PIRACY

PEOPLE 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 |

Whether or not the Philippines is without jurisdiction to try a crime committed outside the Philippine waters and
territory.
Held:
As regards the contention that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of accused, appellant
Hiong since the crime was committed outside the Philippine waters suffice it to state that unquestionably, the
attack on M/T Tabangco and its cargo were committed in PH waters, although the captive vessel was later
brought to Singapore where its cargo was off-loaded and such transfer was done under accused-appellant
Hiongs direct supervision.
Although PD 532 requires that the attack and seizure of the vessel and its cargo be committed in PH waters. The
disposition by the pirates of the vessel and its cargo is still deemed part of the act of piracy. Hence, the same
need not to be committed in Philippine waters.

PEOPLE V. CATANTAN
Facts:
The Pilapil brothers Eugene and Juan were fishing in the sea around 3 kilometers away from the shores of
Tabogan, Cebu. Suddenly, another boat caught with them. They were later identified as the accused Emilio
Catantan and Jose Ursal alias Bimbo. They boarded the pump boat of the Pilapils and pointed his gun at
Eugene. They hogtied Eugene and covered him up and ordered Juan to ferry them to Daan Tagobon using their
pump boat. However, as they went farther out into the open sea the engine stopped running. They saw another
boat operated by Juanito and ordered the Pilapil brothers to approach the boat. Catantan boarded Juanitos pump
boat and ordered him to take them to mungaz. Pilapil brothers took the change and escaped. The regional trial
court found Catantan and Bimbo guilty of violating PD 532.
Issue:
Whether or not Emilio Catantan violated PD 532 and not grave coercion.
Held:
There were piracy and not grave coercion where as part of the act of seizing their boat. The occupants of the
vessel were forced to go elsewhere other than their place of destination. This case falls squarely within the
concept of piracy. While it may be true that Eugene and Juan were compelled to go elsewhere other than their
place of destination, such compulsion was part of the act of seizing their boat.

Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva

2

CRIMINAL LAW 2

Page |

ARBITRARY DETENTION
ASTORGA V. 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. There they met
petitioner Astorga, the Mayor of Daram, who turned out to be the owner of the boats found at around 4:30 to
5:00pm being constructed at Brgy. Locob-Locob. A heated altercation ensued between petitioner and the DENR
team. Petitioner called for reinforcement and moments later, a boat bearing ten armed men, some wearing
fatigues arrived at the scene. The DENR team was then bought to petitioners house in Daram, where they had
dinner and drinks. The team left at 2:00am.
Issue:
Whether the petitioner is guilty of Arbitrary Detention.
Held:
Petitioner Astorga is acquitted of the crime of Arbitrary Detention on the ground of reasonable doubt. The
determinate factor in Arbitrary detention, in the absence of actual physical restraint, is fear. The court find no
proof that petitioner instilled fear in the minds of the private offended parties. Furthermore, he admitted that it
was raining at that time. Hence, it is possible that the petitioner prevented the team from leaving the island
because it was unsafe for them to travel by boat.

CAYAO V. 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, Cayao, a bus driver overtook another bus and as a
consequence, Cayao almost collided head on with an oncoming owner-type jeepney owned by Judge Del
Mundo. 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
drivers license c) to be put in jail for 3 days. Cayao chose confinement for 3 days and was forced to sign a
waiver if detention by Judge Del Mundo.
Issue:

Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva

3

CRIMINAL LAW 2

Page |

Whether or not Judge Del Mundo is guilty of the charge of warrantless arrest and arbitrary detention.
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. The complaint was not accorded any of the basic
rights to which an accused is entitled. Cayao was deprived from the presumption of innocence, the right to be
heard by himself and counsel, 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.

