1. PPL V CATANTAN
SORIA V DESIERTO
Facts: The Pilapil brothers - Eugene and Juan Jr. were fishing
in the sea some 3 kilometers away from the shores of
Tabogon, Cebu when accused Emiliano Catantan and Jose
Macven Ursal, boarded the pump boat of the Pilapils and
Catantan leveled his gun on the Pilapils.
As the pump boat of the Pilapil breaks down, Catantan
boarded another pump boat and ordered the operator
Juanito to take them to Mungaz, Cebu.
The new pump boat ran out of gas and the accused were
apprehended by the police soon after the Pilapils reported
the matter to the local authorities.
Issue: W/N the accused was guilty of piracy as defined by
PD 532 or grave coercion by RPC 286
Ruling: Appellants were convicted of the crime of
Piracy under PD532.
Under the definition of piracy in PD No. 532 as well as grave
coercion as penalized in Art. 286 of the Revised Penal Code,
this case falls squarely within the purview of piracy. While
it may be true that Pilapil brothers were compelled to go
elsewhere other than their place of destination, such
compulsion was obviously part of the act of seizing their
boat.
Section 2, par. (d), of PD No. 532, defines piracy as "any
attack upon or seizure of any vessel, xxx by means of
violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon
things, committed by any person, xxx in Philippine waters,
shall be considered as piracy. The offenders shall be
considered as pirates and punished as hereinafter
provided."
On the other hand, grave coercion as defined in Art. 286 of
the Revised Penal Code is committed by "any person who,
without authority of law, shall, by means of violence,
prevent another from doing something not prohibited by
law, or compel him to do something against his will,
whether it be right or wrong."
To sustain the defense and convert this case of piracy into
one of grave coercion would be to ignore the fact that a
fishing vessel cruising in Philippine waters was seized by the
accused by means of violence against or intimidation of
persons.
2.
Facts: Rodolfo Soria and Edimar Bista were arrested on May
13, 2001 (a Sunday and the day before May 14 elections)
without a warrant by respondents for alleged illegal
possession of firearms and ammunition. One police
identified Bista to have a standing warrant of arrest for
violation of BP Blg. 6.From the time of Soria’s detention up
to the time of his release, 22 hours had already elapsed and
Bista was detained for 26 days.
The crimes for which Soria was arrested without warrant
are punishable by correctional penalties or their equivalent,
thus, criminal complaints or information should be filed
with the proper judicial authorities within 18 hours of his
arrest. The crimes for which Bista was arrested are
punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or their
equivalent, thus, he could only be detained for 36 hours
without criminal complaints or information having been
filed with the proper judicial authorities.
Petitioners filed with the Office of the
Ombudsman for Military Affairs a complaint-affidavit for
violation of Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code against
herein private respondents. The office dismissed the
complaint for lack of merit. Petitioners then filed their
motion for reconsideration which was denied for lack of
merit in the second assailed Resolution.
Issue: Whether or not Respondents are liable for violation
of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code (Delay in the
delivery of detained persons)
Ruling: No, based on applicable laws and jurisprudence, an
election day or a special holiday, should not be included in
the computation of the period prescribed by law for the
filing of complaint/information in courts in cases of
warrantless arrests, it being a 'no-office day. Hence, there
could be no arbitrary detention or violation of Article 125 of
the Revised Penal Code.
In the same vein, the complaint of Bista against the
respondents for Violation of Article 125, will not prosper
because the running of the thirty-six (36)-hour period
prescribed by law for the filing of the complaint against him
from the time of his arrest was tolled by one day (election
day). Moreover, he has a standing warrant of arrest for
Violation of B.P. Blg. 6 and he could only be released if he
has no other pending criminal case requiring his continuous
detention.
 3. ESPAÑOL vs. TOLEDO-MUPAS
AM No. MTJ-03-1462 – Feb 11, 2010
Per Curiam
Facts: Judge Mupas file an admin complaint against Judge
Espaol for allegedly usurping the functions of exec judge of
Dasmarinas Cavite and for ordering judge Mupas to desist
from accepting, for preliminary investigation,' criminal
cases falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional
Trial Court, where suspects are apprehended pursuant to
Sec. 7, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Judge Espaol filed her Comment, She further stated that her
Order dated April 18, 2002, directing the respondent to
desist from conducting preliminary investigation, did not
deprive the latter of the authority to conduct preliminary
investigation but merely stopped her from conducting the
same for being violative of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure, Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code and
Republic Act No. 7438. Judge Espaol also said that Judge
Mupas operated the MTC of Dasmarias, Cavite as a One-
Stop Shop where criminal suspects apprehended without a
warrant are ordered detained in the municipal jail by virtue
of an unsigned Detention Pending Investigation of the Case,
in lieu of a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code, as prescribed by R.A. No. 7438 and by
Section 7, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure.
Issue: W/N the document entitled "Detention Pending
