THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 

plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
SUSANO PEREZ (alias KID PEREZ), defendant-appellant.

Susano Perez was convicted of TREASON and sentenced to death by electrocution.

FACTS:

7 counts were alleged in the information but the prosecution offered evidence only on counts
1,2,4,5, and 6.

RE: #1:
 Count #1 alleges that the accused, together with other Filipinos, recruited girls and
women against their will for the purpose of using them to satisfy the sexual desire of
Colonel Mini.
 Testimony of Eriberta Ramo (one of the victims): she testified that 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 Pupper Governor Hontanosas;
 She escaped and returned to her hometown but the accused came again and told her
that Colonel Mini wanted her to be his Information Clerk. She did not accept the job.
 A week later the accused brought her again to Governor Hontanosas. The latter told her
that Colonel Mini wanted her to be his wife.
 When she was brought to Mini, the latter had nothing on but a “G” string.
 Mini threatened her with a sword, tied her to a bed, and forced himself on her (carnal
knowledge).
 She was raped also on the following night as well.
 She was able to escape and stayed in hiding for 3 weeks and only came out from the
hiding when Mini left Tagbilaran.

Re #2:
 Alleges the accused in company with some Japanese and Filipinos took Eriberta and her
sister Cleopatra to attend a banquet and a dance organized in honor of Mini by the
Puppet Governor, Hontanosas in order that said Japanese Colonel might select those
first who would later be taken to satisfy his carnal appetite.
 By means of threat, force, and intimidation, the two sisters were brought to the
headquarters of the Japanese Commander where Eriberta was forced to live a life of
shame.
 The facts regarding count #1 was also alleged by Eriberta’s mother.

Re #4:
 Alleges that on July 16, 1942, 2 girls named Eduarda Daohog and Eutiquia Lamay were
taken from their homes in Bohol by the accused and his companion, and delivered them
to the Japanese Officer, Dr. Takibayas to satisfy his carnal appetite.
  But before delivering them to him, the accused and his companion satisfied first their
lust.
 Eduarda Daohog testified: while she was on her way to Tagbilaran, the accused through
forced and intimidation raped her in an uninhabited house. She was then delivered to
Japanese Officer Takibayas who also raped her.
 Eutiquia Lamay testified: that on th same day, the accused threatened her with a
revolver is she refuses to go with them. She and Eduarda were taken to the Governor’s
house but the Governor said that “he did not call for the girld.” The accused replied
saying that: “these girls talked bad against the Japanese, that’s why we arrested them”
 The Governor then commanded the aacused to take them to the Japanese headquarters
where they would be used and raped by the Japanese.

Re: #5:
 Alleges that on June 4, 1942, the accused commandeered Feliciana Bonalos and her
sister Flaviana on the pretext that they were to be taken as witnesses before a Japanese
Colonel in the investigation of a case against a certain Chinese (Insik Eping), and upon
arriving at Tagbilaran, the accused brought the two girls to the residence of Colonel
Mini. And by means of force and intimidation, the Japanese Colonel abused and had
sexual intercourse with Flaviana and Feliciana.
Re #6:
 Alleges that the accused, together with a companion, apprehended Natividad Barcinas,
Nicanora Rlameda, 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.

 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 purposes.

ISSUE:

WON the deeds committed by the accused constitute treason - NO

RULING:

Defendant was found guilty of 4 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.

RATIO:
There is a dilemma in trying to draw a line between treasonable and untreasonable assistance,
since the scope of adherence to the enemy is comprehensive, and its requirement
indeterminate, but as a general rule acts providing aid and comfort to the enemies are
considered treasonable when the aid and comfort rendered are directed to them as enemies
not as mere individuals. To lend or give money to an enemy as a friend so that he may buy
personal necessities is not technically traitorous, but to lend or give money to an enemy to
enable him to buy arms or ammunition to use against the government of the giver is treason.

The act of the accused of providing the enemies with women and entertainment, boosting their
(the enemies’) morale and making their lives more pleasant, is not treason. Sexual and
social relations with the Japanese did not directly and materially tend to improve their war
efforts or weaken the power of the government. Any favourable effect toward
the Japanese that the accused might have made 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 case. In this
particular case, it was not evident that the intent of the accused in providing the enemies with
women was to help them overthrow the government.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
ROGER P. TULIN, VIRGILIO I. LOYOLA, CECILIO O. CHANGCO, ANDRES C.
INFANTE, CHEONG SAN HIONG, and JOHN DOES, accused-appellants.

