Crim Law 2[Legis Sanctum]

TITLE ONECRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY

Crimes against national security

1. Treason (Art. 114);

2. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason (Art. 115);

3. Misprision of treason (Art. 116); and

4. Espionage (Art. 117).

Crimes against the law of nations

1. Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals (Art. 118);

2. Violation of neutrality (Art. 119);

3. Corresponding with hostile country (Art. 120);

4. Flight to enemy's country (Art. 121); and

5. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas (Art. 122).

The crimes under this title can be prosecuted even if the criminal act or acts were committed outside the Philippine territorial jurisdiction. However, prosecution can proceed only if the offender is within Philippine territory or brought to the Philippines pursuant to an extradition treaty. This is one of the instances where the Revised Penal Code may be given extra-territorial application under Article 2 (5) thereof. In the case of crimes against the law of nations, the offender can be prosecuted whenever he may be found because the crimes are regarded as committed against humanity in general.

Article 114TREASON

ELEMENTS:a. That the offender owes allegiance to the Government of the Philippines

b. That there is a war in which the Philippines is involved

c. That the offender either –

1) Levies war against the government, 1. breech of allegiance2. actual assembling of men3. for the purpose of executing a treasonable design

2) Adheres to the enemies, giving them aid and comfort1. breech of allegiance2. adherence3. giving aid or comfort to the enemy

Requirements of levying war1) Actual assembling of men;

2) To execute a treasonable design by force;

3) Intent is to deliver the country in whole or in part to the enemy; and

4) Collaboration with foreign enemy or some foreign sovereignSuccess is not important. What matters is the actual assembly of men and the execution of treasonable design by force.

Ways of proving treason:

a. 2 witnesses testifying to same overt act

The testimonies must refer to the same act, place and moment of time. Treason cannot be proved by circumstantial evidence or by extrajudicial confession.

Example: X saw arms landed in La Union and loaded into a motor vehicle. At this stage, not sufficient to convict yet. Y later saw the arms unloaded in a warehouse. Will X + Y be sufficient witnesses to convict? Answer: NO. Because the law requires that 2 witnesses see the SAME OVERT ACT.

b. Confession of the accused in open court. Arraignment, pre-trial, trial – OK.

1. If he has pleaded NOT guilty already during arraignment, he can still confess in open court by stating the particular acts constituting treason.

2. During trial, simply saying “I’m guilty” is not enough.

3. Withdrawing plea of “not guilty” during arraignment not necessary

4. If during arraignment he pleads guilty, court will ask if the accused understands is plea. Submission of affidavit during trial, even if assisted by counsel is not enough.

Treason: breach of allegiance to the government, committed by a person who owes allegiance to it. Allegiance: obligation of fidelity and obedience. It is permanent or temporary depending on whether the person is a citizen or an alien.

Evident premeditation, superior strength and treachery are circumstances inherent in treason, and are, therefore, not aggravating.

Treason cannot be committed in times of peace, only in times of war – actual hostilities. But no need for declaration of war

Not Treasonous:a. Acceptance of public office and discharge of official duties under the enemy does not constitute per se the

felony of treason (exception: when it is policy determining)

b. Serving in a puppet government (ministerial functions) and in order to serve the populace is NOT treasonous. But it is treason if: a) there is discretion involved; b) inflicts harm on Filipinos; c) it is disadvantageous to them.

c. Purpose of offender: to deliver the Philippines to enemy country; if merely to change officials – not treason

On Citizenshipa. Filipino citizens can commit treason outside the Philippines. But that of an alien must be committed in the

Philippines.

b. Only Filipino citizens or permanent resident aliens can be held liable

c. Alien: with permanent resident status from the BID – it is neither the length of stay in the Philippines nor the marriage with a Filipino that matters.

Actual hostilities may determine the date of the commencement of war

No such thing as attempted treason; mere attempt consummates the crime

Giving aid or comfort – material element, enhances forces of the enemy country.

Acts which strengthen or tend to strengthen the enemy in the conduct of war against the traitor’s country or that which weaken and tend to weaken the power of the same.

Example: Financing arms procurement of enemy country. But giving of shelter is not necessarily “giving aid and comfort.”

Adherence and giving aid or comfort must concur together.

Adherence: when a citizen intellectually or emotionally favors the enemy and harbors convictions disloyal to his country’s policy. But membership in the police force during the occupation is NOT treason.Example: Giving information to, or commandeering foodstuffs for the enemy.

Adherence may be proved by: (1) one witness; (2) from the nature of the act itself; (3) from the circumstances surrounding the act.

When this adherence or sympathies are converted into aid and comfort, only then they take material forM. This material form is now what is made punishable. It is usually manifested by the offender in giving information, commandeering foodstuffs, serving as spy and supplying the enemy with war materials.

Treason is a CONTINUING CRIME. Even after the war, offender can be prosecuted.

Treason is a continuing offense. It can be committed by a single act or by a series of acts. It can be committed in one single time or at different times and only one criminal intent. In construing the provisions relating to the commission of several acts, the same must be done in pursuance or furtherance of the act of treason.

No matter how many acts of treason are committed by the offender, he will be liable for only one crime of treason.

If you convict a person for treason by reason of irresistible force or uncontrollable fear, you may use Art.12. No treason through negligence

In the imposition of the penalty for the crime of treason, the court may disregard the presence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances. It may consider only the number, nature and gravity of the acts established during the trial. The imposition of the penalty rests largely on the exercise of judicial discretion.

Defenses that may be availed of by the accused.

1. Duress or uncontrollable fear of immediate death; and

2. Lawful obedience to a de facto government.

When killings and other common crimes are charged as overt act of treason, they cannot be regarded as (1) separate crimes or (2) as complex with treason.

In the act of levying war or giving aid or comfort to the enemy, murder, robbery, arson or falsification may be committed by the offender. BUT the offender does not commit the crime of treason complexed with common crimes because such crimes are inherent to treason, being an indispensable element of the same.

Treason distinguished from Rebellion.

The manner in which both crimes are committed in the same . In treason however, the purpose of the offender is to deliver the government to the enemy country or to a foreign power. In rebellion, the purpose of the rebels is to substitute the government with their own form of government. No foreign power is involved.

Treason distinguished from Sedition.

In treason, the offender repudiates his allegiance to the government by means of force or intimidation. He does not recognize the supreme authority of the State. He violates his allegiance by fighting the forces of the duly constituted authorities.

In sedition, the offender disagrees with certain policies of the State and seeks to disturb public peace by raising a commotion or public uprising.

Article 115CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TREASON

ELEMENTS:a. In time of war

b. 2 or more persons come to an agreement to

1. levy war against the government, or

2. adhere to the enemies and to give them aid or comfort,

c. They decide to commit it

ELEMENTS OF PROPOSAL TO COMMIT TREASON a. In time of war

b. A person who has decided to levy war against the government, or to adhere to the enemies and to give them aid or comfort, proposes its execution to some other person/s.

Mere agreement and decisions to commit treason is punishable

Mere proposal even without acceptance is punishable too. If the other accepts, it is already conspiracy.

While Treason as a crime should be established by the two-witness rule, the same is not observed when the crime committed conspiracy to commit treason or when it is only a proposal to commit treason.

Article 116MISPRISION OF TREASON

ELEMENTS:a. That the offender must be owing allegiance to the government, and not a foreigner

b. That he has knowledge of any conspiracy (to commit treason) against the government

c. That he conceals or does not disclose and make known the same as soon as possible to the governor or fiscal of the province or the mayor or fiscal of the city in which he resides

While in treason, even aliens can commit said crime because of the amendment to the article, no such amendment was made in misprision of treason. Misprision of treason is a crime that may be committed only by citizens of the Philippines.

Offender is punished as an accessory to the crime of treason

Take note that the offender is a principal to the crime of misprision of treason, yet he is penalized only as an accessory. In the imposition of the penalty, the court is not bound by the provisions of Article 63 and 64, referring to indivisible penalties. In the presence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the offender is punished two degrees lower than the penalty for the crime of treason.

The criminal liability arises if the treasonous activity was still at the conspiratorial stage

This crime does not apply if the crime of treason is already committed

Crime of omission

This is a felony by omission although committed with dolo, not with culpa.

“To report within a reasonable time” – depends on time, place and circumstance – the RPC did not fix time.

RPC states 4 individuals, what if you report to some other high-ranking government official? Ex. PNP Director? Judge Pimentel says any gov’t official of the DILG is OK.

Whether the conspirators are parents or children, and the ones who learn the conspiracy is a parent or child, they are required to report the same. The reason is that although blood is thicker than water so to speak, when it comes to security of the state, blood relationship is always subservient to national security. Article 20 does not apply here because the persons found liable for this crime are not considered accessories; they are treated as principals.

Article 117Espionage by entering, without authority therefor, warship, fort, or naval or military establishments or reservation to obtain any information, plans, photographs or other data of a confidential nature relative to the defense of the Philippines.

ELEMENTS:a. 1. That the offender enters any of the places mentioned therein

2. That he has no authority therefore;

b. That his purpose is to obtain information, plans, photographs or other data of a confidential nature relative to the defense of the Philippines

Under the first mode of committing espionage, the offender must have the intention to obtain information relative to the defense of the PHIL. It is sufficient that he entered the prohibited premises. Here, the offender is any private individual, whether an alien or a citizen of the Philippines, or a public officer.

Espionage by disclosing to the representative of a foreign nation the contents of the articles, data, or information referred to in paragraph 1 of Article 117, which he had in his possession by reason of the public office holds

ELEMENTS:a. That the offender is a public officer

b. That he has in his possession the articles, data or information referred to in par 1 of art 117, by reason of the public office he holds

c. That he discloses their contents to a representative of a foreign nation

Purpose: to gather data

Under the second mode, the offender must be a public officer who has in possession the articles, data or information by reason of the office he holds. Taking advantage of his official position, he reveals or discloses the information which are confidential and are relevant to the defense of the Philippines.

Espionage: the offense of gathering, transmitting, or losing information respecting the national defense with the intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the Philippines or the advantage of any foreign nation. It is not conditioned on citizenship.

Not necessary that Philippines is at war with the country to which the information was revealed. What is important is that the information related is connected with the defense system of the Philippines.

Wiretapping is NOT espionage if the purpose is not something connected with the defense

Commonwealth Act No. 616 – An Act to Punish Espionage and Other Offenses against National Security

Acts punished

1. Unlawfully obtaining or permitting to be obtained information affecting national defense;

2. Unlawful disclosing of information affecting national defense;

3. Disloyal acts or words in times of peace;

4. Disloyal acts or words in times of war;

5. Conspiracy to violate preceding sections;

6. Harboring or concealing violators of law. and

7. Photographing vital military information

CRIMES AGAINST LAWS OF NATIONS

In crimes against the law of nations, the offenders can be prosecuted anywhere in the world because these crimes are considered as against humanity in general, like piracy and mutiny. Crimes against national security can be tried only in the Philippines, as

there is a need to bring the offender here before he can be made to suffer the consequences of the law. The acts against national security may be committed abroad and still be punishable under our law, but it can not be tried under foreign law.

Article 118INCITING TO WAR OR GIVING MOTIVES FOR REPRISALS

ELEMENTS:a. That the offender performs unlawful or unauthorized acts

b. That such acts provoke or give occasion for a war involving or liable to involve the Philippines or expose Filipino citizens to reprisals on their persons or property

Crime is committed in time of peace, intent is immaterial

Inciting to war – offender is any person

Reprisals is not limited to military action, it could be economic reprisals, or denial of entry into their country.

Example. X burns Chinese flag. If China bans the entry of Filipinos into China, that is already reprisal.

Article 119VIOLATION OF NEUTRALITY

ELEMENTS:a. That there is war in which the Philippines is not involved

b. That there is a regulation issued by competent authority for the purpose of enforcing neutrality

c. That the offender violates such regulation

Gov’t must have declared the neutrality of the Phil in a war between 2 other countries

The regulation must be issued by a competent authority like the President of the Philippines or the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, during a war between different countries in which the Philippines is not taking sides.

It is neutrality of the Phil that is violated

Congress has the right to declare neutrality

The violations can be done either by means of dolo or by means of culpa. So violation of neutrality can be committed through reckless imprudence.

Article 120CORRESPONDENCE WITH HOSTILE COUNTRY

ELEMENTS:a. That it is in time of war in which the Philippines is involved

b. That the offender makes correspondence with an enemy country or territory occupied by enemy troops

c. That the correspondence is either –

1. prohibited by the government, or

2. carried on in ciphers or conventional signs, or

3. containing notice or information which might be useful to the enemy

Circumstances qualifying the offense:a. notice or information might be useful to the enemy

b. offender intended to aid the enemy

Hostile country exist only during hostilities or after the declaration of war

Correspondence to enemy country – correspondence to officials of enemy country – even if related to you.

It is not correspondence with private individual in enemy country

If ciphers were used, no need for prohibition

If ciphers were not used, there is a need for prohibition

In any case, it must be correspondence with the enemy country

Doesn’t matter if correspondence contains innocent matters – if prohibited, punishable

Article 121FLIGHT TO ENEMY’S COUNTRY

ELEMENTSa. That there is a war in which the Philippines is involved

b. That the offender (Filipino or resident alien) must be owing allegiance to the government

c. That the offender attempts to flee or go to enemy country

d. That going to enemy country is prohibited by competent authority

Mere attempt consummates the crime

There must be a prohibition. If none, even if went to enemy country – no violation

Alien resident may be guilty here.

Article 122PIRACY

2 Ways of Committing Piracya. By attacking or seizing a vessel on the high seas or in the Philippine waters (PD 532)

b. By seizing the whole or part of the cargo of said vehicles, its equipment or personal belongings of its complement or passengers

Elements:a. That a vessel is on the high seas/Philippine waters

b. That the offenders are not members of its complement or passengers of the vessel

c. That the offenders –

1. attack or seize that vessel or (hence, if committed by crew or passengers, the crime is not piracy but robbery in the high seas)

2. seize the whole or part of the cargo of said vessel, its equipment or personal belongings of its complement or passengers

High seas: any waters on the sea coast which are without the boundaries of the low water mark although such waters may be in the jurisdictional limits of a foreign gov’t

Piracy in high seas – jurisdiction is with any court where offenders are found or arrested

Piracy in internal waters – jurisdiction is only with Philippine courts

For purpose of Anti-Fencing Law, piracy is part of robbery and theft

Piracy MutinyRobbery or forcible degradation on the high seas, without lawful authority and done with animo lucrandi and in the spirit and intention of universal hostility.

Unlawful resistance to a superior officer, or the raising of commotion and disturbances on board a ship against the authority of its commander

Intent to gain is an element. No criminal intentAttack from outside. Offenders are strangers to the vessel.

Attack from the inside.

under the amended article, piracy can only be committed by a person who is not a passenger nor member of the complement of the vessel irrespective of venue. So if a passenger or complement of the vessel commits acts of robbery in the high seas, the crime is robbery, not piracy.

If in the Phil. waters still piracy

However, despite the amendment, P.D. No. 532 may still apply where the offender is not stranger to the vessel since it provides: “Any attack upon or seize of any vessel, or the taking away of the whole of part thereof or its cargo, equipment or the personal belongings of its complement or passengers, irrespective of the value hereof, 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.” After all, under the Revised Penal Code, for one to be called a pirate, the offender must be a stranger to the vessel.

