G.R. No.

L-409 January 30, 1947

ANASTACIO LAUREL, pet., v. ERIBERTO MISA, resp.
FACTS:
A petition for habeas corpus was filed by Anastacio Laurel.
He claims 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 the Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code on the grounds that
1. The sovereignty of the legitimate government in the Philippines and consequently the
correlative allegiance of Filipino citizen thereto were then suspended;
2. and that there was a change of sovereignty over these Islands upon the proclamation of
the Philippine Republic.
ISSUE/S:
w/n THE ABSOLUTE ALLEGIANCE OF A FILIPINO CITIZEN TO THE GOVERNMENT
BECOMES SUSPENDED DURING ENEMY OCCUPATION.
w/n THE PETITIONER IS SUBJECT TO ARTICLE 114 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE.
w/n THE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHILIPPINES IS DISTINCT
FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
HELD:
A citizen owes an absolute and permanent allegiance (the unending allegiance owed by citizens
or subjects to their states; generally, a person who owes permanent allegiance to a state is
called a national), which consists in the obligation of fidelity and obedience to his government
or sovereign.
In international law, the effect of enemy occupation on a countrys sovereignty during
war is that that latter subsists and the former cannot exercise supremacy over the
latter
Temporary Allegiance, which describes the relationship between inhabitants of an
occupied territory may, at most, be considered similar only to the temporary allegiance
a foreigner owes to the government of the territory he currently resides
o Just as a citizen may be convicted of treason committed in a foreign country, an
inhabitant of a territory occupied by the military forces of the enemy may
commit treason against his own legitimate government if he adheres to the
enemies of the latter by giving them aid and comfort.
o Article 114 of the RPC was applicable to treason committed against the national
security of the legitimate government
Because the inhabitants of the occupied territory were still bound by
their allegiance to the latter during enemy occupation
o Although the military occupant is enjoined to respect or continue in force the
laws that enforce public order and regulate the social and commercial life of the
country, he has nevertheless, the powers of a de facto government and may
either change the existing laws or make new ones when the exigencies of the
military service demand, subject to restrictions imposed several international
laws
o Since the preservation of the allegiance or obligation of fidelity and obedience of
a citizen to his government does not demand positive action, but only passive
attitude or not to adhere to the enemy by giving him aid or comfort
The occupant has no power to repeal or suspend the operation of law of
treason
o The petitioners theory that his allegiance was suspended would lead to
disastrous consequences for small and weak nations or states, and would be
repugnant to the laws of humanity and requirements of public conscience
Such a theory would sanction the actions of invaders in forcing the
people of a free and sovereign country to be a party in the nefarious task
of depriving themselves of their own freedom and independence and
repressing the exercise of their own sovereignty; in other words, to
commit political suicide
It would allow invaders to legally recruit or enlist Quisling (a
traitor who collaborates with an enemy force occupying their
country) inhabitants to fight against their own government

without incurring risk of persecution for treason

It would even compel others to aid them in their military
operation against the resisting enemy forces in order to subdue
and conquer the whole nation
This would deprive citizens of their own independence or
sovereignty

The Constitution provides that Sovereignty resides in the people of the Philippines.
The Commonwealth of the Philippines was a sovereign government, though subject to
certain limitations imposed in the Independence Act
o The question of sovereignty is a purely political question, the determination of
which by the Legislative and Executive binds the judges as, well as citizens
o The change of our form of government from Commonwealth to Republic does not
affect the prosecution of those charged with the crime of treason committed
during the Commonwealth
It is an offense against the same government and the same sovereign
people as Art. XVIII of the Constitution provides 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.
DISSENT:
During the long period of Japanese occupation, all the political laws of the Philippines were
suspended. This is full harmony with the generally accepted principles of the international law
adopted by our Constitution [ Art. II, Sec. 3 ] as part of law of the nation.
The inhabitants of the occupied territory should necessarily be bound to the sole authority of
the invading power whose interest and requirements are naturally in conflict with those of
displaced government, if it is legitimate for the military occupant to demand and enforce from
the inhabitants such obedience as may be necessary for the security of his forces, for the
maintenance of the law and order, and for the proper administration of the country.

