Criminal Law Case Doctrines
CASE DOCTRINES AND ADDITIONAL NOTES CRIMINAL LAW II (Culled from Florenz Regalado’s Conspectus and Ortega’s Notes)
Article 114. TREASON
➢ “The details of the testimony on the acts testified by witnesses need not be identical” (People vs. Abad) ➢ “The two-witness rule is not required to prove adherence to the enemy” (People vs. Alitagtag) ➢ “Treason absorbs crimes committed in the furtherance thereof” (People vs. Villanueva) ➢ “Righteous Action, as when the collaborator also helped save some guerrillas from death at the hands of the invader is illogical and baseless” (People vs. Victoria) ➢ “Defense of Suspended Allegiance by reason of change of sovereignty was untenable since a citizen owes an absolute allegiance to his country (Laurel vs. Misa) ➢ An assemblage even without an armed public uprising is sufficient.
Article 115. CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT TREASON.
➢ Separately punished only if Treason was not committed. ➢ N/A two-witness rule
ARTICLE 116. MISPRISION OF TREASON.
➢ Felony by omission. Mere silence is punishable even without attempt to conceal. (ACTUAL EXISTENCE OF CONSPIRACY is the BASIS) ➢ N/A two-witness rule
ARTICLE 120. CORRESPONDENCE WITH HOSTILE COUNTRY.
➢ Express Prohibition by Government of Correspondence is a mala prohibitum therefore punishable even if contained innocent matters. ➢ N/A two-witness rule
ARTICLE 121. FLIGHT TO ENEMY’S COUNTRY.
➢ Express Prohibition by Competent Authority is a mala prohibitum therefore punishable for whatever purpose of the offender. Mere Attempt consummates crime.
ARTICLE 124. ARBITRARY DETENTION.
➢ “A private person can be liable and punished if he acted in conspiracy with public officers.” (People vs. Camerino) ➢ “Mistake of Fact, Good Faith, acted without culpable negligence are valid defenses, even if it turns out that the person was innocent.” (People vs. Ancheta) ➢ No legal ground, without
Article 114. TREASON
➢ “The details of the testimony on the acts testified by witnesses need not be identical” (People vs. Abad) ➢ “The two-witness rule is not required to prove adherence to the enemy” (People vs. Alitagtag) ➢ “Treason absorbs crimes committed in the furtherance thereof” (People vs. Villanueva) ➢ “Righteous Action, as when the collaborator also helped save some guerrillas from death at the hands of the invader is illogical and baseless” (People vs. Victoria) ➢ “Defense of Suspended Allegiance by reason of change of sovereignty was untenable since a citizen owes an absolute allegiance to his country (Laurel vs. Misa) ➢ An assemblage even without an armed public uprising is sufficient.
Article 115. CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT TREASON.
➢ Separately punished only if Treason was not committed. ➢ N/A two-witness rule
ARTICLE 116. MISPRISION OF TREASON.
➢ Felony by omission. Mere silence is punishable even without attempt to conceal. (ACTUAL EXISTENCE OF CONSPIRACY is the BASIS) ➢ N/A two-witness rule
ARTICLE 120. CORRESPONDENCE WITH HOSTILE COUNTRY.
➢ Express Prohibition by Government of Correspondence is a mala prohibitum therefore punishable even if contained innocent matters. ➢ N/A two-witness rule
ARTICLE 121. FLIGHT TO ENEMY’S COUNTRY.
➢ Express Prohibition by Competent Authority is a mala prohibitum therefore punishable for whatever purpose of the offender. Mere Attempt consummates crime.
ARTICLE 124. ARBITRARY DETENTION.
➢ “A private person can be liable and punished if he acted in conspiracy with public officers.” (People vs. Camerino) ➢ “Mistake of Fact, Good Faith, acted without culpable negligence are valid defenses, even if it turns out that the person was innocent.” (People vs. Ancheta) ➢ No legal ground, without