Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 18


TAHIL and Datu TARSON, Defendants-Appellants.
Attorney-General Jaranilla for appellee.




chanrobl es virtual law library

The appellants, Datu Tahil and Datu Tarson, were convicted in the Court of First
Instance of Sulu of the crime of rebellion, Datu Tahil being sentenced to ten years'
imprisonment and to pay a fine of $10,000, and Datu Tarso to five years'
imprisonment and to pay a fine of $5,000, with sudsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency in regard to Datu Tarson.
chanrobl esvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Having encountered certain difficulties in the collection of the land and the personal
cedula taxes among the resident of Patikul, due to their refusal to make this payment,
the provincial governor of Sulu, Carl Moore, turned the matter over to Lieutenant
Angeles of the Constabulary for the purpose of employing such means as he might
consider convenient to overcome these difficulties. Datu Tahil, then the third member
of the provincial board of Sulu, being amongst those who refused to make this
payment, Lieutenant Angeles tried and succeeded in having a conference with him, in
which Datu Tahil suggested that he return the following day because he would call
meeting of his people at his house in Liang in order to discuss the matter with them.
Lieutenant Angeles went to Datu Tahil's house the day following this meeting and
found about 70 persons present. After Lieutenant Angeles has explained to all the
importance of the Government's collecting the land tax, Datu Tahil took several of
those present into a room for a secret conference, after which he informed Lieutenant
Angeles that he, personally, had no objection to paying the tax, but the others asked
time to do so. Lieutenant Angeles said that he would inform Governor Moore of it and
chanrobl esvirtualawlibrary

chanrobles virtual law library

When Lieutenant Angeles returned to Patikul, Moro Pasingan, who had attended the
conference as a secret agent of the Government informed him that the extension
requested for the payment of the land tax was nothing more than a pretext to gain time
in order to construct a fort. Indeed, a few days after, the construction of a fort was
commenced on a hill at a strategical location. After the construction of the fort Datu
Tahil gathered his people therein, including Datu Tarson who was one of those who
refused to pay the tax and who attended the conference. Then the propaganda started

to extend the movement, and they tried to attract those who were in the Government
service. The principal purpose of the movements was to obtain the abolition of the
land tax and besides, other pretentions in connection with the attendance of children at
school, the privilege of carrying arms and the removal of certain provincial officials,
amongst whom, Governor Moore, with the threat that if their request were not
granted, they would oppose the Government by forcible means. Datu Tahil made them
all, including Datu Tarson, take an oath on the Koran to this effect. From then on they
took turns in guarding the fort and its surrondings under the orders of Datu Tahil, who
always carried a rifle and a revolver. Lieutenant Angeles upon being informed of this
state of affairs reported it to Governor Moore, and the latter, in turn, endorsed the
matter to the provincial fiscal.

chanrobl es virtual law library

About the middle of January, 1927, the provincial fiscal filed a complaint against Datu
Tahil and his followers charging them with sedition, and the proper warrant of arrest
was issued on the 15th. Governor Moore, however, did not wish to proceed on this
warrant of arrest and tried to persuade Datu Tahil and his followers to desist from their
intention, using the influence of other prominent Moros to this end. Governor Moore
even tried to have a conference with Datu Tahil for the same purpose, but was
unsuccessful because he was informed that they intended to attack him.

chanrobl es virtual law library

On January 30th, when Governor Moore had given up all hopes of obtaining any
results from his efforts, he delivered the warrant of arrest to Commander Green of the
Constabulary of its compliance. The following day Commander Green with a group of
soldiers, stationed themselves about 50 meters in front of the fort where he found a
red flag flying and demanded the surrender of Datu Tahil. He did not receive any
reply to his intimation, and, in turn, a group of armed Moros appeared at the left flank
of the Constabulary soldiers in the act of attacking them, but were repelled. It was
again intimated that Datu Tahil surrender, but again no answer was received, and then
a larger group of Moros appeared in an aggressive attitude, being likewise repelled.
For the purpose of frightening the Moros, the Constabulary soldiers fired the stoke
mortar, which caused the defenders of the fort to flee, leaving the Government forces
in possession thereof, where they found only the bodies of those who had been killed
in this affray.

