People Vs Nemesio L. Agpangan: Facts

People vs Nemesio L.
Agpangan
the precise one which has actually been

perpetrated.
Facts:
Agpangan stands accused of Treason,
committed between December 1944 and
January 1945, in the province of Laguna. It was
alleged that the accused was a member of the
Ganap, a subversive pro-Japanese
organization, joined the Pampars, a military
organization supporting the Imperial Japanese
Army, and was equipped with a 1903
Springfield rifle, caliber .30 and was made to
undergo training. That from or about January
12, 1945 to March 15, the accused was
assigned to guard duty once a week, armed
with a rifle with orders to shoot any Filipino
prisoners who might attempt to escape and
also any guerrilla or American soldier who
might approach the Japanese garrison.
Three witnesses testified for the prosecution
namely, Tomas C Serrano, a farmer who saw
the accused doing guard duty at the entrance
of the garrison with a rifle and bayonet at his
side. Serrano saw the accused confiscating
foodstuffs for the support of Japanese soldiers
and accompanying the latter in arresting
suspected guerrillas. Mauricio Adaro, another
farmer was the second witness who testified
that he saw the accused mounting guard,
getting food supplies from the civilians and
giving them to the Japanese. The last witness
was Delfin Redor, mayor of Siniloan who
testified that the accused belongs to Pampar
Makapili, detailed as guard in front of the
garrison with arms and ammunitions.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of the
crime of treason.
Ruling:
None of the several overt acts alleged in the
information has been proved in accordance
with the two-witness rule provided in Article
114 of the Revised Penal Code. To meet the
test under two-witness rule, it is necessary
that, at least, two witnesses should testify as to
the perpetration of the same treasonous overt
act, and the sameness must include not only
identity of kind and nature of the act, but as to
The decision to acquit him is not only based on

the reasonable doubt as to his guilt, because
the prosecution has not satisfied the
requirements of the two-witness rule, but was
rather inclined to believe in his testimony to
the effect that he might have the same fate
that befell Vicente Auxilio, a guerrilla member.
The Court believed that the accused could
have adhered to the Japanese, the same who
tortured and killed his own son, Bienvenido
Agpangan. The decision is reversed and the
appellant is acquitted
G.R. No. L-778
October 10, 1947
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, vs. NEMESIO L.

AGPANGAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Alfredo Gonzales for appellant.
Acting First Assistant Solicitor General Roberto
A. Gianzon and Solicitor Federico V. Sian for
appellee
PERFECTO, J.: chanrobles virtual law library
Appellant stands accused of treason,
committed between December, 1944, and
January, 1945, in the Province of Laguna, on
only one count alleged in the information as
follows:
That on or about December 20, 1944, the
accused, a member of the Ganap, a subversive
pro-Japanese organization, joined the Pampars,
a military organization supporting the Imperial
Japanese Army and designed to bear arms
against the army of the United States and the
Commonwealth of the Philippines and the
guerrillas in the Philippines; that he was
equipped with a 1903 Springfield rifle, caliber .
30, and was made to undergo 10 days training,
consisting of military drill, manual of arms, and
target practice; and that from or about January
12, 1945 to March 15, the said accused was
assigned to guard duty once a week; that he
was armed with a rifle with orders to shoot any
of the Filipino prisoners whom he was guarding
who might attempt to escape and also any

guerrilla or American soldier who might
approach the Japanese garrison.
The lower court found him guilty and
sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, with the
accessory penalties provided by law, and to
pay a fine of P10,000 and the
costs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles
virtual law library
Three witnesses testified for the
prosecution.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrob
les virtual law library
Tomas C. Serrano, 46, farmer, resident of
Siniloan, Second Lieutenant in the Marking's
guerrilla organization, testified that on
December, 1944, he saw the accused in the
Japanese garrison in Siniloan, "he was a
member of the Makapili organization;" "he was
doing guard duty, with a rifle, with a bayonet at
his side;" "he was at the entrance of the
garrison and he made all civilians passing
through the entrance bow to him." If they did
not bow, "he dragged them by the arms and
brought them to the captain of the garrison;"
he served as guard "since November, 1944,
when the Japanese garrison was established in
Siniloan, up to the time I was arrested on
March 25, 1945;" he saw the accused on guard
duty in the garrison "many times;" "I often saw
him confiscating foodstuffs such as rice,
fruits, calabasa, and other vegetables, for the
support of the Japanese soldiers;" "he was with
arms accompanied by Japanese soldiers and
other members of the Makapili;" "I often saw
him accompanied by Japanese soldiers and
other Makalipi members, arresting suspected
guerrillas and sometimes they were patrolling
or camping in the hideouts of the guerrilla
forces, I cannot tell how many times, but I
often saw him;" the witness was arrested on
March 25, 1945, by the Japanese soldiers
and Makapilis, with whom the accused was;
"the next morning we, the thirteen prisoners,
were brought to the place where we were to be
executed; but luckily while we were on our way
to the barrio, the American planes came
roaring, so the guards took cover;" "they were
pulling the rope that tied us, and luckily I was
able to slip away because I was the second to
the last man in the line, and the rope was cut;"
"I could not run fast because I was lame;" the

rest were executed, naming the following:
"Alejandro Serrano, Custodio Adaro, Emilio
Javier, Peter Sardal, Elias Rodolfo, Ignacio
Cavano, Biato Optis, Napoleon
Pagtakhan,Bienvenido Agpangan, and myself;"
Miguel Palma "was in my back to the last, so
we two remained, and Pacifico (Adopina)
remained untied" because he was carrying
food, and when the Japanese ran, "he
escaped." Asked to explain that he knew about
the lot of those who were executed, the
witness said that he went home when the town
was liberated, and he visited the place
"because I know the place," and we reached
the spot "I smelled very bad odor, and I
recognized the soil which swelled, so I said to
myself that this is the place where our son was
buried;" "I went home and I told the other
parents of the victims" about the spot; " the
next month, about thirty days," the witness
and the other parents requested the municipal
authorities to be allowed to exhume the
bodies; when his son is being taken to the
place of execution. "I had not seen him that
time;" the witness based his knowledge as to
appellant's being a Makapilion Exhibit A and he
saw him armed, guarding the Japanese
garrison, confiscating foodstuffs for the
Japanese, and arresting guerrilla suspects in
the town; Bienvenido Agpangan, one of those
who were executed by the Japanese, "was the
son" of appellant; "I can not tell you whether
he (appellant) was reporting to his officers any
guerrilla;" Angel Javier and Custodio Adaro
were arrested by a party of which the accused
was a member, and "I know because he was
with them when they were arrested;" the
witness does not know whether the accused
was present during the execution "because
there was nobody present; only God had
witnessed the killing of those
persons."chanrobles virtual law library
Mauricio Adaro, 47, farmer, resident of Siniloan,
testified that in December, 1944, he saw the
accused in the Japanese garrison in Siniloan; "
he was mounting guard;" asked from what date
to what date he saw him in the garrison, the
witness answered that "I cannot remember the
month in 1944 because we used to go out of
Siniloan every time;" appellant "was getting
food supplies from the civilians and giving
them to the Japanese;" "the accused and the

Japanese companions of his arrested my son
(Custodio) in our house;" the witness was not
arrested, "because I was able to hide;" he saw
defendant mounting guard in the Japanese
garrison "many times;" "more than ten times;"
the garrison was located "in the school
building."chanrobles virtual law library
Delfin Redor, 55, mayor of Siniloan, since 1937,
testified hat appellant "has been my barrio
lieutenant;" he belongs to Pampar Makapili,
andPampar and Makapili, "I believe are the
same;" from December, 1944, to March, 1945,
the witness saw the accused "in
the Makapili garrison, in the Siniloan plaza;" "I
believe that he was a member of the Makapili;"
"Sometimes he was detailed as guard in front
of the garrison with arms and ammunitions bayonet;" he saw as such "many times;" the
witness was not a mayor during the Japanese
occupation because "in 1944, March, I escaped
because, you know, I was wanted by the
Japanese because I was also a guerrilla; before
that "I was mayor of the town;" during
December, 1944, up to March, because you
know, I left the office, I was still in the town of
Siniloan collecting some supplies for the
guerrillas;" after abandoning the office of
mayor, the witness "remained living in
the poblacion of Siniloan;" he "never stopped
living in thepoblacion;" "I had three times seen
the accused accompanied by the Japanese in
raiding outside poblacion;" the accused
commandeered foodstuffs "and took them to
the garrison for food;" "the Japanese garrison
was in the Intermediate Building and
the Makapili garrison is in Baybay Academy,
about one kilometer distant;" the witness saw
the accused "in Makapili garrison;" the witness
was a captain of the guerrillas and was
arrested by the Japanese four times, and in
those occasions he did not see the accused in
the garrison; the witness does no know of
anybody who had been pointed out by the
accused to the Japanese and was arrested by
the
same.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles
virtual law library
The Constitution provides that "in all criminal
prosecutions the accused shall be presumed to
be innocent until the contrary is proved."
(Article II, section 1 [17].) To overcome this