Investigation of Cases" can validly be deemed to be an
implied waiver of the rights of the accused under Article 125
of the Revised Penal Code
Ruling: NO. Sec. 2 e) of RA 7438 provides that:
xxx Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the
provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, or
under custodial investigation, shall be in writing and signed
by such person in the presence of his counsel; otherwise
the waiver shall be null and void and of no effect.
In the present case, while the documents denominated
"Detention Pending Investigation of the Case", it is
noteworthy that Judge Mupas continued with the practice
even after her attention had been called. Worse, she
remained insistent that the document was an implied
waiver of the rights of the accused under Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code. Judge Mupas must be reminded that
although judges have in their favor the presumption of
regularity and good faith in the performance of their official
functions, a blatant disregard of the clear and unmistakable
terms of the law obviates this presumption and renders
them susceptible to administrative sanctions.
WHEREFORE, Judge Mupas of the MTC of Dasmarias, Cavite
is guilty of gross ignorance of the law. This being her fourth
offense, she is hereby ORDERED DISMISSED FROM THE
SERVICE.
4. BURGOS V CHIEF OF STAFF
Facts: Judge Cruz-Pano issued search warrants for the
offices of “Metropolitan Mail” and “We Forum,” during
which printing equipment, motor vehicles, documents,
books, etc possessed by Burgos Jr., the publisher-editor,
because these were alleged to be used in subversive
activities.
Respondents said that the case should be dismissed
because petitioners should have sought the quashal of the
warrant from Cruz-Pano itself. The SC said that yes there
was a procedural flaw but they still take cognizance of the
case because of the urgency of the constitutional issues as
well as how “We Forum” garnered public interest because
it was shown on Channel 7.
Respondents also said that it should be dismissed on the
ground of laches (“negligence for a long amount of time,
doing something that could have been done earlier”)
because petitioners only filed the case 6 months after the
event. Dec 1982-June1983. Petitioners said this was
because they exhausted other remedies, i.e. writing a letter
to Pres Marcos. When nothing turned up they went to
Court. SC said ok
Issue: Whether or Not the 2 search warrants were validly
issued and executed.
Ruling: The Court held that the two search warrants were
null and void. Probable cause for a search is defined as such
facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has
been committed and that the objects sought in connection
with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. The
Court ruled that the affidavits submitted for the application
of the warrant did not satisfy the requirement of probable
cause, the statements of the witnesses having been mere
generalizations.
Art. 129, RPC: Search warrants maliciously obtained, and
abuse in the service of those legally obtained. In addition to
the liability attaching to the offender for the commission of
any other offense, the penalty of arresto mayor in its
maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum
period and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos shall be
imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall
procure a search warrant without just cause, or, having
legally procured the same, shall exceed his authority or use
unnecessary severity in executing the same.
 5. BELTRAN V PPL
Facts: Petitioners all face charges for Rebellion under Article
134 in relation to Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code in
two criminal cases pending with the RTC Makati. Beltran
was subjected to an inquest at the Quezon City Hall of
Justice for Inciting to Sedition under Article 142 of the
Revised Penal Code based on a speech Beltran allegedly
gave during a rally on the occasion of the 20th anniversary
of the EDSA Revolution. The authorities brought back
Beltran to Camp Crame where, he was subjected to a
second inquest, with 1st Lt. San Juan, this time for Rebellion.
The DOJ panel of prosecutors issued a Resolution finding
probable cause to indict Beltran and San Juan as
"leaders/promoters" of Rebellion. The panel then filed an
Information with the RTC Makati.

Issue: W/N Beltran is guilty for the crime of rebellion under

art. 134 RPC

Ruling: No. Rebellion under Article 134 of the Revised Penal

Code is committed –
[B]y rising publicly and taking arms against the Government
for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said
Government or its laws, the territory of the Republic of the
Philippines or any part thereof, or any body of land, naval,
or other armed forces or depriving the Chief Executive or
the Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or
prerogatives.
The elements of the offense are:
1. That there be a (a) public uprising and (b) taking arms
against the Government; and
2. That the purpose of the uprising or movement is either –
(a) to remove from the allegiance to said Government or its
laws: (i) the territory of the Philippines or any part thereof;
or (ii) any body of land, naval, or other armed forces; or
(iii) to deprive the Chief Executive or Congress, wholly or
partially, of any of their powers and prerogatives.
Thus, by its nature, rebellion is a crime of the masses or
multitudes involving crowd action done in furtherance of a
political end.

In this case, the allegations in these affidavits are far from

the proof needed to indict Beltran for taking part in an
armed public uprising against the government. Beltran’s
alleged presence during the 1992 CPP Plenum does not
automatically make him a leader of a rebellion.