PIRACYPEOPLE V. LOL-LO SARAW Facts: A boat in which there were eleven men, women and children arrived between the islands of Buang and Bukid in the Ducth East Indies and was subsequently surrounded by six vintas manned by twenty four moros all armed. They first asked for food but once on the boat, took themselves all of the cargo, attacked some of the men and brutally violated two of the women. All of the persons on the boat placed on it holes were made on it with the idea that it would submerge, but after eleven days of hardship they were succoured. Two of the moro marauders were Lol-lo and Saraw who later returned their home in Sulu, Philippines where they were arrested and charged with the crime of piracy. Issue: Did the court of first instance in the Philippines have jurisdiction over Lol-lo and Saraw? Held: Yes, 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 may be found or into which he may be carried. Nor does it matter that the crime was committed within the jurisdictional three-mile limit of a foreign state. Lol-lo who raped one of the women was sentenced to death. There being the aggravating circumstance of cruelty, abuse of superior strength and ignominy. PEOPLE V. TULIN Facts: A cargo vessel owned by the PNOC shipping and transport corporation, loaded with barrels or kerosene, regular gasoline and diesel oil was absorbed by 7 fully armed pirates. The pirates including the accused Roger P. Tulin, Virgilio Loyola and Andres Infante detained the crew and completely took over the vessel. The vessel was directed to proceed to Singapore where the cargoes where unloaded, transferred and sold under the direct supervision of accused Cheong San Hiong. Thereafter, the Bessel returned to the Philippines. All the accused were charged with qualified piracy or violation of PD 532. The accused Cheong argues that the trial court erred in convicting and punishing him as an accomplice when the acts allegedly committed by him were executed outside the Philippine waters and territory. Issue: Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva 1 CRIMINAL LAW 2 Page | Suddenly. They boarded the pump boat of the Pilapils and pointed his gun at Eugene. The regional trial court found Catantan and Bimbo guilty of violating PD 532. Held: As regards the contention that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of accused. although the captive vessel was later brought to Singapore where its cargo was off-loaded and such transfer was done under accused-appellant Hiong’s direct supervision. Although PD 532 requires that the attack and seizure of the vessel and its cargo be committed in PH waters.Whether or not the Philippines is without jurisdiction to try a crime committed outside the Philippine waters and territory. appellant Hiong since the crime was committed outside the Philippine waters suffice it to state that unquestionably. another boat caught with them. The disposition by the pirates of the vessel and its cargo is still deemed part of the act of piracy. the attack on M/T Tabangco and its cargo were committed in PH waters. Hence. However. They were later identified as the accused Emilio Catantan and Jose Ursal alias “Bimbo”. Pilapil brothers took the change and escaped. They saw another boat operated by Juanito and ordered the Pilapil brothers to approach the boat. the same need not to be committed in Philippine waters. as they went farther out into the open sea the engine stopped running. such compulsion was part of the act of seizing their boat. They hogtied Eugene and covered him up and ordered Juan to ferry them to Daan Tagobon using their pump boat. The occupants of the vessel were forced to go elsewhere other than their place of destination. CATANTAN Facts: The Pilapil brothers Eugene and Juan were fishing in the sea around 3 kilometers away from the shores of Tabogan. Held: There were piracy and not grave coercion where as part of the act of seizing their boat. Catantan boarded Juanito’s pump boat and ordered him to take them to mungaz. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva 2 CRIMINAL LAW 2 Page | . Issue: Whether or not Emilio Catantan violated PD 532 and not grave coercion. PEOPLE V. While it may be true that Eugene and Juan were compelled to go elsewhere other than their place of destination. This case falls squarely within the concept of piracy. Cebu. he admitted that it was raining at that time. CAYAO V. a boat bearing ten armed men. who turned out to be the owner of the boats found at around 4:30 to 5:00pm being constructed at Brgy. Issue: Whether the petitioner is guilty of Arbitrary Detention. Furthermore. The DENR team was then bought to petitioner’s house in Daram. a bus driver overtook another bus and as a consequence. There they met petitioner Astorga. PEOPLE Facts: The offended parties together with SPO3 Andres Cinco Jr and SPO1 Rufo Capoquian were sent to the Island of Daram Western Samar to conduct intelligence operations on possible illegal logging activities. where they had dinner and drinks. the Mayor of Daram. Cayao chose confinement for 3 days and was forced to sign a “waiver if detention” by Judge Del Mundo. DEL MUNDO Facts: An administrative complaint was filed by Fernando Cayao with the office of the Court Administrator for charging Judge Justiano Del Mundo with abuse of authority. Held: Petitioner Astorga is acquitted of the crime of Arbitrary Detention on the ground of reasonable doubt. Hence.ARBITRARY DETENTION ASTORGA V. The team left at 2:00am. Cayao. Cayao was brought by the policemean in the Sala of Judge Del mundo