piracy were there.-Piracy is robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas, without lawful authority and done animo furandi, and in the spirit and intention of universal hostility. -The CFI has jurisdiction because pirates are in law hostes humani generis. Piracy is a crime against all mankind,therefore, it can be punished in any competent tribunal of any country where the offender may be found.-The jurisdiction of piracy has no territorial limits. The crime is against all mankind, so it is also punished by all.-It doesnt matter that the crime was committed within the jurisdictional 3-mile limit of a foreign state. Those limits,though neutral to war, are not neutral to crimes. Issue: Are the provisions of the Penal Code dealing with piracy still in force?YES Rationale -Art. 153 of the Penal Code refers to the crime of piracy committed against Spaniards, or subjects of another nation not war with Spain shall be punished with a penalty ranging from cadena temporal to cadena perpetua. If the crime is against nonbelligerent subjects of another nation at war with Spain, it shell be punished with the penalty of presidio mayor.-Since Spain already ceded the Philippines to the US, the rule is that the political law of the former sovereignty is necessarily changed. But corollary to this rule, laws subsisting at the time of transfer, designed to secure good order and peace in the community, which are strictly of a municipal character, continue until by direct action of the new
government they are altered or repealed.-The instructions of President McKniley on May 19, 1989 to General Wesley Merrit, Commanding General of the Army of Occupation in the Philippines, was clear that municipal laws that provide for the punishment of crime, are considered continuing in force so far as they are compatible with the new order of things until superseded.Background on the laws of piracy: -The Spanish Penal Code was applicable to the Philippines because of Art. 156 of the Penal Code.Grotius: Piracy by the law of nations is the same thing as piracy by the civil law. Piracy in the penal code as similar to the concepts of civil law, especially since the Penal Code found its inspiration from the Novelas, Partidas and Novisima Recopilacion.-The US Constitution itself defines and punishes piracy that whoever on the high seas, commits the crime of piracy as defined by the law of nations, shal be imprisoned for life. This definition rests its conception of piracy on the law of nations. This further shows that the Penal Code is not inconsistent with the provisions in force in the US.
HELD:
The right of the person to be secure against any unreasonable seizure of his body and any deprivation of liberty is a most basic and fundamental one. The statute or rule, which allows exceptions to the requirement of warrants of arrest is strictly construed. Any exception must clearly fall within the situations when securing a warrant would be absurd or is manifestly unnecessary as provided by the Rule. We cannot liberally construe the rule on arrests without warrant or extend its application beyond the cases specifically provided by law. To do so would infringe upon personal liberty and set back a basic right so often violated and so deserving of full protection.
People vs. Burgos (G.R. No. L-68955 September 4, 1986) G.R. No. L-68955 September 4, 1986 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RUBEN BURGOS y TITO, defendant-appellant. Facts: Defendant is charged with illegal possession of firearm in furtherance of subversion (tasks such as recruiting members to the NPA and collection of contributions from its members) and found guilty by the RTC of Digos, Davao del Sur. From the information filed by the police authorities upon the information given by Masamlok, allegedly a man defendant tried to recruit into the NPA, the police authorities arrest defendant and had his house searched. Subsequently, certain NPA-related documents and a firearm, allegedly issued and used by one Alias Cmdr. Pol of the NPA, are confiscated. Defendant denies being involved in any subversive activities and claims that he has been tortured in order to accept ownership of subject firearm and that his alleged extrajudicial statements have been made only under fear, threat and intimidation on his person and his family. He avers that his arrest is unlawful as it is done without valid warrant, that the trial court erred in holding the search warrant in his house for the firearm lawful, and that the trial court erred in holding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of PD 9 in relation to GOs 6and 7.
Issue: If defendants arrest, the search of his home, and the subsequent confiscation of a firearm and several NPA-related documents are lawful. Held: Records disclose that when the police went to defendants house to arrest him upon the information given by Masamlok, they had neither search nor arrest warrant with themin wanton violation of ArtIV, Sec 3 (now Art III, sec 2). As the Court held in Villanueva vs Querubin, the state, however powerful, doesnt have access to a mans home, his haven of refuge where his individuality can assert itself in his choice of welcome and in the kind of objects he wants around him. In the traditional formulation, a mans house, however humble, is his castle, and thus is outlawed any unwarranted intrusion by the government. The trial court justified the warrantless arrest under Rule 113 Sec 6 of the RoC: a) When the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is about to commit an offense in his presence; b) When an offense has in fact been committed, and he has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it;
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 temporarily confined while his case is pending or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another and the confiscation of the firearm under Rule 126, Sec 12: A person charged with an offense may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense. However, the trial court has erred in its conclusion that said warrantless arrest is under the ambit of aforementioned RoC. At the time of defendants arrest, he wasnt in actual possession of any firearm or subversive document, and was not committing any subversive acthe was plowing his field. It is not enough that there is reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a crime in a warrantless arrest. An essential precondition is that a crime must have beenin fact or actually have been committed first; it isnt enough to suspect a crime may have been committed. The test of reasonable ground applies only to the identity of the perpetrator. The Court also finds no compelling reason for the haste with which the arresting officers sought to arrest the accused. We fail to see why they failed to first go through the process of obtaining a warrant of arrest, if indeed they had reasonable ground to believe that the accused had truly committed a crime. There is no showing that there was a real apprehension that the accused was on the verge of flight or escape. Likewise, there is no showing that the whereabouts of the accused were unknown. In proving the ownership of the questioned firearm and alleged subversive documents, assuming they were really illegal, the defendant was never informed of his constitutional rights at the time of his arrest; thus the admissions obtained are in violation of the constitutional right against self-incrimination under Sec 20 Art IV (now Sec 12, Art III) and thus inadmissible as evidence. Furthermore, the defendant was not accorded his constitutional right to be assisted by counsel during the custodial interrogation. His extra-judicial confession, the firearm, and the alleged subversive documents are all inadmissible as evidence. In light of the aforementioned, defendant is acquitted on grounds of reasonable doubt of the crime with which he has been charged. Subject firearm and alleged subversive documents have been disposed of in accordance with law. The Court also maintains that violations of human rights do not help in overcoming a rebellion. Reiterating Morales vs Enrile, while the government should continue to repel the communists, the subversives, the rebels, and the lawless with the means at its command, it should always be remembered that whatever action is taken must always be within the framework of our Constitution and our laws.