constitutional presumption, the guilt of the
accused must be proved beyond all reasonable
doubt. The evidence presented by the
prosecution in this case does not offer that
degree of proof. None of the several overt acts
alleged in the information has been proved in
accordance with the two-witness rule provided
in the article 114 of the Revised Penal
Code.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles
virtual law library
It is imputed to the appellant, in the first
place, that he is a member of the Ganap,
"a subversive pro-Japanese organization,"
and "joined thePampar, a military
organization supporting the Imperial
Japanese Army and designed to bear arms
against the Army of the United States in
Commonwealth of the Philippines and the
guerrillas in the Philippines." No witness
has testified that appellant is the member
of the Ganap. Only one witness, Redor,
testified that appellant belonged
to Pampar, but he did not testify as to its
nature.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles
virtual law library
The next allegation of the information is
that appellant "was equipped with a 1903
Springfield rifle, caliber 30, and was made
to undergo ten days training, consisting
of military drill, manual of arms, and
target practice. "No evidence has been
presented in support of this
allegation.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychan
robles virtual law library
The third allegation against appellant is
that "from or about January 12, 1945, to
March 15, 1945, the said accused was
assigned to guard duty once a week." The
fourth and the last allegation is that "he
was armed with a rifle with orders to
shoot any of the Filipino prisoners whom
he was guarding who might attempt to
escape and also any guerrilla or American
soldier who might approach the Japanese
garrison." In connection with these two
allegation, the only thing that the
prosecution attempted to prove is that
appellant did guard duty and was armed
with rifle. But the attempt does not meet
the test under the two-witness

rule.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles
virtual law library
The first two witnesses for the prosecution
testified that they had seen the accused doing
guard duty in the Japanese garrison in Siniloan
"many times," more than "ten times," but
neither of them has mentioned any specific
time, day and hour. They were able to mention
only years and months. There is no way of
concluding the two witnesses testified about
the same overt act. The "many times" or more
than "ten times" mentioned by them may refer
either to two different sets of moments, not
one instant of one set coinciding with any one
of the other, or to only one and identical set of
instances or, although referring to two sets,
some of the instances are the same in both. As
there is no basis on record upon which we may
determine which, among the two alternatives,
is the correct one, the doubt must be decided
by taking the first alternative, the one
compatible with the presumption of innocence
stated in the fundamental law. The case for the
prosecution is further weakened by the fact
that it is first two witnesses are contradicted by
the third, who testified that appellant did guard
duty "many times," more than "ten times," in
the Makapili garrison, located in the Baybay
Academy, one kilometer from the Intermediate
School building, where the Japanese garrison
was
located.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles
virtual law library
To meet the test under two-witness rule, it is
necessary that, at least, two witnesses should
testify as to the perpetration of the same
treasonous overt act, and the sameness must
include not only identity of kind and nature of
the act, but as to the precise one which has
actually been perpetrated. The treasonous
overt act of doing guard duty in the Japanese
garrison on one specific date cannot be
identified with the doing of guard duty in the
same garrison in a different date. Both overt
acts, although of the same nature and
character, are two distinct and inconfusable
acts, independent of each other, and either
one, to serve as a ground for conviction of an
accused for treason, must be proved by two
witnesses. That one witness should testify as to
one, and another as to the other, is not

enough. Any number of witnesses may testify
against an accused for treason as to a long line
of successive treasonous overt acts; but
notwithstanding the seriousness of the acts nor
their number, not until two witnesses, at least,
shall have testified as to the perpetration of a
single but the same and precise overt act, can
conviction be
entertained.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrob
les virtual law library
In justice to appellant, we feel it
necessary to state that our decision to
acquit him is not only based on the
reasonable doubt we entertain as to his
guilt, because the prosecution has not
satisfied the requirements of the twowitness rule, but because we are rather
inclined to believe his testimony to the
effect that a guerrilla member, Vicente
Auxilio, was caught by the Japanese in
appellant's house, tortured and, finally,
killed. For said reason, appellant was
called by the Japanese, investigated, and
then told to do some work in the garrison,
otherwise he would have the same fate
that befell Vicente Auxilio. "To save my
life, I accepted the order and worked
there," he testified, adding: "The
Japanese, not being contended with my
work, they got my carabao and on March,
1945, they got my son, who was tortured
and killed."chanrobles virtual law library
This son is the same Bienvenido Agpangan
who, according to the first witness for the
prosecution, was executed by the Japanese
with several other victims. We do not believe
that appellant could have adhered to the
Japanese, the same who tortured and killed his
own son. We do not believe that, in the
absence of proof, he can be such a
monster.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles
virtual law library
The decision of the People's Court is reversed
and appellant is acquitted. He shall be released
from the custody of the agent of the law upon
the promulgation of this decision.
Laurel vs misa
Facts:
The Supreme Court, in a resolution,
acted on the petition for the writ of habeas
corpus filed by petitioner anastacio laurel
based on the theory that a Filipino citizen who
adhered to the enemy giving the latter aid and
comfort during the Japanese occupation cannot
be prosecuted for the crime of treason
definedand penalized by article 114 of the
revised penal code for the reason that
1) that the sovereignty of the
legitimate government in the Philippines and
consequently, the correlative allegiance of
Filipino citizens therto was then suspended;
and
2) that there was a change of
sovereignty over these islands upon the
proclamation of the Philippine republic.
FACTS:
A petition for habeas corpus was filed by
Anastacio Laurel. He claims that a Filipino
citizen who adhered to the enemy giving the
latter aid and comfort during the Japanese
occupation cannot be prosecuted for the crime
of treason for the reasons that the sovereignty
of the legitimate government in the Philippines
and consequently the correlative allegiance of
Filipino citizen thereto were then suspended;
and that there was a change of sovereignty
over these Islands upon the proclamation of
the Philippine Republic.
Issues:
ISSUE: WHETHER THE ABSOLUTE
Whether or not the allegiance of the

accused as a Filipino citizen was suspended
and that there was a change of sovereignty
over the Phil Islands.
ALLEGIANCE OF A FILIPINO CITIZEN TO
Held:
HELD:
No, a citizen or subject owes, not a qualified

and temporary, but an absolute and permanent
allegiance, which consists in the obligation of
fidelity and obedience to his government of
sovereign. The absolute and permanent
allegiance of the inhabitants of a territory
occupied by the enemy to their legitimate
government or sovereign is not abrogated or
severed by the enemy occupation, because the
sovereignty of the government or sovereign de
jure is not transferred thereby the occupier.
Just as treason may be committed against the
Federal as well as against the State Govt, in
the same way treason may have been
committed during the Japanese occupation
against the sovereignty of the US as well as
against the sovereignty of the Phil
Commonwealth; and that the change of our
form of govt from commonwealth to republic
does not affect the prosecution of those
charged with the crime of treason committed
during the commonwealth, bec it is an offense
against the same govt and the same sovereign
people.
THE GOVERNMENT BECOMES SUSPENDED

DURING OCCUPATION
No. The absolute and permanent allegiance of

the inhabitants of a territory occupied by the
enemy of their legitimate government or
sovereign is not abrogated or severed by the
enemy occupation because the sovereignty of
the government or sovereign de jure is not
transferred thereby to the occupier. It remains
vested in the legitimate government.
What may be suspended is the exercise of the
rights of sovereignty with the control and
government of the territory occupied by the
enemy passes temporarily to the occupant.
The political laws which prescribe the
reciprocal rights, duties and obligation of
government and citizens, are suspended in
abeyance during military occupation.
DISSENT:
During the long period of Japanese occupation,
all the political laws of the Philippines were
suspended. This is full harmony with the
LAUREL V. MISA
generally accepted principles of the
international law adopted by our Constitution

