CASE DOCTRINES AND ADDITIONAL NOTES CRIMINAL LAW II (Culled from Florenz Regalado’s Conspectus and Ortega’s Notes)
Article 114. TREASON
➢ “The details of the testimony on the acts testified by witnesses need not be identical” (People vs. Abad) ➢ “The two-witness rule is not required to prove adherence to the enemy” (People vs. Alitagtag) ➢ “Treason absorbs crimes committed in the furtherance thereof” (People vs. Villanueva) ➢ “Righteous Action, as when the collaborator also helped save some guerrillas from death at the hands of the invader is illogical and baseless” (People vs. Victoria) ➢ “Defense of Suspended Allegiance by reason of change of sovereignty was untenable since a citizen owes an absolute allegiance to his country (Laurel vs. Misa) ➢ An assemblage even without an armed public uprising is sufficient.
Article 115. CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT TREASON.
➢ Separately punished only if Treason was not committed. ➢ N/A two-witness rule
ARTICLE 116. MISPRISION OF TREASON.
➢ Felony by omission. Mere silence is punishable even without attempt to conceal. (ACTUAL EXISTENCE OF CONSPIRACY is the BASIS) ➢ N/A two-witness rule
ARTICLE 120. CORRESPONDENCE WITH HOSTILE COUNTRY.
➢ Express Prohibition by Government of Correspondence is a mala prohibitum therefore punishable even if contained innocent matters. ➢ N/A two-witness rule
ARTICLE 121. FLIGHT TO ENEMY’S COUNTRY.
➢ Express Prohibition by Competent Authority is a mala prohibitum therefore punishable for whatever purpose of the offender. Mere Attempt consummates crime.
ARTICLE 124. ARBITRARY DETENTION.
➢ “A private person can be liable and punished if he acted in conspiracy with public officers.” (People vs. Camerino) ➢ “Mistake of Fact, Good Faith, acted without culpable negligence are valid defenses, even if it turns out that the person was innocent.” (People vs. Ancheta) ➢ No legal ground, without intent to deliver to judicial authorities. (Arbitrary Detention) ➢ No Legal ground, with intent to turn over to judicial authorities (Unlawful Arrest) ➢ Legal Ground with intent to deliver to judicial authorities but unreasonably delays (Undue Delay under 125) ➢ No intent to detain, but unlawfully prevented for an appreciable length of time from free movement (Coercion) ➢ Victim is a woman and detained with lewd designs from the outset (abduction) ➢ Offenses cannot be complexed.
➢ “Psychological and not only physical restraint is sufficient for the crime of arbitrary detention, as when victim was permitted to take meals outside of detention but was too terrorized not to return.” (People vs. Oliva)
ARTICLE 125. DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF DETAINED PERSONS TO THE PROPER JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES.
➢ Provision applies to arrests without warrant and it is lawful. ➢ “Delivery refers to filing of complaint; Judicial Authority refers to courts of justice not the public prosecutor” (Sayo et al. vs. Chief of Police) ➢ “Failure to deliver the arrestee does not make detention illegal, it just makes the arresting officer criminally liable” (People vs. Mabong) ➢ Article applies to special laws. (..”or their equivalent”, referring to penalty categories) ➢ “The hours during which the courts are closed and no deliver can be made are not to be counted” (People vs. Acasio) ➢ Arrested person may be detained beyond stated periods if he demands preliminary investigation (Sec. 7 Rule 112 Rev. Rules Crim. Pro.) ➢ Art. 125 made applicable to security guards employed by a company who arrested and delayed the turnover of public officers whom they held in custody (People vs. Sali)
ARTICLE 126. DELAYING RELEASE.
➢ “Order of release may be given verbally.” (People vs. Misa)
ARTILCE 127. EXPULSION.
➢ Only Chief Executive can order deportation.
ARTICLE 128. VIOLATION OF...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document