chanrobl es virtual law library

Some days after this Datu Tahil surrendered to the authorities and, while in jail, had a
conference with Governor Moore in which he stated that Commander Malone of the
Contabulary was to blame for everything, as he had induced them to rebel against the
chanrobl esvirtualawlibrary

chanrobles virtual law library

The appellants allege in their defense that the construction of the fort and the meetings
which took place therein were only for the purpose of discussing their grievances
against the Government in order to present and submit their claims through peaceful
means. This allegation, however, is not supported by the evidence. Datu Tahil,
himself, admits that he in fact did swear his followers on the Koran, although he says
that the very purpose of this was in order that they would not oppose the Government
but would present their grievances through peaceful means. But, if this were the
purpose of the oath, the necessity of taking it is not understood. The said Datu Tahil
admits in an affidavit having committed all of these acts against the law, constructing
the fort in order to oppose the Government, because Commander Malone had
encouraged him to do so, promising to furnish arms and ammunition, and visiting the
fort from time to time while it was in the course of construction. We do not believe
that Datu Tahil, as he stated during the trial, signed this affidavit without having been
informed of its contents. Furthermore, this supposed inducement of Commander
Malone, aside from being no excuse for the commission of the crime, was
emphatically denied by Datu Tahil.

chanrobl es virtual law library

At any rate, for the purpose of the present case, suffice it to say that upon its being
intimated to Datu Tahil that he surrender with the object of complying with a judicial
warrant of arrest against him and his followers, he resisted this order by means of
force, thus preventing the officer charged with this duty from performing it. This
already constitutes a crime.
chanrobl esvirtualawlibrary

chanrobles virtual law library

In regard to Datu Tarson, it appears that he was one of those who took an oath on the
Koran to oppose the Government by force; that he took part in all the activities of the
movement, assisting in the construction of the fort; that in the day preceding the
incident he was in the fort; and while he left in the afternoon, he returned early the
following morning and was found in the fort when the Government forces

chanrobl es virtual law library

The facts proven, however, constitute the crime of sedition, defined in section 5 of Act
No. 292, and not of rebellion according to section 3 of the same law, the acts
committed being limited to preventing the Government officials, throught force, from
complying with their duties in connection with the judicial order, the enforcement of
which was entrusted to them.

chanrobl es virtual law library

In our opinion, the crime committed is that of sedition, and the fine imposed upon
Datu Tahil is therefore reduced to $5,000 and that imposed upon Datu Tarson to

$2,500, the judgment appealed from being affirmed in all other respects, with the
costs against the appellants. So ordered.
chanrobl esvirtualawlibrary