[ Art. II, Sec. 3 ] as part of law of the nation.
The inhabitants of the occupied territory should
necessarily be bound to the sole authority of
the invading power whose interest and
requirements are naturally in conflict with
those of displaced government, if it is
legitimate for the military occupant to demand
and enforce from the inhabit ants such
obedience as may be necessary for the
security of his forces, for the maintenance of
the law and order, and for the proper
administration of the country.
PEOPLE VS PRIETO
G.R. No. L-399 | January 29, 1948
FACTS
:-Prieto was prosecuted in the Peoples
Court for 7 counts of treason. Initially, he
pleaded not guilty to every charge. Later on,
he entered a plea of guilty to counts 1, 2, 3 and
7, and maintained his original plea to counts 4,
5 and 6.
The prosecutor only presented evidence to
count 4 as he admitted insufficiency of
evidence as to counts 5 and 6. The court found
him guilty to all counts except 5 and 6 of
treason complexed by murder and physical
injuries.
ISSUE
: What is the criminal liability of Prieto?
DECISION
(Not guilty of count 4, guilty of treason in
counts 1, 2, 3 and 7):-Prieto is acquitted in
count 4 as the of two-witness principle
requirement was not satisfi ed. They failed
to corroborate each other:
flier with a rope. There was no mention of a

sled and nor did he see Juanito Albano.-There
is no crime of treason complexed with
other felonies because these were not
separate offenses from treason.
When a deed is charged as an element of
treason, it becomes identified with it and
cannot be subject of a separate punishment, or
used in combination with treason to increase
the penalty.
Murder or physical injuries are charged as overt
acts of treason and cannot be regarded
separately under their general denomination.
But the brutality which accompanied the killing
and the physical injuries are taken as
aggravating circumstances since it augmented
the sufferings of the offended parties
unnecessarily to the attainment of the criminal
objectives.
But there is a mitigating circumstance of plea
of guilty, hence, the punishment shouldbe
reclusion perpetua
PEOPLE V. PRIETO
FACTS:
-The appellant was prosecuted for treason.
-Two witnesses gave evidence but their
statements do not coincide in any single detail.
The first witness testified that the accused with
other Filipino undercovers and Japanese
soldiers caught an American aviator and had
the witness carry the American to town on a
sled pulled by a carabao. That on the way, the
accused walked behind the sled and asked the
prisoner if the sled was faster than the
airplane; that the American was taken to the
Kempetai headquarters, after which he did not
Juanito Albano testified that the accused and

other Filipino undercovers and Japanese
officers caught an American aviator and had
him carried to town on a sled pulled by
acarabao. That on the way, Prieto walked
behind the sled and the American was takento
the Kempetai headquarters.
know what happened to the flier.
Valentin Cuison testified that he saw the

accused following the American whose hands
were tied while walking and that he struck the
-The lower court believes that the accused is
-The next witness, testified that he saw the

accused following an American and the
accused were Japanese and other Filipinos.
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of treason complexed by murder and physical
In the nature of things, the giving aid and
injuries, with the aggravating circumstances
comfort can only be accomplished by some
mentioned above. Apparently, the court has
kind of action. Its very nature partakes of a
regarded the murders and physical injuries
deed or physical activity as opposed to a
charged in the information, not only as crimes
mental operation. This deed or physical activity
distinct from treason but also as modifying
may be, and often is, in itself a criminal offense
circumstances. The Solicitor General agrees
under another penal statute or provision. Even
with the decision except as to the technical
so, when the deed is charged as an element of
designation of the crime. In his opinion, the
treason it becomes identified with the latter
offense committed by the appellant is a
crime and cannot be the subject of a separate
complex crime of treason with homicide.
punishment.
-Accused being a member of the Japanese
However, the brutality with the killing or
Military Police and acting as undercover man
physical injuries were carried out may be taken
for the Japanese forces with the purpose of
as an aggravating circumstances. Thus, the
giving and with the intent to give aid and
use of torture and other atrocities on the
comfort feloniously and treasonably lad, guide
victims instead of the usual and less painful
and accompany a patrol of Japanese soldiers
method of execution will be taken into account
and Filipino undercovers for the purpose of
to increase the penalty.
apprehending guerillas and locating their

hideouts.
PEOPLE V. PEREZ
ISSUES;
1.
Whether the two-witness rule was

sufficiently complied.
2.
Whether the TC erred in ruling that the

murders and physical injuries were crimes
distinct from treason.
HELD:
1.
NO, it was not sufficiently complied. The

witnesses evidently referred to two different
occasions. The two witnesses failed to
corroborate each other not only on the whole
overt act but on any part of it.
2.
Facts: Seven counts of treason were filed

against Susano Perez aka Kid Perez, the
accused, for recruiting, apprehending, and
commandeering women (Eriberta Ramo,
Eduarda Daohog, Eutiquia Lamay, and Flaviana
Bonalos) against their will to satisfy the
immoral purpose and sexual desire of Colonel
Mini, and other Japanese of Officers.
Only counts 1,2,4,5,6 were substantiated. In
the 4th and 5th counts, the accused personally
assaulted and abused two of the offended girls.
Susano Perez was convicted of treason and
sentenced to death by electrocution by the
Peoples Court.
The execution of some of the guerilla

suspects mentioned and the infliction of
physical injuries on others are not offenses
separate from treason. There must concur both
adherence to the enemy and giving him aid
and comfort. One without the other does not
make treason.
Issue: Whether or not the acts of the accused

constitute a crime of treason
Held : NO. 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.
accused do not constitute treason. It further

discussed that if furnishing women for immoral
purposes to the enemies was treason because
womens company kept up their morale, so
fraternizing them, entertaining them at parties,
selling them food and drinks, and kindred acts,
would be treason . Any act of hospitality
produces the same result.
ISSUE: Whether the acts of the accused
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
constituted the crime of treason.

HELD: NO. The law of treason does not
prescribe all kinds of social, business and
political intercourse between the belligerent
occupants of the invaded country and its
inhabitants. What aid and comfort constitute
treason must depend upon their nature degree
and purpose.
As a general rule, to be treasonous, the extent
of the aid and comfort given to the enemies
must be to render assistance to them as
enemies and not merely as individuals and in
addition, be directly in furtherance of the
enemies hostile designs.
His commandeering of women to satisfy the
lust of Japanese officers or men or to enliven
PEOPLE V. PEREZ
FACTS:
-Susano Perez alias Kid Perez was convicted of
treason and was sentenced to death by
electrocution.
-TC found the accused, together with the other
Filipinos, recruited, apprehended and
commandeered numerous girls and women
against their will for the purpose of using them,
to satisfy the sexual desire of the Japanese
officers.
-The Solicitor General submitted an opposite
view stating that the deeds committed by the
the entertainment helped to make life more

pleasant for the enemies and boost their spirit.
Sexual and social relations with the Japanese
did not directly and materially tend to improve
their war efforts or to weaken the power of US.
Whatever favorable effect the defendants
collaboration with the Japanese might have in
their prosecution of the war 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
circumstance of each particular case.
But the accused may be punished for the rape
as principal by direct participation. Without his
coordination in the manner above stated, these
grounds that the offense charged was not
rapes could not have been committed.
within the jurisdiction of the CFI, nor of any

court of the Philippine Islands, and that the
facts did not constitute a public offense, under
the laws in force in the Philippine Islands. The
People Vs. Lol lo and Saraw
demurrer was overruled by the trial judge, a

trial was had, and a judgment was rendered
This is CASE ON PIRACY which was decided EN
finding the two defendants guilty and
BANC by the Supreme Court
sentencing each of them to life imprisonment

(cadena perpetua), to return together with
G. R. No. L-17958 February 27, 1922
Kinawalang and Maulanis, defendants in

another case, to the offended parties, the
FACTS: This case is a tale of twentieth century
thirty-nine sacks of copras which had been
piracy in the south seas,attending rape and
robbed, or to indemnify them in the amount of
murder.
942 rupees, and to pay a one-half part of the

costs.
On or about June 30, 1920, two boats left of

Dutch possession. In one of the boats was one
ISSUE: Whether or not the elements of piracy
individual, a Dutch subject, and in the other
exists?
boat eleven men, women, and children,

likewise subjects of Holland.The second boat
HELD: The SC decided that in the present
arrived between the Islands of Buang and
case, the facts were proven and not disputed
Bukid in the Dutch East Indies. There the boat
and all of the elements of the crime of piracy
was surrounded by six vintas manned by
were present. Piracy is robbery or forcible
twenty-four Moros all armed. The Moros first
depredation on the high seas, without lawful
asked for food, but once on the Dutch boat,
authority and done animo furandi, and in the
took for themselves all of the cargo, attacked
spirit and intention of universal hostility. Piracy
some of the men, and brutally violated two of
is a crime not against any particular state but
the women by methods too horrible to
against all mankind which can be punished in
described. All of the persons on the Dutch boat,
the competent tribunal of any country where
with the exception of the two young women,
the offender may be found or into which he
were again placed on it and holes were made
may be carried. The jurisdiction of piracy,
in it, with the idea that it would submerge,
unlike all other crimes, has no territorial limits.
although as a matter of fact, these people,
As it is against all so may it be punished by all.
after eleven days of hardship and privation,
Therefore it does not matter that the crime was
were succored. Taking the two women with
committed within the jurisdictional 3-mile limit
them, and repeatedly violating them, the Moros
of a foreign state, "for those limits, though
finally arrived at Maruro, a Dutch possession.
neutral to war, are not neutral to crimes." (U. S.
Two of the Moro marauders were Lol-lo, who
vs. Furlong [1820], 5 Wheat., 184).
also raped one of the women, and Saraw. At

Maruro, the two women were able to escape.
ISSUE2: The most serious question which is

squarely presented to this court for decision for
After Lol-lo and Saraw later returned to their
the first time is whether or not the provisions of
home in South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi, Sulu,
the Penal Code dealing with the crime of piracy
Philippine Islands, they were arrested and were
are still in force. Articles 153 to 156 of the
charged in the CFI with the crime of piracy. The
Penal Code?
counsel of record interposed a demurrer on the
has the status of a Spaniard shall be

