Sie sind auf Seite 1von 42

Laurel vs.

Misa

G.R. no. L-409

Jan. 30, 1947


Absolute allegiance is not abrogated by enemy occupation.

Facts: Laurel , a Filipino citizen, gave aid and comfort to the japanese forces. He
was Prosecuted for treason. Laurel contends that sovereignty of the legitimate
government in the philippines was suspended, his allegiance to the philippines
was also suspended.
Issue: Whether there is a suspension of sovereignty during t he Japanese
occupation.
Held: No, Citizens owe absolute or permanent allegiance to his government.
This absolute allegiance is not abrogated by enemy occupation because the
sovereignty of the government de jure is not transferred there by to the
occupier. What may be suspended is the exercise of the rights of sovereignty
passing temporarily to the occupant, and not the allegiance which subsists with
the subsistence of the sovereignty of the legitimate government.

By: Talion Jolas E. Brutas Excellence. Superiority. Loyalty. Service.


People vs. Prieto

G.R. no. L-399

Jan. 29, 1948


Treason.
Facts: Prieto, a Makapili, aided the Japanese forces in apprehending Filipino
guerillas, who were later on tortured and executed after being apprehended.
Prieto was seen dragging the Filipino Guerilla and seen walking with the
japanese forces. He was convicted of 4 counts of treason
Issues:
(a) Whether the two- witness rule was satisfied
(b) Whether the murder and physical injuries can be complexed with the crime
of treason.
Held:
(a) No . The two witness rule was not satisfied. The witnesses was referring to
two different occasions.
(b) No. Murder and physical injuries are identified as an element of treason and
they cannot be the subject of a separate punishment , or make a complex crime
with treason. They were averred as a constitutive ingredient of treason.

By: Talion Jolas E. Brutas Excellence. Superiority. Loyalty. Service.


People vs Rodriguez
GR No. L-60100
March 20, 1985
Piracy.

Facts: Rodriguez, et. Al. were crew members of M/V Moria 767. They stole
equipments and personal properties of the crew members and passengers. Ten
dead bodies were seen at the wharf as victims of the sea-jacking. Appellants
contest the imposition of death penalty.
Issue: Whether death is the proper imposable penalty.
Held: Yes. Where rape, murder, or homicide is committed in the crime of
piracy, the penalty imposable is mandatory death penalty according to PD 532
amending RPC Article 134.

By: Talion Jolas E. Brutas Excellence. Superiority. Loyalty. Service.


People vs SIYOH
G.R. No. L-57292
February 18, 1986
In qualified piracy, number of victims is immaterial.

Facts: with the use of pump-bouts, Siyoh, et. Al. were able to divest money and
goods from de Guzman and his companions on the way to Mataja Island. The
victims were killed. They were convicted of qualified piracy with triple murder
and frustrated murder.
Issue: Whether in qualified piracy, the number of victims must be considered.
Held: No. Number of persons killed on the occasion of piracy is not Material.
PD 532 considers qualified piracy, i.e. rape, murder or homicide is committed as
a result or on occasion of piracy, as a special complex crime punishable by death
regardless of the number of victims.

By: Talion Jolas E. Brutas Excellence. Superiority. Loyalty. Service.


People vs Tulin
G.R. No. 111709
August 30, 2001
Piracy.

Facts: Tulin et al were convicted of qualified piracy under PD 532 Cheong San
Hiong explains that he was charged with qualified piracy under Sec 2 of PD 532
which refers to Philippine waters but was convicted for acts done outside the
Philippine water or territory
Issue: Whether Hiong may be held liable for acts executed outside the
Philippine waters and territory.
Held: Yes. Although PD 532 requires that the attack and seizure of the vessel
and its cargo be committed in Philippine waters, the disposition by the pirates of
the vessel and its cargo is still deemed part of the act of piracy, hence, the same
need not be committed in the Philippine waters.

By: Talion Jolas E. Brutas Excellence. Superiority. Loyalty. Service.


UMIL vs RAMOS
GR. 81567
October 3, 1991

Subversion, rebellion, etc. are continuing crimes.