G.R. No. L-856 April 18, 1949

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
SUSANO PEREZ (alias KID PEREZ), defendant-appellant.
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.

G.R. No. 118075 September 5, 1997

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EMILIANO CATANTAN y TAYONG,
accused-appellant.
Facts:
Emilio Catantan and Jose Macven Ursal were convicted of violating PD 232 Anti-Piracy and
Highway Robbery Law. Only Catantan appealed.
June 27 1993, The Pilapil brothers were fishing some 3km away from the shores of Tabogon
Cebu. Suddenly, another boat caught up to them. Catantan borded the pumpboat of the
Pilapils, leveled a revolver at Eugene, and ordered them to lie down. Then, Ursal boarded the
pumpboat and they hogetied Eugene. The accused left behind their pumpboat with its
passengers one of whom was also tied. While travelling to Daan Tabogon as compelled by the
accused, the engine stalled twice and the brothers were ordered to row the boat. As they
passed by the shoreline of Nipa, They saw another boat operated by a certain Juanito. The
Pilapils told the accused that the engine was new. Catantan ordered the Pilapils to approach
the boat cautioning them not to speak or move. On the pretext that they were buying fish,
Catantan boarded the new pumpboat and ordered them to bring them to Mungaz, Cebu. As
Ursal was transferring to Juanitos pumpboat, he kicked the front part of the Pilapils boat.
The jolt threw Eugene off, Juan Jr untied his brothers leg and they swam together clinging to
their boat.
Another pumpboat passed, they were towed ashore and reported to the authorities.
The accused were caught when Juanitos pumpboat ran out of gas, but the revolver was not
found.
Issue: W/N the accused was guilty of piracy as defined by PD 532 or grave coercion as defined
by RPC 286.
Held:
Despite the accused argument that he and his companions did not attach or seize the fishing
boat, nor had any intention of permanently taking possession or depriving the complainants of
their boat, they are guilty of piracy. The act of compelling the Pilapils to take them elsewhere
other than their original place of destination was part of the act of seizing the boat.
The accused insists that they had no intention of depriving the Pilapils permanently of their
boat, proof of which they left behind the brothers with their boat, the truth is, the accused
abandoned the Pilapils only because the engine broke down and they needed another mean to
return to their lair.