"Art. 153. The crime of piracy committed
against Spaniards, or the subjects of another
nation not at war with Spain, shall be punished
with a penalty ranging from cadena temporal
considered as such."
HELD: SC Decided that there was no doubt
that the articles of the Spanish Penal Code
to cadena perpetua.
dealing with piracy were meant to include the
"If the crime be committed against
of the Penal Code in relation to article 1 of the
nonbelligerent subjects of another nation at

war with Spain, it shall be punished with the
penalty or presidio mayor.
"Art. 154. Those who commit the crimes
referred to in the first paragraph of the next
preceding article shall suffer the penalty of
cadena perpetua or death, and those who
commit the crimes referred to in the second
paragraph of the same article, from cadena
Philippine Islands. Article 156 of the Penal Code

Constitution of the Spanish Monarchy, would
also make the provisions of the Code applicable
not only to Spaniards but to Filipinos.
It is also evident that the provisions of the

Penal Code now in force in the Philippines
relating to piracy are not inconsistent with the
corresponding provisions in force in the United
States.
temporal to cadena perpetua:

"1. Whenever they have seized some vessel by
boarding or firing upon the same.
"2. Whenever the crime is accompanied by
murder, homicide, or by any of the physical
injuries specified in articles four hundred and
fourteen and four hundred and fifteen and in
paragraphs one and two of article four hundred
The crime falls under the first paragraph of

Article 153 of the Penal Code in relation to
Article 154. There are present at least two of
the circumstances named in the last cited
article as authorizing either cadena perpetua or
death. The crime of piracy was accompanied
and sixteen.
by (1) an offense against chastity and (2) the
"3. Whenever it is accompanied by any of the
means of saving themselves. It is, therefore,
offenses against chastity specified in Chapter
abandonment of persons without apparent

only necessary for us to determine as to
II, Title IX, of the book.
whether the penalty of cadena perpetua or
"4. Whenever the pirates have abandoned any
the trial court, finding present the one
death should be imposed. In this connection,
persons without means of saving themselves.
aggravating circumstance of nocturnity, and
"5. In every case, the captain or skipper of the
circumstance of lack of instruction provided by
compensating the same by the one mitigating
pirates.
article 11, as amended, of the Penal Code,
"Art. 155. With respect to the provisions of this
least three aggravating circumstances, that the
title as well as all others of this code, when

Spain is mentioned it shall be understood as
sentenced the accused to life imprisonment. At

wrong done in the commission of the crime
was deliberately augmented by causing other
including any part of the national territory.
wrongs not necessary for its commission, that
"Art. 156. For the purpose of applying the
that means were employed which added
provisions of this code, every person, who,

according to the Constitution of the Monarchy,
advantage was taken of superior strength, and

ignominy to the natural effects of the act, must
also be taken into consideration in fixing the
penalty. Considering, therefore, the number

and importance of the qualifying and
aggravating circumstances here present, which
cannot be offset by the sole mitigating
circumstance of lack of instruction, and the
horrible nature of the crime committed, it
becomes our duty to impose capital
punishment.
The vote upon the sentence is unanimous with
regard to the propriety of the imposition of the
death penalty upon the defendant and
appellant Lol-lo [the accused who raped one of
the women] but is not unanimous with regard
to the defendant and appellant Saraw, since
one member of the Court, Mr. Justice
Romualdez, registers his nonconformity. In
accordance with the provisions of Act No. 2726,
it results, therefore, that the judgment of the
trial court as to the defendant and appellant
Saraw is affirmed, and is reversed as to the
defendant and appellant Lol-lo, who is found
guilty of the crime of piracy and is sentenced
therefor to be hung until dead, at such time
and place as shall be fixed by the Judge of First
Instance of the Twenty-sixth Judicial District.
The two appellants together with Kinawalang
and Maulanis, defendants in another case, shall
indemnify jointly and severally the offended
parties in the equivalent of 924 rupees, and
shall pay a one-half part of the cost of both
instances.
PEOPLE VS LOL-LO
Facts: It was on June 30, 1920 when two boats

left Matuta, a Dutch possession for Peta
another Dutch possession. One of the boat
carried a Dutch subject while the other carried
men, women, children, who are all subjects of
Holland. After number of days of navigation,
the second boat arrived between the Islands of
Buang and Bukid in the Dutch East Indies.
There the boat was surrounded by six vintas
manned by twenty four Moros all armed. The
Moros asked for the cargo, attacked some men
and brutally violated two women by methods
too horrible to describe. All of the persons on

the Dutch boat, with the exception of the two
women, were again placed in the boat with
holes made on it, on the idea that it wouold
submerge, although as a matter of fact, these
people were succored after eleven days. Two
of the Moro marauders were Lol-lo, who also
raped one of the women, and Saraw. At Maruro
the two women were able to escape. Lol-lo and
Saraw later returned to their home in South
Ubian, Tawi-taw, Sulu, Philippine Islands. They
were arrested and were charged in the Court of
First Instance of Sulu with the crime of piracy.
A demurrer was interposed by counsel de
officio for the Moros, based on the grounds that
the offense charged was not within the
jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, nor
any court of the Philippine Islands, that the
facts did not constitute a public offense, under
the laws in force in the Philippine Islands.
Issue: Whether or not the crime of piracy
committed by Lol-lo and Sarraw lack should be
dismissed on the ground that the Court of First
Instance lack jurisdiction to try the case
Ruling: No. Piracy is robbery or forcible
depredation on the high seas, without lawful
authority and done animo furandi, and in the
spirit and intention of universal hostility. Piracy
is not a crime against any particular state but
against all mankind. It may be punished in the
component tribunal of any country where the
offender may be found or into which he may be
carried. The jurisdiction of piracy unlike all
other crimes has no territorial limits.
ANTI-PIRACY AND ANTI-HIGHWAY

ROBBERY LAW OF 1974
WHEREAS, reports from law-enforcement
agencies reveal that lawless elements are still
committing acts of depredations upon the
persons and properties of innocent and
defenseless inhabitants who travel from one
place to another, thereby distributing the
peace, order and tranquility of the nation and
stunting the economic and social progress of
the people;
WHEREAS, such acts of depredations constitute
either piracy or highway robbery/brigandage
which are among the highest forms of
lawlessness condemned by the penal statutes
of all countries; and,
WHEREAS, it is imperative that said lawless
elements be discouraged from perpetrating
such acts of depredations by imposing heavy
penalty on the offenders, with the end in view
of eliminating all obstacles to the economic,
social, educational and community progress of
the people;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS,
President of the Philippines, by virtue of the
powers vested in me by the Constitution and
pursuant to proclamation No. 1081, dated
September 21, 1972 and No. 1104, dated
January 17, 1973 and General Order No. 1,
dated September 22, 1972, do hereby order
and decree as part of the law of the land the
following:
Section 1. Title. This Decree shall be known as
the Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law
of 1974.
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 532

August 8, 1974
Section 2. Definition of Terms. The following

terms shall mean and be understood, as
follows:
a. Philippine Waters. It shall refer to all
bodies of water, such as but not limited
to, seas, gulfs, bays around, between

and connecting each of the Islands of
the Philippine Archipelago, irrespective
of its depth, breadth, length or
dimension, and all other waters
belonging to the Philippines by historic
or legal title, including territorial sea,
the sea-bed, the insular shelves, and
other submarine areas over which the
Philippines has sovereignty or
jurisdiction.
b. Vessel. Any vessel or watercraft used
for transport of passengers and cargo
from one place to another through
Philippine Waters. It shall include all
kinds and types of vessels or boats
used in fishing.
c. Philippine Highway. It shall refer to
any road, street, passage, highway and
bridges or other parts thereof, or
railway or railroad within the
Philippines used by persons, or
vehicles, or locomotives or trains for
the movement or circulation of persons
or transportation of goods, articles, or
property or both.
d. Piracy. Any attack upon or seizure of
any vessel, or the taking away of the
whole or part thereof or its cargo,
equipment, or the personal belongings
of its complement or passengers,
irrespective of the value thereof, by
means of violence against or
intimidation of persons or force upon
things, committed by any person,
including a passenger or member of
the complement of said vessel, in
Philippine waters, shall be considered
as piracy. The offenders shall be
considered as pirates and punished as
hereinafter provided.
e. Highway Robbery/Brigandage. The

seizure of any person for ransom,
extortion or other unlawful purposes, or
the taking away of the property of
another by means of violence against
or intimidation of person or force upon
things of other unlawful means,
committed by any person on any
Philippine Highway.
Section 3. Penalties. Any person who commits
piracy or highway robbery/brigandage as
herein defined, shall, upon conviction by
competents court be punished by:
a. Piracy. The penalty of reclusion
temporal in its medium and maximum
periods shall be imposed. If physical
injuries or other crimes are committed
as a result or on the occasion thereof,
the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall
be imposed. If rape, murder or
homicide is committed as a result or on
the occasion of piracy, or when the
offenders abandoned the victims
without means of saving themselves,
or when the seizure is accomplished by
firing upon or boarding a vessel, the
mandatory penalty of death shall be
imposed.
b. Highway Robbery/Brigandage. The
penalty of reclusion temporal in its
minimum period shall be imposed. If
physical injuries or other crimes are
committed during or on the occasion of
the commission of robbery or
brigandage, the penalty of reclusion
temporal in its medium and maximum
periods shall be imposed. If kidnapping
for ransom or extortion, or murder or
homicide, or rape is committed as a
result or on the occasion thereof, the
penalty of death shall be imposed.
Section 4. Aiding pirates or highway
robbers/brigands or abetting piracy or highway
robbery/brigandage. Any person who
knowingly and in any manner aids or protects
pirates or highway robbers/brigands, such as
giving them information about the movement
of police or other peace officers of the
government, or acquires or receives property
taken by such pirates or brigands or in any