Facts: A wounded “sparrow man”, an NPA member, was arrested while inside a
hospital in connection with a murder of two policemen the day before. The
petitioner asserts that the arrest was illegal.
Issue: whether the warrantless arrest was illegal.
Held: No. Petitioner was arrested for being a member of the NPA, an outlawed
subversive organization. Subversion being a continuing offense, the arrest
without warrant is justified as it can be said that he was committing an offense
when arrested. The crimes of rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to
commit such crimes, and crimes or offenses committed in furtherance therefore
in connection therewith constitute direct assaults against the state and are in the
nature of crimes.

By: Talion Jolas E. Brutas Excellence. Superiority. Loyalty. Service.


People vs Burgos
G.R. No. 68955
September 4, 1986
Unlawful warrantless Arrest.
Facts: Burgos was arrested while he was plowing his hield for being a member
of the NPA as alleged by Masamlok whom Burgos forcibly recruited.
Issue: whether the warrantless arrest was legal.
Held: No. there is no personal knowledge in this case. The knowledge of the
arresting officers came from Masamlok’s information. Burgos was not
committing any criminal or subversive act at the time of the arrest. Neither was
he committing any act which could be described as subversive. The evidence
taken during the unlawful arrest are inadmissible.

By: Talion Jolas E. Brutas Excellence. Superiority. Loyalty. Service.


MILO vs Salonga
G.R. No. L-37007
Arbitrary Detention.
Facts: Barrio Captain Tuvera Sr., with some private persons, maltreated Valdez
by hitting him and, without legal ground, and with deliberate intent to deprive
valdez of his liberty, accused Tuvera lodged and locked Valdez inside the
municipal jail for about 11 hours.
Issue: Whether Barrio Captain Tuvera is liable for arbitrary detention.
Held: Yes. Barrio Captains are recognized persons in authority long before PD
299. Therefore, Tuvera had authority to detain Valdez but such detention for 11
hours was without legal cause. One need to be a police officer to be chargeable
with arbitrary detention. Other public officers like judges and mayors, who act
with abuse of their functions, may be guilty of this offense.

By: Talion Jolas E. Brutas Excellence. Superiority. Loyalty. Service.


Stonehill vs Diokno
G.R. No. L-19550
June 14,1986
General Warrants – invalid
Facts: Respondent issued on different dates, a total of 42 search warrants against
petitioners to search the premises of their offices, warehouses and/or
residences, and to seize and take possession of the following personal property,
to wit: “Books of accounts, financial records, vouchers, correspondence,
receipts, etc.” in violation of Central Bank Laws, Custom Laws, Internal
Revenue Code and the Revised Penal Code.
Issue: Whether the search warrants are valid
Held: No. No specific offense has been alleged in the application for the
warrant. It was impossible for the judges to have found the existence of
probable cause. Finally, the warrants issued are general warrants that authorized
the search and seizure of records pertaining to all business transactions of
petitioners, regardless of whether the transactions were legal or illegal.

By: Talion Jolas E. Brutas Excellence. Superiority. Loyalty. Service.


Burgos vs Chief of Staff
G.R. No. L-64261
December 26, 1984
General Warrant – Invalid
Facts: Two search warrants against Metropolitan Mail and We Forum
newspapers were issued to search its office and to seize printing machines and
equipments, motor vehicles, numerous papers and documents.
Issue: Whether the search warrants are valid
Held: No. The Search warrants are in the nature of general warrant, hence
invalid. A search warrant against a publisher must particularize the alleged
criminal subversive material to be seized. The application and/or its supporting
affidavits must contain a specification, stating with particularity the alleged
subversive material he has published or intending to publish.

By: Talion Jolas E. Brutas Excellence. Superiority. Loyalty. Service.


People vs BAES
G.R. No. L-46000
May 25,1939
Offending Religious Feelings.
Facts: The accused, through force, intimidation, and threats, caused the funeral
of the Church of Christ to pass throughout the churchyard of a Roman Catholic
Church against the opposition of the priest.
Issue: Whether the acts constitute offense to religious feelings of the Catholics.
Held: Yes. Whether the act complained of is offensive to the religious feelings
of the Catholics is a question of fact which must be judged only according to the
feelings of the Catholics and not those of other faithful ones.

By: Talion Jolas E. Brutas Excellence. Superiority. Loyalty. Service.