While the Article 122 limits the offenders to non-passengers or non-members of the crew, P.D. 532 states that the attack upon or seizure of any vessel, or taking away the whole or part thereof or its cargo, equipment or personal belongings of its complement or passengers committed by any person including a passenger or member of the complement of said vessel shall be considered Piracy.

Note, however, that in Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 532, the act of aiding pirates or abetting piracy is penalized as a crime distinct from piracy. Said section penalizes any person who knowingly and in any manner aids or protects pirates, such as giving them information about the movement of the police or other peace officers of the government, or acquires or receives property taken by such pirates, or in any manner derives any benefit therefrom; or who directly or indirectly abets the commission of piracy. Also, it is expressly provided in the same section that the offender shall be considered as an accomplice of the principal offenders and punished in accordance with the Revised Penal Code. This provision of Presidential Decree No. 532 with respect to piracy in Philippine water has not been incorporated in the Revised Penal Code. Neither may it be considered repealed by Republic Act No. 7659 since there is nothing in the amendatory law is inconsistent with said section. Apparently, there is still the crime of abetting piracy in Philippine waters under Presidential Decree No. 532.

Considering that the essence of piracy is one of robbery, any taking in a vessel with force upon things or with violence or intimidation against person is employed will always be piracy. It cannot co-exist with the crime of robbery. Robbery, therefore, cannot be committed on board a vessel. But if the taking is without violence or intimidation on persons or force upon things, the crime of piracy cannot be committed, but only theft.

Elements of mutiny

1) The vessel is on the high seas or Philippine waters;

2) Offenders are either members of its complement, or passengers of the vessel;

3) Offenders either –

a. attack or seize the vessel; or

b. seize the whole or part of the cargo, its equipment, or personal belongings of the crew or passengers.

Mutiny is the unlawful resistance to a superior officer, or the raising of commotions and disturbances aboard a ship against the authority of its commander.

Article 123QUALIFIED PIRACY QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES:

a. Whenever they have seized a vessel by boarding or firing upon the same

b. Whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims without means of saving themselves

c. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries, or rape. (the above may result to qualified mutiny)

Murder, rape, homicide, physical injuries are mere circumstances qualifying piracy and cannot be punished as separate crimes, nor can they be complexed with piracy.

Parricide/infanticide should be included (Judge Pimentel)

Murder/rape/homicide/physical injuries must have been committed on the passengers or complement

In piracy, where rape, murder or homicide is committed, the mandatory penalty of death is imposable. This means that even if the accused enters a plea of guilty, the penalty of death will still be imposed because death is a single and indispensable penalty. (People vs. Rodriguez, 135 SCRA 485)

The penalty for qualified piracy is reclusion perpetua to death. If any of the circumstances enumerated under the law is proven or established, the mandatory penalty of death should be imposed. The presence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances will be ignored by the court.

Although in Article 123 merely refers to qualified piracy, there is also the crime of qualified mutiny. Mutiny is qualified under the following circumstances:

(1) When the offenders abandoned the victims without means of saving themselves; or

(2) When the mutiny is accompanied by rape, murder, homicide, or physical injuries.

Note that the first circumstance which qualifies piracy does not apply to mutiny.

Republic Act No. 6235 (The Anti Hi-Jacking Law)

Anti hi-jacking is another kind of piracy which is committed in an aircraft. In other countries, this crime is known as aircraft piracy.

Four situations governed by anti hi-jacking law:

(1) usurping or seizing control of an aircraft of Philippine registry while it is in flight, compelling the pilots thereof to change the course or destination of the aircraft;

(2) usurping or seizing control of an aircraft of foreign registry while within Philippine territory, compelling the pilots thereof to land in any part of Philippine territory;

(3) carrying or loading on board an aircraft operating as a public utility passenger aircraft in the Philippines, any flammable, corrosive, explosive, or poisonous substance; and

(4) loading, shipping, or transporting on board a cargo aircraft operating as a public utility in the Philippines, any flammable, corrosive, explosive, or poisonous substance if this was done not in accordance with the rules and regulations set and promulgated by the Air Transportation Office on this matter.

Between numbers 1 and 2, the point of distinction is whether the aircraft is of Philippine registry or foreign registry. The common bar question on this law usually involves number 1. The important thing is that before the anti hi-jacking law can apply, the aircraft must be in flight. If not in flight, whatever crimes committed shall be governed by the Revised Penal Code . The law makes a distinction between aircraft of a foreign registry and of Philippine registry . If the aircraft subject of the hi-jack is of Philippine registry, it should be in flight at the time of the hi-jacking. Otherwise, the anti hi-jacking law will not apply and the crime is still punished under the Revised Penal Code. The correlative crime may be one of grave coercion or grave threat. If somebody is killed, the crime is homicide or murder, as the case may be. If there are some explosives carried there, the crime is destructive arson. Explosives are by nature pyro-techniques. Destruction of property with the use of pyro-technique is destructive arson. If there is illegally possessed or carried firearm, other special laws will apply.

On the other hand, if the aircraft is of foreign registry, the law does not require that it be in flight before the anti hi-jacking law can apply. This is because aircrafts of foreign registry are considered in transit while they are in foreign countries . Although they may have been in a foreign country, technically they are still in flight, because they have to move out of that foreign country. So even if any of the acts mentioned were committed while the exterior doors of the foreign aircraft were still open, the anti hi-jacking law will already govern.

Note that under this law, an aircraft is considered in flight from the moment all exterior doors are closed following embarkation until such time when the same doors are again opened for disembarkation. This means that there are passengers that boarded. So if the doors are closed to bring the aircraft to the hangar, the aircraft is not considered as in flight. The aircraft shall be deemed to be already in flight even if its engine has not yet been started.

Questions & Answers

1. The pilots of the Pan Am aircraft were accosted by some armed men and were told to proceed to the aircraft to fly it to a foreign destination. The armed men walked with the pilots and went on board the aircraft. But before they could do anything on the aircraft, alert marshals arrested them. What crime was committed?

The criminal intent definitely is to take control of the aircraft, which is hi-jacking. It is a question now of whether the anti-hi-jacking law shall govern.

The anti hi-jacking law is applicable in this case. Even if the aircraft is not yet about to fly, the requirement that it be in flight does not hold true when in comes to aircraft of foreign registry. Even if the problem does not say that all exterior doors are closed, the crime is hi-jacking. Since the aircraft is of foreign registry, under the law, simply usurping or seizing control is enough as long as the aircraft is within Philippine territory, without the requirement that it be in flight.

Note, however, that there is no hi-jacking in the attempted stage. This is a special law where the attempted stage is not punishable.

2. A Philippine Air Lines aircraft is bound for Davao. While the pilot and co-pilot are taking their snacks at the airport lounge, some of the armed men were also there. The pilots were followed by these men on their way to the aircraft. As soon as the pilots entered the cockpit, they pulled out their firearms and gave instructions where to fly the aircraft. Does the anti hi-jacking law apply?

No. The passengers have yet to board the aircraft. If at that time, the offenders are apprehended, the law will not apply because the aircraft is not yet in flight. Note that the aircraft is of Philippine registry.

3. While the stewardess of a Philippine Air Lines plane bound for Cebu was waiting for the passenger manifest, two of its passengers seated near the pilot surreptitiously entered the pilot cockpit. At gunpoint, they directed the pilot to fly the aircraft to the Middle East. However, before the pilot could fly the aircraft towards the Middle East, the offenders were subdued and the aircraft landed. What crime was committed?

The aircraft was not yet in flight. Considering that the stewardess was still waiting for the passenger manifest, the doors were still open. Hence, the anti hi-jacking law is not applicable. Instead, the Revised Penal Code shall govern. The crime committed was grave coercion or grave threat, depending upon whether or not any serious offense violence was inflicted upon the pilot.

However, if the aircraft were of foreign registry, the act would already be subject to the anti hi-jacking law because there is no requirement for foreign aircraft to be in flight before such law would apply. The reason for the distinction is that as long as such aircraft has not returned to its home base, technically, it is still considered in transit or in flight.

As to numbers 3 and 4 of Republic Act No. 6235, the distinction is whether the aircraft is a passenger aircraft or a cargo aircraft. In both cases, however, the law applies only to public utility aircraft in the Philippines. Private aircrafts are not subject to the anti hi-jacking law, in so far as transporting prohibited substances are concerned.

If the aircraft is a passenger aircraft, the prohibition is absolute . Carrying of any prohibited, flammable, corrosive, or explosive substance is a crime under Republic Act No. 6235. But if the aircraft is only a cargo aircraft, the law is violated only when the transporting of the prohibited substance was not done in accordance with the rules and regulations prescribed by the Air Transportation Office in the matter of shipment of such things. The Board of Transportation provides the manner of packing of such kind of articles, the quantity in which they may be loaded at any time, etc. Otherwise, the anti hi-jacking law does not apply.

However, under Section 7, any physical injury or damage to property which would result from the carrying or loading of the flammable, corrosive, explosive, or poisonous substance in an aircraft, the offender shall be prosecuted not only for violation of Republic Act No. 6235, but also for the crime of physical injuries or damage to property, as the case may be, under the Revised Penal Code. There will be two prosecutions here. Other than this situation, the crime of physical injuries will be absorbed. If the explosives were planted in the aircraft to blow up the aircraft, the circumstance will qualify the penalty and that is not punishable as a separate crime for murder. The penalty is increased under the anti hi-jacking law.

All other acts outside of the four are merely qualifying circumstances and would bring about higher penalty. Such acts would not constitute another crime. So the killing or explosion will only qualify the penalty to a higher one.

Questions & Answers

1. In the course of the hi-jack, a passenger or complement was shot and killed. What crime or crimes were committed?

The crime remains to be a violation of the anti hi-jacking law, but the penalty thereof shall be higher because a passenger or complement of the aircraft had been killed. The crime of homicide or murder is not committed.

2. The hi-jackers threatened to detonate a bomb in the course of the hi-jack. What crime or crimes were committed?

Again, the crime is violation of the anti hi-jacking law. The separate crime of grave threat is not committed. This is considered as a qualifying circumstance that shall serve to increase the penalty.

TITLE TWO

CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE

Crimes against the fundamental laws of the State

1. Arbitrary detention (Art. 124);

2. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities (Art. 125);

3. Delaying release (Art. 126);

4. Expulsion (Art. 127);

5. Violation of domicile (Art. 128);

6. Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those legally obtained (Art. 129);

7. Searching domicile without witnesses (Art. 130);

8. Prohibition, interruption, and dissolution of peaceful meetings (Art. 131);

9. Interruption of religious worship (Art. 132); and

10. Offending the religious feelings (Art. 133);

Under this title, the offenders are public officers, except as to the last crime – offending the religious feelings under Article 133, which refers to any person. The public officers who may be held liable are only those acting under supposed exercise of official functions, albeit illegally. But private persons may also be liable under this title as when a private person conspires with a public officer. What is required is that the principal offender must be a public officer. Thus, if a private person conspires with a public officer, or becomes an accessory or accomplice, the private person also becomes liable for the same crime. But a private person acting alone cannot commit the crimes under Article 124 to 132 of this title.

Classes of Arbitrary Detention:a. By detaining a person without legal groundb. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authoritiesc. Delaying release

Article 124ARBITRARY DETENTION

ELEMENTS:a. That the offender is a public officer or employee (whose official duties include the authority to make an

arrest and detain persons; jurisdiction to maintain peace and order).

b. That he detains a person (actual restraint).

c. That the detention was without legal grounds (cannot be committed if with warrant).

Detention: when a person is placed in confinement or there is a restraint on his person.

Only those public officers whose official duties carry with it the authority to make an arrest and detain persons can be guilty of this crime. So, if the offender does not possess such authority, the crime committed by him is illegal detention.

Though the elements specify that the offender be a public officer or employee, private individuals who conspire with public officers can also be liable.

In a case decided by the Supreme Court a Barangay Chairman who unlawfully detains another was held to be guilty of the crime of arbitrary detention. This is because he is a person in authority vested with the jurisdiction to maintain peace and order within his barangay. In the maintenance of such peace and order, he may cause the arrest and detention of troublemakers or those who disturb the peace and order within his barangay. But if the legal basis for the apprehension and detention does not exist, then the detention becomes arbitrary.

Legal grounds for the detention of any person:a. commission of a crime

b. violent insanity or other ailment requiring compulsory confinement of the patient in a hospital

c. escaped prisoner

When the peace officers acted in good faith even if the three (3) grounds mentioned above are not obtaining, there is no Arbitrary Detention.

Without legal grounds:a. he has not committed any crime or no reasonable ground of suspicion that he has committed a crime

b. not suffering from violent insanity or any other ailment requiring compulsory confinement in a hospital

Grounds for warrantless arrest: a. Crime is about to be, is being, has been committed in his presence

b. Officer must have probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the person probably committed the crime

For escaped prisoner – no need for warrant

Example: Y was killed by unknown assailant. Officers got a tip and arrested X. X voluntarily admitted to the officers that he did it although he was not asked. X was detained immediately. According to the SC, there was NO arbitrary detention. Why? Because once X made a confession, the officers had a right to arrest him.

Arbitrary detention can be committed thru simple imprudence or negligence. (People vs. Misa)

Periods of Detention penalized:

1. Detention not exceeding three days;

2. Detention for more than three days but not more than 15 days;

3. Detention for more than 15 days but not more than 6 months; and

4. Detention for more than 6 months.

Continuing crime is different from a continuous crime

Ramos v. Enrile: Rebels later on retire. According to the SC, once you have committed rebellion and have not been punished or amnestied, then the rebels continue to engage in rebellion, unless the rebels renounce his affiliation. Arrest can be made without a warrant because this is a continuing crime.

Distinction between arbitrary detention and illegal detention

1. In arbitrary detention --

The principal offender must be a public officer. Civilians cannot commit the crime of arbitrary detention except when they conspire with a public officer committing this crime, or become an accomplice or accessory to the crime committed by the public officer; and

The offender who is a public officer has a duty which carries with it the authority to detain a person.

2. In illegal detention --

The principal offender is a private person. But a public officer can commit the crime of illegal detention when he is acting in a private capacity or beyond the scope of his official duty, or when he becomes an accomplice or accessory to the crime committed by a private person.

The offender, even if he is a public officer, does not include as his function the power to arrest and detain a person, unless he conspires with a public officer committing arbitrary detention.

Whether the crime is arbitrary detention or illegal detention, it is necessary that there must be an actual restraint of liberty of the offended party. If there is no actual restraint, as the offended party may still go to the place where he wants to go, even though there have been warnings, the crime of arbitrary detention or illegal detention is not committed. There is either grave or light threat.

However, if the victim is under guard in his movement such that there is still restraint of liberty, then the crime of either arbitrary or illegal detention is still committed.

Distinction between arbitrary detention and unlawful arrest

(1) As to offender

In arbitrary detention, the offender is a public officer possessed with authority to make arrests.

In unlawful arrest, the offender may be any person.

(2) As to criminal intent

In arbitrary detention, the main reason for detaining the offended party is to deny him of his liberty.

