Treason is a war crime.

It is punished by state as a
Filipino citizen who gave aid and comfort to the
Laurel v. Misa 1947 Japanese contends that since sovereignty is
suspended, his allegiance as well is suspended
Perez with other Filipinos apprehended women
People v. Perez 1949
to satisfy desires of Colonel Mini.
Accused caused torture of seve ral Filipinos.
People v. Prieto 1948 - Seen dragging the American aviator
- Seen walking with the Americans
measure of self-defense and self-preservation.
No. Citizen owes his government Law of treason is an emergency measure – dormant
permanent and absolute allegiance. until emergency arises
What is suspended is the exercise of rights not
sovereignty
No. Commandeering of women, against
General Rule:
their will, to satisfy the sexual desires of
- Extent of aid/comfort given to the enemies must
the enemy is not treason because it
be to render assistance to them as enemies and
doesn’t directly or materially improve war
not merely as individuals
efforts of the enemy.
No. Two witness rule was not satisfied. Murder and physical injuries are inherent in the crime
No. There’s no complex crime of treason of treason characterized by the giving of aid and
and murder/PI comfort to the enemy.

Search
Accused was member of Makapili.
No. legislature did not intend that can Are citizens barred from renouncing citizenship
Invoked CA 63 – loss of citizenship:
renounce duties simply by taking oath of during war time? – YES
People v. Manayao 1947 1. Oath of allegiance
allegiance during war time. CA 63: oath of allegiance: sworn to help in war is
2. Becoming an officer
- No evidence presented different from swearing to support consti and laws.
3. Declared as deserter of armed forces
Accused was a Makapili.
No. 2-witness rule is severely restrictive.
Witnesses presented only testified to him Being a member is an overt act
People v. Adriano 1947 - Corroboration in direct
joining the Makapili army. Other acts were not 2-witness rule: favorable to the accused
testimony to the same overt act
established by 2 witnesses.
PIRACY
Is the 2-witness rule still applicable today?
Dutch and Moros Piracy is a crime against mankind. (hostes Created at a time when the only way to recall events
People v. Lol-lo and Boat of Dutch possession was surrounded by 6 humani generis) is through human memory and human memory is
1922
Saraw vintas with moros. Took all the cargo, raped Only political law is changed. Municipal unreliable.
women and attacked some men. laws remain in force different events: purpose of the rule is defeated
now, not the only way to prove treason – VIDEOS!
Crime was positively testified by 3
Tawi-tawi, MV Noria, pump boat Offender Purpose
witnesses.
Accused stole equipments and personal Piracy External Intent to gain
People v. Rodriguez 1985 PD 532: Mandatory death penalty for
properties of the crew members and Mutiny Crew/passenger Defiance
persons who committed piracy with rape,
passengers. Robbery Crew/Passenger Intent to gain
murder or homicide
Pilas island Yes. Qualified: if successfully boarded/seized
People v. Siyoh 1985 Accused was apprehended because he was seen PD 532: special complex crime regardless Piracy: enough that vessel was fired upon even if the
the pants which he took from the victim of number of victims offenders has not yet boarded

B2013 Crim2 Reviewer | Case doctrines

! ! ! ! ! ! !
Camille Arianne Jill Loraine Richard Welga JC Sophie 2

Title 2: CRIMES AGAINST FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE

Title Year Facts / Tags Held/Ratio Sir's Notes
ARBITRARY DETENTION
Theory of hot pursuit: supposed to apprehend the accused but
disappeared and was later on arrested at home while asleep
- Why would one who evades justice would go home
NPA, PISTON
Arrests were valid. Subversion is a Principle that subversion is a continuing o ffense
Umil v. Ramos 1990 Arrested in a hospital, Constantino’s
continuing offense. - Would a person spend every waking moment/100% of the
house, etc.
time doing subversive acts?
- Logical: not yet done with one overt act
- Ridiculous: committing 100% of the time

Gun was buried.

Warrantless arrest: only if urgent
People v. Burgos 1986 NPA pamphlets under a pile of He was arbitrarily detained.
- If not urgent, why not just secure a warrant
cogon.

Barrio captain. Barrio captain can be held liable for RA 3590: revised barrio charter
Milo v. Salanga 1987
Detained for 11 hours. Arbitrary detention. - Power and duties of barrio captain similar to that of mayors

SEARCH WARRANTS
Stonehill v. Diokno
42 search warrants, search premises
of office/warehouse/residence, take
possession of persona properties
1967 (book of accounts, financial records,
etc.) as violation of Central Bank
Laws, Custom Laws, Internal
Revenue Code and RPC
Level of specificity
- Look for evidence or fish for evidence
- No idea of a specific crime committed
- No specific charge
Fruit of the poison tree
- Prohibit illegal search and all fruits obtained from it
Why use exclusionary principle when we already have A.128?
- Incentive/disincentive
Search warrants were invalid.
- Need for other means of deterrence
Documents were inadmissible as
- If more lenient to police officers= the government will
evidence.
benefit from the search
- Tendency: just do it, will be pardoned later on
Exclusionary rule
- Deterrence
- Imperative of judicial integrity
- Should not profit from lawless behavior
- Minimize risk of seriously undermining popular trust in
government

B2013 Crim2 Reviewer | Case doctrines

! ! ! ! ! ! !
Camille Arianne Jill Loraine Richard Welga JC Sophie 3

Did not discuss what subversive acts were committed

Burgos v. Chief of Staff
OFFENDING RELIGIOUS FEELINGS
People v. Mandoriao
People v. Baes
Metropolitan Mail, We Forum
Searched office and seize printing
1984 machines and equipments, motor
vehicles, numerous papers and
documents
INC, debate
“Jesus Christ is not God, but only
1955 man”
Religious rally in a public place
(Baguio)
Church of Christ
Funeral would pass the churchyard
of a Roman Catholic Church. Priest
prevented them but was threaten
with physical violence. He was
prevailed.
- Police did not make FACTUAL STATEMENTS
- Should have described what is there and let the judge make
the conclusion
Search warrants were invalid
- Determination of WON the act is subversive is done by the
No sufficient basis for the finding of
courts
probable cause.
What the police did: “it is subversive”
What they should’ve done: present evidence of subversion like
written articles, etc.
Distinguish between factual and non-factual statements
Religious rally is not a religious
ceremony
- Not a place of worship
- Object of meeting was to
persuade new converts
Look at his acts and determine WON it is a religious ceremony
- There was already a commotion
before Mandoriao went up the
stage
- Act was not notoriously offensive
to feelings of the faithful
Fiscal was ordered to comply with his
duties. REMANDED.
According to the feelings of the Catholic not of the other faithful
- Question of WON it is
ones.
offensive to the religious
General Rule: perspective of the one offended
feelings of the faithful is a
Not a ruling on guilt but on sufficiency of allegation for trial to
question of fact.
proceed