G.R. No. 116488 May 31, 2001

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AARON FLORES alias RONITO,
SULPECIO SILPAO y ORTEGA alias SULPING and EDGAR VILLERAN y MAGBANUA,
accused-appellants.
Facts:
On the night of September 1992, the victim, Samson Sayam, was drinking beer at the store
owned by Terry Cabrillos in Negros Occidental. Sgt. Wennie Tampioc, Aaron Flores, Sulpecio
Silpao and Edgar Villeran were at the same store drinking beer.
Sayam joined the four accused at their table. Sometime later, all the accused and the victim
left the store and walked towards the direction of the military detachment headquarters. After
the accused left the store with Samson Sayam, witnesses heard a single gunshot followed by
rapid firing coming from the direction of the detachment headquarters. That was the last time
Samson Sayam was seen, and despite diligent efforts of Sayam's mother and relatives, he has
not been found.
The trial court gave credence to the prosecution's evidence that Samson Sayam was seen being
forcibly dragged out of the store and pulled towards the direction of the detachment
headquarters by accused Aaron Flores, Sulpecio Silpao and Edgar Villeran. Since Samson
Sayam had not been seen nor heard from since then, the trial court held that the three
accused were responsible for the former's disappearance. With regard to Wennie Tampioc, the
trial court found that he left the store ahead of the three co-accused and, thus, had nothing to
do with the disappearance of Samson Sayam.
Two (2) separate appeals were brought before us. Accused-appellant Sulpecio Silpao raised that
the Trial court erred in convicting him of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention since hes
an official. On the other hand, accused-appellants Aaron Flores and Edgar Villeran interposed
a joint appeal based on the sole error that the circumstantial evidence used was insufficient.
Issue: W/N the accused-appelants are guilty of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention.
Held:
The crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention is defined and penalized under Article
267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659.
Clearly, accused-appellants cannot be charged with or convicted of the crime of Kidnapping
and Serious Illegal Detention, since the first element of the said crime is that the offender must
be a private individual. In the case at bar, accused-appellants were members of the local
CAFGU at the time the alleged crime was committed. The CAFGU was created pursuant to
Executive Order No. 264 for the purpose of complementing the operations of the regular force
formations in a locality.
Since it is settled that accused-appellants are public officers, the question that remains to be
resolved is whether or not the evidence adduced before the trial court proved that Samson
Sayam was arbitrarily detained by accused-appellants.
A careful review of the records of the instant case shows no evidence sufficient to prove that
Samson Sayam was detained arbitrarily by accused-appellants. While the prosecution
witnesses testified that accused-appellants were seen walking with Samson Sayam toward the
direction of the detachment headquarters, there is no shred of evidence that he was actually
confined there or anywhere else. The fact that Samson Sayam has not been seen or heard from
since he was last seen with accused-appellants does not prove that he was detained and
deprived of his liberty.
For circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support a conviction, there must be at least two
proven circumstances which in complete sequence leads to no other logical conclusion than
that of the guilt of the accused. It is admitted that Samson Sayam was seen drinking with
accused-appellants on that fateful night. However, the circumstances that there was a heated
argument among them, and that the accused-appellants held and pulled Samson Sayam to the
road and brought him towards the direction of the detachment headquarters was not
sufficiently proven by material or relevant testimony.
Moreover, the circumstance that gunshots were heard on that night have no relevancy to the
case. Even if it were, it cannot be concluded that the gunshots came from the direction of the

detachment headquarters.
That Samson Sayam was never seen or heard from again cannot be the basis for the trial court
to render judgment convicting the accused-appellants. In fact, it has no bearing in this case
because it is not one of the elements of the crime of arbitrary detention. Consequently, only one
relevant circumstance was proved, i.e., that accused-appellants were the last persons seen
with Samson Sayam. However, said circumstance does not necessarily prove that they
feloniously abducted him, then arbitrarily detained him.
Since the pieces of circumstantial evidence do not fulfill the test of moral certainty that is
sufficient to support a judgment or conviction, the Court must acquit the accused.

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.

G.R. No. L-14639 March 25, 1919

ZACARIAS VILLAVICENCIO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. JUSTO LUKBAN, ET AL., respondents.
Facts:
One hundred and seventy women were isolated from society, and then at night, without their
consent and without any opportunity to consult with friends or to defend their rights, were
forcibly hustled on board steamers for transportation to regions unknown. Despite the feeble
attempt to prove that the women left voluntarily and gladly, that such was not the case is
shown by the mere fact that the presence of the police and the constabulary was deemed
necessary and that these officers of the law chose the shades of night to cloak their secret and
stealthy acts. Indeed, this is a fact impossible to refute and practically admitted by the
respondents.
Issue:
W/N Mayor Lukban has the right to deport women with ill repute.
Held:
Law defines power. No official, no matter how high, is above the law. Lukban committed a grave
abuse of discretion by deporting the prostitutes to a new domicile against their will. There is no
law expressly authorizing his action. On the contrary, there is a law punishing public officials,
not expressly authorized by law or regulation, who compels any person to change his residence
Furthermore, the prostitutes are still, as citizens of the Philippines, entitled to the same rights,
as stipulated in the Bill of Rights, as every other citizen. Thei rchoice of profession should not
be a cause for discrimination. It may make some, like Lukban, quite uncomfortable but it does
not authorize anyone to compel said prostitutes to isolate themselves from the rest of the
human race. These women have been deprived of their liberty by being exiled to Davao without
even being given the opportunity to collect their belongings or, worse, without even consenting
to being transported to Mindanao. For this, Lukban etal must be severely punished
As to criminal responsibility, it is true that the Penal Code in force in these Islands provides:
Any public officer not thereunto authorized by law or by regulations of a general character in
force in the Philippines who shall banish any person to a place more than two hundred
kilometers distant from his domicile, except it be by virtue of the judgment of a court, shall be
punished by a fine of not less than three hundred and twenty-five and not more than three
thousand two hundred and fifty pesetas.
Any public officer not thereunto expressly authorized by law or by regulation of a general
character in force in the Philippines who shall compel any person to change his domicile or
residence shall suffer the penalty of destierro and a fine of not less than six hundred and
twenty-five and not more than six thousand two hundred and fifty pesetas. (Art. 211.)