FACTS:

Version of the PROSECUTION:

 in the evening of March 2, 1991, M/T Tabangao, a cargo vessel owned by the PNOC
Shipping and Transport Co., loaded 2,000 barrels of kerosene, 2,600 carrels of regular
gasoline, and 40,000 barrels of diesel oil was sailing off to the coast of Mindoro.
 The vessel, manned by 21 crew members, was suddenly boarded, with the use of an
aluminum ladder, by 7 fully armed pirates led by Emilio Changco, older borther of the
accused appellant Cecilio CHango.
 The pirates were armed with M-16 rifles, .45 and .38 caliber handguns, and bolos.
 They detained the crew an took complete control of the vessel.
 The appellant also painted the vessel with the name “Galilee,” with registry at registry at
San Lorenzo, Honduras.
 The crew was forced to sail to Singapore, all the while sending misleading radio
messages to PNOC that the ship was undergoing repairs.
 PNOC, after losing radio contact with the vessel, reported the disappearance of the vessel
to the Philippine Coast Guard and secured the assistance of the Philippine Air Force and
the Philippine Navy. However, search and rescue operations yielded negative results.
  A few days after, the ship arrived in Singapore and cruised around the area presumably to
await another vessel which failed to arrive.
 The pirates were thus forced to return to the Philippines on March 14, 1991, arriving at
Calatagan, Batangas on March 20, 1991 where it remained at sea.
 On March 28, 1991, the "M/T Tabangao" again sailed to and anchored about 10 to 18
nautical miles from Singapore's shoreline where another vessel called "Navi Pride"
anchored beside it. Emilio Changco ordered the crew of "M/T Tabangao" to transfer the
vessel's cargo to the hold of "Navi Pride".
 April 8, 1991 – the vessel arrived at Calatagan, Batangas, but the members remained at
sea.
 The members of the crew were released in 3 batches with the warning not to report the
incident to government authorities for a period of 2 days or until April 12, 1991,
otherwise they would be killed.

Version of the DEFENSE:

 The accused appellants Tulin, Infante Jr., and Loyola, maintained the defense of denial,
and despite the charge, as well as the transfer of any cargo from M/T Tabangao to the
Navi Pride.
 All of them claimed having their own respective sources of livelihood.
 Accused-appellant Changco also denied the charge, averring that he was at home
sleeping on April 10, 1991.
 Accused-appellant Cheong San Hiong, adduced evidence that he studied in Sydney,
Australia, obtaining the "Certificate" as Chief Officer, and later completed the course as a
"Master" of a vessel, working as such for two years on board a vessel.

After trial, a decision was rendered CONVICTING accused-appellants of the crime charged.
 this Court finding the accused Roger Tulin, Virgilio Loyola, Andres Infante, Jr. and
Cecilio Changco guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principals, of the crime of piracy in
Philippine Waters defined in Section 2(d) of Presidential Decree No. 532 and the accused
Cheong San Hiong, as accomplice, to said crime.

The matter was then elevated to this Court.

ISSUE:

(1) The issues of the instant case may be summarized as follows: (1) what are the legal
effects and implications of the fact that a non-lawyer represented accused-appellants
during the trial?
(2) what are the legal effects and implications of the absence of counsel during the custodial
investigation?
(3) WON the trial court err in finding that the prosecution was able to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused-appellants committed the crime of qualified piracy.
(4) WON RA 7659 obliterate the crime committed by accused-appellant Cheong.
 (5) can accused-appellant Cheong be convicted as accomplice when he was not charged as
such and when the acts allegedly committed by him were done or executed outside
Philippine waters and territory?

RULING:

SC AFFIRMS the judgement of the trial court.

RATIO:

BENITO ASTORGA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

RESOLUTION

Petitioner was charged of the crime of Arbitrary Detention.

FACTS:

Version of the PROSECUTION:

 private offended parties Elpidio Simon, Moises de la Cruz, Wenefredo Maniscan, Renato
Militante, and Crisanto Pelias are members of the Regional Special Operations Group
(RSOG) of the DENR, Tacloban City.
 Sept 1, 1997- together with SPO3 Cinco Jr., and SPO1 Capoquia of the PNP Regional
intelligence group, were sent to the Island of Daram, Western Samar to conduct
intelligence operations on possible illegal logging activities.
 At around 4-5pm, the tam found 2 boats being constructed at Brgy. Locob-locob.
 There they met petitioner Astorga, Mayor of Daram, who turned out to be the owner of
the boats.
 A heated altercation ensued between petitioner and the DENR team.
 Petitioner called for reinforcements and, moments later, a boat bearing 10 armed men,
arrived at the scene.
 DENR team was then brought to petitioner’s house in Daram, where they has dinner and
drinks. They left at 2am.

Sandiganbayan: convicted the petitioner of Arbitrary Detention.