MILO V. SALONGA
Facts:
Accused Captain Tuvera Sr. 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. 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. Petitioner Assistant Fiscal Milo filed an opposition, averring
that the accused respondent was not a public officer who can be charged with arbitrary detention.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused respondent, being a barrio captain, can be liable for the crime of arbitrary detention
Held:
Yes, the public officers liable for arbitrary detention must be vested with authority to detain or order the
detention of persons accused of a crime. One need not to be a police officer to be chargeable with arbitrary
detention. It is accepted that other public officer like judges and mayors who act with abuse of their functions,
may be guilty of this crime. 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, his territorial jurisdiction is smaller.

PEOPLE V. GARCIA
Facts:
Carlos Garcia, Patricio Botero and Luisa Miraples were accused of illegal recruitment. It was alleged that they
represented themselves as incorporators and officers of Ricorn Philippine International Shipping Lines, Inc. and
that Ricorn is a recruitment agency for seamen. It was later discovered that Ricorn was never registered with the

Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva

4

CRIMINAL LAW 2

Page |

securities and exchange commission and that it was never authorized to recruit by the POEA. Both were
convicted but Botero appealed.
Issue:
Whether or not Botero is a mere employee of Ricorn.
Held:
No, it was proven by evidence that he was introduced to the applicants as the vice president of Ricorn. When he
was receiving applicants, 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, Inc.

REBELLION OR INSURRECTION
PEOPLE V. VELASCO
Facts:
Issue:
Held:

PEOPLE V. SILONGAN
Facts:
On March 16, 1996, businessman Alexander Saldona went to Sultan Kudarat with three other men to meet
certain macapagal Silongan. They arrived in the morning and were able to talk to Macapagal concerning the
gold nuggets that purportedly being sold by the latter. The business transaction was postponed and continued in
the afternoon due to the death of Macapagals relative and he has to pick his brother in Cotabato City. Around
8:30 pm. As they headed to the highway, Macapagal ordered the driver to stop. Suddenly, 15 armed men
appeared. Alexander and his other companions were tied up and blindfolded. He described the abductors as
Macapagals brothers. Alexanders companion were able to escape but Alexander was released after the
payment of P12,000,000 ransom.
Issue:
Whether it is necessary that there is actual payment of ransom in the crime of kidnapping.
Held:

Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva

5

CRIMINAL LAW 2

Page |

No, it is not necessary for the crime to be committed. At least one overt act of demanding ransom is enough.
What the law requires is the purpose of extorting money as ransom.

PEOPLE V. OLIVA
Facts:
Lorenzo Oliva, father of the complainant M, was charged with rape and was convicted of the said crime.
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, Benjamin, who has committed the act.
Issue:
Whether or not the testimonies and credibility of the complaint witness is in doubt and questionable.
Held:
Courts usually give credence to the testimony off a girl who is a victim of sexual assault particularly if it
constitutes incestuous rapes, because normally no person would be willing to undergo the humiliation of public
trial and to testify on the details of her ordeal, were it not to condemn injustice. The grave man of rape is carnal
knowledge of a woman under any circumstances provided by law. In addition, mere denial, if unsubstantiated
by clear and convincing evidence, has no weight in law and cannot be given any greater evidentiary value than
the positive testimony of a rape victim.

PEOPLE V. LOVEDIORO
Facts:
Elias Lovedioro with three other companions fatally shot SPO3 Jesus Lucilo while the latter was walking along
Burgos St. Albay public market. The victim died on the same day from massive blood loss. On November 6,
1992, Elias Lovedioro was then charged of the crime of murder and was subsequently found guilty. Lovedioro
then appealed the decision contesting the verdict of murder instead of rebellion. It was confirmed by the
prosecutions principal witness that Lovedioro was a member of the New Peoples Army (NPA).
Issue:
Whether or not the accused-appellant committed rebellion or murder.
Held:
Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva
6

CRIMINAL LAW 2

Page |

The killing of the victim, as observed by the solicitor general, offered no contribution to the achievements of
the NPAs subversive claims, in fact there were no known acts of the victims that can be considered as
offending to the NPA. Evidence shows that Lovedioros allegation of membership to the NPA was conveniently
infused to mitigate the penalty imposable upon him.