G.R. No. L-64261

December 26, 1984

JOSE BURGOS, SR., JOSE BURGOS, JR., BAYANI SORIANO and J. BURGOS MEDIA
SERVICES, INC., petitioners,
vs.
THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE CHIEF, PHILIPPINE
CONSTABULARY, THE CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER, PRESIDENTIAL SECURITY COMMAND,
THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, ET AL., respondents.
Case Summary:
Petitioners assail the validity of two search warrants filed against them for the premises of
Metropolitan Mail and We Forum newspapers in Quezon City as well as the seizure of
printing equipment, documents, motor vehicles, documents, books, etc used in the newspaper
publication. The newspapers and items were alleged to have been used in subversive activities.
The Court held that the two search warrants were null and void. Probable cause for a search
is defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and
prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in
connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. The Court ruled that the
affidavits submitted for the application of the warrant did not satisfy the requirement of
probable cause, the statements of the witnesses having been mere generalizations.
Rule of Law:
Section 3, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution: ... and no search warrant or warrant of arrest
shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the judge, or such other
responsible officer as may be authorized by law, after examination under oath or affirmation of
the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.
RPC129: Search warrants maliciously obtained, and abuse in the service of those legally
obtained. In addition to the liability attaching to the offender for the commission of any other
offense, the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its
minimum period and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer
or employee who shall procure a search warrant without just cause, or, having legally procured
the same, shall exceed his authority or use unnecessary severity in executing the same.
Facts:
Judge Cruz-Pano issued search warrants for the offices of Metropolitan Mail and We
Forum, during which printing equipment, motor vehicles, documents, books, etc possessed by
Burgos Jr., the publisher-editor, because these were alleged to be used in subversive activities.
Respondents said that the case should be dismissed because petitioners should have sought
the quashal of the warrant from Cruz-Pano itself. The SC said that yes there was a procedural
flaw but they still take cognizance of the case because of the urgency of the constitutional
issues as well as how We Forum garnered public interest because it was shown on Channel
7.
Respondents also said that it should be dismissed on the ground of laches (negligence for a
long amount of time, doing something that could have been done earlier) because petitioners
only filed the case 6 months after the event. Dec 1982-June1983. Petitioners said this was
because they exhausted other remedies, i.e. writing a letter to Pres Marcos. When nothing
turned up they went to Court. SC said ok.
Issue:
W/N the search warrants could be deemed invalid when it only specified one address but
searched two places
W/N the affidavits of witnesses Gutierrez and Tango (Metrocom Intelligence and Security
Group who did surveillance) provided sufficient basis for probable cause?
Held:
1.
2.

NO. Mistake in address was due to typographical error and that the judge was aware
of the clear intent of the arrest warrant was for two distinct places. This is a clerical
error.
NO. Not sufficient basis because too general. The application and/or its supporting
affidavits must contain a specification, stating with particularity the alleged subversive

3.

