0% found this document useful (0 votes)
253 views1 page

4

Uploaded by

Arah Obias Cope
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
253 views1 page

4

Uploaded by

Arah Obias Cope
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
~ CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER VOLUME IL _In People v. Clores, G.R. No. 82362, April 26, 1990, the testimony of only one witness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to support a criminal conviction for murder. The fact that his testimony is uncorroborated will not detract from its credibility. There is no law which requires that the testimony of a single witness has to be corroborated, except where expressly mandated as in treason where the testimony of at least two witnesses to the same overt act is led. PROPOSAL OR CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TREASON (#¢-IIS) Proposal or conspiracy to commit treason is committed by Filipino citizen or resident alien, who has decided to commit treason ee its execution to some other person or persons. (Article - Conspiracy to commit treason is committed by two or more Filipino citizens andor resident aliens, who come to an agreement concerning the commission of treason and decide to commit it. (Article 115) Appointment Mere possession of an appointment as officer of the enemy of the State is not an evidence of a crime. (US v. Manalo, G.R. No. L-2723, August 9, 1906) Mere acceptance of the commission as officer of the enemy of the State is not an evidence of treason. But the acceptor can be held liable for a lesser crime. (U.S. v. Delos Reyes, G-R. No. 1434, February 23, 1904) Attending meeting where conspiracy to levy war against the government was hatched, acceptance of appointment as officer of the armed forces to be raised for the furtherance of the designs of the conspirators and assumption of obligation as officer constitute the crime of conspiracy to commit treason by levying war. (U.S. v. Bautista, G.R. No. L-2189, November 3, 1906) Membership In treason by levying war, membership in an organization established to levy war against the Philippine government in adherence to foreign enemy is not constitutive of treason in the Absence of actual assemblage of mon for purpose of executing a trensonable design by force. However, members may be held liable for conspiracy to commit treason. If there is actual assemblage of men for treasonable purpose, there is treason even though there

You might also like