In unlawful arrest, the purpose is 1) to accuse the offended party of a crime he did not commit; 2) to deliver the person to the proper authority; and 3) to file the necessary charges in a way trying to incriminate him.

When a person is unlawfully arrested, his subsequent detention is without legal grounds.

Article 125 DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF DETAINED PERSONS

ELEMENTS:a. That the offender is a public officer or employee

b. That he has detained a person for some legal grounds

c. That he fails to deliver such person to the proper judicial authority within:1. 12 hours, if detained for crimes/offenses punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent

2. 18 hours, for crimes/offenses punishable by correctional penalties, or their equivalent or3. 36 hours, for crimes/offenses punishable by capital punishment or afflictive penalties, or their equivalent

Article 125 covers situations wherein the person detained has been arrested without a warrant but his arrest is nonetheless lawful. It is a felony committed by omission because of the failure of the offender to deliver the detained person to the proper judicial authority within 12 hours, 18 hours and 36 hours as the case may be.

At the beginning, the detention is legal since it is in the pursuance of a lawful arrest. However, the detention becomes arbitrary when the period thereof exceeds 12, 18 or 36 hours, as the case may be, depending on whether the crime is punished by light, correctional or afflictive penalty or their equivalent.

Really means delay in filing necessary information or charging of person detained in court. May be waived if a preliminary investigation is asked for.

Under the Revised Rules of Court, when the person arrested is arrested for a crime which gives him the right to preliminary investigation and he wants to avail his right to a preliminary investigation, he would have to waive in writing his rights under Article 125 so that the arresting officer will not immediately file the case with the court that will exercise jurisdiction over the case. If he does not want to waive this in writing, the arresting officer will have to comply with Article 125 and file the case immediately in court without preliminary investigation. In such case, the arrested person, within five days after learning that the case has been filed in court without preliminary investigation, may ask for preliminary investigation. In this case, the public officer who made the arrest will no longer be liable for violation of Article 125.

Does not contemplate actual physical delivery but at least there must be a complaint filed. Duty complied with upon the filing of the complaint with the judicial authority (courts, prosecutors – though technically not a judicial authority, for purposes of this article, he’s considered as one.)

Delivery of detained person consists in making charge of filing a compliant against the prisoner with the proper judicial authority. It does not involve the physical delivery of the prisoner before the judge (Sayo vs. Chief of Police).

The filing of the information in court does not cure illegality of detention. Neither does it affect the legality of the confinement under process issued by the court.

To escape from this, officers usually ask accused to execute a waiver which should be under oath and with assistance of counsel. Such waiver is not violative of the accused constitutional right.

What is length of waiver? Light offense – 5 days. Serious and less serious offenses – 7 to 10 days. (Judge Pimentel)

Article does not apply when arrest is via a warrant of arrest

Q. Within what period should a police officer who has arrested a person under a warrant of arrest turn over the arrested person to the judicial authority?

A. There is no time limit specified except that the return must be made within a reasonable time. The period fixed by law under Article 125 does not apply because the arrest was made by virtue of a warrant of arrest.

If offender is a private person, crime is illegal detention

Before Article 125 may be applied, it is necessary that initially, the detention of the arrested person must be lawful because the arrest is based on legal grounds. If the arrest is made without a warrant, this constitutes an unlawful arrest. Article 269(unlawful arrest), not Article 125, will apply. If the arrest is not based on legal grounds, the arrest is pure and simple arbitrary detention. Article 125 contemplates a situation where the arrest was made without warrant but based on legal grounds. This is known as citizen’s arrest.

A police officer has no authority to arrest and detain a person on the basis merely of the complaint of the offended party, even if after investigation he becomes convinced that the accused is guilty of the offense charged. What the complainant may do is to file a complaint with the court and ask for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.

Arbitrary Detention (124) Delay in Delivery of Detained (125)Detention is illegal from the beginning. Detention is legal in the beginning, but illegality

starts from the expiration of the specified periods without the persons detained having been delivered to the proper judicial authority.

Article 126DELAYING RELEASE


b. That there is a judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner or detention prisoner, or that there is a proceeding upon a petition for the liberation of such person

c. That the offender without good reason delays:

1. the service of the notice of such order to the prisoner, or

2. the performance of such judicial or executive order for the release of the prisoner, or3. the proceedings upon a petition for the release of such person

Three acts are punishable:a. delaying the performance of a judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner

b. delaying the service of notice of such order to said prisoner

c. delaying the proceedings upon any petition for the liberation of such person

Wardens and jailers are the persons most likely to violate this provision

Provision does not include legislation

Article 127EXPULSION


b. That he expels any person from the Philippines, or compels a person to change his residence

c. That the offender is not authorized to do so by law

2 acts punishable:a. by expelling a person from the Philippines

b. by compelling a person to change his residence

The essence of this crime is coercion but the specific crime is “expulsion” when committed by a public officer. If committed by a private person, the crime is grave coercion.

In the Philippines, only the President of the Republic has the power to deport aliens whose continued stay in the country constitutes a menace to the peace and safety of the community.

In the case of Filipino citizens, only the court, by final judgment, can order a person to change his residence.

In Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil 778, the mayor of the City of Manila wanted to make the city free from prostitution. He ordered certain prostitutes to be transferred to Davao, without observing due processes since they have not been charged with any crime at all. It was held that the crime committed was expulsion.

Does not include undesirable aliens; destierro; or when sent to prison

Questions & Answers

1. Certain aliens were arrested and they were just put on the first aircraft which brought them to the country so that they may be out without due process of law. Was there a crime committed?

Yes. Expulsion.

2. If a Filipino citizen is sent out of the country, what crime is committed?

Grave coercion, not expulsion, because a Filipino cannot be deported. This crime refers only to aliens.

If X (Filipino) after he voluntarily left, is refused re-entry – is considered forcing him to change his address here

Threat to national security is not a ground to expel or change his address.

Article 128VIOLATION OF DOMICILE


b. That he is not authorized by judicial order to enter the dwelling and/or to make a search therein for papers or other effects

c. That he commits any of the following acts:

1. entering any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof

2. searching papers or other effects found therein without the previous consent of such owner

3. refusing to leave the premises, after having surreptitiously entered said dwelling and after having been required to leave the same

Aggravating Circumstance (medium and maximum of penalty imposed):a. Offense committed at nighttime

b. Papers or effects not constituting evidence of a crime be not returned immediately

In order to commit this crime, the entry must be against the will of the owner. If the entry is only without the consent of the owner, the crime of violation of domicile is not committed.The prohibition may be expressed or implied. If the signs “Do not enter” and “Strangers keep out” are posted in front of the house or dwelling, then the prohibition is express. If the door is locked, or even if it is open but these are barriers to indicate the manifest intention of the owner to bar strangers from entering, there is implied prohibition.

The primary object of the law is to preserve the privacy of abode of the offended party. Hence, if the privacy is already lost, as when the offender has been allowed by the owner to enter the dwelling together with other persons, any subsequent change of attitude will not restore the privacy which was already lost. When privacy is waived, trespass to dwelling or violation of domicile cannot be committed.

If the offender who enters the dwelling against the will of the owner thereof is a private individual, the crime committed is trespass to dwelling (Art 280)

When a public officer searched a person “outside his dwelling” without a search warrant and such person is not legally arrested for an offense, the crime committed by the public officer is grave coercion, if violence or intimidation is used (Art 286), or unjust vexation, if there is no violence or intimidation (Art 287)

A public officer without a search warrant cannot lawfully enter the dwelling against the will of the owner, even if he knew that someone in that dwelling is having unlawful possession of opium

Under Rule 113(sec. 11) of the Revised Rules of Court, when a person to be arrested enters a premise and closes it thereafter, the public officer, after giving notice of an arrest, can break into the premise. He shall not be liable for violation of domicile.

3 acts punishable:a. person enters dwelling w/o consent or against the will

In the plain view doctrine , public officer should be legally entitled to be in the place where the effects were found. If he entered the place illegally and he saw the effects, doctrine inapplicable; thus, he is liable for violation of domicile.

b. person enters and searches for papers and effects

Public officer who enters with consent searches for paper and effects without the consent of the owner. Even if he is welcome in the dwelling, it does not mean he has permission to search.

c. person entered secretly and refuses to leave after being asked to

The act punished is not the entry but the refusal to leave. If the offender upon being directed to leave, followed and left, there is no crime of violation of domicile. Entry must be done surreptitiously; without this, crime may be unjust vexation. But if entering was done against the will of the occupant of the house , meaning there was express or implied prohibition from entering the same, even if the occupant does not direct him to leave, the crime of violation of domicile is already committed because it would fall in number 1.

“Being authorized by law” – means with search warrant, to save himself or do some things good for humanity

There are only three recognized instances when search without a warrant is considered valid, and, therefore, the seizure of any evidence done is also valid. Outside of these, search would be invalid and the objects seized would not be admissible in evidence.

(1) Search made incidental to a valid arrest; (2) Where the search was made on a moving vehicle or vessel such that the exigency of he situation prevents the searching

officer from securing a search warrant;

(3) When the article seized is within plain view of the officer making the seizure without making a search therefore.

Papers and effects need not be part of a crime.

Article 129SEARCH WARRANTS MALICIOUSLY OBTAINED

ELEMENTS:

a. That the offender is a public officer or employee

b. That he procures a search warrant

c. That there is no just cause

In order that a search warrant may be issued, it must be based on probable cause in connection with one offense, to be determined by a judge after examination under oath of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

This means there was no probable cause determined in obtaining the search warrant. Although void, the search warrant is entitled to respect because of presumption of regularity . One remedy is a motion to

quash the search warrant, not refusal to abide by it. The public officer may also be prosecuted for perjury, because for him to succeed in obtaining a search warrant without a probable cause, he must have perjured himself or induced someone to commit perjury to convince the court.

The true test of lack of just cause is whether the sworn statement filed in support of the application for search warrant has been done in such a manner that perjury could be charged and the affiant can be held liable for making such false statement. The oath required refers to the truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the applicant and his witnesses.

ABUSE IN THE SERVICE OF WARRANT OR EXCEEDING AUTHORITY OR USING UNNECESSARY SEVERITY IN EXECUTING A SEARCH WARRANT LEGALLY PROCURED


b. That he has legally procured a search warrant

c. That he exceeds his authority or uses unnecessary severity in executing the same

Search warrant is valid for 10 days from its date

Search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name of the People, signed by the judge and directed to a public officer, commanding him to search for personal property described therein and bring it before the court

No just cause – warrant is unjustified

Search – limited to what is described in the warrant, all details must be with particularity

The officer exceeded his authority under the warrant – To illustrate, let us say that there was a pusher in a condo unit. The PNP Narcotics Group obtained a search warrant but the name of person in the search warrant did not tally with the address stated. Eventually, the person with the same name was found but in a different address. The occupant resisted but the public officer insisted on the search. Drugs were found and seized and occupant was prosecuted and convicted by the trial court. The Supreme Court acquitted him because the public officers are required to follow the search warrant to the letter. They have no discretion on the matter. Plain view doctrine is inapplicable since it presupposes that the officer was legally entitled to be in the place where the effects where found. Since the entry was illegal, plain view doctrine does not apply.

Malicious warrant. Example. X was a respondent of a search warrant for illegal possession of firearms. A return was made. The gun did not belong to X and the witness had no personal knowledge that there is a gun in that place.

Abuse examples:a. X owner was handcuffed while search was going-on.

b. Tank was used to ram gate prior to announcement that a search will be made The search warrant is not a license to commit destruction.

c. Persons who were not respondents were searched

Article 130SEARCHING DOMICILE WITHOUT WITNESSES

ELEMENTS :a. That the offender is a public officer or employee

b. That he is armed with a search warrant legally procured

c. That he searches the domicile, papers or other belongings of any person

d. That the owner, or any member of his family, or two witnesses residing in the same locality are not present

Order of those who must witness the search:

a. Homeowner

b. Members of the family of sufficient age and discretion

c. Responsible members of the community (can’t be influenced by the searching party)

Validity of the search warrant can be questioned only in 2 courts: 1) where issued or 2) where the case is pending. Latter is preferred for objective determination.

Article 130 has no application to search and seizure made on moving vehicles because the application of this law is limited to dwelling and personal properties such as papers and effects found therein.

There are searches and seizures which are authorized by law and which can be done without the attendance of witnesses. For instance, the Tariff and Customs Code authorizes persons with police authority under Sec. 2203, to enter; pass through or search any land, enclosure, warehouse, store or building, not being used as a dwelling house; and to inspect, search and examine any vessel or aircraft, and any trunk, package, box or envelope, or any person on board, or to stop and search and examine any vehicle, beast or person suspected of holding or conveying any dutiable or prohibited article introduced into the Philippines contrary to law.

Article 131PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION, AND DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL MEETINGS

ELEMENTS:a. Offender is a public officer or employee

b. He performs any of the ff. acts:

1. prohibiting or interrupting, without legal ground the holding of a peaceful meeting, or dissolving the same (e.g. denial of permit in arbitrary manner).

2. hindering any person from joining any lawful association or from attending any of its meetings.

prohibiting or hindering any person from addressing, either alone or together with others, any petition to the authorities for the correction of abuses or redress of grievances

Two criteria to determine whether Article 131 would be violated:

(1) Dangerous tendency rule – applicable in times of national unrest such as to prevent coup d’etat.

(2) Clear and present danger rule – applied in times of peace. Stricter rule.

If the offender is a private individual, the crime is disturbance of public order (Art 153)

Meeting must be peaceful and there is no legal ground for prohibiting, dissolving or interrupting that meeting

If in the course of the assembly the participants commit illegal acts like oral defamation or inciting to sedition, a public officer or law enforcer can stop or dissolve the meeting. The permit given is not a license to commit a crime.

Meeting is subject to regulation

If the permit is denied arbitrarily, Article 131 is violated. If the officer would not give the permit unless the meeting is held in a particular place which he dictates defeats the exercise of the right to peaceably assemble, Article 131 is violated.

Offender must be a stranger, not a participant, in the peaceful meeting; otherwise, it’s unjust vexation

Interrupting and dissolving a meeting of the municipal council by a public officer is a crime against the legislative body, not punishable under this article

The person talking on a prohibited subject at a public meeting contrary to agreement that no speaker should touch on politics may be stopped

But stopping the speaker who was attacking certain churches in public meeting is a violation of this article

Prohibition must be without lawful cause or without lawful authority

Those holding peaceful meetings must comply with local ordinances. Example: Ordinance requires permits for meetings in public places. But if police stops a meeting in a private place because there’s no permit, officer is liable for stopping the meeting.

Distinctions between prohibition, interruption, or dissolution of peaceful meetings under Article 131, and tumults and other disturbances, under Article 153 (1) As to the participation of the public officer

In Article 131, the public officer is not a participant. As far as the gathering is concerned, the public officer is a third party.

If the public officer is a participant of the assembly and he prohibits, interrupts, or dissolves the same, Article 153 is violated if the same is conducted in a public place.

(2) As to the essence of the crime

In Article 131, the offender must be a public officer and, without any legal ground, he prohibits, interrupts, or dissolves a peaceful meeting or assembly to prevent the offended party from exercising his freedom of speech and that of the assembly to petition a grievance against the government.