Enrile vs Salazar
G.R. No. 92163
June 5, 1990
No Complex Crime of Rebellion with Murder
Issue: Enrile was arrested, together with Honasan, and charged with the crime
of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder allegedly committed
during the failed coup attempt which took place from November 29 to
December 10.
Issue: Whether the charge is proper.
Held: No. The doctrine in People vs. Hernandez still applies. There is no crime
of Rebellion complexed with murder. The Hernandez doctrine prohibits the
complexing of rebellion with any other offense committed on the occasion
thereof, either as a means necessary to its commission or as an unintended
effect of an activity that constitutes rebellion.

By: Talion Jolas E. Brutas Excellence. Superiority. Loyalty. Service.


UMIL vs Ramos
G.R. No. 81567
October 3, 1991
Subversion, rebellion, etc. are continuing crimes.
Facts: A wounded “sparrow man”, an NPA member, was arrested while inside a
hospital in connection with a murder of two policeman the day before.
Issue: whether the warrantless arrest was illegal.
Held: No. The crimes of rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to
commit such crimes, and crimes or offenses committed in furtherance therefore
in connection therewith constitute direct assaults against the state and are in the
nature of continuing crimes.

By: Talion Jolas E. Brutas Excellence. Superiority. Loyalty. Service.


Enrile vs Amin
G.R. No. 93335
September 13, 1990
Crimes under special laws may be absorbed in rebellion.
Facts: Together with the information charging Enrile with rebellion complexed
with murder, another information was filed charging him with violation of PD
1829 for concealing or harboring Col. Honasan.
Issue: Whether the violation of PD 1829 is absorbed in the crime of rebellion.
Held: Yes. All crimes, whether under special law or under the RPC, which are
mere components, or committed in furtherance of rebellion, become absorbed
and cannot be charged as separate crimes. Being in conspiracy with Honasan,
Enrile’s alleged act of harboring was for no other purpose but in furtherance of
the crime of rebellion.

By: Talion Jolas E. Brutas Excellence. Superiority. Loyalty. Service.


People vs Dasig
G.R. No. 10023
April 28,1993
Facts: Catamora, police officer, was killed while manning the traffic. The two
suspects were apparently members of the sparrow unit of the NPA. They were
found guilty of murder with direct assault.
Issue: Whether the crime committed is murder with direct assault.
Held: No. The accused is liable only for simple rebellion. The Sparrow unit is
the liquidation squad of the NPA with the objective of overthrowing the duly
constituted government. Hence, the killing was committed as a means to or in
furtherance of the subversive ends of the NPA.

By: Talion Jolas E. Brutas Excellence. Superiority. Loyalty. Service.


People vs Lovedioro
G.R. No. 112235
November 29, 1995
Rebellion – Political motive must be established.
Facts: Off-duty policeman SPO3 Jesus Lucilo was walking along a street when a
man suddenly shot him. The man and his companions took Lucilo’s gun and
fled. The accused was charged with the crime of murder. The accused was a
member of NPA.
Issue: Whether the crime committed is murder and not rebellion.
Held: Yes. For the accused to be held liable for rebellion, the political motive of
the act should be conclusively demonstrated. If no political motive is
established, 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.

By: Talion Jolas E. Brutas Excellence. Superiority. Loyalty. Service.


Ladlad vs Velasco
G.R. No. 1172070-72
June 1, 2007
Rebellion.
Facts: Following the issuance by the President of Proclamation no. 1017in 2006
declaring a “State of National Emergency”, police officers arrested Crispin
Beltran while he was en route to Marilao, and detained him in Camp Crame.
Beltran was charged with rebellion.
Issue: Whether there is a probable cause to charge Beltran with rebellion.
Held: No. By its nature, rebellion is a crime of the masses or multitudes
involving crowd action done in furtherance of a political end. None of the
affidavits stated that Beltran was committing specific ads of promoting,
maintaining, or heading a rebellion.

By: Talion Jolas E. Brutas Excellence. Superiority. Loyalty. Service.


People vs Hernandez
G.R. No. L-6025
May 30, 1964
Rebellion cannot be complexed with common crimes.
Facts: About March 15, 1995, Amado Hernandez and other appellants were
accused of conspiring, confederating and cooperating with each other, as
members of PKP Community Party of the Philippines which was actively
engaged in an armed rebellion against the government. They committed acts of
murder, looting, arson, etc. They were convicted of rebellion with multiple
murder, arsons and robberies.
Issue: Whether rebellion may be complexed with the above common crimes.
Held: No. Rebellion cannot be complexed with the common crimes such as
killings, destruction of property, etc. committed on the the occasion and in
furtherance thereof. Such common offense is absorbed or inherent in the crime
of rebellion.