manner derives any benefit therefrom; or any
person who directly or indirectly abets the
commission of piracy or highway robbery or
brigandage, shall be considered as an
accomplice of the principal offenders and be
punished in accordance with the Rules
prescribed by the Revised Penal Code.
It shall be presumed that any person who does
any of the acts provided in this Section has
performed knowingly, unless the contrary is
proven.
Section 2. Any person violating any provision

of the foregoing section shall be punished by
an imprisonment of not less than twelve years
but not more than twenty years, or by a fine of
not less than twenty thousand pesos but not
more than forty thousand pesos.
The penalty of imprisonment of fifteen years to
death, or a fine of not less than twenty-five
thousand pesos but not more than fifty
thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any
person committing such violation under any of
the following circumstances:
Section 5. Repealing Clause. Pertinent

portions of Act No. 3815, otherwise known as
the Revised Penal Code; and all laws, decrees,
or orders or instructions, or parts thereof,
insofar as they are inconsistent with this
Decree are hereby repealed or modified
accordingly.
1. Whenever he has fired upon the

pilot, member of the crew or passenger
of the aircraft;
Section 6. Effectivity. This Decree shall take

effect upon approval.
3. Whenever the crime is accompanied

by murder, homicide, serious physical
injuries or rape.
Done in the City of Manila, this 8th day of

August, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen
hundred and seventy-four.
REPUBLIC ACT No. 6235

AN ACT PROHIBITING CERTAIN ACTS
INIMICAL TO CIVIL AVIATION, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES.
Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person
to compel a change in the course or
destination of an aircraft of Philippine registry,
or to seize or usurp the control thereof, while it
is in flight. An aircraft is in flight from the
moment all its external doors are closed
following embarkation until any of such doors
is opened for disembarkation.
It shall likewise be unlawful for any person to
compel an aircraft of foreign registry to land in
Philippine territory or to seize or usurp the
control thereof while it is within the said
territory.
2. Whenever he has exploded or

attempted to explode any bomb or
explosive to destroy the aircraft; or
Section 3. It shall be unlawful for any person,

natural or juridical, to ship, load or carry in any
passenger aircraft operating as a public utility
within the Philippines, and explosive,
flammable, corrosive or poisonous substance
or material.
Section 4. The shipping, loading or carrying of
any substance or material mentioned in the
preceding section in any cargo aircraft
operating as a public utility within the
Philippines shall be in accordance with
regulations issued by the Civil Aeronautics
Administration.
Section 5. As used in this Act
(1) "Explosive" shall mean any
substance, either solid or liquid,
mixture or single compound, which by
chemical reaction liberates heat and
gas at high speed and causes
tremendous pressure resulting in
explosion. The term shall include but
not limited to dynamites, firecrackers,
blasting caps, black powders, bursters,
percussions, cartridges and other

explosive materials, except bullets for
firearm.
(2) "Flammable" is any substance or
material that is highly combustible and
self-igniting by chemical reaction and
shall include but not limited to acrolein,
allene, aluminum dyethyl
monochloride, and other aluminum
compounds, ammonium chlorate and
other ammonium mixtures and other
similar substances or materials.
(3) "Corrosive" is any substance or
material, either liquid, solid or gaseous,
which through chemical reaction wears
away, impairs or consumes any object.
It shall include but not limited to
alkaline battery fluid packed with
empty storage battery, allyl
chloroformate, allytrichlorosilane,
ammonium dinitro-orthocresolate and
other similar materials and substances.
(4) "Poisonous" is any substance or
materials, except medicinal drug,
either liquid, solid or gaseous, which
through chemical reactions kills,
injuries or impairs a living organism or
person, and shall include but not
limited to allyl isothiocyanate,
ammunition (chemical, non-explosive
but containing Class A, B or poison),
aniline oil, arsine, bromobenzyle
cyanide, bromoacetone and other
similar substances or materials.
Section 6. Any violation of Section three
hereof shall be punishable by an imprisonment
of at least five years but not more than ten
years or by a fine of not less than ten thousand
pesos but not more than twenty thousand
pesos: Provided, That if the violation is
committed by a juridical person, the penalty
shall be imposed upon the manager,
representative, director, agent or employee
who violated, or caused, directed, cooperated
or participated in the violation
thereof: Provided, further, That in case the
violation is committed in the interest of a
foreign corporation legally doing business in
the Philippines, the penalty shall be imposed
upon its resident agent, manager,

representative or director responsible for such
violation and in addition thereto, the license of
said corporation to do business in the
Philippines shall be revoked.
Any violation of Section four hereof shall be an
offense punishable with the minimum of the
penalty provided in the next preceding
paragraph.
Section 7. For any death or injury to persons
or damage to property resulting from a
violation of Sections three and four hereof, the
person responsible therefor may be held liable
in accordance with the applicable provisions of
the Revised Penal Code.
Section 8. Aircraft companies which operate
as public utilities or operators of aircraft which
are for hire are authorized to open and
investigate suspicious packages and cargoes in
the presence of the owner or shipper, or his
authorized representatives if present; in order
to help the authorities in the enforcement of
the provisions of this Act: Provided, That if the
owner, shipper or his representative refuses to
have the same opened and inspected, the
airline or air carrier is authorized to refuse the
loading thereof.
Section 9. Every ticket issued to a passenger
by the airline or air carrier concerned shall
contain among others the following condition
printed thereon: "Holder hereof and his handcarried luggage(s) are subject to search for,
and seizure of, prohibited materials or
substances. Holder refusing to be searched
shall not be allowed to board the aircraft,"
which shall constitute a part of the contract
between the passenger and the air carrier.
Section 10. The Civil Aeronautics
Administration is hereby directed to
promulgate within one month after the
approval of this Act such regulations as are
provided in Section four hereof and cause the
publication of such rules and regulations in the
Official Gazette and in a newspaper of national
circulation for at least once a week for three
consecutive weeks. Such regulations shall take
effect fifteen days after publication in the
Official Gazette.
Section 11. This Act shall take effect after the

publication mentioned in the preceding section.
Approved: June 19, 1971
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7659

AN ACT TO IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY
ON CERTAIN HEINOUS CRIMES, AMENDING
FOR THAT PURPOSE THE REVISED PENAL
LAWS, AS AMENDED, OTHER SPECIAL
PENAL LAWS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
WHEREAS, the Constitution, specifically Article
III, Section 19 paragraph (1) thereof, states
"Excessive fines shall not be imposed nor cruel,
degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted.
Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless,
for compelling reasons involving heinous
crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. .
.";
WHEREAS, the crimes punishable by death
under this Act are heinous for being grievous,
odious and hateful offenses and which, by
reason of their inherent or manifest
wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and
perversity are repugnant and outrageous to the
common standards and norms of decency and
morality in a just, civilized and ordered society;
WHEREAS, due to the alarming upsurge of such
crimes which has resulted not only in the loss
of human lives and wanton destruction of
property but also affected the nation's efforts
towards sustainable economic development
and prosperity while at the same time has
undermined the people's faith in the
Government and the latter's ability to maintain
peace and order in the country;
WHEREAS, the Congress, in the justice, public
order and the rule of law, and the need to
rationalize and harmonize the penal sanctions
for heinous crimes, finds compelling reasons to
impose the death penalty for said crimes;
Now, therefore,
Section 1. Declaration of Policy. - It is hereby

declared the policy of the State to foster and
ensure not only obedience to its authority, but
also to adopt such measures as would
effectively promote the maintenance of peace
and order, the protection of life, liberty and
property, and the promotion of the general
welfare which are essential for the enjoyment
by all the people of the blessings of democracy
in a just and humane society;
Section 2. Article 114 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, is hereby amended to read
as follows:
"Art. 114. Treason. - Any Filipino citizen
who levies war against the Philippines
or adheres to her enemies giving them
aid or comfort within the Philippines or
elsewhere, shall be punished by
reclusion perpetua to death and shall
pay a fine not to exceed 100,000
pesos."
No person shall be convicted of treason
unless on the testimony of two
witnesses at least to the same overt
act or on confession of the accused in
open court.
Likewise, an alien, residing in the
Philippines, who commits acts of
treason as defined in paragraph 1 of
this Article shall be punished by
reclusion temporal to death and shall
pay a fine not to exceed 100,000
pesos."
Section 3. Section Three, Chapter One, Title
One of Book Two of the same Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"Section Three. - Piracy and mutiny on
the high seas or in the Philippine
waters
Art. 122. Piracy in general and mutiny
on the high seas or in Philippine
waters. - The penalty of reclusion
perpetua shall be inflicted upon any
person who, on the high seas, or in
Philippine waters, shall attack or seize
a vessel or, not being a member of its