In Article 153, the offender need not be a public officer. The essence of the crime is that of creating a serious disturbance of any sort in a public office, public building or even a private place where a public function is being held.

Article 132INTERRUPTION OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP

ELEMENTS:a. That the officer is a public officer or employee

b. That religious ceremonies or manifestations of any religion are about to take place or are going on

c. That the offender prevents or disturbs the same

Circumstance qualifying the offense: if committed with violence or threats

Reading of Bible and then attacking certain churches in a public plaza is not a ceremony or manifestation of religion, but only a meeting of a religious sect. But if done in a private home, it’s a religious service

Religious Worship: people in the act of performing religious rites for a religious ceremony; a manifestation of religion. Ex. Mass, baptism, marriage

X, a private person, boxed a priest while the priest was giving homily and while the latter was maligning a relative of X. Is X liable? X may be liable under Art 133 because X is a private person.

When priest is solemnizing marriage, he is a person in authority, although in other cases, he’s not.

Article 133OFFENDING RELIGIOUS FEELINGS

ELEMENTS: a. That the acts complained of were performed –

1. in a place devoted to religious worship, or (for this element, no need of religious ceremony, only the place is material)

2. during the celebration of any religious ceremony

b. That the acts must be notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful (deliberate intent to hurt the feelings)

c. The offender is any person

d. There is a deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the faithful, directed against religious tenet

If in a place devoted to religious purpose, there is no need for an ongoing religious ceremony

Example of religious ceremony (acts performed outside the church). Processions and special prayers for burying dead persons but NOT prayer rallies

Acts must be directed against religious practice or dogma or ritual for the purpose of ridicule, as mocking or scoffing or attempting to damage an object of religious veneration

There must be deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the faithful, mere arrogance or rudeness is not enough

In determining whether an act is offensive to the feelings of the faithful, the same must be viewed or judged from the standpoint of the offended religion and not from the point of view of the offender (People vs. Baes, 68 Phil. 203).

CRIME Nature of Crime Who are Liable If Element MissingProhibition, Interruption and Dissolution of Peaceful Meeting (131)

Crime against the fundamental law of the state

Public officers, Outsiders

If not by public officer = tumults

Interruption of Religious Worship (132)

Crime against the fundamental law of the state

Public officers, Outsiders

If by insider = unjust vexationIf not religious = tumult or alarmsIf not notoriously offensive = unjust vexation

Offending the Religious Feeling (133)

Crime against public order

Public officers, private persons, outsiders

If not tumults = alarms and scandalIf meeting illegal at onset = inciting to sedition or rebellion

TITLE THREE CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER

Crimes against public order

1. Rebellion or insurrection (Art. 134);

Coup d’ etat (Art. 134-A)

2. Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion (Art. 136);

3. Disloyalty to public officers or employees (Art. 137);

4. Inciting to rebellion (Art. 138);

5. Sedition (Art. 139);

6. Conspiracy to commit sedition (Art. 141);

7. Inciting to sedition (Art. 142);

8. Acts tending to prevent the meeting of Congress and similar bodies (Art. 143);

9. Disturbance of proceedings of Congress or similar bodies (Art. 144);

10. Violation of parliamentary immunity (Art. 145);

11. Illegal assemblies (Art. 146);

12. Illegal associations (Art. 147);

13. Direct assaults (Art. 148);

14. Indirect assaults (Art. 149);

15. Disobedience to summons issued by Congress, its committees, etc., by the constitutional commissions, its committees, etc. (Art. 150);

16. Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such person (Art. 151);

17. Tumults and other disturbances of public order (Art. 153);

18. Unlawful use of means of publication and unlawful utterances (Art. 154);

19. Alarms and scandals (Art. 155);

20. Delivering prisoners from jails (Art. 156);

21. Evasion of service of sentence (Art. 157);

22. Evasion on occasion of disorders (Art. 158);

23. Violation of conditional pardon (Art. 159); and

24. Commission of another crime during service of penalty imposed for another previous offense (Art. 160).

Article 134REBELLION OR INSURRECTION ELEMENTS:

a. That there be –

1. public uprising and

2. taking arms against the government (force/violence)

b. That the purpose of the uprising or movement is either

1. 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

2 To deprive the chief executive or congress, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives

Persons liable for rebelliona. Any person who: 1. promotes

2. maintains, or 3. heads a rebellion or insurrection; or

b. Any person who, while holding any public office or employment, takes part therein by:1. engaging in war against the forces of the government

2. destroying property or committing serious violence

3. exacting contributions or diverting public funds from the lawful purpose for which they have been appropriated (Note: “diverting public funds” is malversation absorbed in rebellion);

4. Any person merely participating or executing the command of others in rebellion

The essence of this crime is a public uprising with the taking up of arms. It requires a multitude of people. It aims to overthrow the duly constituted government. It does not require the participation of any member of the military or national police organization or public officers and generally carried out by civilians. Lastly, the crime can only be committed through force and violence.

The crime of rebellion cannot be committed by a single individual. Invariably, it is committed by several persons for the purpose of overthrowing the duly constituted or organized government. In the Philippines, what is known to the ordinary citizen as a symbol of Government would be the barangay, represented by its officials; the local government represented by the provincial and municipal officials; and the national government represented by the President, the Chief Justice and the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Success is immaterial, purpose is always political

The crime of rebellion is essentially a political crime. The intention of the rebel is to substitute himself in place of those who are in power. His method of placing himself in authority with the use of violence, duress or intimidation, assassination or the commission of common crimes like murder, kidnapping, arson, robbery and other heinous crimes in what we call rebellion.

Rebellion used where the object of the movement is completely to overthrow and supersede the existing government

Insurrection refers to a movement which seeks merely to effect some change of minor importance to prevent the exercise of gov’t authority w/ respect to particular matters or subjects

The phrase “to remove allegiance from the government’ is used to emphasize that the object of the uprising could be limited to certain areas, like isolating a barangay or municipality or a province in its loyalty to the duly constituted government or the national government.

Allegiance is a generic term which includes loyalty, civil obedience and civil service.

The law on rebellion however, does not speak only of allegiance or loss of territory. It also includes the efforts of the rebel to deprive the President of the Philippines of the exercise of his power to enforce the law, to exact obedience of laws and regulations duly enacted and promulgated by the duly constituted authorities.

Actual clash of arms w/ the forces of the gov’t, not necessary to convict the accused who is in conspiracy w/ others actually taking arms against the gov’t

Purpose of the uprising must be shown but it is not necessary that it be accomplished

A change of government w/o external participation

RISING PUBLICLY and TAKING ARMS AGAINST GOVERNMENT – actual participation. If there is no public uprising, the crime is of direct assault.

When any of the objectives of rebellion is pursued but there is no public uprising in the legal sense, the crime is direct assault of the first form. But if there is rebellion, with public uprising, direct assault cannot be committed.

Mere giving of aid or comfort is not criminal in the case of rebellion. Merely sympathizing is not participation, there must be ACTUAL participation

There must be a public apprising and taking up of arms for the specified purpose or purposes mentioned in Article 134. The acts of the accused who is not a member of the Hukbalahap organization of sending cigarettes and food supplies to a Huk leader; the changing of dollars into pesos for a top level communist; and the helping of Huks in opening accounts with the bank of which he was an official, do not constitute Rebellion. (Carino vs. People, et al., 7 SCRA 900).

Not necessary that there is killing, mere threat of removing Phil is sufficient

Rebellion may be committed even without a single shot being fired. No encounter needed. Mere public uprising with arms enough.

Rebellion cannot be complexed with any other crime.

Common crimes perpetrated in furtherance of a political offense are divested of their character as “common” offenses and assume the political complexion of the main crime which they are mere ingredients, and consequently, cannot be punished separately from the principal offense, or complexed with the same.

ORTEGA OPINION:

Rebellion can now be complexed with common crimes. Not long ago, the Supreme Court, in Enrile v. Salazar, 186 SCRA 217, reiterated and affirmed the rule laid down in People v. Hernandez, 99 Phil 515, that rebellion may not be complexed with common crimes which are committed in furtherance thereof because they are absorbed in rebellion. In view of said reaffirmation, some believe that it has been a settled doctrine that rebellion cannot be complexed with common crimes, such as killing and destruction of property, committed on the occasion and in furtherance thereof.

This thinking is no longer correct; there is no legal basis for such rule now.

The statement in People v. Hernandez that common crimes committed in furtherance of rebellion are absorbed by the crime of rebellion, was dictated by the provision of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code prior to its amendment by the Republic Act No. 6968 (An Act Punishing the Crime of Coup D’etat), which became effective on October 1990. Prior to its amendment by Republic Act No. 6968, Article 135 punished those “who while holding any public office or employment, take part therein” by any of these acts: engaging in war against the forces of Government; destroying property; committing serious violence; exacting contributions, diverting funds for the lawful purpose for which they have been appropriated. Since a higher penalty is prescribed for the crime of rebellion when any of the specified acts are committed in furtherance thereof, said acts are punished as components of rebellion and, therefore, are not to be treated as distinct crimes. The same acts constitute distinct crimes when committed on a different occasion and not in furtherance of rebellion. In short, it was because Article 135

then punished said acts as components of the crime of rebellion that precludes the application of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code thereto. In the eyes of the law then, said acts constitute only one crime and that is rebellion. The Hernandez doctrine was reaffirmed in Enrile v. Salazar because the text of Article 135 has remained the same as it was when the Supreme Court resolved the same issue in the People v. Hernandez. So the Supreme Court invited attention to this fact and thus stated:

“There is a an apparent need to restructure the law on rebellion, either to raise the penalty therefore or to clearly define and delimit the other offenses to be considered absorbed thereby, so that it cannot be conveniently utilized as the umbrella for every sort of illegal activity undertaken in its name. The court has no power to effect such change, for it can only interpret the law as it stands at any given time, and what is needed lies beyond interpretation. Hopefully, Congress will perceive the need for promptly seizing the initiative in this matter, which is purely within its province.”

Obviously, Congress took notice of this pronouncement and, thus, in enacting Republic Act No. 6968, it did not only provide for the crime of coup d’etat in the Revised Penal Code but moreover, deleted from the provision of Article 135 that portion referring to those –

“…who, while holding any public office or employment takes part therein [rebellion or insurrection], engaging in war against the forces of government, destroying property or committing serious violence, exacting contributions or diverting public funds from the lawful purpose for which they have been appropriated …”

Hence, overt acts which used to be punished as components of the crime of rebellion have been severed therefrom by Republic Act No. 6968. The legal impediment to the application of Article 48 to rebellion has been removed. After the amendment, common crimes involving killings, and/or destructions of property, even though committed by rebels in furtherance of rebellion, shall bring about complex crimes of rebellion with murder/homicide, or rebellion with robbery, or rebellion with arson as the case may be.

To reiterate, before Article 135 was amended, a higher penalty is imposed when the offender engages in war against the government. "War" connotes anything which may be carried out in pursuance of war. This implies that all acts of war or hostilities like serious violence and destruction of property committed on occasion and in pursuance of rebellion are component crimes of rebellion which is why Article 48 on complex crimes is inapplicable. In amending Article135, the acts which used to be component crimes of rebellion, like serious acts of violence, have been deleted. These are now distinct crimes. The legal obstacle for the application of Article 48, therefore, has been removed. Ortega says legislators want to punish these common crimes independently of rebellion. Ortega cites no case overturning Enrile v. Salazar.

However, illegal possession of firearms in furtherance of rebellion is distinct from the crime of rebellion.

The offense of illegal possession of firearm is a malum prohibitum, in which case, good faith and absence of criminal intent are not valid defenses.

Furthermore, it is a continuing crime such along with the crime of conspiracy or proposal to commit such A private crime may be committed during rebellion. Examples: killing, possessions of firearms, illegal association

are absorbed. Rape, even if not in furtherance of rebellion cannot be complexed

If killing, robbing were done for private purposes or for profit, without any political motivation, the crime would be separately be punished and would not be embraced by rebellion (People v. Fernando)

Person deemed leader of rebellion in case he is unknown: Any person who in fact:

a. directed the othersb. spoke for themc. signed receipts and other documents issued in their named. performed similar acts on behalf of the rebels

Distinctions between rebellion and sedition

(1) As to nature

In rebellion, there must be taking up or arms against the government.

In sedition, it is sufficient that the public uprising be tumultuous.

(2) As to purpose

In rebellion, the purpose is always political.

In sedition , the purpose may be political or social. Example: the uprising of squatters against Forbes park residents. The purpose in sedition is to go against established government, not to overthrow it.

Article 134-ACOUP D’ ETAT

ELEMENTS:a. Swift attack

b. Accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth

c. Directed against:

1. duly constituted authorities

2. any military camp or installation

3. communication networks or public utilities

4. other facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of power

d. Singly or simultaneously carried out anywhere in the Philippines

d. Committed by any person or persons belonging to the military or police or holding any public office or employment; with or without civilian support or participation

e. With or without civilian support or participation

f. Purpose of seizing or diminishing state power

The essence of the crime is a swift attack upon the facilities of the Philippine government, military camps and installations, communication networks, public utilities and facilities essential to the continued possession of governmental powers . It may be committed singly or collectively and does not require a multitude of people.

The objective may not be to overthrow the government but only to destabilize or paralyze the government through the seizure of facilities and utilities essential to the continued possession and exercise of governmental powers . It requires as principal offender a member of the AFP or of the PNP organization or a public officer with or without civilian support. Finally, it may be carried out not only by force or violence but also through stealth, threat or strategy.

How do you distinguish between coup d’etat and rebellion?

Rebellion is committed by any person whether a private individual or a public officer whereas in coup d’etat, the offender is a member of the military or police force or holding a public office or employment.

In rebellion, the object is to alienate the allegiance of a people in a territory, whether wholly or partially, from the duly constituted government; in coup d’etat, the object or purpose is to seize or diminish state power.

In both instances, the offenders intend to substitute themselves in place of those who are in power.

Treason (114) Rebellion (134) Coup d’etat Sedition (139)

(134-A)Nature of Crime

Crime against National Security

Crime against Public Order



Overt Acts levying war against the gov’t; ORadherence and giving aid or comfort to enemies

Public uprising ANDTaking up arms against the gov’t

See article. Rising publicly or tumultuously (caused by more than 3 armed men or provided with means of violence)

Purpose of objective

Deliver the gov’t to enemy during war

See article. Seizing or diminishing state power.

See enumeration in article.

Article 135PENALTIES

Who are liable?a. Any person who:

1. Promotes2. Maintains3. heads a rebellion or insurrection

b. Any person who, while holding any public office or employment, takes part therein 1. engaging in war against the forces of the gov’t

2. destroying property or committing serious violence

3. exacting contributions or diverting public funds from the lawful purpose for which they have been appropriated

c. Any person merely participating or executing the command of other in a rebellion

When conspiracy is present in the commission of the crime, the act of one is the act of all. In committing rebellion and coup d’etat, even if conspiracy as a means to commit the crime is established, the principal of criminal liability under Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code is not followed.

In Government Service Not in Government ServiceAnyone who leads, directs, commands others to undertake a coup.