People vs Umali
G.R. No. L-5803
November 29, 1954
The complex crime of which appellants Narciso Umali, et. al were found guilty was said to have been
committed during the raid staged in the town of Tiaong, Quezon, between 8:00 and 9:00 in the evening of
November 14, 1951, by armed men. The raid took place resulting in the burning down and complete
destruction of the house of Mayor Marcial Punzalan including its content valued at P24,023; the house of
Valentin Robles valued at P10,000, and the house of one Mortega, the death of Patrolman Domingo
Pisigan and civilians Vicente Soriano and Leocadio Untalan, and the wounding of Patrolman Pedro
Lacorte and five civilians.
During and after the burning of the houses, some of the raiders engaged in looting, robbing one house and
two Chinese stores; and that the raiders were finally dispersed and driven from the town by the Philippine
Army soldiers stationed in the town led by Captain Alzate.
Whether or not the accused-appellants are liable of the charges against them of complex crime of
rebellion with multiple murder, frustrated murder, arson and robbery?
Yes. The appellants were guilty of sedition, multiple murder, arson, frustrated murder and physical
injuries. For the crime of sedition each of the appellants is sentenced to 5 years of prision correctional and
to pay a fine of P4,000; for each of the three murders, each of the appellants is sentenced to life
imprisonment and to indemnify the heirs of each victim in the sum of P6,000; and for the arson, for which
we impose the maximum penalty provided in Article 321, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, for the
reason that the raiders in setting fire to the buildings, particularly the house of Punzalan they knew that it
was then occupied by one or more persons, because they even and actually saw an old lady, the mother of
Punzalan, at the window, and in view of the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, each of the
appellants is sentenced to reclusion perpetua and to pay the indemnities mentioned in the decision of the
lower court. It shall be understood, however, the pursuant to the provisions of Article 70 of the Revised
Penal Code the duration of all penalties shall not exceed 40 years. In view of the heavy penalties already
imposed and their long duration, the court finds it unnecessary to fix and impose the prison sentences
corresponding to frustrated murder and physical injuries; however, the sums awarded the victims
(Lacorte, Ortega, Anselo, Rivano, Garcia and Lector), by the court below will stand. With these
modifications, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff/Appellee: The People of the Philippine Islands,
Defendant/Appellant: Graciano L. Cabrera et al. Date January 1, 2013
Sedition is the raising of commotions or disturbances in the state.
Because of certain incidents, the Philippine constabulary and the Police of Manila had a rough
relationship with each other. The constabulary force had grudges against the Police force of Manila. One
night, the constabulary force went to attack the Police force, killing and wounding several policemen and
The Philippine Constabulary has grudges against the police of Manila and they want to inflict revenge for
the following reasons: (1) On December 13, 1920, a Manila police arrested a woman who is a member of
the household of a constabulary soldier and was allegedly abused by the said policeman. (2) Private
Macasinag of the Constabulary was shot by a Manila police and was mortally wounded. A day after the
incident, a rumor spread among the Constabulary that the Police who shot Macasinag was back to his
original duties while Macasinag was declared dead. There were also rumors that the said shooting was
ordered. On the night of December 15 some members of the Constabulary escaped their barracks through
a window (the saw out the window bars). They had rifles and ammunitions and were organized in groups
under the command of their sergeants and corporals. They attacked some Manila policemen in these
specific instances: (1) On Calle Real, Intramuros, a group of the Constabulary shot and killed an
American Policeman and his friend. (2) The Constabulary indiscriminately shot at a passer- by, causing a
death and wounding most of the passengers. (3) While riding a motorcycle driven by policeman Saplala,
Captain William E. Wichman (asst. chief of police in Manila) was shot and killed together with Saplala
(1) Is there connivance/conspiracy between the accusedYES
(2) Are the accused properly convicted of a violation of the Treason and Sedition LawYES
(1) Conspiracies are generally proved by a number of indefinite acts, conditions, and circumstances which
vary according to the purposes to be accomplished. If it be proved that the defendants pursued by their
acts the same object, one performing one part and another another part of the same, so as to complete it,
with a view to the attainment of the same object, one will be justified in the conclusion that they were
engaged in a conspiracy to the effect that object. It is incontestable that all of the defendants were imbued
with the same purpose, which was to avenge themselves on the police force of Manila. A common
feeling of resentment animated all. (2) Sedition, in its more general sense, is the raising of commotions or
disturbances in the State. The Philippine law on the subject makes all persons guilty of sedition who rise
publicly and tumultuously in order to obtain by force of outside of legal methods any one of five objects,

including that of inflicting any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of any official or agent
of the Insular government or of a provincial or municipal government. The counsel contested that it is
necessary that the offender should be a private citizen and the offended party a public functioinary, and
what really happened was a fight between two armed bodies of the Philippine Government. The court
held that this contention is without foundation.
The Treason and Sedition Law makes no distinction between the persons to which it applies. What is
important is that there is a public rising to incite or inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the person or
property of any official or agent of the Insular government or of a provincial or municipal government.
Judgment affirmed .

US vs Tolentino
14 May 1903, City of Manila: the theatrical work Kahapon, Ngayon at Bukas written in the Tagalog language by
Aurelio Tolentino (appellant) was presented in Teatro Libertad
He was then charged and convicted with the crime of uttering seditious words and writings, publishing and
circulating scurrilous libels against the Govt of the US and the Insular Govt of the Philippine Islands-Tolentino
came to appeal
Issue/s: Whether in writing, publishing and uttering the drama, the accused was in fact guilty of a violation of
section 8 of Act No. 292of the Philippine Commission upon which the information was based
Ruling: Yes


Theatrical work which was alleged to be seditious.