4.

material he has published or is intending to publish. Mere generalization will not

suffice.
Abadillas statement: "is in possession or has in his control printing equipment and
other paraphernalia, news publications and other documents which were used and are
all continuously being used as a means of committing the offense of subversion
punishable under Presidential Decree 885, as amended ..."
Gutierrez and Tangos affidavits: "that the evidence gathered and collated by our unit
clearly shows that the premises above- mentioned and the articles and things abovedescribed were used and are continuously being used for subversive activities in
conspiracy with, and to promote the objective of, illegal organizations such as the
Light-a-Fire Movement, Movement for Free Philippines, and April 6 Movement."

VOID BECAUSE WARRANTS TOO GENERAL.

1] All printing equipment, paraphernalia, paper, ink, photo (equipment, typewriters, cabinets,
tables, communications/recording equipment, tape recorders, dictaphone and the like used
and/or connected in the printing of the "WE FORUM" newspaper and any and all documents
communication, letters and facsimile of prints related to the "WE FORUM" newspaper.
2] Subversive documents, pamphlets, leaflets, books, and other publication to promote the
objectives and piurposes of the subversive organization known as Movement for Free
Philippines, Light-a-Fire Movement and April 6 Movement; and,
3] Motor vehicles used in the distribution/circulation of the "WE FORUM" and other subversive
materials and propaganda, more particularly,
1] Toyota-Corolla, colored yellow with Plate No. NKA 892;
2] DATSUN pick-up colored white with Plate No. NKV 969
3] A delivery truck with Plate No. NBS 524;
4] TOYOTA-TAMARAW, colored white with Plate No. PBP 665; and,
5] TOYOTA Hi-Lux, pick-up truck with Plate No. NGV 427 with marking "Bagong
Silang."
5. Jurisprudence tells of the prohibition on the issuance of general warrants. (Stanford
vs. State of Texas). The description and enumeration in the warrant of the items to be
searched and seized did not indicate with specification the subversive nature of the
said items.
Ruling:
Search warrants declared null and void. Prayer for writ of mandatory injuction GRANTED, all
articles seized must be returned to petitioners

G.R. No. 112235 November 29, 1995

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ELIAS LOVEDIORO y CASTRO, defendant-appellant.
Elias Lovedioro with 3 other companions fatally shot SPO3 Jesus Lucilo while Lucilo was
walking along Burgos St. away from Daraga, Albay Public Market. The victim died on the same
day from massive blood loss. On November 6, 1992, Elias Lovedioro was then charged of the
crime of murder, and subsequently found guilty. Lovedioro then appealed the decision,
contesting the verdict of murder instead of rebellion. It was confirmed by the prosecutions
principal witness that Lovedioro was a member of the New Peoples Army.
ISSUE: w/n the RTC was correct in holding Lovedioro liable for the crime of murder, instead of
rebellion?
HELD:
Yes. Because, overt acts and purpose are essential components of the crime of rebellion, with
either of these elements wanting, the crime of rebellion does not exist.
Political motive should be established before a person charged with a common crime- alleging
rebellion in order to lessen the possible imposable penalty- could benefit from the laws
relatively benign attitude towards political crimes. If no political motive is established or
proved, the accused should be convicted of the common crime and not of rebellion.
In cases of rebellion, motive relates to the act, and mere membership in an organization
dedicated to the furtherance of rebellion would not, by and of itself suffice.
The killing of the victim, as observed by the Solicitor General, offered no contribution to the
achievement of the NPAs subversive aims, in fact, there were no known acts of the victims that
can be considered as offending to the NPA.
Evidence shows that Lovedioros allegation of membership to the N.P.A was conveniently
infused to mitigate the penalty imposable upon him.
RULING: trial court's decision AFFIRMED