Anyone who participates or in an manner, supports, finances, abets, aids in a coup.

Serious violence is that inflicted upon civilians, which may result in homicide. It is not limited to hostilities against the armed force.

Diverting public funds is malversation absorbed in rebellion

NOTES:a. Public officer must take active part because mere silence or omission not punishable in rebellion

b. It is not a defense in rebellion that the accused never took the oath of allegiance to, or that they never recognized the government

c. Rebellion cannot be complexed with murder and other common crimes committed in pursuance of the movement to overthrow the government

Subversion, just like the crimes of rebellion, conspiracy or proposal to commit the crimes of rebellion or subversion and crimes or offenses committed in furtherance thereof constitute direct assaults against the State and are in the nature of continuing crimes ( Umil vs. Ramos).

d. Killing, robbing etc for private persons or for profit, without any political motivation, would be separately punished and would not be absorbed in the rebellion.

Article 136CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT COUP D’ ETAT, REBELLION OR INSURRECTION

ELEMENTS:a. 2 more persons come to an agreement to rise publicly and take arms against the government

b. For any of the purposes of rebellion

c. They decide to commit it

PROPOSAL TO COMMIT COUP D’ ETAT, REBELLION OR INSURRECTION (136)

ELEMENTS:

a. A person who has decided to rise publicly and take arms the government

b. For any of the purposes of rebellion

c. Proposes its execution to some other person/s

Organizing a group of soldiers, soliciting membership in, and soliciting funds for the organization show conspiracy to overthrow the gov’t

The mere fact of giving and rendering speeches favoring Communism would not make the accused guilty of conspiracy if there’s no evidence that the hearers then and there agreed to rise up in arms against the gov’t

Conspiracy must be immediately prior to rebellion

If it is during the rebellion, then it is already taking part in it.

Article 137DISLOYALTY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES

ACTS PUNISHED:a. Failing to resist rebellion by all the means in their power

b. Continuing to discharge the duties of their offices under the control of rebels

c. Accepting appointment to office under rebels

Presupposes existence of rebellion

Must not be in conspiracy with rebels or coup plotters

If there are means to prevent the rebellion but did not resist it, then there’s disloyalty. If there are no means, no fault

If position is accepted in order to protect the people, not covered by this

The collaborator must not have tried to impose the wishes of the rebels on the people.

Disloyalty as a crime is not limited to rebellion alone but should now include the crime of coup d’etat. Rebellion is essentially a crime committed by private individuals while coup d’etat is a crime that should be classified as a crime committed by public officers like malversation, bribery, dereliction of duty and violations of the anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

If the public officer or employee, aside from being disloyal, does or commits acts constituting the crime of rebellion or coup d’etat, he will no longer be charged for the simple crime of disloyalty but he shall be proceeded against for the grave offense of rebellion or coup d’etat.

Article 138INCITING TO REBELLION OR INSURRECTION

ELEMENTS:a. That the offender does not take arms or is not in open hostility against the government

b. That he incites others to the execution of any of the acts of rebellion

c. That the inciting is done by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or other representations tending to the same end

Intentionally calculated to seduce others to rebellion

There must be uprising to take up arms and rise publicly for the purposes indicated in Art 134

One who promotes, maintains or heads a rebellion and who act at the same time incites or influences others to join him in his war efforts against the duly constituted government cannot be held criminally liable for the crime of inciting to rebellion because, as the principal to the crime of rebellion, the act of inciting to commit a rebellion is inherent to the graver crime of rebellion.

Proposal to Commit Rebellion (136) Inciting to Rebellion (138)The person who proposes has decided to commit rebellion.

Not required that the offender has decided to commit rebellion.

The person who proposes the execution of the crime uses secret means.

The inciting is done publicly.

Article 139SEDITION

ELEMENTS:a. That the offenders rise –

1. Publicly (if no public uprising = tumult and other disturbance of public order)

2. Tumultuously (vis-à-vis rebellion where there must be a taking of arms)

b. That they employ force, intimidation, or other means outside of legal methods

c. That the offenders employ any of those means to attain any of the following objects:

1. to prevent the promulgation or execution of any law or the holding of any popular election

2. to prevent the national government, or any provincial or municipal government, or any public thereof from freely exercising its or his functions, or prevent the execution of any administrative order

3. to inflict any act or hate or revenge upon the person or property of any public officer or employee

4. to commit for any political or social end, any act of hate or revenge against private persons or any social class (hence, even private persons may be offended parties)

5. to despoil, for any political or social end, any person, municipality or province, or the national government of all its property or any part thereof

Sedition: raising of commotion or disturbances in the State. Its ultimate object is a violation of the public peace or at least such measures that evidently engenders it.

The crime of sedition is committed by rising publicly and tumultuously. The two elements must concur.

The crime of sedition does not contemplate the taking up of arms against the government because the purpose of this crime is not the overthrow of the government. Notice from the purpose of the crime of sedition that the offenders rise publicly and create commotion and disturbance by way of protest to express their dissent and obedience to the government or to the authorities concerned. This is like the so-called civil disobedience except that the means employed, which is violence, is illegal.

Difference from rebellion – object or purpose of the uprising.

For sedition – sufficient that uprising is tumultuous. In rebellion – there must be taking up of arms against the government. Sedition – purpose may be either political or social. In rebellion – always political

“Tumultuous” is a situation wherein the disturbance or confusion is caused by at least four persons. There is no requirement that the offenders should be armed. Preventing public officers from freely exercising their functions

In sedition – offender may be a private or public person (Ex. Soldier)

Public uprising and the object of sedition must concur

Q: Are common crimes absorbed in sedition?

In P v. Umali, SC held that NO. Crimes committed in that case were independent of each other.

Preventing election through legal means – NOT sedition

But when sugar farmers demonstrated and destroyed the properties of sugar barons – sedition

Persons liable for sedition:a. leader of the sedition, and

b. other persons participating in the sedition

The objective of the law in criminalizing sedition is to put a limit to the freedom of expression or the right of the people to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievance.

The demonstrations conducted or held by the citizenry to protest certain policies of the government is not a crime. But when the protest in manifested in the form of rallies where the participants, in order to attain their objective of overcoming the will of the government, resort to force or violence, the mantle of protection guaranteed under the Constitution to express their dissent peacefully, shall cease to exist, as in the meantime, the participants have encroached or stayed in the domain or realm of criminal law.

Article 141. Conspiracy to Commit Sedition In this crime, there must be an agreement and a decision to rise publicly and tumultuously to attain any of the objects of sedition.

There is no proposal to commit sedition.

The conspiracy must be to prevent the promulgation or execution of any law or the holding of any popular election. It may also be a conspiracy to prevent national and local public officials from freely exercising their duties and functions, or to prevent the execution of an administrative order.

Article 142INCITING TO SEDITION

ELEMENTS:a. That the offender does not take a direct part in the crime of sedition

b. That he incites others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute sedition (134)

c. That the inciting is done by means of speeches, proclamations, writing, emblems, cartoons, banners, or other representations tending to the same end (purpose: cause commotion not exactly against the government; actual disturbance not necessary)

Different acts of inciting to sedition:a. Inciting others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute sedition by means of speeches,

proclamations, writings, emblems etc.

b. Uttering seditious words or speeches which tend to disturb the public peace or writing, publishing, or circulating scurrilous [vulgar, mean, libelous] libels against the government or any of the duly constituted authorities thereof, which tend to disturb the public peace

c. Knowingly concealing such evil practices

When punishable:a. when they tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing the functions of his office; or

b. when they tend to instigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes; or

c. when they suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots; or

d. when they lead or tend to stir up the people against the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of the community, the safety and order of the government

Only non-participant in sedition may be liable.

Inciting to sedition is an element of sedition. It cannot be treated as a separate offense against one who is a part of a group that rose up publicly and tumultuously and fought the forces of government.

Considering that the objective of sedition is to express protest against the government and in the process creating hate against public officers, any act that will generate hatred against the government or a public officer concerned or a social class may amount to Inciting to sedition. Article 142 is, therefore, quite broad.

The mere meeting for the purpose of discussing hatred against the government is inciting to sedition. Lambasting government officials to discredit the government is Inciting to sedition. But if the objective of such preparatory actions is the overthrow of the government, the crime is inciting to rebellion.

CRIMES AGAINST POPULAR REPRESENTATION

Article 143 ACTS TENDING TO PREVENT THE MEETING OF CONGRESS AND SIMILAR BODIES

ELEMENTS:a. That there be a projected or actual meeting of Congress or any of its committees or subcommittees,

constitutional commissions or committees or division thereof, or of any provincial board or city or municipal council or board

b. That the offender who may be any persons prevents such meeting by force or fraud

The crime is against popular representation because it is directed against officers whose primary function is to meet and enact laws. When these legislative bodies are prevented from meeting and performing their duties, the system of government is disturbed. The three branches of government must continue to exist and perform their duties.

Chief of Police and mayor who prevented the meeting of the municipal council are liable under Art 143, when the defect of the meeting is not manifest and requires an investigation before its existence can be determined.

Article 144DISTURBANCE OF PROCEEDINGS

ELEMENTS:a. That there be a meeting of Congress or any of its committees, constitutional commissions or committees or

divisions thereof, or of any provincial board or city or municipal council or board

b. That the offender does any of the following acts

1. He disturbs any of such meetings

2. He behaves while in the presence of any such bodies in such a manner as to interrupt its proceedings or to impair the respect due it

The disturbance can be in the form of utterances, speeches or any form of expressing dissent which is not done peacefully but implemented in such a way that it substantially interrupts the meeting of the assembly or adversely affects the respect due to the assembly of its members.

Complaint must be filed by member of the Legislative body. Accused may also be punished for contempt.

Article 145VIOLATION OF PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY

Acts punishable: a. By using force, intimidation, threats, or frauds to prevent any member of Congress from –

1. attending the meeting of the assembly or any of its committees, constitutional commissions or committees or divisions thereof, or from

2. expressing his opinions or

3. casting his vote

b. By arresting or searching any member thereof while Congress is in a regular or special session, except in case such member has committed a crime punishable under the code by a penalty higher than prision mayor ( 6 years up )

Elements:1. That the offender is a public officer or employee

2. That he arrests or searches any member of Congress

3. That Congress, at the time of arrest or search, is in a regular or special session

4. That the member searched has not committed a crime punishable under the code by a penalty higher than prision mayor (1987 constitution: privilege from arrest while congress in session in all offenses punishable by not more than 6 years imprisonment).

Under Section 11, Article VI of the Constitution, a public officer who arrests a member of Congress who has committed a crime punishable by prision mayor (six years and one day, to 12 years) is not liable Article 145.

According to Reyes, to be consistent with the Constitution, the phrase "by a penalty higher than prision mayor" in Article 145 should be amended to read: "by the penalty of prision mayor or higher."

The offender is any person and the offended party who is a member of Congress, has not committed any crime to justify the use of force, threat, intimidation or fraud to prevent him from attending the meeting of Congress.

ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES AND ASSOCIATIONS

Article 146ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES

Two (2) Types of illegal assemblies:

a. Meeting of the first form

1. Meeting, gathering or group of persons whether in a fixed place or moving

2. purpose : to commit any of crimes punishable under the code

3. meeting attended by armed persons b. Meeting of the second form

1. Meeting, gathering or group of persons whether in a fixed place or moving

2. Audience whether armed or not, is incited to the commission of the crime of treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition or direct assault.

Not all the persons present at the meeting of the first form of illegal assembly must be armed

Persons liable for illegal assemblya. the organizers or leaders of the meeting

b. persons merely present at the meeting (except when presence is out of curiosity – not liable)

Responsibility of persons merely present at the meeting

a. if they are not armed, penalty is arresto mayor

b. if they carry arms, like bolos or knives, or licensed firearms, penalty is prision correccional

Presumptions if person present at the meeting carries an unlicensed firearm:

a. purpose of the meeting is to commit acts punishable under the RPC

b. considered as leader or organizer of the meeting

Those who incite the audience, by means of speeches, printed matters, and other representation, to commit treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition or assault a person in authority, shall be deemed leaders or organizers of said meeting.

The gravamen of the offense is mere assembly of or gathering of people for illegal purpose punishable by the Revised Penal Code. Without gathering, there is no illegal assembly. If unlawful purpose is a crime under a special law, there is no illegal assembly. For example, the gathering of drug pushers to facilitate drug trafficking is not illegal assembly because the purpose is not violative of the Revised Penal Code but of The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, which is a special law.

Two forms of illegal assembly

(1) No attendance of armed men, but persons in the meeting are incited to commit treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition or assault upon a person in authority. When the illegal purpose of the gathering is to incite people to commit the crimes mentioned above, the presence of armed men is unnecessary. The mere gathering for the purpose is sufficient to bring about the crime already.

(2) Armed men attending the gathering – If the illegal purpose is other than those mentioned above, the presence of armed men during the gathering brings about the crime of illegal assembly.

Example: Persons conspiring to rob a bank were arrested. Some were with firearms. Liable for illegal assembly, not for conspiracy, but for gathering with armed men.

Distinction between illegal assembly and illegal association

In illegal assembly, the basis of liability is the gathering for an illegal purpose which constitutes a crime under the Revised Penal Code.

In illegal association, the basis is the formation of or organization of an association to engage in an unlawful purpose which is not limited to a violation of the Revised Penal Code. It includes a violation of a special law or those against public morals. Meaning of public morals: inimical to public welfare; it has nothing to do with decency., not acts of obscenity.

Article 147ILLEGAL ASSOCIATIONS

ELEMENTS: a. Organized totally or partially for the purpose of committing any of the crimes in RPCOrb. For some purpose contrary to public morals

Persons liable:a. founders, directors and president of the associationb. mere members of the association

Illegal Assembly (146) Illegal Association (147)Must be an actual meeting of armed persons to commit any of the crimes punishable under the RPC, or of individuals who, although not armed, are incited to the commission of treason, rebellion, sedition or assault upon a person in authority of his agent.

No need for such

It is the meeting and the attendance at such that are punished

Act of forming or organizing and membership in the association

Persons liable: leaders and those present Founders, directors, president and members

Public morals refers to crimes punished under Title Six of the Revised Penal Code, namely, gambling, grave scandal, prostitution and vagrancy.

ASSAULT, RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE

Article 148DIRECT ASSAULT ELEMENTS OF THE 1ST FORM OF DIRECT ASSAULT

a. That the offender employs force or intimidation.

b. That the aim of the offender is to attain any of the purposes of the crime of rebellion or any of the objects of the crimes of sedition. (victim need not be person in authority)

c. That there is no public uprising.

Example of the first form of direct assault:

Three men broke into a National Food Authority warehouse and lamented sufferings of the people. They called on people to help themselves to all the rice. They did not even help themselves to a single grain.

The crime committed was direct assault. There was no robbery for there was no intent to gain. The crime is direct assault by committing acts of sedition under Article 139 (5), that is, spoiling of the property, for any political or social end, of any person municipality or province or the national government of all or any its property, but there is no public uprising.