7 modes of committing the offense:
uttering seditious words or speeches
Writing, publishing, or circulating of scurrilous libels against the govt.
writing, publishing or circulating of scurrilous libels which tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in
executing his office
or which tend to instigate others to cabal or meet together for unlawful purposes
which suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies
which tend to stir up people against lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of the community, safety
and order of the govt
knowingly concealing such evil practices

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

SUSANO PEREZ (alias KID PEREZ), defendant-appellant.
Crispin Oben and Isidro Santiago for appellant.
Assistance Solicitor General Manuel P. Barcelona and Solicitor Esmeraldo Umali for appellee.
Susano Perez alias Kid Perez alias Kid Perez was convicted of treason by the 5th Division of the
People's Court sitting in Cebu City and sentenced to death by electrocution.
Seven counts were alleged in the information but the prosecution offered evidence only on counts 1,
2, 4, 5 and 6, all of which, according to the court, were substantiated. In a unanimous decision, the
trial court found as follows:
"As regards count No. 1
Count No. 1 alleges that the accused, together with the other Filipinos, recruited,
apprehended and commandeered numerous girls and women against their will for the
purpose of using them, as in fact they were used, to satisfy the immoral purpose and sexual
desire of Colonel Mini, and among such unfortunate victims, were Felina Laput, Eriberta
Ramo alias Miami Ramo, Eduarda Daohog, Eutiquia Lamay, Feliciana Bonalos and Flaviana
It would be unnecessary to recite here the testimonies of all the victims of the accused; it
sufficient to reproduce here succinctly the testimony of Eriberta Ramo. She testified that on
June 15, 1942, the accused came to her house to get her and told her that she was wanted
in the house of her aunt, but instead, she was brought to the house of the Puppet Governor
Agapito Hontanosas; that she escaped and returned to Baclayon her hometown; that the
accused came again and told her that Colonel Mini wanted her to be his Information Clerk;
that she did not accept the job; that a week later the accused came to Baclayon to get her,
and succeeded in taking some other girls Puppet Governor Agapito Hontanosas; that
Governor Hontanosas told her that Colonel Mini wanted her to be his wife; that when she
was brought to Colonel Mini the latter had nothing on but a "G" string; that he, Colonel Mini
threatened her with a sword tied her to a bed and with force succeeded in having carnal
knowledge with her; that on the following night, again she was brought to Colonel Mini and
again she was raped; that finally she was able to escape and stayed in hiding for three
weeks and only came out from the hiding when Colonel Mini left Tagbilaran.
"As regards count No. 2
Count No. 2 of the information substantially alleges: That accused in company with some
Japanese and Filipinos took Eriberta Ramo and her sister Cleopatra Ramo from their home
in Baclayon to attend a banquet and a dance organized in honor of Colonel Mini by the
Puppet Governor, Agapito Hontanosas in order that said Japanese Colonel might select
those first who would later be taken to satisfy his carnal appetite and that by means of threat,
force and intimidation, the above mentioned two sister were brought to the headquarters of
the Japanese Commander at the Mission Hospital in Tagbilaran where Eriberta Ramo was