Petitioner filed for a Motion for Reconsideration and makes the ff. submissions:

1. THE ARMED MEN WERE NOT SUMMONED BY PETITIONER FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DETAINING THE PRIVATE OFFENDED PARTIES;
2. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE SUPPOSED VICTIMS INSISTED ON LEAVING
THE PLACE WHERE THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE DETAINED;

3. THE SUPPOSED VICTIMS THEMSELVES HAVE DECLARED THE INNOCENCE OF

THE PETITIONER;

4. CRIMINAL INTENT ON THE PART OF THE ACCUSED IS CLEARLY WANTING IN

THE INSTANT CASE.4

ISSUES:

WON the petitioner committed the crime of Arbitrary Detention. - NO

RULING:

The judgement of the Sandiganbayan is REVERSED. Petitioner Astorga is ACQUITTED of the

crime of Arbitrary Detention on the ground of reasonable doubt.

RATIO:

The elements of the crime of Arbitrary Detention are:

1. . That the offender is a public officer or employee.

2. That he detains a person.

3. That the detention is without legal grounds.

The determinative factor in Arbitrary Detention, in the absence of actual physical restraint, is
fear. After a careful review of the evidence on record, we find no proof that petitioner instilled
fear in the minds of the private offended parties.

The Court fails to discern any element of fear from the narration of SPO1 Capoquian. On the
contrary, what appears is that peititoner, being a municipal mayor, merely extended his
hospitality and entertained the DENR Team in his house.

The quoted portions of SPO1 Capoquian's testimony negate the element of detention. More
importantly, fear is a state of mind and is necessarily subjective.13 Addressed to the mind of the
victim, its presence cannot be tested by any hard-and-fast rule but must instead be viewed in the
light of the perception and judgment of the victim at the time of the crime.14 As such, SPO1
Capoquian and SPO3 Cinco, not being victims, were not competent to testify on whether or not
fear existed in the minds of the private offended parties herein. It was thus error for the
Sandiganbayan to have relied on their testimonies in convicting petitioner.
the circumstances brought out by SPO1 Capoquian created a reasonable doubt as to whether
petitioner detained the DENR Team against their consent.. While it may support the proposition
that the private offended parties were taken to petitioner's house and prevented from leaving until
2:00 a.m. the next morning, it is equally plausible, if not more so, that petitioner extended his
hospitality and served dinner and drinks to the team at his house. He could have advised them to
stay on the island inasmuch as sea travel was rendered unsafe by the heavy rains. He ate together
with the private offended parties and even laughed with them while conversing over dinner. This
scenario is inconsistent with a hostile confrontation between the parties. Moreover, considering
that the Mayor also served alcoholic drinks, it is not at all unusual that his guests left the house at
2:00 a.m. the following morning.

As held in several cases, when the guilt of the accused has not been proven with moral certainty,
the presumption of innocence of the accused must be sustained and his exoneration be granted as
a matter of right. For the prosecution's evidence must stand or fall on its own merit and cannot be
allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.17 Furthermore,
where the evidence for the prosecution is concededly weak, even if the evidence for defense is
also weak, the accused must be duly accorded the benefit of the doubt in view of the
constitutional presumption of innocence that an accused enjoys. When the circumstances are
capable of two or more inferences, as in this case, one of which is consistent with the
presumption of innocence while the other is compatible with guilt, the presumption of innocence
must prevail and the court must acquit. It is better to acquit a guilty man than to convict an
innocent man.

FELICIANO GALVANTE, Petitioner, v. HON. ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO, Deputy

Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices, BIENVENIDO C.
BLANCAFLOR, Director, DENNIS L. GARCIA, Graft Investigation and Prosecution
Officer, SPO4 RAMIL AVENIDO, PO1 EDDIE DEGRAN, PO1 VALENTINO RUFANO,
and PO1 FEDERICO BALOLOT, Respondents.

The crimes charged by the petitioner against the private respondents are for arbitrary detention,
illegal searched, and grave threats.

FACTS:

Version of the PETITIONER:

 Sometime on May 14, 2001 – petitioner left his house at around 1pm to meet retired
police Percival Plaza and inquire the retirement procedure for policemen.

 That upon arrival at the house of the retired police, together with Sanoria, Ramirez and
Ramas who asked for a ride from the highway going to Sitio Cahi-an, petitioner
immediately went down from of the jeep but before he could call Mr. Plaza, 4 policemen
in uniform blocked his ay.
  The 4 policemen, private respondents PO1 Avenido, PO1 Rufano, PO1 Degran and PO1
Balolot pinted their long firearms towards the petitioner, ready to fire at him.

 The other companions of the petitioners also went down from the jeep and raised their
arms as the other respondents pointed their armalites at them.

 Mr. Plaza, who came down from his house, told them not to harass the petitioner as the
latter is also a former police officer. But they did not heed Mr. Plaza’s statements.