ELEMENTS OF THE 2ND FORM OF DIRECT ASSAULT: a. That the offender (a) makes an attack, (b) employs force, (c) makes a serious intimidation, or (d) makes a

serious resistance.

b. That the person assaulted is a person in authority or his agent.

c. That at the time of the assault the person in authority or his agent (a) is engaged in the actual performance of official duties (motive is not essential), or that he is assaulted (b) by reason of the past performance of official duties (motive is essential).

d. That the offender knows that the one he is assaulting is a person in authority or his agent in the exercise of his duties (with intention to offend, injure or assault).

e. That there is no public uprising.

Crime of direct assault can only be committed by means of dolo. It cannot be committed by culpa.

Always complexed with the material consequence of the act (e.g. direct assault with murder) except if resulting in a light felony, in which case, the consequence is absorbed

The crime is not based on the material consequence of the unlawful act . The crime of direct assault punishes the spirit of lawlessness and the contempt or hatred for the authority or the rule of law.

To be specific, if a judge was killed while he was holding a session, the killing is not the direct assault, but murder. There could be direct assault if the offender killed the judge simply because the judge is so strict in the fulfillment of his duty. It is the spirit of hate which is the essence of direct assault. So, where the spirit is present, it is always complexed with the material consequence of the unlawful act . If the unlawful act was murder or homicide committed under circumstance of lawlessness or contempt of authority, the crime would be direct assault with murder or homicide, as the case may be. In the example of the judge who was killed, the crime is direct assault with murder or homicide.

The only time when it is not complexed is when material consequence is a light felony, that is, slight physical injury . Direct assault absorbs the lighter felony; the crime of direct assault can not be separated from the material result of the act. So, if an offender who is charged with direct assault and in another court for the slight physical Injury which is part of the act, acquittal or conviction in one is a bar to the prosecution in the other.

Hitting the policeman on the chest with fist is not direct assault because if done against an agent of a person in authority, the force employed must be of serious character

The force employed need not be serious when the offended party is a person in authority (ex. Laying of hands)

The intimidation or resistance must be serious whether the offended party is an agent only or a person in authority (ex. Pointing a gun)

Force Employed Intimidation/ResistancePerson in Authority Need not be serious SeriousAgent Must be of serious character Serious

Person in authority: any person directly vested with jurisdiction (power or authority to govern and execute the laws) whether as an individual or as a member of some court or governmental corporation, board or commission

A barangay captain is a person in authority, so is a Division Superintendent of schools, President of Sanitary Division and a teacher

In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151, teachers, professors, and persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges and universities and lawyers in the actual performance of their duties or on the occasion of such performance, shall be deemed a person in authority.

Agent: is one who, by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and property. (Example. Barrio

councilman and any person who comes to the aid of the person in authority, policeman, municipal treasurer, postmaster, sheriff, agents of the BIR, Malacañang confidential agent)

Even when the person in authority or the agent agrees to fight, still direct assault.

When the person in authority or the agent provoked/attacked first, innocent party is entitled to defend himself and cannot be held liable for assault or resistance nor for physical injuries, because he acts in legitimate self-defense

The offended party in assault must not be the aggressor. If there is unlawful aggression employed by the public officer, any form of resistance which may be in the nature of force against him will be considered as an act of legitimate defense. (People vs. Hernandez, 59 Phil. 343)

There can be no assault upon or disobedience to one authority by another when they both contend that they were in the exercise of their respective duties.

The offender and the offended party are both public officers. The Supreme Court said that assault may still be committed, as in fact the offender is even subjected to a greater penalty (U.S. vs. Vallejo, 11 Phil. 193).

When assault is made by reason of the performance of his duty there is no need for actual performance of his official duty when attacked

In direct assault of the first form, the stature of the offended person is immaterial. The crime is manifested by the spirit of lawlessness.

In the second form, you have to distinguish a situation where a person in authority or his agent was attacked while performing official functions, from a situation when he is not performing such functions. If attack was done during the exercise of official functions, the crime is always direct assault. It is enough that the offender

knew that the person in authority was performing an official function whatever may be the reason for the attack, although what may have happened was a purely private affair.

On the other hand, if the person in authority or the agent was killed when no longer performing official functions, the crime may simply be the material consequence of he unlawful act: murder or homicide. For the crime to be direct assault, the attack must be by reason of his official function in the past. Motive becomes important in this respect. Example, if a judge was killed while resisting the taking of his watch, there is no direct assault.

In the second form of direct assault, it is also important that the offended knew that the person he is attacking is a person in authority or an agent of a person in authority, performing his official functions. No knowledge, no lawlessness or contempt.

For example, if two persons were quarreling and a policeman in civilian clothes comes and stops them, but one of the protagonists stabs the policeman, there would be no direct assault unless the offender knew that he is a policeman.

In this respect it is enough that the offender should know that the offended party was exercising some form of authority. It is not necessary that the offender knows what is meant by person in authority or an agent of one because ignorantia legis non excusat.

Circumstances qualifying the offense (Qualified Assault):a. when the assault is committed with a weapon

b. when the offender is a public officer or employee

c. when the offender lays hand upon a person in authority

Complex crime of direct assault with homicide or murder, or with serious physical injuries.

If the crime of direct assault is committed with the use of force and it resulted in the infliction of slight physical injuries, the latter shall not be considered as a separate offense. It shall be absorbed by the greater crime of direct assault. (People vs. Acierto, 57 Phil. 614)

Direct assault cannot be committed during rebellion.

May direct assault be committed upon a private individual? Yes. When a private person comes to the aid of a person in authority, and he is likewise assaulted. Under Republic Act No. 1978, a private person who comes to the aid of a person in authority is by fiction of law deemed or is considered an

agent of a person in authority.

Article 149INDIRECT ASSAULT

ELEMENTS: a. That a person in authority or his agent is the victim of any of the forms of direct assault defined in ART.

148.

b. That a person comes to the aid of such authority or his agent.

c. That the offender makes use of force or intimidation upon such person coming to the aid of the authority or his agent.

Indirect assault can be committed only when a direct assault is also committed

To be indirect assault, the person who should be aided is the agent (not the person in authority because it is already direct assault, the person coming to the aid of the person in authority being considered as an agent and an attack on the latter is already direct assault). Example. Aiding a policeman under attack.

The victim in indirect assault should be a private person who comes in aid of an agent of a person in authority. The assault is upon a person who comes in aid of the agent of a person in authority. The victim cannot be the person in authority or his agent.

Take note that under Article 152, as amended, when any person comes in aid of a person in authority, said person at that moment is no longer a civilian – he is constituted as an agent of the person in authority. If such person were the one attacked, the crime would be direct assault

Article 150DISOBEDIENCE TO SUMMONS

Acts punishable:a. refusing without legal excuse to obey summons

b. refusing to be sworn or placed under affirmation

c. refusing to answer any legal inquiry to produce books, records etc.

d. restraining another from attending as witness in such body

e. inducing disobedience to a summons or refusal to be sworn

The act punished is refusal, without legal excuse, to obey summons issued by the House of Representatives or the Senate. If a Constitutional Commission is created, it shall enjoy the same privilege.

The exercise by the legislature of its contempt power is a matter of self-preservation, independent of the judicial branch. The contempt power of the legislature is inherent and sui generis.

The power to punish is not extended to the local executive bodies . The reason given is that local legislative bodies are but a creation of law and therefore, for them to exercise the power of contempt, there must be an express grant of the same.

Article 151RESISTANCE/DISOBEDIENCE TO A PERSON IN AUTHORITY OR THE AGENT OF SUCH PERSON (par. 1)

ELEMENTS:a. That a person in authority or his agent is engaged in the performance of official duty or gives a lawful

order to the offender.

b. That the offender resists or seriously disobeys such person in authority or his agent.

c. That the act of the offender is not included in the provisions of arts. 148, 149 and 150.

SIMPLE DISOBEDIENCE (par. 2)

ELEMENTS: a. That an agent of a person in authority is engaged in the performance of official duty gives a lawful order

to the offender.

b. That the offender disobeys such agent of a person in authority.

c. That such disobedience is not of a serious nature.

US vs. Ramayrat, 22 Phil. 183The Supreme Court held that: “the violation does not refer to resistance or disobedience to the legal provisions of the law, nor to judicial decisions

defining or declaring the rights and obligations of the parties for the same give reliefs only in the form of civil actions. Rather, the disobedience or resistance is to the orders directly issued by the authorities in the exercise of their official duties.”

Direct Assault (148) Resistant and Disobedience to a Person in Authority or Agents of such Person (151)

PIA or his agent must be engaged in the performance of official duties or that he is assaulted

PIA or his agent must be in the actual performance of his duties.

Direct assault is committed in 4 ways – by attacking, employing force, and seriously resisting a PIA or his agent.

Committed by resisting or seriously disobeying a PIA or his agent.

Use of force against an agent of PIA must be serious and deliberate.

Use of force against an agent of a PIA is not so serious; no manifest intention to defy the law and the officers enforcing it.

In both resistance against an agent of a person in authority and direct assault by resisting an agent of a person in authority, there is force employed, but the use of force in resistance is not so serious, as there is no manifest intention to defy the law and the officers enforcing it.

The attack or employment of force which gives rise to the crime of direct assault must be serious and deliberate; otherwise, even a case of simple resistance to an arrest, which always requires the use of force of some kind, would constitute direct assault and the lesser offense of resistance or disobedience in Article 151 would entirely disappear.

But when the one resisted is a person in authority, the use of any kind or degree of force will give rise to direct assault.

If no force is employed by the offender in resisting or disobeying a person in authority , the crime committed is resistance or serious disobedience under the first paragraph of Article 151.

Article 152PERSONS IN AUTHORITY/AGENTS OF PERSONS IN AUTHORITY:

Persons in Authority – any person directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of some court or governmental corporation, board or commission.

Examples of Persons in Authority :a. Barangay captainb. Barangay chairmanc. Municipal mayord. Provincial fiscale. Justice of the peacef. Municipal councilorg. Teachersh. Professorsi. Persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges and universitiesj. Lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the occasion of such performance

Agent of Person in Authority – any person who, by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and property.

Examples of agents of PIA :a. Barrio councilmanb. Barrio policemanc. Barangay leaderd. Any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority

Section 388 of the Local Gov’t Code provides that “for purposes of the RPC, the punong barangay, sangguniang barangay members and members of the lupong tagapamayapa in each barangay shall be deemed as persons in authority in their jurisdictions, while other barangay officials and members who may be designated by law or ordinance and charged with the maintenance of public order, protection and the security of life, property, or the maintenance of a desirable and balanced environment, and any barangay member who comes to the aid of persons in authority shall be deemed AGENT of persons in authority.

When the offended party is a person in authority and while being assaulted, a private individual comes to his rescue, such private individual, by operation of law, mutates mutandis becomes an agent of a person in authority. Any assault committed against such person is direct assault, and not indirect assault. But if the person assaulted is an agent of a person in authority, and a private individual comes to his rescue and is himself assaulted while giving the assistance, as earlier discussed, the crime committed is indirect assault.

CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC DISORDERS

Article 153TUMULTS AND OTHER DISTURBANCES OF PUBLIC ORDER

TYPES:a. Causing any serious disturbance in a public place, office or establishment

b. Interrupting or disturbing public performances, functions, gatherings or peaceful meetings, if the act is not included in Art 131 and 132 (Public Officers interrupting peaceful meetings or religious worship).

c. Making any outcry tending to incite rebellion or sedition in any meeting, association or public place

d. Displaying placards or emblems which provoke a disturbance of public order in such place

e. Burying with pomp the body of a person who has been legally executed.

If the act of disturbing or interrupting a meeting or religious ceremony is NOT committed by public officers, or if committed by public officers who are not participants therein, this article applies. Art 131 and 132 punishes the same acts if committed by public officers who are NOT participants in the meeting

The outcry is merely a public disorder if it is an unconscious outburst which, although rebellious or seditious in nature, is not intentionally calculated to induce others to commit rebellion or sedition, otherwise, its inciting to rebellion or sedition.

This article should be distinguished from inciting to rebellion or sedition as discussed under Article 138 and 142. In the former, the meeting is legal and peaceful. It becomes unlawful only because of the outcry made, which tends to incite rebellion or sedition in the meeting. In the latter case, the meeting is unlawful from the beginning and the utterances made are deliberately articulated to incite others to rise publicly and rebel against the government. What makes it inciting to rebellion or sedition is the act of inciting the audience to commit rebellion or sedition.

Tumultuous – if caused by more than 3 persons who are armed or provided with means of violence (circumstance qualifying the disturbance/interruption) – “tumultuous in character”

The essence is creating public disorder. This crime is brought about by creating serious disturbances in public places, public buildings, and even in private places where public functions or performances are being held.

For a crime to be under this article, it must not fall under Articles 131 (prohibition, interruption, and dissolution of peaceful meetings) and 132 (interruption of religious worship).

In the act of making outcry during speech tending to incite rebellion or sedition, the situation must be distinguished from inciting to sedition or rebellion. If the speaker, even before he delivered his speech, already had the criminal intent to incite the listeners to rise to sedition,

the crime would be inciting to sedition. However, if the offender had no such criminal intent, but in the course of his speech, tempers went high and so the speaker started inciting the audience to rise in sedition against the government, the crime is disturbance of the public order.

The disturbance of the pubic order is tumultuous and the penalty is increased if it is brought about by armed men. The term “armed” does not refer to firearms but includes even big stones capable of causing grave injury.

It is also disturbance of the public order if a convict legally put to death is buried with pomp . He should not be made out as a martyr; it might incite others to hatred.

The crime of disturbance of public order may be committed in a public or private place. If committed in a private place, the law is violated only where the disturbance is made while a public function or performance is going on. Without a public gathering in a private place, the crime cannot be committed.

Article 154UNLAWFUL USE OF MEANS OF PUBLICATION AND UNLAWFUL UTTERANCES

TYPES:

a. Publishing or causing to be published, by means of printing, lithography or any other means of publication as news any false news which may endanger the public order, or cause damage to the interest or credit of the State.

b. Encouraging disobedience to the law or to the constituted authorities or by praising, justifying or extolling any act punished by law, by the same means or by words, utterances or speeches

c. Maliciously publishing or causing to be published any official resolution or document without proper authority, or before they have been published officially

d. Printing, publishing or distributing or (causing the same) books, pamphlets, periodicals or leaflets which do not bear the real printer’s name or which are classified as anonymous.

The purpose of the law is to punish the spreading of false information which tends to cause panic, confusion, distrust and divide people in their loyalty to the duly constituted authorities.

Actual public disorder or actual damage to the credit of the State is not necessary.

Republic Act No. 248 prohibits the reprinting, reproduction or republication of government publications and official documents without previous authorityThe article also punishes any person who knowingly publishes official acts or documents which are not officially promulgated.

Article 155ALARMS AND SCANDALS

TYPES:a. Discharging any firearm, rocket, firecracker, or other explosive within any town or public place, calculated

to cause alarm or danger

b. Instigating or taking active part in any charivari or other disorderly meeting offensive to another or prejudicial to public tranquility

c. Disturbing the public peace while wandering about at night or while engaged in any other nocturnal amusement

d. Causing any disturbance or scandal in public places while intoxicated or otherwise, provided the act is not covered by Art 153 (tumult).

