BOOK II

Crimes Against National Security (Arts. 114-123)

- Treason
1. Laurel v. Misa, 77 Phil 856
Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus claiming 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 for the reasons that: (1)
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. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and ruled
that the absolute and permanent allegiance of the inhabitants of a territory
occupied by the enemy of 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 to the occupier, and if
it is not transferred to the occupant it must necessarily remain vested in the
legitimate government.

2. People v. Perez, 83 Phil 314

7 counts of treason were filed against Perez for recruiting, apprehending and
commandeering numerous girls and women against their will for the purpose of
using them to satisfy the immoral purposes of Japanese officers. The Supreme
Court held that his "commandeering" of women to satisfy the lust of Japanese
officers or men or to enliven the entertainment held in their honor was not treason
even though the women and the entertainment helped to make life more pleasant
for the enemies and boost their spirit; he was not guilty any more than the women
themselves would have been if they voluntarily and willingly had surrendered their
bodies or organized the entertainment.

- Piracy
3. People v. Catantan, G.R. No. 118075. September 5, 1997
Under the definition of piracy in PD No. 532 as well as grave coercion as penalized
in Art. 286 of the Revised Penal Code, this case falls squarely within the purview
of piracy. While it may be true that Eugene and Juan Jr. were compelled to go
elsewhere other than their place of destination, such compulsion was obviously
part of the act of seizing their boat.

Crimes Against Fundamental Laws of the State

- Arbitrary Detention
4. People v. Flores, G.R. No. 116488. May 31, 2001

Arbitrary detention is committed by any public officer or employee who, without

legal grounds, detains a person. 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.
Jerry Manlangit, son of Carlito, also testified for the proseuction. According to him,
he and Samson Sayam went to Barangay Tabu to have a sack of palay milled on
September 29, 1992. At around six in the evening, while on their way home, they
passed by the store of Terry Cabrillos to buy kerosene. There, he saw the four
accused drinking beer. Samson Sayam told him to go home because he had to
show his residence certificate and barangay clearance to accused-appellant Aaron
Flores. Jerry Manlangit then proceeded to his residence in Hacienda Shangrila,
located about half a kilometer away from the center of Barangay Tabu. Later, he
told his father that Samson Sayam stayed behind and asked him to fetch
Samson. He also testified that he heard gunshots coming from the direction of the
detachment headquarters.
The testimony of Jerry Manlangit does not prove any of the elements of the crime
of arbitrary detention. Neither does it support nor corroborate the testimony of his
father, Carlito, for they dealt on a different set of facts. Jerry Manlangit did not see
any of accused-appellant apprehend or detain Samson Sayam. He did not even
see if accused-appellant Flores really inspected the residence certificate and
barangay clearance of Samson Sayam. The rest of his testimony comprised of
hearsay evidence, which has no probative value. In summary, Jerry Manlangits
testimony failed to establish that accused-appellants were guilty of arbitrary
detention.

5. People v. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1

When the accused is arrested on the sole basis of a verbal report, the arrest
without a warrant under Section 6(a) of Rule 113 is not lawful and legal since the
offense must also be committed in his presence or within his view. It is not enough
that there is reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has
committed a crime for an essential precondition under the rule is that the crime
must in fact or actually have been committed first.

6. Albor v. Aguis, A.M. No. P-01-1472, June 26, 2003

Respondent might have been motivated by a sincere desire to help the accused
and his relatives. But as an officer of the court, he should be aware that by issuing
such detention order, he trampled upon a fundamental human right of the accused.
Because of the unauthorized order issued by respondent, the accused Edilberto
Albior was deprived of liberty without due process of law for a total of 56 days,
counted from his unlawful detention on January 27, 1999 until the issuance of the
appropriate order of commitment by the municipal judge on March 25, 1999.

- Expulsion
 7. Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil 778
The forcible taking of the women from Manila by officials of that city, who handed
them over to other parties and deposited them in a distant region, deprived these
women of freedom of locomotion just as effectively as if they had been imprisoned.
There is no law expressly authorizing the deportation of prostitutes to a new
domicile against their will and in fact Article 127 punishes public officials, not
expressly authorized by law or regulation, who compel any person to change his
residence.

- Search Warrants Maliciously Obtained

8. Burgos v Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800

When the search warrant applied for is directed against a newspaper publisher or
editor in connection with the publication of subversive materials, 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 since mere generalization will not suffice. Also, ownership is of no
consequence and it is sufficient that the person against whom the warrant is
directed has control or possession of the property sought to be seized.

Crimes Against Public Order

-Rebellion
9. People v. Loverdioro, G.R. 112235, November 29, 1995

If 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.

10. People v. Geronimo, October 23, 1956 G.R. L-8936

Not every act of violence is deemed absorbed in the crime of rebellion solely
because it was committed simultaneously with or in the course of the rebellion. If
the killing, robbing, etc. were done for private purposes or profit, without any
political motivation, the crime would be separately punishable and would not be
absorbed by the rebellion and the individual misdeed could not be taken with the
rebellion to constitute a complex crime, for the constitutive acts and intent would
be unrelated to each other. The individual crime would not be a means necessary
for committing the rebellion, as it would not be done in preparation or in furtherance
of the latter.