By: Talion Jolas E. Brutas Excellence. Superiority. Loyalty. Service.


People vs Geronimo
G.R. No. L-8936
October 23, 1956
Separate Crime if not in furtherance of rebellion.
Facts: Accused, et al are ranking officers of CCP and HUKS. In the information
for rebellion complexed with murders, robberies, and kidnapping, it was alleged,
among others, that Geronimo killed Tipay, a Barrio Lieutenant.
Issue: Whether the crime committed is rebellion complexed with the common
crimes.
Held: No. Any and all acts of rebellion become absorbed in the crime of
rebellion. But Geronimo is liable also for a separate crime of murder for the
killing of Tipay. When the act was not committed in furtherance of rebellion
and without political motivation, the crime would be separately punishable and
would not be absorbed in rebellion.

By: Talion Jolas E. Brutas Excellence. Superiority. Loyalty. Service.


People vs Carino
G.R. No. L-14752
April 30, 1963
Accomplice in rebellion
Facts: the accused was allegedly sympathizing with the Hukbalahap by sending
or furnishing of cigarettes and food supplies to a huk leader, by changing of
dollars into pesos and the helping of Huks in opening accounts with the bank of
which he was an official.
Issues: Whether the accused is guilty of the crime of rebellion as an accomplice.
Held: No. The acts do not prove any criminal intent of helping the Huks in
committing the crime of rebellion. Unlike in treason, the acts of giving comfort
of moral is not criminal in the case of rebellion.

By: Talion Jolas E. Brutas Excellence. Superiority. Loyalty. Service.


People vs Cabrera
G.R. No. 17748
March 4, 1922
Sedition
Facts: A constabulary soldier died as a result of an encounter with a policeman.
The nexy day, constabulary soldiers escaped from their barracks with rifles and
ammunitions and divided into groups for an attack upon the city police force.
They fired indiscriminately along the streets, killing a police and wounding
civilians. They attacked the Luneta Police Station and the office of the secret
service.
Issue: Whether the accused are liable for sedition
Held: Yes. Sedition, in its more general sense, is the raising of commotions or
disturbances in the state. It is not necessary that the offender be a private citizen
and the offended party a public functionary. The law makes distinction as to
which persons it applies.

By: Talion Jolas E. Brutas Excellence. Superiority. Loyalty. Service.


US vs Abad
G.R. No. 976
October 22, 1902
Sedition
Facts: The accused was charged with convicted of violation of oath of allegiance
penalized under Act. No. 292. An amnesty was granted to persons convicted of
offenses of treason and sedition.
Issues: Whether the accused violation of oath of allegiance is covered by the
amnesty.
Held: Yes. The offense of violation of oath of allegiance is not necessarily
identical with treason and sedition. But being one of political offenses, it is
included in the general words “treason and sedition.”

By: Talion Jolas E. Brutas Excellence. Superiority. Loyalty. Service.


People vs Hadji
G.R. No. L-12686
October 24,1963
Sedition does not absorb common crimes
Facts: Kamlon Hadji, together with a number of other defendants, was charged
for multiple murder and m ultiple injuries and for kidnapping with murder. The
accused contends that the trial court erred in convicting of the said crimes
inspite of the fact that said acts of violence were committed in furtherance of
sedition and therefore absorbed in the latter crime.
Issue: Whether the crimes of murder and kidnapping are absorbed in the crime
of sedition.
Held: No. Sedition is not the same as murder. Sedition is a crime against public
order; murder is a crime against persons. The crimes of murder and serious
physical injuries were not necessarily included in the information for sedition.

By: Talion Jolas E. Brutas Excellence. Superiority. Loyalty. Service.


US vs Tolentino
G.R. No. L-1451
March 6, 1906
Inciting to sedition
Facts: A theatrical work entitled “Kahapon Ngayon at Bukas” written by
Tolentino, was presented by him and others in 1903 at the Teatro Libertad in
Manila, wherein false, seditious and scurrilous language were used.
Issue: Whether Tolentino is guilty of inciting to sedition
Held: Yes. The Manifest, unmistakable tendency of the play, in view of the time,
place, and manner of its presentation, was to inculcate a spirit of hatred and
enmity against the American people and the Government of the United States in
the Philippines.