PEOPLE V. AMADO HERNANDEZ

Facts:
About March 15, 1945, Amado Hernandez and other appellant were accuse of conspiring, confederating and
cooperating with each other, as well as with the thirty-one (31) defendants charged in the criminal cases of CFI
of Manila.
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. With the party of HUKBALAHAP, they
committed the crime of rebellion causing murder, pillage, looting plunder, etc. enumerated in 13 attacks on
government forces or civilians by HUKS.
Issue:
Whether or not the crime of rebellion can be complexed with murder, arson, or robbery.
Held:
The court ruled that murder, arson, and robbery are mere ingredient of the crime of rebellion as means
necessary for perpetration of the offense. In Hernandez Doctrine, rebellion cannot be complexed wit common
crimes such as killings, destruction of property, etc., committed on the occasion and in furtherance thereof.
Rebellion constitutes ONLY ONE CRIME.

PEOPLE V. DASIG
Facts:
Appellants Rodrigo Dasig, Edwin Nunez and six others were charged together of shooting Redempto Manadtad,
a police officer, as he died while performing duties. Dasig confessed that he and the group of Edwin Nunez
killed Pfc. Manadtad. He likewise admitted that he and Nunez were members of the Sparrow unit and their
aliases were Armand and Mabi. The extra-judicial confession of appellant was signed by him on every page

Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva

7

CRIMINAL LAW 2

Page |

thereof with the first page containing a certification likewise signed by him. However, Dasig contends that it is
legally defective. He claimed that the custodial interrogation was done while he was very sick.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused-appellant is liable for extra-judicial killing of the deceased and participated in the
act of rebellion.
Held:
Yes, 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.

SEDITION
PEOPLE V. CABRERA
Facts:
Issue:
Held:

PEOPLE V. UMALI
Facts:
Issue:
Held:

PEOPLE V. NABONG
Facts:
Issue:
Held:

DIRECT ASSAULTS

Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva

8

CRIMINAL LAW 2

Page |

GELIG V. PEOPLE
Facts:
Petitioner Lydia Gelig impugns the decision promulgated by the court of appeals that set aside the decision of
RTC. 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. On July 17, 1981, Lydia slapped Gemma
in the cheek and pushed her causing her to fall and hit a wall divider. As a result, Gemma suffered contusion in
her maxillary area and continued experiencing abdominal pain and started bleeding two days after the incident.
Gemma later on suffered incomplete abortion.
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. It is clear from the foregoing provision
that direct assault is an offense against a person in authority. One mode of committing it is; without public
uprising, by attacking, employing force or seriously intimidate or resist any person in authority or his agent.
Gemma, being a public school teacher, belongs to the class of persons in authority. Gelig was not liable for
unintentional abortion for the absence of proof that such incident was the proximate cause of her slapping and
pushing.

RIVERA V. 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. Because of fist blows and coup injury, Ruben sustained slight injuries.
The trial court found the accused guilty of the crime of frustrated murder. An appeal was made by the accused,
but the court of appeals affirmed the trial courts decision with modification, changing the crime to attempted
murder.
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 |

Held:
(1) Yes, 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.
(2) Yes, the court declared that evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against persons may consist, inter
alia, in the means used by the malefactors, the nature, location, and number of wounds sustained by the
victim.