and was compelled by Judge Del Mundo to choose from 3 alternative punishment: a) to face charge of multiple homicide b) revocation of is driver’s license c) to be put in jail for 3 days. is fear. Petitioner called for reinforcement and moments later. in the absence of actual physical restraint. Cayao almost collided head on with an oncoming owner-type jeepney owned by Judge Del Mundo. The court find no proof that petitioner instilled fear in the minds of the private offended parties. Issue: Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva 3 CRIMINAL LAW 2 Page | . Locob-Locob. it is possible that the petitioner prevented the team from leaving the island because it was unsafe for them to travel by boat. some wearing fatigues arrived at the scene. The determinate factor in Arbitrary detention. A heated altercation ensued between petitioner and the DENR team. GARCIA Facts: Carlos Garcia. the right to be heard by himself and counsel. It is accepted that other public officer like judges and mayors who act with abuse of their functions. Patricio Botero and Luisa Miraples were accused of illegal recruitment. SALONGA Facts: Accused Captain Tuvera Sr. his territorial jurisdiction is smaller. can be liable for the crime of arbitrary detention Held: Yes. was charged with Arbitrary Detention together with other private persons for maltreating petitioner Valdez and for deliberately depriving the same of his constitutional liberty without any legal ground. the public officers liable for arbitrary detention must be vested with authority to detain or order the detention of persons accused of a crime. Accused respondent then filed a motion to quash the information on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute the elements of said crime and that the proofs adduced at the investigation are not sufficient to support the filing of the information. Inc. The complaint was not accorded any of the basic rights to which an accused is entitled. Petitioner Assistant Fiscal Milo filed an opposition. MILO V. Held: Judge Del Mundo used and abused his position of authority in intimidating the complaint as well as the members of the police force into submitting to his excesses.Whether or not Judge Del Mundo is guilty of the charge of warrantless arrest and arbitrary detention. Issue: Whether or not the accused respondent. Cayao was deprived from the presumption of innocence. It was alleged that they represented themselves as incorporators and officers of Ricorn Philippine International Shipping Lines. and that Ricorn is a recruitment agency for seamen. One need not to be a police officer to be chargeable with arbitrary detention. PEOPLE V. A perusal of the powers and functions vested in mayors would show that they are similar to those of a barrio captain except that in the case of the latter. being a barrio captain. may be guilty of this crime. It was later discovered that Ricorn was never registered with the Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva 4 CRIMINAL LAW 2 Page | . averring that the accused respondent was not a public officer who can be charged with arbitrary detention. the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him as well as the right to an impartial and public trial. When he was receiving applicants. As they headed to the highway. They arrived in the morning and were able to talk to Macapagal concerning the gold nuggets that purportedly being sold by the latter. Macapagal ordered the driver to stop. Inc. Issue: Whether or not Botero is a mere employee of Ricorn.000 ransom. Both were convicted but Botero appealed. Held: No. Around 8:30 pm. VELASCO Facts: Issue: Held: PEOPLE V. Held: Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva 5 CRIMINAL LAW 2 Page | . he was receiving them behind a desk which has a nameplate representing his name and his position as a vice president of Ricorn Philippine International Shipping Lines. Suddenly. SILONGAN Facts: On March 16. businessman Alexander Saldona went to Sultan Kudarat with three other men to meet certain macapagal Silongan. He described the abductors as Macapagal’s brothers. Issue: Whether it is necessary that there is actual payment of ransom in the crime of kidnapping. 1996. The business transaction was postponed and continued in the afternoon due to the death of Macapagal’s relative and he has to pick his brother in Cotabato City.000.securities and exchange commission and that it was never authorized to recruit by the POEA. REBELLION OR INSURRECTION PEOPLE V. Alexander and his other companions were tied up and blindfolded. it was proven by evidence that he was introduced to the applicants as the vice president of Ricorn. Alexander’s companion were able to escape but Alexander was released after the payment of P12. 