forced to lived a life of shame. All these facts alleged in count No. 2 were testified to by said
witnesses Eriberta Ramo her mother Mercedes de Ramo. It is not necessary here to recite
once more their testimony in support of the allegations in court No. 2; this Court is fully
convinced that the allegation in said count No. 2 were fully substantiated by the evidence
"As regards count No. 4
Count No. 4 substantially alleges that on July 16, 1942, the two girls named Eduardo S.
Daohog and Eutiquia Lamay, were taken from their homes in Corella, Bohol, by the accused
and his companion named Vicente Bullecer, and delivered to the Japanese Officer, Dr.
Takibayas to satisfy his carnal appetite, but these two, the accused Susano Perez and his
companion Vicente Bullecer, before delivering them to said Japanese Officer, satisfied first
their lust; the accused Susano Perez raping Eduarda S. Daohog and his companion, Vicente
Bullecer, the other girl Eutiquia Lamay. Eduarda S. Daohog, testifying, said: that while on the
way to Tagbilaran, the accused though force and intimidation, raped her in an uninhabited
house; that she resisted with all her force against the desire of the accused, but of no avail;
that upon arriving in Tagbilaran, she was delivered to the Japanese Officer named Takibayas
who also raped her. Eutiquia Lamay testified that on July 16, 1942, the accused and his
companion, Bullecer, went to her house to take her and her sister; that her sister was then
out of the house; that the accused threatened her with a revolved if she refuses to go; that
she was placed in a car where Eduarda Daohog was; that while they were in the car, the
accused carried Eduarda out of the car, and their companion Bullecer took the other witness
(Eutiquia Lamay); that when the accused and Eduarda returned to the car, the latter;
Eduarda, covered her face, crying; that later, she and Eduarda were taken to the Governor's
house; that on arriving and in the presence of the Puppet Governor Hontanosas, the
Governor exclaimed: "I did not call for these girls": but the accused replied saying: "These
girls talked bad against the Japanese , and that is why we arrested them"; that the said
Governor Hontaosas then, said: "Take them to the Japanese "; that the accused and
Bullecer brought the two girls to the Japanese headquarters; that Eduarda was taken to one
room by the Japanese Captain called Dr. Takibayas, and she (Eutiquia Lamay) was taken to
another room by another Japanese living in that house; that she was raped by that Jap while
in the room; that she resisted all she could, but of no avail.
In the light of the testimonies of these two witnesses, Eduarda S. Daohog and Eutiquia
Lamay, all the allegations in Court No. 4 were fully proven beyond reasonable doubt.
"As regards count No. 5
Count No. 5 alleges: That on or about June 4, 1942, the said accused commandeered
Feliciana Bonalos and her sister Flaviana Bonalos on the pretext that they were to bee taken
as witnesses before a Japanese Colonel in the investigation of a case against a certain
Chinese (Insik Eping), and uponarriving at Tagbilaran, Bohol, the accused brought the
aforesaid two girls to the residence of Colonel Mini, Commander of the Japanese Armed
Forces in Bohol and by means of violence threat and intimidation, said Japanese Colonel
abused and had sexual intercourse with Flaviana Bonalos; that the accused subsequently of
Colonel Mini and through violence, threat and intimidation, succeeded in having carnal
knowledge with her against her will; that two days, later, upon the pretext of conducting the
unfortunate girls to their home, said accused brought the other girls Feliciana Bonalos to a

secluded place in Tagbilaran, Bohol, and in the darkness, by mean of threat and violence
had carnal knowledge with her against her will.
Feliciana Bonalos testifying in this count, declared that the accused came to get her on the
pretext that she was to be used as witness in a case affecting certain Chinaman before
Colonel Mini; that she and her younger sister Flaviana were brought in a car driven by the
accused; they were brought to the house of Colonel Mini; that sister Flaviana was conducted
into a room and after remaining in the same for about an hour, she came out with her hair
and her dress in disorder; that Flaviana told her immediately that she was raped against her
will by Colonel Mini; that she (Feliciana), after leaving the residence of said Jap officer, was
taken by Perez to an uninhabited house and there by threat and intimidation, the accused
succeeded in raping her; that when she returned to her (the witness), Flaviana was crying;
that the following day while conducting the two girls back to their hometown, she (Feliciana)
was also raped by the accused in an uninhabited house, against her will.
Victoriana Arayan (mother of Feliciana and Flaviana Bonalos) testified as following: That on
June 15, 1942, the accused came and told her that the Japanese needed her daughters to
be witnesses; that accordingly, he daughters, under that understanding, started for
Tagbilaran; that later, she went to Tagbilaran to look for her daughters and she found them in
the office of the Puppet Governor; that on seeing her, both daughters wept and told her that
they were turned over to the Japanese and raped them; that her daughter Flaviana told her
(the witness) that after the Japanese had raped her the accused also raped her (Flaviana) in
an uninhabited house; that the accused did not permit her two daughter to return home on
the pretext that the Puppet Governor was then absent and in the meanwhile they stayed in
the house of the accused Perez; that when her daughter returned to her house ultimately,
they related to her (mother) what happened; that both daughters told her they would have
preferred death rather than to have gone to Tagbilaran; that Feliciana told her (the mother)
that the accused had raped her.
The information give by Feliciana to her mother is admitted in evidence as a part of the res
gestaeregardless of the time that had elapsed between the occurrence and the time of the
information. In the manner these two witnesses testified in court, there could be no doubt
that they were telling the absolute truth. It is hard to conceived that these girls would assume
and admit the ignominy they have gone through if they were not true. The Court is fully
convinced that all the allegations contained in Court No. 5 have been proven by the
testimonies of these two witnesses beyond reasonable doubt.
"As regards count No. 6
Count No. 6, alleges: That the accused, together with his Filipino companion apprehended
Natividad Barcinas, Nicanora Ralameda and Teotima Barcinas, nurses of the provincial
hospital, for not having attended a dance and reception organized by the Puppet Governor in
honor of Colonel Mini and other Japanese high ranking officers, which was held in Tagbilaran
market on June 25, 1942; that upon being brought the Puppet Governor, they were severely
reprimanded by the latter; that on July 8, 1942, against said nurses were forced to attend
another banquet and dance in order that the Jap officers Mini and Takibayas might make a
selection which girls would suit best their fancy; that the real purpose behind those forcible
invitations was to lure them to the residence of said Japanese Officer Mini for immoral