- Sedition
11. People v. Hadji October 24, 1963 G.R. L-12686

The rule in this jurisdiction allows the treatment of the common offenses of murder
 etc. as distinct and independent acts separable from sedition. Where the acts of
violence were deemed absorbed in the crime of rebellion, the same does not apply
in the crime of sedition.

-Inciting to Sedition
12. Mendoza v. People, G.R. L-2990, December 17 1951

A published writing which calls our government one of crooks and dishonest
persons ("dirty") infested with Nazis and Fascists i.e. dictators, and which reveals
a tendency to produce dissatisfaction or a feeling incompatible with the disposition
to remain loyal to the government, is a scurrilous libel against the Government.
Any citizen may criticize his government and government officials and submit his
criticism to the "free trade of ideas" but such criticism should be specific and
constructive, specifying particular objectionable actuations of the government. It
must be reasoned or tempered and not a contemptuous condemnation of the entire
government set-up.

Illegal Possession of Firearms

13. Celino v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 170562, June 29, 2007

When the other offense is one of those enumerated under RA 8294, any
information for illegal possession of firearms should be quashed because the
illegal possession of firearm would have to be tried together with such other
offense, either considered as an aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide,
or absorbed as an element of rebellion, insurrection, sedition or attempted coup d’
etat and conversely, when the other offense involved is not one of those
enumerated under RA 8294, then the separate case for illegal possession of
firearm should continue to be prosecuted. The constitutional bar against double
jeopardy will not apply since these offenses are quite different from one another,
with the first punished under the Revised Penal Code and the second under a
special law.

R.A 10591, SEC. 29. Use of Loose Firearm in the Commission of a Crime. –
The use of a loose firearm, when inherent in the commission of a crime
punishable under the Revised Penal Code or other special laws, shall be
considered as an aggravating circumstance: Provided, That if the crime
committed with the use of a loose firearm is penalized by the law with a
maximum penalty which is lower than that prescribed in the preceding
section for illegal possession of firearm, the penalty for illegal possession
of firearm shall be imposed in lieu of the penalty for the crime
charged: Provided, further, That if the crime committed with the use of a
loose firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum penalty which is equal
 to that imposed under the preceding section for illegal possession of
firearms, the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be
imposed in addition to the penalty for the crime punishable under the
Revised Penal Code or other special laws of which he/she is found guilty.

If the violation of this Act is in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection

with the crime of rebellion of insurrection, or attempted coup d’ etat, such
violation shall be absorbed as an element of the crime of rebellion or
insurrection, or attempted coup d’ etat.

If the crime is committed by the person without using the loose firearm, the
violation of this Act shall be considered as a distinct and separate offense.

- Direct Assault
14. Justo v. Court of Appeals, 99 Phil 453

The character of person in authority is not assumed or laid off at will, but attaches
to a public official until he ceases to be in office. Assuming that the complainant is
not actually performing the duties of his office when assaulted, this fact does not
bar the existence of the crime of assault upon a person in authority, so long as the
impelling motive of the attack is the performance of official duty. Also, where there
is a mutual agreement to fight, an aggression ahead of the stipulated time and
place would be unlawful since to hold otherwise would be to sanction unexpected
assaults contrary to all sense of loyalty and fair play.

15. People v. Dollantes, June 30, 1987 G.R. 70639

When a barangay Captain is in the act of trying to pacify a person who was making
trouble in the dance hall, he is therefore killed while in the performance of his
duties. As the barangay captain, it was his duty to enforce the laws and ordinances
within the barangay and if in the enforcement thereof, he incurs, the enmity of his
people who thereafter treacherously slew him, the crime committed is murder with
assault upon a person in authority.

16. Gelig v. People, G.R. No. 173150, July 28, 2010

The prosecution adduced evidence to establish beyond reasonable doubt

the commission of the crime of direct assault. The appellate court must be
consequently overruled in setting aside the trial courts verdict. It erred in
declaring that Lydia could not be held guilty of direct assault since Gemma
was no longer a person in authority at the time of the assault because she
allegedly descended to the level of a private person by fighting
with Lydia. The fact remains that at the moment Lydia initiated her tirades,
Gemma was busy attending to her official functions as a teacher. She tried
to pacify Lydia by offering her a seat so that they could talk
properly, but Lydia refused and instead unleashed a barrage of verbal
 invectives. WhenLydia continued with her abusive behavior, Gemma merely
retaliated in kind as would a similarly situated person. Lydia aggravated the
situation by slapping Gemma and violently pushing her against a wall divider
while she was going to the principals office. No fault could therefore be
attributed to Gemma.

- Evasion of Service of Sentence

17. Pangan v. Gatbalite, G.R. No. 141718. January 21, 2005
Pursuant to Article 157 of the same Code, evasion of service of sentence can be
committed only by those who have been convicted by final judgment by escaping
during the term of his sentence.

As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, "escape" in legal parlance and
for purposes of Articles 93 and 157 of the RPC means unlawful departure of
prisoner from the limits of his custody. Clearly, one who has not been committed
to prison cannot be said to have escaped therefrom.