People vs Lol-Lo and Saraw G.R. No. 17958.

27 February 1922
Facts: A boat, in which there were 11 men, women & children, arrived between the Islands of Buang and Bukid
in the Dutch East Indies. There the boat was surrounded by 6 vintas manned by 24 Moros all armed. The
Moros first asked for food, but once on the boat, took for themselves all of the cargo, attacked some of the
men, and brutally violated the 2 of the women by methods too horrible to be described . All of the persons on
the boat with the exception of the 2 young women, were again placed on it & holes were made in it, with the
idea that it would submerge, but after 11 days of hardship & privation they were succored. 2 of the Moro
marauders were Lol-lo & Saraw who later returned to their home in Sulu, Phils. There they were arrested &
were charged in the CFI of Sulu with the crime of piracy.

Issue: WON the court has jurisdiction?

Held: It cannot be contended with any degree of force that the CFI of Sulu was without jurisdiction of the case.
Piracy is a crime not against any particular state but against all mankind. It may be punished in the
competent tribunal of any country where the offender maybe found or into which he maybe carried. Nor does it
matter that the crime was committed within the jurisdictional 3-mile limit of a foreign state. The crime of piracy
was accompanied by 1) rape and 2) the abandonment of persons without means of saving themselves. Lol-lo
who raped one of the women was sentenced to death, there being the aggravating circumstances of cruelty,
abuse of superior strength and ignominy, without any mitigating circumstance.

People vs Siyoh, 141 SCRA 356 ( Qualified Piracy, a special complex crime )

FACTS
> Julaide Siyoh and Omarkyam Kiram, together with Namli Indanan and Andaw Jamahali were accused of
qualified piracy with triple murder and frustrated murder
> On July 10, 1979, Antonio de Guzman together with his friends who were also travelling merchants like
him (Danilo Hiolen. Rodolfo de Castro and Anastacio de Guzman) were on their way to Pilas Island,
Province of Basilan, to sell goods they received from Alberto Aurea.
> They left for Pilas Island at 2:00 p.m. of July 10, 1979 on a pumpboat. They took their dinner and slept
that night in the house of Omar-kayam Kiram at Pilas Island. Who also helped them from selling their goods
to different Islands near Pilas.
> Before the incident happened, Antonio, the lone survivor saw that Kiram was talking with another two
persons that he can only recognize in their faces somewhere near the house where they were selling the
goods
> On July 14, 1979, When they were heading back to Pilas Island from Baluk-Baluk Island through riding a
pumpboat where Siyoh positioned himself at the front while Kiram operated the engine.
> On the way to Pilas Island, Antonio de Guzman saw another pumpboat painted red and green about 200
meters away from their pumpboat Shortly after" Kiram turned off the engine of their pumpboat. Thereafter
two shots were fired from the other pumpboat as it moved towards them
> There were two persons on the other pumpboat who were armed with armantes. De Guzman recognized
them to be the same persons he saw Kiram conversing with in a house at Baluk-Baluk Island.
> When the boat came close to them, Kiram threw a rope to the other pumpboat which towed de Guzman's
pumpboat towards Mataja Island.
> On the way to Mataja Island, Antonio de Guzman and his companions were divested of their money and
their goods by Kiram. Thereafter Kiram and his companions ordered the group of de Guzman to undress.
Taking fancy on the pants of Antonio de Guzman, Kiram put it on.
> With everybody undressed, Kiram said 'It was good to kill all of you'. After that remark, Siyoh hacked
Danilo Hiolen while Kiram hacked Rodolfo de Castro. Antonio de Guzman jumped into the water. As he was
swimming away from the pumpboat, the two companions of Kiram fired at him, injuring his back. But he was
able to reach a mangrove where he stayed till nightfall. When he left the mangrove, he saw the dead bodies
of Anastacio de Guzman, Danilo Hiolen and Rodolfo de Castro. He was picked up by a fishing boat and
brought to the Philippine Army station at Maluso where he received first aid treatment. Later he was brought
to the J.S. Alano Memorial Hospital at Isabela, Basilan province.
> On July 15, 1979, while waiting for the dead bodies of his companions at the wharf, de Guzman saw
Siyoh and Kiram. He pointed them out to the PC and the two were arrested before they could run. When
arrested, Kiram was wearing the pants he took from de Guzman and de Guzman had to ask Pat. Bayabas
at the Provincial Jail to get back his pants from Kiram

ISSUE: WoN the respondent-appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt?

CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANTS
1. Since it was contested by appellants that there guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt since the
prosecution did not present evidence that the accused were also the one who killed Anastacio de Guzman
because his remains are never recovered.
2. The Credibility of the Witnesssince only 1 witness was presented
3. Appellants claim (Siyoh and Kiram) that they were not the assailants but also the victim

HELD: They were said to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified piracy with triple murder and
frustrated homicide

RATIONALE
1. Number of persons killed on the occasion of piracy, not material; Piracy, a special complex crime
punishable by deathbut the number of persons killed on the occasion of piracy is not material. PD 532
considers qualified piracy as a special complex crime punishable by death. Therefore, the guilt of
respondent were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
2. There was no other evidence presented on why should the lone survivor tell lies and fabricate story as to
apprehend the accused.
3. Appellants claim that they were not the assailants but also the victim and that the two persons they have
identified (Namli Indanan and Andaw Jamahali) is baseless as view in the proven conspiracy among the
accused. The Conspiracy was established through the testimony of the lone witness and survivor- De
Guzman"

People vs Hernandez, 99 Phil. 515 (1956)

Facts:
On or about March 15, 1945, and for some time before the said date and continuously thereafter until the
present time, 31 defendants and others whose whereabouts and identities were still unknown, accused and
their co-conspirators, officers and members of or associated with Congress of Labor Organization (CLO),
an active agency, organ and instrumentality of the Communist Party of the Philippines (PKP) cooperates
and synchronizes its activities with the rebellious activities of Hukbong Mapagpalayag Bayan (HMB) to
thereby assure, facilitate and effect the complete and permanent success of the armed rebellion against
the Republic of the Philippines.
Hukbalahaps have risen publicly and taken arms to remove the territory of the Philippines from the
allegiance of the government. Making armed raids, sorties and ambushes, attacks against police,
constabulary and army detachments as well as innocent civilians. In furtherance, committed acts of murder,
pillage, looting, plunder, arson, and planned destruction of private and public property to create and spread
chaos, disorder, terror and fear.

Issue: Whether or not defendants are guilty of the crime Conspiracy and Proposal to commit Rebellion or
Insurrection.

Held:
Yes. The court found Hernandez to have close connections with the Secretariat of the Communist Party. In
the testimonies shown in court, it appears that Taruc and other CPP leaders used to send notes to
Hernandez, who in turn issued press releases in the local papers. His acts belong to the category of
propaganda, to which he appears to have limited his actions to communism.The advocacy of communism
is not to be considered as a criminal act of conspiracy unless transformed or converted into an advocacy of
action. In the very nature of things, mere advocacy of a theory or principle is insufficient unless the
communist advocates action, immediate and positive, the actual agreement to start an uprising or rebellion
or an agreement forged to use force and violence in an uprising of the working class to overthrow
constituted authority and seize the reins of government itself. Only when the communist advocates action
and actual uprising, war or otherwise, becomes guilty of conspiracy to commit rebellion.

People vs. Cabrera, et al. 43 Phil. 64 & 82

Facts: A policeman posted on Calle Real had an encounter with some constabulary soldiers, resulting in
the death of a constabulary private. This encounter engendered on the part of the constabulary soldiers
a desire for revenge against the police force in Mainila. They escaped from the barracks with their guns
and made an attack upon the police force. They fired in the direction of the intersection of Calles Real
and Cabildo, killing a policeman and a civilian. They also fired upon a passing street car, slaying one
and wounding other innocent passengers. They attacked the Luneta Police Station and the office of the
secret service.

Held: The crime committed is sedition. The object of the uprising was to inflict an act of hate or revenge
upon the persons of the policemen who were public officers or employees.

The object of the uprising in this case is that one stated in par. 3 of Art. 139. Note also that in sedition,
the offenders need not be private individuals.