complement nor a passenger, shall
seize the whole or part of the cargo of
said vessel, its equipment or
passengers.
The same penalty shall be inflicted in
case of mutiny on the high seas or in
Philippine waters."
Art. 123. Qualified piracy. - The penalty
of reclusion perpetua to death shall be
imposed upon those who commit any
of the crimes referred to in the
preceding article, under any of the
following circumstances:
1. Whenever they have seized
a vessel by boarding or firing
upon the same;
2. Whenever the pirates have
abandoned their victims
without means of saving
themselves or;
3. Whenever the crime is
accompanied by murder,
homicide, physical injuries or
rape."
Section 4. There shall be incorporated after
Article 211 of the same Code a new article to
read as follows:
"Art. 211-A. Qualified Bribery. - If any
public officer is entrusted with law
enforcement and he refrains from
arresting or prosecuting an offender
who has committed a crime punishable
by reclusion perpetua and/or death in
consideration of any offer, promise, gift
or present, he shall suffer the penalty
for the offense which was not
prosecuted.
If it is the public officer who asks or
demands such gift or present, he shall
suffer the penalty of death."
Section 5. The penalty of death for parricide

under Article 246 of the same Code is hereby
restored, so that it shall read as follows:
"Art. 246. Parricide. - Any person who
shall kill his father, mother, or child,
whether legitimate of illegitimate, or
any of his ascendants, or descendants,
or his spouse, shall be guilty of
parricide and shall be punished by the
penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death."
Section 6. Article 248 of the same Code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
"Art. 248. Murder. - Any person who,
not falling within the provisions of
Article 246 shall kill another, shall be
guilty of murder and shall be punished
by reclusion perpetua, to death if
committed with any of the following
attendant circumstances:
1. With treachery, taking
advantage of superior strength,
with the aid of armed men, or
employing means to weaken
the defense or of means or
persons to insure or afford
impunity.
2. In consideration of a price,
reward or promise.
3. By means of inundation, fire,
poison, explosion, shipwreck,
stranding of a vessel,
derailment or assault upon a
railroad, fall of an airship, or by
means of motor vehicles, or
with the use of any other
means involving great waste
and ruin.
4. On occasion of any of the
calamities enumerated in the
preceding paragraph, or of an
earthquake, eruption of a
volcano, destructive cyclone,
epidemic or other public
calamity.
5. With evident premeditation.

6. With cruelty, by deliberately
and inhumanly augmenting the
suffering of the victim, or
outraging or scoffing at his
person or corpse."
"Art. 255. Infanticide. - The penalty
provided for parricide in Article 246 and
for murder in Article 248 shall be
imposed upon any person who shall kill
any child less than three days of age.
If any crime penalized in this Article be
committed by the mother of the child
for the purpose of concealing her
dishonor, she shall suffer the penalty of
prision mayor in its medium and
maximum periods, and if said crime be
committed for the same purpose by the
maternal grandparents or either of
them, the penalty shall be reclusion
temporal."
"Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious
illegal detention. - Any private
individual who shall kidnap or detain
another, or in any other manner
deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death:
1. If the kidnapping or
detention shall have lasted
more than three days.
2. If it shall have been
committed simulating public
authority.
3. If any serious physical
injuries shall have been
inflicted upon the person
kidnapped or detained; or if
threats to kill him shall have

been made.
4. If the person kidnapped or
detained shall be a minor,
except when the accused is
any of the parents, female or a
public officer.
The penalty shall be death penalty
where the kidnapping or detention was
committed for the purpose of extorting
ransom from the victim or any other
person, even if none of the
circumstances above-mentioned were
present in the commission of the
offense.
When the victim is killed or dies as a
consequence of the detention or is
raped, or is subjected to torture or
dehumanizing acts, the maximum
penalty shall be imposed."
"Art. 294. Robbery with violence
against or intimidation of persons Penalties. - Any person guilty of
robbery with the use of violence
against or intimidation of any person
shall suffer:
1. The penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death, when by
reason or on occasion of the
robbery, the crime of homicide
shall have been committed, or
when the robbery shall have
been accompanied by rape or
intentional mutilation or arson.
temporal in its medium period
to reclusion perpetua, when or
if by reason or on occasion of
such robbery, any of the
physical injuries penalized in
subdivision I of Article 263 shall
have been inflicted.

temporal, when by reason or
on occasion of the robbery, any
of the physical injuries
penalized in subdivision 2 of
the article mentioned in the
next preceding paragraph, shall
have been inflicted.
4. The penalty of prision mayor
in its maximum period to
reclusion temporal in its
medium period, if the violence
or intimidation employed in the
commission of the robbery
shall have been carried to a
degree clearly unnecessary for
the commission of the crime, or
when in the course of its
execution, the offender shall
have inflicted upon any person
not responsible for its
commission any of the physical
injuries covered by subdivisions
3 and 4 of said Article 263.
5. The penalty of prision
correccional in its maximum
period to prision mayor in its
medium period in other cases."
"Art. 320. Destructive Arson. - The
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death
shall be imposed upon any person who
shall burn:
1. One (1) or more buildings or
edifices, consequent to one
single act of burning, or as a
result of simultaneous
burnings, committed on several
or different occasions.
2. Any building of public or
private ownership, devoted to
the public in general or where
people usually gather or
congregate for a definite
purpose such as, but not
limited to, official

governmental function or
business, private transaction,
commerce, trade, workshop,
meetings and conferences, or
merely incidental to a definite
purpose such as but not limited
to hotels, motels, transient
dwellings, public conveyances
or stops or terminals,
regardless of whether the
offender had knowledge that
there are persons in said
building or edifice at the time it
is set on fire and regardless
also of whether the building is
actually inhabited or not.
3. Any train or locomotive, ship
or vessel, airship or airplane,
devoted to transportation or
conveyance, or for public use,
entertainment or leisure.
4. Any building, factory,
warehouse installation and any
appurtenances thereto, which
are devoted to the service of
public utilities.
5. Any building the burning of
which is for the purpose of
concealing or destroying
evidence of another violation of
law, or for the purpose of
concealing bankruptcy or
defrauding creditors or to
collect from insurance.
Irrespective of the application of the
above enumerated qualifying
circumstances, the penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death shall likewise be
imposed when the arson is perpetrated
or committed by two (2) or more
persons or by a group of persons,
regardless of whether their purpose is
merely to burn or destroy the building
or the burning merely constitutes an
overt act in the commission or another
violation of law.
The penalty of reclusion perpetua to

death shall also be imposed upon any
person who shall burn:
When by reason or on the occasion of

the rape, the victim has become
insane, the penalty shall be death.
1. Any arsenal, shipyard,

storehouse or military powder
or fireworks factory, ordnance,
storehouse, archives or general
museum of the Government.
When the rape is attempted or

frustrated and a homicide is committed
by reason or on the occasion thereof,
the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua
to death.
2. In an inhabited place, any

storehouse or factory of
inflammable or explosive
materials.
When by reason or on the occasion of

the rape, a homicide is committed, the
penalty shall be death.
If as a consequence of the
commission of any of the acts
penalized under this Article,
death results, the mandatory
penalty of death shall be
imposed."
"Art. 335. When and how rape is
committed. - Rape is committed by
having carnal knowledge of a woman
under any of the following
circumstances:
1. By using force or
intimidation;
2. When the woman is deprived
of reason or otherwise
unconscious; and
3. When the woman is under
twelve years of age or is
demented.
The crime of rape shall be punished by
reclusion perpetua.
Whenever the crime of rape is
committed with the use of a deadly
weapon or by two or more persons, the
penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to
death.
The death penalty shall also be

imposed if the crime of rape is
committed with any of the following
attendant circumstances:
1. when the victim is under
eighteen (18) years of age and
the offender is a parent,
ascendant, step-parent,
guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity within
the third civil degree, or the
common-law-spouse of the
parent of the victim.
2. when the victim is under the
custody of the police or military
authorities.
3. when the rape is committed
in full view of the husband,
parent, any of the children or
other relatives within the third
degree of consanguinity.
4. when the victim is a religious
or a child below seven (7)
years old.
5. when the offender knows
that he is afflicted with
Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome (AIDS) disease.
6. when committed by any
member of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines or the Philippine
National Police or any law