Natividad Barcinas, a Lieutenant of the P.A., testified at length. She declared: That on June
29, 1942, she and companion nurses, saw the accused coming to the hospital with a
revolver and took them on a car to the office of the Puppet Governor where they were
severely reprimanded by the latter for not attending the dance held on June and receptions
was to select from among them the best girl that would suit the fancy of Colonel Mini for
immoral purposes that she and her companions were always afraid of the accused Perez
whenever he came to said hospital; that on one occasion, one of the nurses on perceiving
the approach of the accused, ran up into her room, laid down on bed and simulated to be
sick; that said accused, not satisfied, went up into the room of that particular nurse and
pulled out the blanket which covered her and telling her that it was only her pretext that she
was sick.
The testimony of Lt. Natividad Barcinas is fully corroborated by that of Nicanora Ralameda.
Said testimony need not be reproduced here.
In a carefully written brief for the appellant these findings are not questioned, but it is contended that
the deeds committed by the accused do not constitute treason. The Solicitor General submits the
opposite view, and argues that "to maintain and preserve the morale of the soldiers has always
been, and will always be, a fundamental concern of army authorities, for the efficiency of rests not
only on its physical attributes but also, mainly, on the morale of its soldiers" (citing the annual report
of the Chief of Staff, United State Army, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1933).
If furnishing women for immoral purposes to the enemies was treason because women's company
kept up their morale, so fraternizing with them, entertaining them at parties, selling them food and
drinks, and kindred acts, would be treason. For any act of hospitality without doubt produces the
same general result. yet by common agreement those and similar manifestation of sympathy and
attachment are not the kind of disloyalty that are punished as treason.
In a broad sense, the law of treason does not prescribe all kinds of social, business and political
intercourse between the belligerent occupants of the invaded country and its inhabitants. In the
nature of things, the occupation of a country by the enemy is bound to create relations of all sorts
between the invaders and the natives. What aid and comfort constitute treason must depend upon
their nature degree and purpose. To draw a line between treasonable and untreasonable assistance
is not always easy. The scope of adherence to the enemy is comprehensive, its requirement
indeterminate as was said Cramer vs. United States. 89 Law. ed., 1441.
As general rule, to be treasonous the extent of the aid and comfort given to the enemies must be to
render assistance to them as enemies and not merely as individuals and in addition, be directly in
furtherance of the enemies' hostile designs. To make a simple distinction: To lend or give money to
an enemy as a friend or out of charity to the beneficiary so that he may buy personal necessities is
to assist him as individual and is not technically traitorous. On the other hand, to lend or give him
money to enable him to buy arms or ammunition to use in waging war against the giver's country
enhance his strength and by same count injures the interest of the government of the giver. That is
treason. (See United States vs. Fricke, 259 F., 673; 63 C.J., 816, 817.)
Applying these principles to the case at bar, appellant's first assignment of error is correct. 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. Sexual and social relations with the Japanese did not directly
and materially tend to improve their war efforts or to weaken the power of the United State. The acts
herein charged were not, by fair implication, calculated to strengthen the Japanese Empire or its
army or to cripple the defense and resistance of the other side. Whatever favorable effect the
defendant's collaboration with the Japanese might have in their prosecution of the war 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
particular case.
But the accused may be punished for the rape of Eriberta Ramo, Eduarda Daohog, Eutiquia Lamay
and Flaviana Bonalos as principal by direct participation. Without his cooperation in the manner
above stated, these rapes could not have been committed.
Conviction of the accused of rapes instead of treason finds express sanction in section 2 of
Commonwealth Act No. 682, which says:
Provided further, That where, in its opinion, the evidence is not sufficient to support the
offense (treason) charged, the People's Court may, nevertheless, convict and sentence the
accused for any crime included in the acts alleged in the information and established by the
All the above mentioned rapes are alleged in the information and substantiated by the evidence.
Counsel assails the constitutionality of this of his provision as violative of section 1, paragraph 17,
Article III of the Constitution, which guarantees to an accused the right "to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation against him." The contention is not well taken. The provision in requires
that the private crimes of which an accused of treason may be convicted must be averred in the
information and sustained by evidence. In the light of this enactment, the defendant was warned of
the hazard that he might be founded guilty of rapes if he was innocent of treason and thus afforded
an opportunity to prepare and meet them. There is no element of surprise or anomaly involved. In
facts under the general law of criminal procedure convicted for crime different from that designated
in the complaint or information is allowed and practiced, provided only that such crime "is included or
described in the body of the information, and afterwards justified by the proof presented during the
trial." (Peoplevs. Perez, 45 Phil., 599.)
The defendant personally assaulted and abused two of the offended girls but these assaults are not
charged against him and should be ruled out. The crime of coercion alleged and founded on count
No. 6. need not be noticed in view of the severity of the penalty for the other crimes which he must
We find the defendant guilty of four separate crimes of rape and sentence him for each of them to an
indeterminate penalty of from 10 year of prision mayor to 17 year and 4 months of reclusion
temporal, with the accessories of law, to indemnify each of the offended women in the sum of
P3,000, and to pay the costs; it being understood that the total duration of these penalties shall not
exceed forty years.