K.R. Savage, et al, vs Taypin, et. al.,

GR No. 134217, May 11, 2000, Bellosillo, J.
FACTS: Acting on a complaint lodged by private respondent Eric Ng Mendoza, president and general
manager of Mendco Development Corporation (MENDCO), the NBI filed an application for search
warrant with the RTC of Cebu City.
The application sought the authorization to search the premises of K Angelin Export International located
in Biasong, Talisay, Cebu, and to seize the pieces of wrought iron furniture found therein which were
allegedly the object of unfair competition involving design patents, punishable under Art. 189 of the RPC
as amended.
Petitioner moved to quash the search warrant alleging the following issues below.

ISSUES: (1) Questions involving jurisdiction over the offense; (2) The need for certification of non-forum
shopping;
(3) The existence of the crime.

HELD: Petition granted.

I. Petitioners apparently misconstrued the import of the designation of Special Courts for IPR. The power
to issue search warrants for violations of IPR has not been exclusively vested in the courts enumerated
SC Administrative Order No.113-95. The power to issue search warrants is inherent in all courts and may
be effected outside the territorial jurisdiction.
II. In this case at bar, there is no allegation of forum-shopping, only failure to acquire a certification
against forum-shopping. . The Rules of Court as amended requires such certification only from initiatory
pleadings, omitting any mention of "applications."
III. The Intellectual Property Code took effect on 1 January 1998. The issue involving the existence of
"unfair competition" as a felony involving design patents, referred to in Art. 189 of the Revised Penal
Code, has been rendered moot and academic by the repeal of the article. Although this case traces its
origins to the year 1997 or before the enactment of the IPR Code, we are constrained to invoke the
provisions of the Code. Article 22 of the RPC provides that penal laws shall be applied retrospectively, if
such application would be beneficial to the accused. 26 Since the IPR Code effectively obliterates the
possibility of any criminal liability attaching to the acts alleged, then that Code must be applied here.
 Hence, since there is no crime to speak of, the search warrant does not even begin to fulfill these
stringent requirements and is therefore defective on its face. All property seized by virtue thereof should
be returned to petitioners in accordance with established jurisprudence."

PITA VS CA

FACTS: Pursuant to the Anti-Smut Campaign of Mayor Ramon Bagatsng, policemen seized and confiscated
from dealers, distributors, newsstand owners and peddlers along Manila sidewalks, magazines, publications
and other reading materials believed to be obscene, pornographic, and indecent and later burned the seized
materials in public. Among the publications seized and later burned was "Pinoy Playboy" magazines published
and co-edited by plaintiff Leo Pita. After his injunctive relief was dismissed by the RTC and his appeal rejected
by CA, he seeks review with SC, invoking the guaranty against unreasonable searches and seizure.

Issue: W/N the search and seizure was illegal

HELD: YES. It is basic that searches and seizure may be done only through a judicial warrant , otherwise, they
become unreasonable and subject to challenge. In Burgos v Chief of Staff (133 SCRA 800) , the SC
countermanded the orders of the RTC authorizing the serach of the premises WE Forum and Metropolitan
Mail, two Metro Manila Dailies, by reason of a defective warrant. There is a greater reason in this case to
reprobate the questioned raid, in the complete absence of a warrant, valid or invalid. The fact that the instant
case involves an obscenity rap makes it no different from Burgos, a political case, because speech is speech,
whether political or "obscene". The authorities must apply for the issuance of the a search warrant from the
judge , if in their opinion, an obscenity rap is in order. They must convince the court that the materials sought to
be seized are "obscene" and pose a clear and present danger of an evil substantive enough to warrant State
interference and action. The judge must determine WON the same are indeed "obscene": the question is to be
resolved on a case-to-case basis and on the judge's sound discretion. If probable cause exist, a search
warrant will issue.

Salvador De Vera vs. Honorable Pelayo - GR No. 137354 Case Digest

Facts:

P filed a criminal case against Judge X for knowingly rendering unjust judgment and malicious delay in the
administration of justice before the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman referred the case to the Supreme Court for
appropriate action. P assails the referral of the case to the Supreme Court arguing that the Ombudsman, not
the Supreme Court, is the one vested with jurisdiction to resolve whether the crime charged was committed by
the judge.