Understand the nature of the crime of alarms and scandals as one that disturbs public tranquility or public peace. If the annoyance is intended for a particular person, the crime is unjust vexation.

Charivari – mock serenade or discordant noises made with kettles, tin horns etc, designed to deride, insult or annoy

When a person discharges a firearm in public, the act may constitute any of the possible crimes under the Revised Penal Code:

(1) Alarms and scandals if the firearm when discharged was not directed to any particular person;

(2) Illegal discharge of firearm under Article 254 if the firearm is directed or pointed to a particular person when discharged but intent to kill is absent;

(3) Attempted homicide, murder, or parricide if the firearm when discharged is directed against a person and intent to kill is present.

In this connection, understand that it is not necessary that the offended party be wounded or hit. Mere discharge of firearm towards another with intent to kill already amounts to attempted homicide or attempted murder or attempted parricide. It can not be frustrated because the offended party is not mortally wounded.

In Araneta v. Court of Appeals, it was held that if a person is shot at and is wounded, the crime is automatically attempted homicide. Intent to kill is inherent in the use of the deadly weapon.

(4) Grave Threats – If the weapon is not discharged but merely pointed to another

(5) Other Light Threats – If drawn in a quarrel but not in self defense

What governs is the result, not the intent

CRIME Nature of Crime Who are LiableTumults and other Disturbances (153)

Crime against Public Order Private persons, outsider

Alarms and Scandals (155) Crime against Public Order Private persons, outsider

Article 156 DELIVERING PRISONERS FROM JAILS

ELEMENTS : a. That there is a person confined in a jail or penal establishment.

b. That the offender removes therefor such person, or helps the escape of such person (if the escapee is serving final judgement, he is guilty of evasion of sentence).

c. Offender is a private individual

Prisoner may be detention prisoner or one sentenced by virtue of a final judgment

Even if the prisoner is in the hospital or asylum or any place for detention of prisoner, as long as he is classified as a prisoner, that is, a formal complaint or information has been filed in court, and he has been officially categorized as a prisoner, this article applies, as such place is considered extension of the penal institution.

A policeman assigned to the city jail as guard who while off-duty released a prisoner is liable here

Even if the prisoner returned to the jail after several hours, the one who removed him from jail is liable.

It may be committed through negligence

Circumstances qualifying the offense – is committed by means of violence, intimidation or bribery.

Mitigating circumstance – if it takes place outside the penal establishment by taking the guards by surprise

correlate the crime of delivering person from jail with infidelity in the custody of prisoners punished under Articles 223, 224 and 225 of the Revised Penal Code. In both acts, the offender may be a public officer or a private citizen. Do not think that infidelity in the custody of prisoners can only be committed by a public officer and delivering persons from

jail can only be committed by private person. Both crimes may be committed by public officers as well as private persons.

In both crimes, the person involved may be a convict or a mere detention prisoner.

The only point of distinction between the two crimes lies on whether the offender is the custodian of the prisoner or not at the time the prisoner was made to escape. If the offender is the custodian at that time, the crime is infidelity in the custody of prisoners. But if the offender is not the

custodian of the prisoner at that time, even though he is a public officer, the crime he committed is delivering prisoners from jail.

Liability of the prisoner or detainee who escaped – When these crimes are committed, whether infidelity in the custody of prisoners or delivering prisoners from jail, the prisoner so escaping may also have criminal liability and this is so if the prisoner is a convict serving sentence by final judgment. The crime of evasion of service of sentence is committed by the prisoner who escapes if such prisoner is a convict serving sentence by final judgment.

If the prisoner who escapes is only a detention prisoner, he does not incur liability from escaping if he does not know of the plan to remove him from jail. But if such prisoner knows of the plot to remove him from jail and cooperates therein by escaping, he himself becomes liable for delivering prisoners from jail as a principal by indispensable cooperation.

If three persons are involved – a stranger, the custodian and the prisoner – three crimes are committed:

(1) Infidelity in the custody of prisoners;

(2) Delivery of the prisoner from jail; and

(3) Evasion of service of sentence.

It is possible that several crimes may be committed in one set of facts. For instance, assuming that Pedro, the jail warden, agreed with Juan to allow Maria to escape by not locking the gate of the city jail. Provided that Juan comes across with P5,000.00 pesos as bribe money. The arrangement was not known to Maria but when she noticed the unlocked gate of the city jail she took advantage of the situation and escaped. From the facts given, there is no question that Pedro, as the jail warden, is liable for the crime of infidelity in the custody of the prisoner. He will also be able for the crime of bribery. Juan will be liable for the crime of delivering a prisoner from jail and for corruption of public official under Art. 212. If Maria is a sentenced prisoner, she will be liable for evasion of service of sentence under Article 157. if she is a detention prisoner, she commits no crime.

EVASION OF SENTENCE OR SERVICE

Evasion of service of sentence has three forms:

(1) By simply leaving or escaping from the penal establishment under Article 157;

(2) Failure to return within 48 hours after having left the penal establishment because of a calamity, conflagration or mutiny and such calamity, conflagration or mutiny has been announced as already passed under Article 158;

(3) Violating the condition of conditional pardon under Article 159.

Article 157EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE

ELEMENTS : a. That the offender is a convict by final judgment.

b. That he is serving his sentence which consists in deprivation of liberty (destierro included)

c. That he evades the service of his sentence by escaping during the term if his sentence. (fact of return immaterial).

By the very nature of the crime, it cannot be committed when the prisoner involved is merely a detention prisoner. But it applies to persons convicted by final judgment with a penalty of destierro.

A detention prisoner even if he escapes from confinement has no criminal liability . Thus, escaping from his prison cell when his case is still on appeal does not make said prisoner liable for Evasion of Service of Sentence.

In leaving or escaping from jail or prison, that the prisoner immediately returned is immaterial. It is enough that he left the penal establishment by escaping therefrom. His voluntary return may only be mitigating, being analogous to voluntary surrender. But the same will not absolve his criminal liability.

A continuing offense.

Offenders – not minor delinquents nor detention prisoners

If escaped within the 15 day appeal period – no evasion

No applicable to deportation as the sentence

The crime of evasion of service of sentence may be committed even if the sentence is destierro, and this is committed if the convict sentenced to destierro will enter the prohibited places or come within the prohibited radius of 25 kilometers to such places as stated in the judgment.

If the sentence violated is destierro, the penalty upon the convict is to be served by way of destierro also, not imprisonment. This is so because the penalty for the evasion can not be more severe than the penalty evaded.

Circumstances qualifying the offense (done thru):a. unlawful entry (by “scaling”)

b. breaking doors, windows, gates, walls, roofs or floors

c. using picklocks, false keys, disguise, deceit, violence or intimidation

d. connivance with other convicts or employees of the penal institution

A, a foreigner, was found guilty of violation of the law, and was ordered by the court to be deported. Later on, he returned to the Philippines in violation of the sentence. Held: He is not guilty of Evasion of Service of Sentence as the law is not applicable to offenses executed by deportation. (U.S. vs. Loo Hoe, 36 Phil. 867).

Article 158EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE ON THE OCCASION OF DISORDERS, CONFLAGRATIONS, EARTHQUAKES OR OTHER CALAMITIES

ELEMENTS : a. That the offender is a convict by final judgement who is confined in a penal institution.

b. That there is disorder, resulting from- 1. conflagration, 2. earthquake, or 3. explosion, or 4. similar catastrophe, or 5. mutiny , not participated.

c. That the offender evades the service of his sentence by leaving the penal institution where he is confined, on the occasion of such disorder or during the mutiny.

d. That the offender fails to give himself up to the authorities within 48 hours following the issuance of a proclamation by the chief executive announcing the passing away of such calamity.

The leaving from the penal establishment is not the basis of criminal liability. It is the failure to return within 48 hours after the passing of the calamity, conflagration or mutiny had been announced. Under Article 158, those who return within 48 hours are given credit or deduction from the remaining period of their sentence equivalent to 1/5 of the original term of the sentence. But if the prisoner fails to return within said 48 hours, an added penalty, also 1/5, shall be imposed but the 1/5 penalty is based on the remaining period of the sentence, not on the original sentence. In no case shall that penalty exceed six months.

Offender must escape to be entitled to allowance

Those who did not leave the penal establishment are not entitled to the 1/5 credit. Only those who left and returned within the 48-hour period.

For such event to be considered as a calamity, the President must declared it to be so. He must issue a proclamation to the effect that the calamity is over. Even if the events herein mentioned may be considered as calamity, there is a need for the Chief Executive to make such announcement. Absent such declaration. Even if the prisoner will return to the penal institution where he was confined, the same is of no moment as in the meantime he has committed a violation of the law, not under the present article but for pure evasion of service of sentence under Article 157.

Mutiny – organized unlawful resistance to a superior officer, a sedition, a revolt

The mutiny referred to in the second form of evasion of service of sentence does not include riot. The mutiny referred to here involves subordinate personnel rising against the supervisor within the penal establishment. One who escapes during a riot will be subject to Article 157, that is, simply leaving or escaping the penal establishment.

Disarming the guards is not mutiny

Violation attributed to the accused is no longer referred to the court for judicial inquiry or resolution. The law has provided sufficient guidelines for the jail warden to follow.

This disquisition will not apply if the offender who escapes taking advantage of the calamities enumerated herein is apprehended by the authorities after 48 hours from the declaration that the calamity is over. It is only extended to one who returns but made inside the 48 hours delimited by the proclamation. At this stage, the violation is not substantive but administrative in nature.

Article 159VIOLATION OF CONDITIONAL PARDON

ELEMENTS: a. That the offender was a convict.

b. That he was granted a conditional pardon by the chief executive.

c. That he violated any of the conditions of such pardon.

Condition extends to special laws – violation of illegal votingThe condition imposed upon the prisoner not to be guilty of another crime is not limited to those punishable under the Revised Penal Code. It includes those punished under Special Law. (People vs. Corral, 74 Phil. 357).

In violation of conditional pardon, as a rule, the violation will amount to this crime only if the condition is violated during the remaining period of the sentence.

If the condition of the pardon is violated, the remedy against the accused may be in the form of prosecution under Article 159. it may also be an administrative action by referring the violation to the court of origin and praying for the issuance of a warrant of arrest justified under Section 64 of the Revised Administrative Code.

The administrative liability of the convict under the conditional pardon is different and has nothing to do with his criminal liability for the evasion of service of sentence in the event that the condition of the pardon has been violated. Exception: where the violation of the condition of the pardon will constitute evasion of service of sentence, even though committed beyond the remaining period of the sentence. This is when the conditional pardon expressly so provides or the language of the conditional pardon clearly shows the intention to make the condition perpetual even beyond the unserved portion of the sentence. In such case, the convict may be required to serve the unserved portion of the sentence even though the violation has taken place when the sentence has already lapsed.

Offender must have been found guilty of the subsequent offense before he can be prosecuted under this Article. But if under Revised Admin Code, no conviction necessary. President has power to arrest, reincarnate offender without trial

Article 159 is a distinct felony. It is a substantive crime. For one to suffer the consequence of its violation, the prisoner must be formally charged in court. He will be entitled to a full blown hearing, in full enjoyment of his right to due process. Only after a final judgment has been rendered against him may he suffer the penalty prescribed under Article 159 (Torres vs. Gonzales, et al., 152 SCRA 292)

VIOLATION OF PARDON ORDINARY EVASIONInfringement of conditions/terms of President

To evade the penalty given by the courts – disturbs the public order

Two penalties provided:a. prision correccional in its minimum period – if the penalty remitted does not exceed 6 years

b. the unexpired portion of his original sentence – if the penalty remitted is higher than 6 years

COMMISSION OF ANOTHER CRIME

Article 160COMMISSION OF ANOTHER CRIME DURING SERVICE OF PENALTY IMPOSED FOR ANOTHER PREVIOUS OFFENSE-PENALTY: (quasi-recidivism)

ELEMENTSa. That the offender was already convicted by final judgement of one offense.

b. That he committed a new felony before beginning to serve such sentence or while serving the same.

Quasi-recidivism : a person after having been convicted by final judgement shall commit a new felony before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same.

Second crimes must belong to the RPC, not special laws. First crime may be either from the RPC or special laws

Reiteracion: offender shall have served out his sentence for the prior offense

A quasi-recidivist may be pardoned at age 70. Except: Unworthy or Habitual Delinquent

If new felony is evasion of sentence – offender is not a quasi-recidivist

Penalty: maximum period of the penalty for the new felony should be imposed

Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance which directs the court to impose the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony. The court will do away or will ignore mitigating and aggravating

circumstances in considering the penalty to be imposed. There will be no occasion for the court to consider imposing the minimum, medium or maximum period of the penalty. The mandate is absolute and is justified by the finding that the accused is suffering from some degree of moral perversity if not total incorrigibility. (People vs. Alicia, et al., 95 SCRA 227)

Quasi-recidivism is an aggravating circumstance which cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance. To be appreciated as a special aggravating circumstance, it must be alleged in the information. (People vs. Bautista, 65 SCRA 460)

Quasi-Recidivism may be offset by a special privileged mitigating circumstance (ex. Minority)TITLE FOUR

CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST

Crimes against public interest

1. Counterfeiting the great seal of the Government of the Philippines (Art. 161);

2. Using forged signature or counterfeiting seal or stamp (Art. 162);

3. Making and importing and uttering false coins (Art. 163);

4. Mutilation of coins, importation and uttering of mutilated coins (Art. 164);

5. Selling of false or mutilated coins, without connivance (Art. 165);

6. Forging treasury or bank notes or other documents payable to bearer, importing and uttering of such false or forged notes and documents (Art. 166);

7. Counterfeiting, importing and uttering instruments not payable to bearer (Art. 167);

8. Illegal possession and use of forged treasury or bank notes and other instruments of credit (Art. 168);

9. Falsification of legislative documents (Art. 170);

10. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary (Art. 171);

11. Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents (Art. 172);

12. Falsification of wireless, cable, telegraph and telephone messages and use of said falsified messages (Art. 173);

13. False medical certificates, false certificates of merit or service (Art. 174);

14. Using false certificates (Art. 175);

15. Manufacturing and possession of instruments or implements for falsification (Art. 176);

16. Usurpation of authority or official functions (Art. 177);

17. Using fictitious name and concealing true name (Art. 178);

18. Illegal use of uniforms or insignia (Art. 179);

19. False testimony against a defendant (Art. 180);

20. False testimony favorable to the defendant (Art. 181);

21. False testimony in civil cases (Art. 182);

22. False testimony in other cases and perjury (Art. 183);

23. Offering false testimony in evidence (Art. 184);

24. Machinations in public auction (Art. 185);

25. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade (Art. 186);

26. Importation and disposition of falsely marked articles or merchandise made of gold, silver, or other precious metals or their alloys (Art. 187);

27. Substituting and altering trade marks and trade names or service marks (Art. 188);

28. Unfair competition and fraudulent registration of trade mark or trade name, or service mark; fraudulent designation of origin, and false description (Art. 189).

The crimes in this title are in the nature of fraud or falsity to the public. The essence of the crime under this title is that which defraud the public in general. There is deceit perpetrated upon the public. This is the act that is being punished under this title.