Moran, C.J., Feria, Perfecto, Bengzon, Briones and Reyes, JJ., concur.
Paras, J., reserves his vote.
Montemayor, J., concurs in the result.
That the women were brought by the accused to the Japanese soldiers for sexual purposes:

Commandeering of women to satisfy the lust of Japanese officers or men or to enliven the entertainments
held in their honor was not reason even though the women and the entertainments helped to make life
more pleasant for the enemies and boost their spirit.
The law of treason does not prescribe all kinds of social, business and political intercourse bet the
belligerent occupants of the invaded country and it inhabitants.

Espuelas vs People
G.R. No. L-2990
December 17, 1951
On June 9 and June 24, 1947, both dates inclusive, in the town of Tagbilaran, Bohol, Oscar Espuelas y Mendoza
had his picture taken, making it to appear as if he were hanging lifeless at the end of a piece of rope suspended
form the limb of the tree, when in truth and in fact, he was merely standing on a barrel. After securing copies of
his photograph, Espuelas sent copies of same to Free Press, the Evening News, the Bisayas, Lamdang of general
circulation and other local periodicals in the Province of Bohol but also throughout the Philippines and abroad, for
their publication with a suicide note or letter, wherein he made to appear that it was written by a fictitious suicide,
Alberto Reveniera and addressed to the latter's supposed wife translation of which letter or note, stating his dismay
and administration of President Roxas, pointing out the situation in Central Luzon and Leyte, and directing his wife
his dear wife to write to President Truman and Churchill of US and tell them that in the Philippines the government
is infested with many Hitlers and Mussolinis.
Whether the accused is liable of seditious libel under Art. 142 of the RPC against the Government of the
Yes. The accused must therefore be found guilty as charged. And there being no question as to the legality of the
penalty imposed on him, the decision will be affirmed with costs.
Analyzed for meaning and weighed in its consequences, the article written bybthe accused, cannot fail to impress
thinking persons that it seeks to sow the seeds of sedition and strife. The infuriating language is not a sincere effort
to persuade, what with the writer's simulated suicide and false claim to martyrdom and what with is failure to
particularize. When the use irritating language centers not on persuading the readers but on creating disturbances,
the rationale of free speech cannot apply and the speaker or writer is removed from the protection of the
constitutional guaranty.
If it be argued that the article does not discredit the entire governmental structure but only President Roxas and
his men, the reply is that article 142 punishes not only all libels against the Government but also "libels against any
of the duly constituted authorities thereof." The "Roxas people" in the Government obviously refer of least to the
President, his Cabinet and the majority of legislators to whom the adjectives dirty, Hitlers and Mussolinis were
naturally directed. On this score alone the conviction could be upheld.
Regarding the publication, it suggests or incites rebellious conspiracies or riots and tends to stir up people against
the constituted authorities, or to provoke violence from opposition who may seek to silence the writer. Which is the
sum and substance of the offense under consideration.
The essence of seditious libel may be said to its immediate tendency to stir up general discontent to the pitch of
illegal courses; that is to say to induce people to resort to illegal methods other than those provided by the
Constitution, in order to repress the evils which press upon their minds.