Issue:

Whether the referral of the case to the Supreme Court is correct

Held:

Yes. Before a civil or criminal action against a judge for a violation of Art. 204 and 205 can be entertained,
there must first be a final and authoritative judicial declaration that the decision or order in question is indeed
unjust. The pronouncement may result from either: (a) an action of certiorari or prohibition in a higher court
impugning the validity of the judgment; or (b) an administrative proceeding in the Supreme Court against the
judge precisely for promulgating an unjust judgment or order. Likewise, the determination of whether a judge
has maliciously delayed the disposition of the case is also an exclusive judicial function.
 G.R. No. 86899-903 May 15, 1989173 SCRA 409 - Deloso vs Sandiganbayan

This petition seeks to annul and set aside the resolution of theSandiganbayan which preventively suspended
petitioner Amor D. Deloso(accused in the criminal cases) from his position as provincial governor of Zambales
and from any office that he may be holding.Deloso was the duly elected mayor of Botolan, Zambales in the
localelections of November 1971. While he occupied the position of mayor, acertain Juan Villanueva filed a
complaint with the Tanodbayan accusing himof having committed acts in violation of the Anti-Graft Law
(Republic Act3019) for issuing to certain Daniel Ferrer a tractor purchased by theMunicipality of Botolan thru a
loan financed by the Land Bank of thePhilippines for lease to local farmers at reasonable cost, without
anyagreement as to the payment of rentals for the use of tractor by the latter,thereby, causing undue injury to
the Municipality of Botolan.Deloso was, then, elected governor of the Province of Zambales in the January 18,
1988 local elections.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner be suspended indefinitely.

HELD

It would be most unfair to the people of Zambales who elected the petitionerto the highest provincial office in
their command if they are deprived of hisservices for an indefinite period with the termination of his case
possiblyextending beyond his entire term. The Court rules that a preventive suspension of an elective public
officerunder Section 13 of Republic Act 3019 should be limited to the ninety (90)days under Section 42 of
Presidential Decree No. 807, the Civil ServiceDecree, which period also appears reasonable and appropriate
under thecircumstances of this case. The petitioner may still be suspended but for specifically expressed
reasonsand not from an automatic application of Section 13 of the Anti-Graft andCorrupt Practices Act

Azarcon vs. Sandiganbayan

Facts: Petitioner Alfredo Azarcon owned and operated an earth-moving business, hauling dirt and ore. His
services were contracted by PICOP. Occasionally, he engaged the services of sub-contractors like Jaime Ancla
whose trucks were left at the formers premises.

On May 25, 1983, a Warrant of Distraint of Personal Property was issued by BIR commanding one of its
Regional Directors to distraint the goods, chattels or effects and other personal property of Jaime Ancla, a sub-
contractor of accused Azarcon and a delinquent taxpayer. A Warrant of Garnishment was issued to and
subsequently signed by accused Azarcon ordering him to transfer, surrender, transmit and/or remit to BIR the
property in his possession owned by Ancla. Azarcon then volunteered himself to act as custodian of the truck
owned by Ancla.

After some time, Azarcon wrote a letter to the Reg. Dir of BIR stating that while he had made representations
to retain possession of the property of Ancla, he thereby relinquishes whatever responsibility he had over the
said property since Ancla surreptitiously withdrew his equipment from him. In his reply, the BIR Reg. Dir. said
that Azarcons failure to comply with the provisions of the warrant did not relieve him from his responsibility.

Along with his co-accused, Azarcon was charged before the Sandiganbayan with the crime of malversation of
public funds or property. On March 8, 1994, the Sandiganbayan rendered a Decision sentencing the accused
to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from 10 yrs and 1 day of prision mayor in its maximum period to
17 yrs, 4 mos and 1 day of reclusion temporal. Petitioner filed a motion for new trial which was subsequently
denied by Sandiganbayan. Hence, this petition.

Issue: Whether or not Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a private individual designated by BIR as a
custodian of distrained property.

Held: SC held that the Sandiganbayans decision was null and void for lack of jurisdiction.

Sec. 4 of PD 1606 provides for the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. It was specified therein that the only
instances when the Sandiganbayan will have jurisdiction over a private individual is when the complaint
charges the private individual either as a co-principal, accomplice or accessory of a public officer or employee
who has been charged with a crime within its jurisdiction.

The Information does no charge petitioner Azarcon of becoming a co-principal, accomplice or accessory to a
public officer committing an offense under the Sandiganbayans jurisdiction. Thus, unless the petitioner be
proven a public officer, Sandiganbayan will have no jurisdiction over the crime charged.