enforcement agency.
7. when by reason or on the
occasion of the rape, the victim
has suffered permanent
physical mutilation."
Section 12. Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7080
(An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of
Plunder) is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 2. Definition of the Crime of
Plunder; Penalties. - Any public officer
who, by himself or in connivance with
members of his family, relatives by
affinity or consanguinity, business
associates, subordinates or other
persons, amasses, accumulates or
acquires ill-gotten wealth through a
combination or series of overt criminal
acts as described in Section 1 (d)
hereof in the aggregate amount or total
value of at least Fifty million pesos
(P50,000,000.00) shall be guilty of the
crime of plunder and shall be punished
by reclusion perpetua to death. Any
person who participated with the said
public officer in the commission of an
offense contributing to the crime of
plunder shall likewise be punished for
such offense. In the imposition of
penalties, the degree of participation
and the attendance of mitigating and
extenuating circumstances, as
provided by the Revised Penal Code,
shall be considered by the court. The
court shall declare any and all ill-gotten
wealth and their interests and other
incomes and assets including the
properties and shares of stocks derived
from the deposit or investment thereof
forfeited in favor of the State."
Section 13. Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9, of
Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended,
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act 1972, are
"Sec. 3. Importation of Prohibited
Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death and a fine ranging
from five hundred thousand pesos to
ten million pesos shall be imposed

upon any person who, unless
authorized by law, shall import or bring
into the Philippines any prohibited
drug.
"Sec. 4. Sale, Administration, Delivery,
Distribution and Transportation of
Prohibited Drugs. - The penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death and a fine
authorized by law, shall sell,
administer, deliver, give away to
another, distribute, dispatch in transit
or transport any prohibited drug, or
shall act as a broker in any of such
transactions.
Notwithstanding the provisions of
Section 20 of this Act to the contrary, if
the victim of the offense is a minor, or
should a prohibited drug involved in
any offense under this Section be the
proximate cause of the death of a
victim thereof, the maximum penalty
herein provided shall be imposed.
"Sec. 5. Maintenance of a Den, Dive or
Resort for Prohibited Drug Users. - The
and a fine ranging from five hundred
thousand pesos to ten million pesos
shall be imposed upon any person or
group of persons who shall maintain a
den, dive or resort where any
prohibited drug is used in any form or
where such prohibited drugs in
quantities specified in Section 20,
Paragraph 1 of this Act are found.
Section 20 of this Act to the contrary,
the maximum of the penalty shall be
imposed in every case where a
prohibited drug is administered,
delivered or sold to a minor who is
allowed to use the same in such place.
Should a prohibited drug be the
person using the same in such den,
dive or resort, the maximum penalty

herein provided shall be imposed on
the maintainer notwithstanding the
provisions of Section 20 of this Act to
the contrary.
Section 14. Sections 14, 14-A, and 15 of

Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as
amended, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act
of 1972, are hereby amended to read as
follows:
"Sec. 7. Manufacture of Prohibited

Drug. - The penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death and fine ranging
authorized by law, shall engage in the
manufacture of any prohibited drug.
"Sec. 14. Importation of Regulated

authorized by law, shall import or bring
any regulated drug in the Philippines.
"Sec. 8. Possession or Use of Prohibited

authorized by law, shall possess or use
any prohibited drug subject to the
provisions of Section 20 hereof.
"Sec. 14-A. Manufacture of Regulated

authorized by law, shall engage in the
manufacture of any regulated drug.
"Sec. 9. Cultivation of Plants which are

Sources of Prohibited Drugs. - The
shall be imposed upon any person who
shall plant, cultivate or culture any
medium Indian hemp, opium poppy
(papaver somniferum), or any other
plant which is or may hereafter be
classified as dangerous drug or from
which any dangerous drug may be
manufactured or derived.
The land or portions hereof, and/or
greenhouses on which any of said
plants is cultivated or cultured shall be
confiscated and escheated to the
State, unless the owner thereof can
prove that he did not know such
cultivation or culture despite the
exercise of due diligence on his part.
If the land involved in is part of the
public domain, the maximum of the
penalties herein provided shall be
imposed upon the offender."
"Sec. 15. Sale, Administration,

Dispensation, Delivery, Transportation
and Distribution of Regulated Drugs. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death and a fine ranging from five
hundred thousand pesos to ten million
pesos shall be imposed upon any
person who, unless authorized by law,
shall sell, dispense, deliver, transport
or distribute any regulated drug.
Section 20 of this Act to the contrary, if
the victim of the offense is a minor, or
should a regulated drug involved in any
offense under this Section be the
victim thereof, the maximum penalty
herein provided shall be imposed."
Section 15 of Article III of Republic Act No.
6425, as amended, known as the Dangerous
Drug Act of 1972, a new section to read as
follows:
"Sec. 15-a. Maintenance of a den, dive
or resort for regulated drug users. - The

shall be imposed upon any person or
group of persons who shall maintain a
den, dive or resort where any regulated
drugs is used in any form, or where
such regulated drugs in quantities
specified in Section 20, paragraph 1 of
this Act are found.
Section 20 of this Act to the contrary,
the maximum penalty herein provided
shall be imposed in every case where a
regulated drug is administered,
delivered or sold to a minor who is
allowed to use the same in such place.
Should a regulated drug be the
person using the same in such den,
dive or resort, the maximum penalty
herein provided shall be imposed on
the maintainer notwithstanding the
provisions of Section 20 of this Act to
the contrary."
Section 16. Section 16 of Article III of Republic
Act No. 6425, as amended, known as the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, is amended to
read as follows:
"Sec. 16. Possession or Use of
Regulated Drugs. - The penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death and a fine
ranging from five hundred thousand
pesos to ten million pesos shall be
imposed upon any person who shall
possess or use any regulated drug
without the corresponding license or
prescription, subject to the provisions
of Section 20 hereof."
Section 17. Section 20, Article IV of
Republic Act No. 6425, as amended,
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972, is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 20. Application of Penalties,
Confiscation and Forfeiture of the
Proceeds or Instruments of the Crime. The penalties for offenses under

Section 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of Article II and
Sections 14, 14-A, 15 and 16 of Article
III of this Act shall be applied if the
dangerous drugs involved is in any of
the following quantities :
1. 40 grams or more of opium;
2. 40 grams or more of
morphine;
3. 200 grams or more of shabu
or methylamphetamine
hydrochloride;
4. 40 grams or more of heroin;
5. 750 grams or more of indian
hemp or marijuana;
6. 50 grams or more of
marijuana resin or marijuana
resin oil;
7. 40 grams or more of cocaine
or cocaine hydrochloride; or
8. In the case of other
dangerous drugs, the quantity
of which is far beyond
therapeutic requirements, as
determined and promulgated
by the Dangerous Drugs Board,
after public
consultations/hearings
conducted for the purpose.
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is
less than the foregoing quantities, the
penalty shall range from prision
correccional to reclusion perpetua
depending upon the quantity.
Every penalty imposed for the unlawful
importation, sale, administration,
delivery, transportation or manufacture
of dangerous drugs, the cultivation of
plants which are sources of dangerous
drugs and the possession of any opium
pipe and other paraphernalia for
dangerous drugs shall carry with it the

confiscation and forfeiture, in favor of
the Government, of all the proceeds of
the crime including but not limited to
money and other obtained thereby and
the instruments or tools with which it
was committed, unless they are the
property of a third person not liable for
the offense, but those which are not of
lawful commerce shall be ordered
destroyed without delay. Dangerous
drugs and plant sources of such drugs
as well as the proceeds or instruments
of the crime so confiscated and
forfeited in favor of the Government
shall be turned over to the Board for
proper disposal without delay.
Any apprehending or arresting officer
who misappropriates or misapplies or
fails to account for seized or
confiscated dangerous drugs or plantsources of dangerous drugs or
proceeds or instruments of the crime
as are herein defined shall after
conviction be punished by the penalty
of reclusion perpetua to death and a
fine ranging from five hundred
thousand pesos to ten million pesos."
Section 20 of Republic Act No. 6425, as
amended, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act
of 1972, a new section to read as follows:
"Sec. 20-A. Plea-bargaining Provisions. Any person charged under any
provision of this Act where the
imposable penalty is reclusion
perpetua to death shall not be allowed
to avail of the provision on plea
bargaining."
Section 19. Section 24 of Republic Act No.
6425, as amended, known as the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972, is hereby amended to read
as follows :
"Sec. 24. Penalties for Government
Official and Employees and Officers
and Members of Police Agencies and
the Armed Forces, 'Planting' of
Evidence. - The maximum penalties
provided for Section 3, 4(1), 5(1), 6, 7,