On 1 February 1988, military agents were dispatched to the St. Agnes Hospital,
Roosevelt Avenue, Quezon City, to verify a confidential information which was
received by their office, about a "sparrow man" (NPA member) who had been
admitted to the said hospital with a gunshot wound. That the wounded man in
the said hospital was among the five (5) male "sparrows" who murdered two
(2) Capcom mobile patrols the day before, or on 31 January 1988 at about
12:00 o'clock noon, before a road hump along Macanining St., Bagong Barrio,
Caloocan City. The wounded man's name was listed by the hospital
management as "Ronnie Javellon," twenty-two (22) years old of Block 10, Lot 4,
South City Homes, Bian, Laguna however it was disclosed later that the true
name of the wounded man was Rolando Dural. In view of this verification,
Rolando Dural was transferred to the Regional Medical Servicesof the CAPCOM,
for security reasons. While confined thereat, he was positively identified by the
eyewitnesses as the one who murdered the 2 CAPCOM mobile patrols.

Issue: Whether







Held: Rolando

Dural 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 as
offense when arrested. The crimes 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.

Case of 8 habeas corpus.

Arrest without a warrant is justified when the person arrested is caught in flagranti delicto. An
arrest without a warrant of arrest under sec. 5 par a and b of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, as amended,
is justified when the person arrested is caught in flagranti delicto, viz in the act of committing an offensel
or when an offense has just been committed and the person making the arrest has personal knowledge of
the facts indicating that the person arrested has committed it.

Habeas Corpus; Subversion; The crimes of rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to

commit such crimes and offenses committed in furtherance thereof of in connection therewith constitute
direct assaults against the State are in the nature continuing crimes. Rolando Dural was arrested for being
a member of the NPA, an outlawed subversive organization. Subversion being a continuing offense, the
arrest of Rolando Dural without warrant is justified as it can be said that he was committing an offense
when arrested. The crimes, and crimes or offenses committed in furtherance thereof or in connection
therewith constitute direct assaults against the State and are in the nature of continuing crimes.


Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag outside of the convention center where
the 1984 Republican National Convention was being held in Dallas, Texas. Johnson
burned the flag to protest the policies of President Ronald Reagan. He was arrested
and charged with violating a Texas statute that prevented the desecration of a
venerated object, including the American flag, if such action were likely to incite anger in
others. A Texas court tried and convicted Johnson. He appealed, arguing that his
actions were "symbolic speech" protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court
agreed to hear his case.

Whether flag burning constitutes "symbolic speech" protected by the First Amendment.


The majority of the Court, according to Justice William Brennan, agreed with Johnson
and held that flag burning constitutes a form of "symbolic speech" that is protected by
the First Amendment. The majority noted that freedom of speech protects actions that
society may find very offensive, but society's outrage alone is not justification for
suppressing free speech.
In particular, the majority noted that the Texas law discriminated upon viewpoint, i.e.,
although the law punished actions, such as flag burning, that might arouse anger in
others, it specifically exempted from prosecution actions that were respectful of
venerated objects, e.g., burning and burying a worn-out flag. The majority said that the
government could not discriminate in this manner based solely upon viewpoint.

Justice Stevens
Writing for the dissent, Justice Stevens argued that the flag's unique status as a symbol
of national unity outweighed "symbolic speech" concerns, and thus, the government
could lawfully prohibit flag burning.