Art. 203 of the RPC determines who public officers are. Granting that the petitioner, in signing the receipt for
the truck constructively distrained by the BIR, commenced to take part in an activity constituting public
functions, he obviously may not be deemed authorized by popular election. Neither was he appointed by direct
provision of law nor by competent authority. While BIR had authority to require Azarcon to sign a receipt for the
distrained truck, the National Internal Revenue Code did not grant it power to appoint Azarcon a public officer.
The BIRs power authorizing a private individual to act as a depositary cannot be stretched to include the
power to appoint him as a public officer. Thus, Azarcon is not a public officer.

People vs Adlawan, 83 Phil 195, GR No L-456; 29 March 1949

Facts

This is a review of the sentence of death and ne of P20,000.00 imposed upon appellant Cucufate Adlawan by
the Peoples Court wherein Adlawan was charged with treason but convicted of the complex crime of treason
with murder, robbery and rape.

Appellant Adlawan pleaded guilty to a complaint against charged against him. Said complaint states that during
the year 1943 to 1945, Adlawan adhered to the enemy, the Empire of Japan and its Imperial Japanese forces,
with treasonable intent to give aid and comfort to said enemy by going out on numerous patrol in company with
Japanese forces in search of guerilla and other elements resisting the enemy of the Philippines. In the course
of doing so, Adlawan also committed murder, torture, robbery, and rape.

Ruling

The Peoples Court convicted Adlawan guilty of the complex crime of treason with murder, robbery and rape.
He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of death and ne of P20,000.00.

Upon review before the SC Adlawan assails the conviction and the lower court should have appreciated his
mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender, that he is a witness utilized by the CIC and that he saved
many civilian lives from the Japanese forces. He further states that the lower court erred in appreciating the
aggravating circumstances treachery, murder, abuse of superiority and unnecessary cruelty. The SC modied
the decision of the lower court to the extent that the penalty to be imposed is reclusion perpetua and ne of
P20,000.00.

Rationale

The SC said that the aggravating circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength should not have
been considered. These are by their nature inherent in the offense of treason. However, the facts show that in
committing treason, appellant augmented the wrong by being cruel to captured guerilla suspects, subjecting
them to torture and death. He also chose to add ignominy by stripping off the clothes of a guerilla suspects
wife and abusing them with other Filipino girls. These two aggravating circumstances of unnecessary cruelty
and ignominy may be appreciated.

The penalty for the crime of treason is reclusion perpetua to death, and a ne not to exceed P20,000. Appellant
is given the benet of voluntary confession of guilty, but appreciating against him the aggravating
circumstances of unnecessary cruelty and ignominy, the penalty should be imposed in its maximum. However,
5 members of the court opposed the death penalty.

PADUA VS PEOPLE

FACTS: Michael Padua and companion were charged before the RTC for violating Sec 5 ART III of RA 9165,
otherwise known as Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 for selling dangerous drugs. Michael Padua
was 17 years old when he committed the crime. Padua pleaded guilty. Padua filed a petition for probation
alleging that he is a minor and a first-time minor offender. Padua wanted to avail benefits of first time offender
under Art. 70 of RA 9165. The RTC denied the probation on the ground that under Sec 24 of RA 9165, any
person convicted of drug trafficking cannot avail of the privilege granted by the probation law. Padua filed a
petition for certiorari before the CA. The CA denied the petition.

RULING: The SC affirmed the decision of the CA. Any person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing,
regardless of the penalty imposed, cannot avail of the privilege of PD 968.

PEOPLE vs. MANTALABA

FACTS: Allen Mantalaba, who was 17 years old at the time he was selling shabu. Two separate Information
were file before the RTC of Butuan City against the accused for violation of Sec 5 and 11 of RA 9165. The
RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sec 5 of RA 9165. As provided for in
Sec 98 of RA 9165, where the offender is a minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to
death shall be reclusion perpetua to death. Due to such conversion found in Sec 98 of RA 9165, instead of
being penalized with life imprisonment to death as the penalty provided for violation of Sec 5 of RA 916, it
is converted to reclusion perpetua to death. The accused was sentenced to Reclusion perpetua