PEOPLE vs. LOVEDIORO, G.R. No. 112235, supra

FACTS:
That on or about the 27th day of July, 1992, at more or less 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon, at
Burgos Street, Municipality of Daraga, Albay, Elias Lovedioro together with Gilberto Longasa,
and three (3) others whose true identities are at present unknown and remain at large,
conniving, conspiring, confederating and helping one another for a common purpose, armed
with firearms, with intent to kill and with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously fire and shoot one SPO3 JESUS LUCILO, a member of
the Daraga Police Station, inflicting upon the latter multiple gunshot wounds causing his
death, to the damage and prejudice of his legal heirs.
The trial court found the accused guilty. The accused appealed contesting the ruling of him
guilty of the crime of murder and not rebellion. He further claims that in the testimony of the
witness, he is a member of the NPA. Additionally, he contends that because the killing of Lucilo
was "a means to or in furtherance of subversive ends," said killing should have been deemed
absorbed in the crime of rebellion under Arts. 134 and 135 of the Revised Penal Code. Finally,
claiming that he did not fire the fatal shot but merely acted as a look-out in the liquidation of
Lucilo, he avers that he should have been charged merely as a participant in the commission of
the crime of rebellion under paragraph 2 of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code and should
therefore have been meted only the penalty of prison mayor by the lower court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused is guilty of murder and not rebellion.
HELD:
YES. The accused of guilty of murder.
The RTC was correct in holding Lovedioro liable for the crime of murder because overt act and
purpose are essential components of the crime of rebellion, which either of these elements
wanting, the crime of rebellion does not exist.
Political motive should be established before a person charged with a common crime- alleging
rebellion in order to lessen the possible imposable penalty-could benefit from the laws
relatively benign attitude towards political crimes. No political motive is established and
proved, the accused should be convicted of the common crime and not of rebellion. In cases of
rebellion, motive relates to the act, and mere membership in an organization dedicated to the
furtherance of rebellion would not, by and of itself, suffice.
In cases of rebellion, motive relates to the act and mere membership in an organization
dedicated to the furtherance of rebellion would not, by and of itself suffice.
The killing of the victim, as observed by the Solicitor General, offered no contribution to the
achievement of the NPAs subversive aims, in fact, there were no known acts of the victims that
can be considered as offending to the NPA.