By: Talion Jolas E. Brutas Excellence. Superiority. Loyalty. Service.


People vs Espuelas
G.R. No. L-2990
December 17, 1951
Inciting to sedition
Facts: Espuelas had his picture taken, making it appear as if he were hanging
lifeless. Espuelas distributed the copies of the photo with a suicide note
attacking the Administration of President Roxas and calling the Government as
“infested with many Hitlers and Mussolinis.”
Issue: Whether Espuelas is liable for inciting to sedition.
Held: Yes. The essence of seditious libel is its immediate tendency to stir up
general discontent to the pitch of illegal courses or to induce people to resort to
illegal methods in order to redress the evils which press upon their minds.

By: Talion Jolas E. Brutas Excellence. Superiority. Loyalty. Service.


Umil vs Ramos
G.R. No. 81567
October 3, 1991
Inciting to Sedition
Facts: Espiritu spoke at a gathering of drivers and symphathizers where he said
“Bukas tuloy ang welga natin… Hanggang sa magkagulo na.” He was arrested
without a warrant the following day during the rally.
Issue: Whether Espiritu’s arrest was valid.
Held: Yes. The perception of the arresting officers as to the seditious character
of the statement may suffice to effect a valid warrantless arrest.

By: Talion Jolas E. Brutas Excellence. Superiority. Loyalty. Service.


Martinez vs Morfe
G.R. No. L-34022
March 24, 1972
Facts: Martinez and Bautista were members of the Constitutional Conventiond.
They were arrested for falsification of documents in relation to the birthday and
distribution of free food, drinks and cigarette at two public meetings.
Issue: Whether the arresting officer is liable for violation of parliamentary
immunity.
Held: No. Under the 1935 Constitution, parliamentary immunity from arrest
does not cover any prosecution for treason, felony and breach of the peace.

By: Talion Jolas E. Brutas Excellence. Superiority. Loyalty. Service.


People vs Evangelista
G.R. No. L-36277
October 26, 1932
Illegal Association
Facts: A parade was to be held by the communists but they were prevented by
the Constabulary forces for lack of permit. Evangelista, the leader of the people
therein assembled, instigated the people to continue with the parade and then
shouts were heard from the audience saying, “Let’s fight then.” Thereupon the
mass began to advance against the Constabulary.
Issue: Whether the statements by the accused are seditious.
Held: Yes. There was an inducement to fight, an actual through unexpected
fight and resistance against the authorities. It was simply the practical expression
and repetition of the previous instigations to overthrow the government, made
by the communist leaders before.

By: Talion Jolas E. Brutas Excellence. Superiority. Loyalty. Service.


People vs Rodil
G.R. No. L -35156
November 20, 1981
Persons in authority and agents of persons in authority.
Facts: Accused was charged with direct assault under an information that states
that with the use of a bladed dagger, he attacked and stabbed to death Philippine
Constabulary Lieutenant Masana who was in the performance of his official
duties when the accused attacked him.
Issue: Whether the accused may be held liable for homicide with direct assault.
Held: No. The information does not aflege the fact that the accused then knew
that the victim was an agent of a person in authority.
Hence, the crime committed is homicide only.
Note: Chief of police is considered a person in authority for he is vested with
jurisdiction or authority to maintain peace and order and specifically duty bound
to prosecute and to apprehend violators of the law.

By: Talion Jolas E. Brutas Excellence. Superiority. Loyalty. Service.


People vs Tac-An
G.R. No. 76338-39
February 26, 1990
Teacher is not a person in Authority under Article 14, par.2.
Facts: the accused shot and killed his former bestfriend and current classmate
Francisco. All of these were done in the presence of their teacher.
Issue: wheter the aggravating circumstance of contempt or insult to public
authorities may be appreciated.
Held: no. A teacher is deemed a “person in authority” only for purposes of the
application of Articles 148 (direct assault) and 151 (resistance and disobedience).
The penal statute is not to be given a longer reach and broader scope than what
is called for by the ordinary meaning of the ordinary words used by such statute,
to the disadvantage of an accused.

By: Talion Jolas E. Brutas Excellence. Superiority. Loyalty. Service.