 While the petitioner was raising his arms, private respondent Conde Jr. went near to his
owner type jeep and conducted a search. The petitioner asked them if they have any
search warrant.

 When they saw his pistol under the floormat of his jeep, they asked him of the MR of the
firemarm but due to fear that their long arms were pointed to the victims, the petitioner
searched his wallet and gave the asked document.

 Immediately the policemen left the petitioner and his companions without saying
anything, bringing with them the firearm.

 At about 2:30 pm, petitioner left Mr. Percival’s house and went to Trento Police Station
where he saw a person in civilian attire with a revolver tucked on his waste, to which he
asked the police officers including those who searched his jeep to apprehend him also.

 But nobody among the plicemen at the station made a move to apprehend the armed
civilian so petitioner went to the office of Chief Rocacorba who immediately called the
armed civilian to his office and when already inside the office, the disarming was done.

 Thereafter, petitioner was put to jail with the said person by Police Chief Rocacorba and
was released only at 4pm in the afternoon of May 16, 2001 after positng a bailbond.

Version of the RESPONDENTS(DEFENSE):

Conde:

 Said that he had nothing to do with the detention of petitioner as it was Chief Rocacorba
who ordered the detention.

 He also denies searching petitioner;s vehicle, but admits that even though he was not
armed with a warrant, he searched the person of petitioner as the latter, in plain view, was
committing a violation of Comelec Resolutions No. 3258 and No. 3328 by carrying a
firearm in his person.

Avenido, Degran, Rufano, Balolot:

 Contradicts the statemends of private respondent Conde.

  that this statement is not accurate because the truth of the matter is that the said handgun
was taken by SPO4 BENJAMIN CONDE, JR., who was acting as their team leader
during the May 14, 2001 Elections, from the jeep of Mr. Galvante after searching the
same.

IAS issued a Deciion finding all private respondents guilty of grave misconduct but penalized
them with suspension only.

RTC: DISMISSED the case for lack of probable cause.

Hence, this present petition.

ISSUES:

WON private respondents are guilty of the crimes charged against them. - NO

RULING:

Petition is DENIED.

RATIO:

Petition lacks merit.

Grave abuse of discretion is an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty
enjoined by law or to act in contemplation of law as when judgment rendered is not based on law
and evidence but on caprice, whim and despotism.34 This does not obtain in the present case.

It is noted that the criminal complaint which petitioner filed with the Ombudsman charges
private respondents with warrantless search, arbitrary detention, and grave threats.

The complaint for warrantless search charges no criminal offense. The conduct of a warrantless

search is not a criminal act for it is not penalized under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) or any
other special law. What the RPC punishes are only two forms of searches:

Art. 129. Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those legally
obtained.

And

Art. 130. Searching domicile without witnesses.

Petitioner did not allege any of the elements of the foregoing felonies in his Affidavit-Complaint;
rather, he accused private respondents of conducting a search on his vehicle without being armed
with a valid warrant. This situation, while lamentable, is not covered by Articles 129 and 130 of
the RPC.
The remedy of petitioner against the warrantless search conducted on his vehicle is civil,35 under
Article 32, in relation to Article 221936 (6) and (10) of the Civil Code, which provides:

Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly
obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and
liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages:

xxx

(9) The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures;

xxx

The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated.

and/or disciplinary and administrative, under Section 41 of Republic Act No. 6975.

Public respondents' dismissal of the criminal complaint for illegal search which petitioner filed
with the Ombudsman against private respondents was therefore proper, although the reasons
public respondents cited for dismissing the complaint are rather off the mark because they relied
solely on the finding that the warrantless search conducted by private respondents was valid and
that the Affidavit of Desistance which petitioner executed cast doubt on the veracity of his
complaint.

The criminal complaint for abitrary detention was likewise properly dismissed by public
respondents. To sustain a criminal charge for arbitrary detention, it must be shown that (a) the
offender is a public officer or employee, (b) the offender detained the complainant, and (c) the
detention is without legal grounds.41 The second element was not alleged by petitioner in his
Affidavit-Complaint. As pointed out by private respondent Conde in his Comment42 and
Memorandum,43 petitioner himself identified in his Affidavit-Complaint that it was Police Chief
Rocacorba who caused his detention. Nowhere in said affidavit did petitioner allege that private
respondents effected his detention, or were in any other way involved in it.

Finally, on the criminal complaint for grave threats, the Solicitor General aptly pointed out that
the same is based merely on petitioner's bare allegation that private respondents aimed their
firearms at him.45 Such bare allegation stands no chance against the well-entrenched rule
applicable in this case, that public officers enjoy a presumption of regularity in the performance
of their official function.46 The IAS itself observed that private respondents may have been
carried away by their "enthusiasm in the conduct of the arrest in line of duty."