15 armed men appeared. Held: Courts usually give credence to the testimony off a girl who is a victim of sexual assault particularly if it constitutes incestuous rapes. Accused filed an appeal questioning the testimony of his daughter M and further alleged that it was not him who had raped his daughter but his brother-in-law. who has committed the act. because normally no person would be willing to undergo the humiliation of public trial and to testify on the details of her ordeal.No. PEOPLE V. it is not necessary for the crime to be committed. Benjamin. were it not to condemn injustice. Lovedioro then appealed the decision contesting the verdict of murder instead of rebellion. On November 6. What the law requires is the purpose of extorting money as ransom. Issue: Whether or not the testimonies and credibility of the complaint witness is in doubt and questionable. Elias Lovedioro was then charged of the crime of murder and was subsequently found guilty. has no weight in law and cannot be given any greater evidentiary value than the positive testimony of a rape victim. The victim died on the same day from massive blood loss. OLIVA Facts: Lorenzo Oliva. It was confirmed by the prosecution’s principal witness that Lovedioro was a member of the New People’s Army (NPA). Issue: Whether or not the accused-appellant committed rebellion or murder. if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence. Held: Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva 6 CRIMINAL LAW 2 Page | . LOVEDIORO Facts: Elias Lovedioro with three other companions fatally shot SPO3 Jesus Lucilo while the latter was walking along Burgos St. In addition. PEOPLE V. At least one overt act of demanding ransom is enough. 1992. Albay public market. The grave man of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman under any circumstances provided by law. father of the complainant M. mere denial. was charged with rape and was convicted of the said crime. a police officer. PEOPLE V. as well as with the thirty-one (31) defendants charged in the criminal cases of CFI of Manila. Rebellion constitutes ONLY ONE CRIME. AMADO HERNANDEZ Facts: About March 15. They were accused of being members of PKP Community Party of the Philippines which was actively engaged in armed rebellion against the government of the Philippines. In Hernandez Doctrine. offered no contribution to the achievements of the NPA’s subversive claims. and robbery are mere ingredient of the crime of rebellion as means “necessary” for perpetration of the offense. confederating and cooperating with each other. The extra-judicial confession of appellant was signed by him on every page Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva 7 CRIMINAL LAW 2 Page | . Edwin Nunez and six others were charged together of shooting Redempto Manadtad. etc. Manadtad. they committed the crime of rebellion causing murder. rebellion cannot be complexed wit common crimes such as killings. Evidence shows that Lovedioro’s allegation of membership to the NPA was conveniently infused to mitigate the penalty imposable upon him. etc. Dasig confessed that he and the group of Edwin Nunez killed Pfc. pillage. arson. enumerated in 13 attacks on government forces or civilians by HUKS. 1945. With the party of HUKBALAHAP. committed on the occasion and in furtherance thereof. Amado Hernandez and other appellant were accuse of conspiring. Issue: Whether or not the crime of rebellion can be complexed with murder. destruction of property. looting plunder. DASIG Facts: Appellants Rodrigo Dasig. as observed by the solicitor general. in fact there were no known acts of the victim’s that can be considered as offending to the NPA. He likewise admitted that he and Nunez were members of the Sparrow unit and their aliases were “Armand” and “Mabi”. arson. PEOPLE V. Held: The court ruled that murder. or robbery.The killing of the victim.. as he died while performing duties. Issue: Whether or not the accused-appellant is liable for extra-judicial killing of the deceased and participated in the act of rebellion. However. Held: Yes. He claimed that the custodial interrogation was done while he was very sick. Dasig contends that it is legally defective. SEDITION PEOPLE V. UMALI Facts: Issue: Held: PEOPLE V. CABRERA Facts: Issue: Held: PEOPLE V.thereof with the first page containing a certification likewise signed by him. accused Rogelio Dasig is found guilty of participating in an act of rebellion beyond reasonable doubt and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of 8 years imprisonment. NABONG Facts: Issue: Held: DIRECT ASSAULTS Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva 8 CRIMINAL LAW 2 Page | . On July 17. It is clear from the foregoing provision that direct assault is an offense against a person in authority. Ruben sustained slight injuries. As a result. Gelig was not liable for unintentional abortion for the absence of proof that such incident was the proximate cause of her slapping and pushing. Gemma later on suffered incomplete abortion.GELIG V. Gemma. belongs to the class of persons in authority. The trial court found the accused guilty of the crime of frustrated murder. by attacking. Issue: Whether or not the honourable court of appeals erred in finding that the petitioner can be convicted of slight physical injuries under the information changing her for direct assault with unintentional abortion. Held: Lydia Gelig was liable for direct assault and not unintentional abortion. Lydia slapped Gemma in the cheek and pushed her causing her to fall and hit a wall divider. One mode of committing it is. without public uprising. PEOPLE Facts: Petitioner Lydia Gelig impugns the decision promulgated by the court of appeals that set aside the decision of RTC. being a public school teacher. 1981. Issue: (1) Whether or not the court of appeals was correct in modifying the crime from frustrated to attempted murder (2) Whether or not there was an intent to kill. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva 9 CRIMINAL LAW 2 Page | . Lydia was convicted of committing the complex crime of direct assault with unintentional abortion but the court of appeals found her guilty of the crime slight physical injuries. changing the crime to attempted murder. PEOPLE Facts: Ruben Rodil sustained injuries and was brought to the hospital for being ganged up by the accused Edgardo Rivera and his brother Esmeraldo Rivera. RIVERA V. but the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision with modification. Gemma suffered contusion in her maxillary area and continued experiencing abdominal pain and started bleeding two days after the incident. employing force or seriously intimidate or resist any person in authority or his agent. Because of fist blows and coup injury. An appeal was made by the accused. and number of wounds sustained by the victim. In this case the victim was performing his duties. in the means used by the malefactors. article 6 of the Revised Penal Code provides that there is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some causes other his own desistance. then appeared at the scene and asked Major Abalos what’s happening. Labine collapsed and sustained head fracture. Held: The appellant committed the second mode of committing direct assault. a woman shouted “police officer. The trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of complex crime of direct assault with murder.. The killing in the instant case constituted the felony of murder qualified by alevosia. (2) Yes. He then swiftly returned and unceremoniously swung with that wooden piece at Labine from behind. that is. while acciised Tiburcio Abalos and his father were having a heated argument. inter alia. PEOPLE V. the court declared that evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against persons may consist. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva 10 CRIMINAL LAW 2 Page | .” The victim P/Pfc. 1983. ABALOS Facts: In the evening of March 20. use of force. The victim saluted Abalos when the latter turned around to face him. accused hurriedly left and procured a piece of wood which is about two inches thick. location.Held: (1) Yes. the nature. help us! Somebody is making trouble here. hitting the policeman at the back of his head. that the assault was made when the said person was performing duties. The elements of which are that there must be attack. or serious intimidation or resistance upon authority or his agent. Labine. he was maintaining peace and order during the fiesta in barangay. Issue: Whether or not the court erred finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of direct assault with murder. As Major Abalos levelled his carbine at Labine. T/Sgt. Two days after. The three gunmen positioned themselves as to immobilize the two Capcom soldiers. DURAL Facts: On January 31. At the said hospital. 1988. The crimes he committeed are two complex crimes of murder with direct assault upon an agent of the person in authority. while two prosecution witnesses were on their way to Tupadahan. CA Facts: Issue: Held: CLEMENTE V. they saw three armed men firing upon the two Capcom soldiers. PEOPLE Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva 11 CRIMINAL LAW 2 Page | . consequently the investigator brought them at the Capcom headquarters at Bicutan then at the camp Panopio Hospital. eyewitnessed voluntarily went at the Capcom headquarters to narrate what they have witnessed. the Supreme Court held that there is no doubt that appellant Dural and the two other gunmen knew that the victims. ILLEGAL POSSESSION AND USE OF FALSE TREASURY OR BANK NOTES AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS OF CREDIT TECSON V. they identified one of the three gunmen referring to accused Dural who shot two Capcom soldiers. they head gunshot and immediately hide.PEOPLE V. Carlos Pabon and CIC Renato Mahiglot. Issue: Whether or not appellants are guilty of direct assault. were members of the Philippine Constabulary detailed with the CAPCOM as they were then in uniform and riding an official CAPCOM car. The victims were agents and persons in authority. From the place they were hiding. Held: Yes. They were co-ownders of an undivided land. Nueva Vizcaya. parcel of land located at Solano. they are recognized exceptions. Held: Yes. al. premises considered. give added value to her testimony. SALVADOR Facts: On July 29. 1959. Tamani allegedly sold the disputed property to Milagros Cruz. compared to that of Albacea. HERNANDEZ Facts: Issue: Held: TAMANI V. 1986. On August 17. m. Issue: Whether or not court of appeals erred in overturning the factual findings of RTC. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva 12 CRIMINAL LAW 2 Page | . even though the discussion of CA is binding. among which is when the findings of the trial court and appellate court is conflicting.Facts: Issue: Held: HOW FORGERY IS COMMITTED HERNANDEZ V. the petition is granted. RTC rendered decision ruling in petitioner’s favour. Court of Appeals issued a decision ruling in favour of the respondents. over a 431 sq. a complaint for quieting of title was filed by respondents spouses Roman Salvador and Filomena Bravo against petitioners Tamani et. The CA was thus correct when it declared that the judge must conduct his own independent examination of signature. Her superior credentials. Wherefore. While it was improper for the RTC to solely rely on Sorra’s credentials. PEOPLE Facts: Issue: Held: GALEOS V. PEOPLE Facts: Issue: Held: GARCIA V. CA Facts: Issue: Held: MACHINATION IN PUBLIC AUCTION OANI V. NOTARY PUBLIC OR ECCLESIASTICAL MINISTER GUILERGAN V. PEOPLE Facts: Issue: Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva 13 CRIMINAL LAW 2 Page | . PEOPLE Facts: Issue: Held: GONZALUDO V. EMPLOYEE.FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC OFFICER. Held: Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva 14 CRIMINAL LAW 2 Page | .