G.R. No. L37168-69
September 13, 1985
Direct assault.
Facts: Mayor Quirolqico and patrolman Tolentino went to the Puzon
Compound to talk to Beltran and his companions to surrender. Mayor
Quirolqica and the patrolman suffered gunshot wounds and the mayor’s son
died dute to a simultaneous discharge of gunfire by the accused.
Issue: Whether the accused are guilty of murder and double attempted murder
with direct assault.
Held: Yes. The accused attacked and employed force against the mayor and the
police while the latter were engaged in the actual performance of duty and the
accused knew that they were assaulting persons in authority.

By: Talion Jolas E. Brutas Excellence. Superiority. Loyalty. Service.


People vs Dollantes
G.R. No. 70639
June 30, 1987
Barangay Captain is a person in authority.
Facts: Barangay Captain was trying to pacify and stop Dollantes who was
manking trouble in a dance event held in the barangay. Dollantes and his
companions stabbed and eventually killed the Barangay Captain.
Issue: Whether the accused are guilty of Murder with direct assault.
Held: yes. The Barangay Captain was in the act of trying to pacify Dollantes
who was making trouble in the dance hall when he was stabbed to death. A
barangay captain is a person in authority.

By: Talion Jolas E. Brutas Excellence. Superiority. Loyalty. Service.


Rivera vs People
G.R. No. 138553
June 30, 2005
Direct Assault
Facts: Police Inspector Leygo confronted the accused and asked him why he
insisted on the defying the ban on the unloading and loading of chickens
manure. The accused pointed a finger on the police and said, “Babarilin kita ng
buto,” “Ilalampaso kita.” And “Pulis lang kayo”, and other unsavory and
insulting words. The police tried to arrest him but the accused assumed a
fighting stance and punched the police on his face.
Issue: whether the accused is guilty of direct assault.
Held: Yes. Lt. Leygo was engaged in the actual performance of his official
duties. He was wearing the designated police uniform and was on board a police
car conducting a routinary patrol.

By: Talion Jolas E. Brutas Excellence. Superiority. Loyalty. Service.


People vs Recto
G.R. No. 129069
October 17, 2001
Direct Assault
Facts: While attempting to pacify the accused, Barangay Kagawad Macalipay was
shot by a de sabog gun causing his death. Barangay Captain Orbe, who was also
trying to pacify the accused, was shot in his elbow while trying to flee. Kagawad
Rectod was also shot in his thigh. Recto just passed by the area going to his
house. Charged with direct assault, accused claims that he did not mind the two
victims because they were not his enemies. The de sabog gun had merely
misfired and hit them.
Issue: whether direct assault was committed
Held: Yes. The accused is liable for direct assault with respect to Obre and
Macalipay. However, accused is not liable for direct assault against Melchor. In
the case at bar, Melchor, the barangay Chief Tanod was no engaged in the
performance of his official duties at the time he was shot. Melchor was merely
on his way home when he happened to pass by the bodega.

By: Talion Jolas E. Brutas Excellence. Superiority. Loyalty. Service.


People vs Ladjaalam
G.R. No. 136149-51
September 19, 2000
Direct Assault
Facts: The accused fired at four policeman who were about to serve a search
warrant on him. None of them were killed.
Issue: whether the accused is liable for direct assault.
Held: Yes. The accused is guilty of direct assault with multiple counts of
attempted homicide. The police officers were clearly in the performance of their
official duties.

By: Talion Jolas E. Brutas Excellence. Superiority. Loyalty. Service.


Vytiaco vs CA
G.R. No. L-20246-48
April 24, 1967
Disobedience to a person in authority or his agent
Facts: accused and Jagmis were grappling with each other. Estepan Gapilango, a
PC enlisted man who was in plain clothes and on patrol duty, separated them.
Gapilango tried to prevent the accused from taking his pistol but the accused
succeeded. Gapilango ordered him to return to him his pistol but the accused
refused.
Issue: Whether the accused is guilty of disobedience to a person in authority.
Held: No. the accused did not know that Gapilango was a constabulary soldier.
There is no positive finding that the accused intended to resist or seriously
disobey an agent of a person in authority while engaged in the performance of
official duties. The accused had reason to suspect that Gapilango was helping
Jangis, because right at the start of the fight, Gapilango did not identify himself
as a peace officer.