PEOPLE V. ABALOS
Facts:
In the evening of March 20, 1983, while acciised Tiburcio Abalos and his father were having a heated argument,
a woman shouted police officer, help us! Somebody is making trouble here. The victim P/Pfc. Labine,, then
appeared at the scene and asked Major Abalos whats happening. The victim saluted Abalos when the latter
turned around to face him. As Major Abalos levelled his carbine at Labine, accused hurriedly left and procured a
piece of wood which is about two inches thick. He then swiftly returned and unceremoniously swung with that
wooden piece at Labine from behind, hitting the policeman at the back of his head. Labine collapsed and
sustained head fracture. The trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of complex crime of
direct assault with murder.
Issue:
Whether or not the court erred finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of direct
assault with murder.
Held:
The appellant committed the second mode of committing direct assault. The elements of which are that there
must be attack, use of force, or serious intimidation or resistance upon authority or his agent; that the assault
was made when the said person was performing duties. In this case the victim was performing his duties, that is,
he was maintaining peace and order during the fiesta in barangay. The killing in the instant case constituted the
felony of murder qualified by alevosia.

Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva

10

CRIMINAL LAW 2

Page |

PEOPLE V. DURAL
Facts:
On January 31, 1988, while two prosecution witnesses were on their way to Tupadahan, they head gunshot and
immediately hide. From the place they were hiding, they saw three armed men firing upon the two Capcom
soldiers. The three gunmen positioned themselves as to immobilize the two Capcom soldiers. Two days after,
eyewitnessed voluntarily went at the Capcom headquarters to narrate what they have witnessed, consequently
the investigator brought them at the Capcom headquarters at Bicutan then at the camp Panopio Hospital. At the
said hospital, they identified one of the three gunmen referring to accused Dural who shot two Capcom soldiers.
Issue:
Whether or not appellants are guilty of direct assault.
Held:
Yes, the Supreme Court held that there is no doubt that appellant Dural and the two other gunmen knew that the
victims, T/Sgt. Carlos Pabon and CIC Renato Mahiglot, 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. The crimes he committeed are two complex crimes of murder with direct assault upon
an agent of the person in authority.

ILLEGAL POSSESSION AND USE OF FALSE TREASURY OR BANK NOTES AND OTHER
INSTRUMENTS OF CREDIT

TECSON V. CA
Facts:
Issue:
Held:

CLEMENTE V. PEOPLE

Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva

11

CRIMINAL LAW 2

Page |

Facts:
Issue:
Held:
HOW FORGERY IS COMMITTED

HERNANDEZ V. HERNANDEZ
Facts:
Issue:
Held:

TAMANI V. SALVADOR
Facts:
On July 29, 1986, a complaint for quieting of title was filed by respondents spouses Roman Salvador and
Filomena Bravo against petitioners Tamani et, al. over a 431 sq. m. parcel of land located at Solano, Nueva
Vizcaya. They were co-ownders of an undivided land. On August 17, 1959, Tamani allegedly sold the disputed
property to Milagros Cruz. RTC rendered decision ruling in petitioners favour. Court of Appeals issued a
decision ruling in favour of the respondents.
Issue:
Whether or not court of appeals erred in overturning the factual findings of RTC.
Held:
Yes, even though the discussion of CA is binding, they are recognized exceptions, among which is when the
findings of the trial court and appellate court is conflicting. The CA was thus correct when it declared that the
judge must conduct his own independent examination of signature. While it was improper for the RTC to solely
rely on Sorras credentials. Her superior credentials, compared to that of Albacea, give added value to her
testimony. Wherefore, premises considered, the petition is granted.

Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva

12

CRIMINAL LAW 2

Page |

FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC OFFICER, EMPLOYEE, NOTARY PUBLIC OR ECCLESIASTICAL

MINISTER
GUILERGAN V. PEOPLE
Facts:
Issue:
Held:

GALEOS V. PEOPLE
Facts:
Issue:
Held:

GONZALUDO V. PEOPLE
Facts:
Issue:
Held:

GARCIA V. CA
Facts:
Issue:
Held:
MACHINATION IN PUBLIC AUCTION
OANI V. PEOPLE
Facts:
Issue:

Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva

13

CRIMINAL LAW 2

Page |

Held:

Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva

14

CRIMINAL LAW 2

Page |