8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 of Article II and
Sections 14, 14-A, 15(1), 16 and 19 of
Article III shall be imposed, if those
found guilty of any of the said offenses
are government officials, employees or
officers, including members of police
agencies and the armed forces.
Any such above government official,
employee or officer who is found guilty
of "planting" any dangerous drugs
punished in Sections 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and
13 of Article II and Sections 14, 14-A,
15 and 16 of Article III of this Act in the
person or in the immediate vicinity of
another as evidence to implicate the
latter, shall suffer the same penalty as
therein provided."
Section 20. Sec. 14 of Republic Act No. 6539,
as amended, known as the Anti-Carnapping Act
of 1972, is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 14. Penalty for Carnapping. - Any
person who is found guilty of
carnapping, as this term is defined in
Section Two of this Act, shall,
irrespective of the value of motor
vehicle taken, be punished by
imprisonment for not less than
fourteen years and eight months and
not more than seventeen years and
four months, when the carnapping is
committed without violence or
intimidation of persons, or force upon
things; and by imprisonment for not
less than seventeen years and four
months and not more than thirty years,
when the carnapping is committed by
means of violence against or
intimidation of any person, or force
upon things; and the penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death shall be
imposed when the owner, driver or
occupant of the carnapped motor
vehicle is killed or raped in the course
of the commission of the carnapping or
on the occasion thereof."
Section 21. Article 27 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, is hereby amended to read
as follows:
"Art. 27. Reclusion perpetua. - The

penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be
from twenty years and one day to forty
years.
Reclusion temporal. - The penalty of
reclusion temporal shall be from twelve
years and one day to twenty years.
Prision mayor and temporary
disqualification. - The duration of the
penalties of prision mayor and
temporary disqualification shall be
from six years and one day to twelve
years, except when the penalty of
disqualification is imposed as an
accessory penalty, in which case, it
shall be that of the principal penalty.
Prision correccional, suspension, and
destierro. - The duration of the
penalties of prision correccional,
suspension, and destierro shall be from
six months and one day to six years,
except when the suspension is imposed
as an accessory penalty, in which case,
its duration shall be that of the
principal penalty.
Arresto mayor. - The duration of the
penalty of arresto mayor shall be from
one month and one day to six months.
Arresto menor. - The duration of the
penalty of arresto menor shall be from
one day to thirty days.
Bond to keep the peace. - The bond to
keep the peace shall be required to
cover such period of time as the court
may determine."
Art. 47. In what cases the death
penalty shall not be imposed;
Automatic review of the Death Penalty
Cases. - The death penalty shall be
imposed in all cases in which it must be
imposed under existing laws, except
when the guilty person is below
eighteen (18) years of age at the time

of the commission of the crime or is
more than seventy years of age or
when upon appeal or automatic review
of the case by the Supreme Court, the
required majority vote is not obtained
for the imposition of the death penalty,
in which cases the penalty shall be
reclusion perpetua.
In all cases where the death penalty is
imposed by the trial court, the records
shall be forwarded to the Supreme
Court for automatic review and
judgment by the Court en banc, within
twenty (20) days but not earlier than
fifteen (15) days after promulgation of
the judgment or notice of denial of any
motion for new trial or reconsideration.
The transcript shall also be forwarded
within ten (10) days from the filing
thereof by the stenographic reporter."
Section 23. Article 62 of the same Code, as
amended, is hereby amended to read as
follows :
"Art. 62. Effects of the attendance of
mitigating or aggravating
circumstances and of habitual
delinquency. - Mitigating or aggravating
circumstances and habitual
delinquency shall be taken into account
for the purpose of diminishing or
increasing the penalty in conformity
with the following rules:
1. Aggravating circumstances which in
themselves constitute a crime specially
punishable by law or which are
included by the law in defining a crime
and prescribing the penalty therefor
shall not be taken into account for the
purpose of increasing the penalty.
1(a). When in the commission of the
crime, advantage was taken by the
offender of his public position, the
penalty to be imposed shall be in its
maximum regardless of mitigating
circumstances.
The maximum penalty shall be

imposed if the offense was committed
by any group who belongs to an
organized/syndicated crime group.
An organized/syndicated crime group
means a group of two or more persons
collaborating, confederating or
mutually helping one another for
purposes of gain in the commission of
any crime.
2. The same rule shall apply with
respect to any aggravating
circumstances inherent in the crime to
such a degree that it must of necessity
accompany the commission thereof.
3. Aggravating or mitigating
circumstances which arise from the
moral attributes of the offender, or
from his private relations with the
offended party, or from any other
personal cause, shall only serve to
aggravate or mitigate the liability of
the principals, accomplices and
accessories as to whom such
circumstances are attendant.
4. The circumstances which consist in
the material execution of the act, or in
the means employed to accomplish it,
shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the
liability of those persons only who had
knowledge of them at the time of the
execution of the act or their
cooperation therein.
5. Habitual delinquency shall have the
following effects :
(a) Upon a third conviction the
culprit shall be sentenced to
the penalty provided by law for
the last crime of which he be
found guilty and to the
additional penalty of prision
correccional in its medium and
maximum periods;
(b) Upon a fourth conviction,
the culprit shall be sentenced
to the penalty provided for the

last crime of which he be found
guilty and to the additional
penalty of prision mayor in its
minimum and medium periods;
and
(c) Upon a fifth or additional
conviction, the culprit shall be
sentenced to the penalty
provided for the last crime of
which he be found guilty and to
the additional penalty of prision
mayor in its maximum period
to reclusion temporal in its
minimum period.
Notwithstanding the provisions
of this article, the total of the
two penalties to be imposed
upon the offender, in
conformity herewith, shall in no
case exceed 30 years.
For purposes of this article, a
person shall be deemed to be a
habitual delinquent, if within a
period of ten years from the
date of his release or last
conviction of the crimes of
serious or less serious physical
injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or
falsification, he is found guilty
of any of said crimes a third
time or oftener.
Section 24. Article 81 of the same Code, as
amended, is hereby amended to read as
follows :
"Art. 81. When and how the death
penalty is to be executed. - The death
sentence shall be executed with
preference to any other and shall
consist in putting the person under
sentence to death by electrocution.
The death sentence shall be executed
under the authority of the Director of
Prisons, endeavoring so far as possible
to mitigate the sufferings of the person
under the sentence during
electrocution as well as during the
proceedings prior to the execution.
If the person under sentence so

desires, he shall be anaesthetized at
the moment of the execution.
As soon as facilities are provided by the
Bureau of Prisons, the method of
carrying out the sentence shall be
changed to gas poisoning.
The death sentence shall be carried out
not later than one (1) year after the
judgment has become final."
"Art. 83. Suspension of the execution of
the death sentence. - The death
sentence shall not be inflicted upon a
woman while she is pregnant or within
one (1) year after delivery, nor upon
any person over seventy years of age.
In this last case, the death sentence
shall be commuted to the penalty of
reclusion perpetua with the accessory
penalties provided in Article 40.
In all cases where the death sentence
has become final, the records of the
case shall be forwarded immediately
by the Supreme Court to the Office of
the President for possible exercise of
the pardoning power."
Section 26.<="" p="">
Section 27. If, for any reason or reasons, any

part of the provision of this Act shall be held to
be unconstitutional or invalid, other parts or
provisions hereof which are not affected
thereby shall continue to be in full force and
effect.
Section 28. This Act shall take effect fifteen
(15) days after its publication in two (2)
national newspapers of general circulation. The
publication shall not be later than seven (7)
days after the approval hereof.
Approved: December 13, 1993

People Vs Nemesio L. Agpangan: Facts

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

People Vs Nemesio L. Agpangan: Facts

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

People vs Nemesio L.

the precise one which has actually been

The decision to acquit him is not only based on

G.R. No. L-778

October 10, 1947

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, vs. NEMESIO L.

who might attempt to escape and also any

"I could not run fast because I was lame;" the

them to the Japanese;" "the accused and the

(Article II, section 1 [17].) To overcome this

the test under the two-witness

one, and another as to the other, is not

ISSUE: WHETHER THE ABSOLUTE

Whether or not the allegiance of the

ALLEGIANCE OF A FILIPINO CITIZEN TO

No, a citizen or subject owes, not a qualified

THE GOVERNMENT BECOMES SUSPENDED

No. The absolute and permanent allegiance of

generally accepted principles of the

international law adopted by our Constitution

flier with a rope. There was no mention of a

Juanito Albano testified that the accused and

know what happened to the flier.

Valentin Cuison testified that he saw the

-The lower court believes that the accused is

-The next witness, testified that he saw the

guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime

of treason complexed by murder and physical

In the nature of things, the giving aid and

injuries, with the aggravating circumstances

comfort can only be accomplished by some

mentioned above. Apparently, the court has

kind of action. Its very nature partakes of a

regarded the murders and physical injuries

deed or physical activity as opposed to a

charged in the information, not only as crimes

mental operation. This deed or physical activity

distinct from treason but also as modifying

may be, and often is, in itself a criminal offense

circumstances. The Solicitor General agrees

under another penal statute or provision. Even

with the decision except as to the technical

so, when the deed is charged as an element of

designation of the crime. In his opinion, the

treason it becomes identified with the latter

offense committed by the appellant is a

crime and cannot be the subject of a separate

complex crime of treason with homicide.

-Accused being a member of the Japanese

However, the brutality with the killing or

Military Police and acting as undercover man

physical injuries were carried out may be taken

for the Japanese forces with the purpose of

as an aggravating circumstances. Thus, the

giving and with the intent to give aid and

use of torture and other atrocities on the

comfort feloniously and treasonably lad, guide

victims instead of the usual and less painful

and accompany a patrol of Japanese soldiers

method of execution will be taken into account

and Filipino undercovers for the purpose of

to increase the penalty.

apprehending guerillas and locating their