By: Talion Jolas E. Brutas Excellence. Superiority. Loyalty. Service.


Alberto vs Dela Cruz
G.R. No. L-31839
June 30, 1980
Delivery of prisoners from jail
Facts: the Governor sent a note to the assistant provincial warden asking for
five men to work on a fence for his house. Orbita the prison guard, left the
prisoner unguarded and so the latter was able to escape.
Issue: whether the Governor and the provincial warden are liable for delivery of
prisoners from jail.
Held: No. It is necessary that the said accused consented to or connived in the
escape of the prisoner under his custody. Article 156 is usually committed by an
outsider. If the offender is a public officer, then Article 223 applies.

By: Talion Jolas E. Brutas Excellence. Superiority. Loyalty. Service.


Tanega Vs Masakayan
G.R. No. L-27191
February 28, 1967
Evasion of Service of Sentence – must be placed in confinement first.
Run from the date when never arrested. Later, Tanega moved to quash the
warrants of arrest on the ground that the penalty has already prescribed.
Issue: whether the penalty has prescribed
Held: No. The period of prescription of penalty commences to run from the
date when the culprit should evade the service of his sentence. Under Article
157, escape should take place while serving sentence. Tanega was never placed
in confinement, thus prescription of penalty never run in Tanega’s favor.

By: Talion Jolas E. Brutas Excellence. Superiority. Loyalty. Service.


People vs Abilong
G.R. No. L1960
November 26, 1948
Destierro if violated is evasion of service of sentence.
Facts: Abilong was sentenced to Destierro by virtue of final judgment for
attempted robbery. He violated this judgment by going beyond the limits made
against him.
Issue: Whether Abilong is liable for evasion of service of sentence.
Held: yes. Destierro is a deprivation of liberty, though partial, and he may escape
from the restrictions of the penalty.

By: Talion Jolas E. Brutas Excellence. Superiority. Loyalty. Service.


Alvarez vs Director of Prisons
G.R. No. L-1809
January 23, 1948
Evasion of service of sentence
Facts: Alvarez was convicted of the crime of murder, and while serving the
sentence, he escaped from prison on October 21, 1945. In December 1946 the
president granted him absolute pardon for the crime of murder.
Issue: whether Alvarez is still liable for evasion of service of sentence not
withstanding the grant of pardon.
Held: yes. The penalties imposed for evasions of service of sentence have not
been affected by the absolute pardon granted to him remitting the unserved
penalty to which he was finally sentenced for the crime of murder because he
was convicted of evasions of service of sentence before the pardon and while he
was serving said sentence of conviction for murder, which was then still in full
force.

By: Talion Jolas E. Brutas Excellence. Superiority. Loyalty. Service.


Torres vs Gonzales
G.R. No. 76872
July 23, 1987
Violation of Conditional pardon – under the Admin Code or Article 159 of
RPC
Facts: Torres was convicted of Estafa. He was granted a conditional pardon and
was released. Thereafter, he committed again long list of crimes in violation of
the condition of pardon.
Issue: whether a conviction of a crime is necessary before petitioner can be
recommitted for violation of his conditional pardon.
Held: no. The President himself will determine if the conditions were violated
and no judicial pronouncement of guilt of a subsequent crime is necessary if the
President opts to proceed under the Administrative code. However, if the
Government opts to change him under Article 159 of the Revised Penal Code,
conviction of the subsequent crime is necessary.

By: Talion Jolas E. Brutas Excellence. Superiority. Loyalty. Service.


People vs Dioso
G.R. No. L-38346-47
October 23, 1964
Quasi-recidivism
Facts: Both the accused were already serving their respective sentences. They
were members of Batang Mindanao Gang – rival of the Happy Go Lucky Gang.
They feigned sickness so they could kill the victim who was then confined in the
prison hospital. The accused invoked surrender.
Issue: whether the mitigating circumstances invoked should be considered in
imposing the penalty.
Held: no. The accused are quasi-recidivists having committed the crime charged
while serving sentence for a prior sentence. As such, the maximum penalty
prescribed by law for the new felony, which is murder, is death, regardless of the
presence or absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances or the complete
absence thereof.

By: Talion Jolas E. Brutas Excellence. Superiority. Loyalty. Service.