G.R. No. L-8936 October 23, 1956

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. FEDERICO GERONIMO alias
Cmdr. OSCAR, ET AL., Defendants, FEDERICO GERONIMO alias Cmdr. OSCAR,
Defendant-Appellant.
Facts:
In an information filed on June 24, 1954 by the provincial Fiscal in the Court of First Instance
of Camarines Sur, Appellant Federico Geronimo, together with Mariano P. Balgos alias Bakal
alias Tony, alias Tony Collante alias Taoic, alias Mang Pacio, alias Bonny Abundio Romagosa
alias David, Jesus Polita alias Rex, Jesus Lava alias Jessie alias NMT, alias Balbas, alias Noli,
alias Noli Metangere, alias NKVD, Juan Ocompo alias Cmdr. Bundalian, alias Tagle, Rosendo
Manuel alias Cmdr. Sendong, alias Ruiz, Ernesto Herrero alias Cmdr. Ed, alias Rene, alias
Eddy, Santiago Rotas alias Cmdr. Jessie, Fernando Principe alias Cmdr. Manding, Alfredo
Saguni alias Godo, alias Terry, alias Terpy, Andres Diapera alias Maclang, alias Berto, alias
Teny, Lorenzo Saniel alias Wenny, Silvestre Sisno alias Tomo, alias Albert, Teodoro Primavera
alias Nestor, Lorenzo Roxas alias Argos, Vivencio Pineda alias Marquez, Pedro Anino alias
Fernandez, Mauro Llorera alias Justo, Richard Doe alias Cmdr. Danny and John Doe alias
Cmdr. Berion, alias Mayo, alias Cmdr. Paulito and many others, were charged with the
complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnapping committed.
In Camarines Sur, the above-named accused being then ranking officers and/or members of,
or otherwise affiliated with the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the Hukbong
Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan (HMB) or otherwise known as the Hukbalahaps (HUKS) the latter being
the armed force of said Communist Party of the Philippines (CCP) having come to an agreement
and decide to commit the crime of Rebellion, and therefore, conspiring together and
confederating among themselves with all of the thirty-one accused.
Issue: Whether or not accused-appellants committed the crime of rebellion?
Held:
Accused Federico Geronimo first entered a plea of not guilty to the information. When the case
was called for trial on October 12, 1954, however, he asked the permission of the court to
substitute his original plea with one of guilty, and was allowed to change his plea. On the basis
of the plea of guilty, the fiscal recommended that the penalty of life imprisonment be imposed
upon the accused, his voluntary plea of guilty being considered as a mitigating circumstance.
Geronimos counsel, on the other hand, argued that the penalty imposable upon the accused
was only prision mayor, for the reason that in his opinion, there is no such complex crime as
rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnapping, because the crimes of murders robberies,
and kidnapping being the natural consequences of the crime of rebellion, the crime charged
against the accused should be considered only as simple rebellion. On October 18, 1954, the
trial court rendered judgment finding the accused guilty of the complex crime of rebellion with
murders, robberies, and kidnappings; and giving him the benefit of the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua, to pay a fine of P10,000, to indemnify the heirs of the various persons killed, as
listed in the information, in the sum of P6,000 each, and to pay the proportionate costs of the
proceedings. From this judgment, accused Federico Geronimo appealed, raising the sole
question of whether the crime committed by him is the complex crime of rebellion with
murders, robberies, and kidnappings, or simple rebellion.
However, the decision appealed from is modified and the accused convicted for the simple (noncomplex) crime of rebellion under article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and also for the crime
of murder; and considering the mitigating effect of his plea of guilty, the accused-Appellant
Federico Geronimo is hereby sentenced to suffer 8 years of prision mayor and to pay a fine of
P10,000, (without subsidiary imprisonment pursuant to article 38 of the Penal Code) for the
rebellion; and, as above explained, for the murder, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
to not less than 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor and not more than 18 years of reclusion
temporal; to indemnify the heirs of Policarpio Tibay in the sum of P6,000; and to pay the costs.

People v. Geronimo, G.R. L-8936, supra

Facts:
On June 24, 1954 a Federico Geronimo, et al. were charged with the complex crime of rebellion
with murders, robberies, and kidnapping. These are the ranking officers/ or members of CCP
and Huks. In the information it alleged 5 instances including an ambush on Mrs. Aurora
Quezons convoy on April 28, 1949 and ending on February 1954 where Geronimo killed
Policarpio Tipay a Barrio Lieutenant. He pleaded guilty to the accusation and the trial court
found him guilty of the complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnappings,
sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. He appealed raising the sole question of whether the
crime committed by him is not the complex crime of rebellion, but simply rebellion, thus
punishable only by prision mayor.
Issue: w/n rebellion can be complexed with murder, robbery or kidnapping?
Held:
No. Even if the crime is not committed in furtherance of rebellion, without political motivation,
the crime would be separately punishable and would not be absorbed in rebellion.
According to the Hernandez resolution; the complexing of rebellion will lead to undesirable
results.
It cannot be taken with rebellion to constitute a complex crime, for the constitutive acts and
intent would be unrelated to each other. He would be held liable for separate crimes, and these
cannot be merged into a juridical whole.
Ruling: In view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is modified and the accused
convicted for the simple (non-complex) crime of rebellion under article 135 of the Revised Penal
Code, and also for the crime of murder; and considering the mitigating effect of his plea of
guilty, the accused-Appellant Federico Geronimo is hereby sentenced to suffer 8 years of
prision mayor and to pay a fine of P10,000, (without subsidiary imprisonment pursuant to
article 38 of the Penal Code) for the rebellion and, as above explained, for the murder, applying
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, to not less than 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor and not
more than 18 years of reclusion temporal; to indemnify the heirs of Policarpio Tibay in the sum
of P6,000; and to pay the costs.