Article 161COUNTERFEITING GREAT SEAL OF GOVERNMENT

TYPES:a. Forging the great seal of the Government

b. Forging the signature of the President

c. Forging the stamp of the President

When the signature of the President is forged, it is not falsification but forging of signature under this article

Signature must be forged, others signed it – not the President.

Article 162USING FORGED SIGNATURE OR COUNTERFEIT SEAL OR STAMP ELEMENTS:

a. That the great seal of the republic was counterfeited or the signature or stamp of the chief executive was forged by another person.

b. That the offender knew of the counterfeiting or forgery.

c. That he used the counterfeit seal or forged signature or stamp.

Offender is NOT the forger/not the cause of the counterfeiting

Article 163

MAKING AND IMPORTING AND UTTERING FALSE COINS

ELEMENTS : a. That there be false or counterfeited coins (need not be legal tender).

b. That the offender either made, imported or uttered such coins.

c. That in case of uttering such false or counterfeited coins, he connives with counterfeiters or importers.

Coin is counterfeit – if it is forged, or if it is not an article of the government as legal tender, regardless if it is of no value

Kinds of coins the counterfeiting of which is punished

1. Silver coins of the Philippines or coins of the Central Bank of the Philippines;

2. Coins of the minor coinage of the Philippines or of the Central Bank of the Philippines;

3. Coin of the currency of a foreign country.

Counterfeiting – imitation of legal or genuine coin (may contain more silver, different design) such as to deceive an ordinary person in believing it to be genuine

Utter – to pass counterfeited coins, deliver or give away

Import – to bring to port the same

Both Philippine and foreign state coins

Applies also to coins withdrawn from circulation

Essence of article: making of coins without authority

Acts punished

1. Mutilating coins of the legal currency, with the further requirements that there be intent to damage or to defraud another;

2. Importing or uttering such mutilated coins, with the further requirement that there must be connivances with the mutilator or importer in case of uttering.

The first acts of falsification or falsity are –

(1) Counterfeiting – refers to money or currency;

(2) Forgery – refers to instruments of credit and obligations and securities issued by the Philippine government or any banking institution authorized by the Philippine government to issue the same;

(3) Falsification – can only be committed in respect of documents.

In so far as coins in circulation are concerned, there are two crimes that may be committed:

(1) Counterfeiting coins -- This is the crime of remaking or manufacturing without any authority to do so.

In the crime of counterfeiting, the law is not concerned with the fraud upon the public such that even though the coin is no longer legal tender, the act of imitating or manufacturing the coin of the government is penalized . In punishing the crime of counterfeiting, the law wants to prevent people from trying their ingenuity in their imitation of the manufacture of money.

(2) Mutilation of coins -- This refers to the deliberate act of diminishing the proper metal contents of the coin either by scraping, scratching or filling the edges of the coin and the offender gathers the metal dust that has been scraped from the coin.

Requisites of mutilation under the Revised Penal Code

(1) Coin mutilated is of legal tender;

(2) Offender gains from the precious metal dust abstracted from the coin; and

(3) It has to be a coin.

There is no expertise involved here. In mutilation of coins under the Revised Penal Code, the offender does nothing but to scrape, pile or cut the coin and collect the dust and, thus, diminishing the intrinsic value of the coin.

Mutilation of coins is a crime only if the coin mutilated is legal tender. If it is not legal tender anymore, no one will accept it, so nobody will be defrauded. But if the coin is of legal tender, and the offender minimizes or decreases the precious metal dust content of the coin, the crime of mutilation is committed.

The offender must deliberately reduce the precious metal in the coin. Deliberate intent arises only when the offender collects the precious metal dust from the mutilated coin. If the offender does not collect such dust, intent to mutilate is absent, but Presidential Decree No. 247 will apply.

Article 164 MULTILATION OF COINS – IMPORTATION AND UTTERANCE:

This has been repealed by PD 247. (Defacement, Mutilation, Tearing, Burning or Destroying Central Bank Notes and Coins)

Under this PD, the acts punishable are:a. willful defacementb. mutilationc. tearingd. burninge. destruction of Central Bank notes and coins

Mutilation – to take off part of the metal either by filling it or substituting it for another metal of inferior quality, to diminish by inferior means (to diminish metal contents).

Foreign notes and coins not included. Must be legal tender.

Must be intention to mutilate.

Mutilation under the Revised Penal Code is true only to coins . It cannot be a crime under the Revised Penal Code to mutilate paper bills because the idea of mutilation under the code is collecting the precious metal dust. However, under Presidential Decree No. 247, mutilation is not limited to coins.

Questions & Answers

1. The people playing cara y cruz, before they throw the coin in the air would rub the money to the sidewalk thereby diminishing the intrinsic value of the coin. Is the crime of mutilation committed?

Mutilation, under the Revised Penal Code, is not committed because they do not collect the precious metal content that is being scraped from the coin. However, this will amount to violation of Presidential Decree No. 247.

2. When the image of Jose Rizal on a five-peso bill is transformed into that of Randy Santiago, is there a violation of Presidential Decree No. 247?

Yes. Presidential Decree No. 247 is violated by such act.

4. An old woman who was a cigarette vendor in Quiapo refused to accept one-centavo coins for payment of the vendee of cigarettes he purchased. Then came the police who advised her that she has no right to refuse since the coins are of legal tender. On this, the old woman accepted in her hands the one-centavo coins and then threw it to the face of the vendee and the police. Was the old woman guilty of violating Presidential Decree No. 247?

She was guilty of violating Presidential Decree No. 247 because if no one ever picks up the coins, her act would result in the diminution of the coin in circulation.

5. A certain customer in a restaurant wanted to show off and used a P 20.00 bill to light his cigarette. Was he guilty of violating Presidential Decree No. 247?

He was guilty of arrested for violating of Presidential Decree No. 247. Anyone who is in possession of defaced money is the one who is the violator of Presidential Decree No. 247. The intention of Presidential Decree No. 247 is not to punish the act of defrauding the public but what is being punished is the act of destruction of money issued by the Central Bank of the Philippines.

Note that persons making bracelets out of some coins violate Presidential Decree No. 247.

The primary purpose of Presidential Decree No. 247 at the time it was ordained was to stop the practice of people writing at the back or on the edges of the paper bills, such as "wanted: pen pal".

So, if the act of mutilating coins does not involve gathering dust like playing cara y cruz, that is not mutilation under the Revised Penal Code because the offender does not collect the metal dust. But by rubbing the coins on the sidewalk, he also defaces and destroys the coin and that is punishable under Presidential Decree No. 247.

Article 165SELLING OF FALSE OR MUTILATED COIN, WITHOUT CONNIVANCE

2 Typesa. Possession of coin, counterfeited or mutilated by another person, with intent to utter the same,

knowing that it is false or mutilated.

ELEMENTS:1. possession

2. with intent to utter, and

3. knowledge

b. Actually uttering such false or mutilated coin, knowing the same to be false or mutilated.

ELEMENTS:1. actually uttering, and

2. knowledge.

Possession does not require legal tender in foreign coins

Includes constructive possession

On counterfeiting coins, it is immaterial whether the coin is legal tender or not because the intention of the law is to put an end to the practice of imitating money and to discourage anyone who might entertain the idea of imitating money (People vs. Kong Leon).

Article 166FORGING TREASURY OR BANK NOTES – IMPORTING AND UTTERING Acts punishable:

a. Forging or falsity of treasury/bank notes or documents payable to bearer

b. Importing of such notes

c. Uttering of such false or forged obligations and notes in connivance with forgers and importers

Forging – by giving a treasury or bank note or document payable to bearer/order an appearance of a true and genuine document

Falsification – by erasing, substituting, counterfeiting or altering by any means the figures and letters, words, signs contained therein

E.g. falsifying – lotto or sweepstakes ticket. Attempted estafa through falsification of an obligation or security of the Phil

PNB checks not included here – it’s falsification of commercial document under Article 172

Obligation or security includes: bonds, certificate of indebtedness, bills, national bank notes, coupons, treasury notes, certificate of deposits, checks, drafts for money, sweepstakes money

If the falsification is done on a document that is classified as a government security, then the crime is punished under Article 166. On the other hand, if it is not a government security, then the offender may either have violated Article 171 or 172.

Article 167COUNTERFEITING, IMPORTING, AND UTTERING INSTRUMENTS NOT PAYABLE TO BEARER

ELEMENTS : a. That there be an instrument payable to order or other document of credit not payable to bearer.

b. That the offender either forged, imported or uttered such instruments.

c. That in case of uttering, he connived with the forger or importer.

Article 168ILLEGAL POSSESSION AND USE OF FALSE TREASURY OR BANK NOTES AND OTHER INSTRUMENT OF CREDIT

ELEMENTS: a. That any treasury or bank note or certificate or other obligation and security payable to bearer, or any

instrument payable to order or other document of credit not payable to bearer is forged or falsified by another person.

b. That the offender knows that any of those instruments is forged or falsified.

c. That he performs any of these acts –1. using any of such forged or falsified instrument, or2. possessing with intent to use any of such forged or falsified instrument.

Act sought to be punished: Knowingly possessing with intent to use any of such forged treasury or bank notes

Article 169FORGERY

How forgery is committed:a. by giving to a treasury or bank note or any instrument payable to bearer or to order, the appearance of a

true and genuine document

b. by erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, altering by any means the figures, letters or words, or signs contained therein.

if all acts done but genuine appearance is not given, the crime is frustrated

Forgery under the Revised Penal Code applies to papers, which are in the form of obligations and securities issued by the Philippine government as its own obligations, which is given the same status as legal tender. Generally, the word “counterfeiting” is not used when it comes to notes; what is used is “forgery.” Counterfeiting refers to money, whether coins or bills.

Notice that mere change on a document does not amount to this crime. The essence of forgery is giving a document the appearance of a true and genuine document. Not any alteration of a letter, number, figure or design would amount to forgery. At most, it would only be frustrated forgery. When what is being counterfeited is obligation or securities, which under the Revised Penal Code is given a status of money or legal tender, the crime committed is forgery.

Questions & Answers

1. Instead of the peso sign (P), somebody replaced it with a dollar sign ($). Was the crime of forgery committed?

No. Forgery was not committed. The forged instrument and currency note must be given the appearance of a true and genuine document. The crime committed is a violation of Presidential Decree No. 247. Where the currency note, obligation or security has been changed to make it appear as one which it purports to be as genuine, the crime is forgery. In checks or commercial documents, this crime is committed when the figures or words are changed which materially alters the document.

2. An old man, in his desire to earn something, scraped a digit in a losing sweepstakes ticket, cut out a digit from another ticket and pasted it there to match the series of digits corresponding to the winning sweepstakes ticket. He presented this ticket to the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office. But the alteration is so crude that even a child can notice that the supposed digit is merely superimposed on the digit that was scraped. Was the old man guilty of forgery?

NO Because of the impossibility of deceiving whoever would be the person to whom that ticket is presented, the Supreme Court ruled that what was committed was an impossible crime. Note, however, that the decision has been criticized. In a case like this, the Supreme Court of Spain ruled that the crime is frustrated. Where the alteration is such that nobody would be deceived, one could easily see that it is a forgery, the crime is frustrated because he has done all the acts of execution which would bring about the felonious consequence but nevertheless did not result in a consummation for reasons independent of his will.

3. A person has a twenty-peso bill. He applied toothache drops on one side of the bill. He has a mimeograph paper similar in texture to that of the currency note and placed it on top of the twenty-peso bill and put some weight on top of the

paper. After sometime, he removed it and the printing on the twenty-peso bill was reproduced on the mimeo paper. He took the reverse side of the P20 bill, applied toothache drops and reversed the mimeo paper and pressed it to the paper. After sometime, he removed it and it was reproduced. He cut it out, scraped it a little and went to a sari-sari store trying to buy a cigarette with that bill. What he overlooked was that, when he placed the bill, the printing was inverted. He was apprehended and was prosecuted and convicted of forgery. Was the crime of forgery committed?

The Supreme Court ruled that it was only frustrated forgery because although the offender has performed all the acts of execution, it is not possible because by simply looking at the forged document, it could be seen that it is not genuine. It can only be a consummated forgery if the document which purports to be genuine is given the appearance of a true and genuine document. Otherwise, it is at most frustrated.

Five classes of falsification:

(1) Falsification of legislative documents;

(2) Falsification of a document by a public officer, employee or notary public;

(3) Falsification of a public or official, or commercial documents by a private individual;

(4) Falsification of a private document by any person;

(5) Falsification of wireless, telegraph and telephone messages.

The crime of falsification must involve a writing that is a document in the legal sense. The writing must be complete in itself and capable of extinguishing an obligation or creating rights or capable of becoming evidence of the facts stated therein. Until and unless the writing has attained this quality, it will not be considered as document in the legal sense and, therefore, the crime of falsification cannot be committed in respect thereto.

Distinction between falsification and forgery:

Falsification is the commission of any of the eight acts mentioned in Article 171 on legislative (only the act of making alteration), public or official, commercial, or private documents, or wireless, or telegraph messages.

The term forgery as used in Article 169 refers to the falsification and counterfeiting of treasury or bank notes or any instruments payable to bearer or to order.

Note that forging and falsification are crimes under Forgeries.

Article 170FALSIFICATION OF LEGISLATIVE DOCUMENTS

ELEMENTS : a. That these be a bill, resolution or ordinance enacted or approved or pending approval by the national

assembly or any provincial board or municipal council.

b. That the offender (any person) alters the same.

c. That he has no proper authority therefor.

d. That the alteration has changed the meaning of the document.

The words "municipal council" should include the city council or municipal board – Reyes.

Accused must not be a public official entrusted with the custody or possession of such document otherwise Art 171 applies .

The falsification must be committed on a genuine, true and authentic legislative document. If committed on a simulated, spurious or fabricated legislative document, the crime is not punished under this article but under Article 171 or 172.

Article 171FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS BY PUBLIC OFFICER, EMPLOYEE, OR NOTARY OR ECCLESTASTICAL MINISTER

ELEMENTS: a. That the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public.

b. That he takes advantage of his official position.

c. That he falsifies a document by committing any of the following acts:

1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric.

Requisites:i. That there be an intent to imitate, or an attempt to imitate

ii. That the two signatures or handwritings, the genuine and the forged, bear some resemblance, to each other

(lack of similitude/imitation of a genuine signature will not be a ground for conviction under par. 1 but such is not an impediment to conviction under par. 2)

2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate.

3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them.

Requisites:i. That the offender caused it to appear in a document that a person/s participated in an act or a

proceeding; and

ii. That such person/s did not in fact so participate in the act or proceeding

4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;

Requisites:i. That the offender makes in a document statements in a narration of facts

ii. That he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him; (required by law to be done) and

iii. That the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false; and

iv. That the perversion or truth in the narration of facts was made with the wrongful intent of injuring a third person

There must be a narration of facts, not a conclusion of law. Must be on a material matter

For one to be held criminally liable for falsification under paragraph 4, the untruthful statement must be such as to effect the integrity of the document or to change the effects which it would otherwise produce.

Legal obligation means that there is a law requiring the disclosure of the truth of the facts narrated. Ex. Residence certificates

The person making the narration of facts must be aware of the falsity of the facts narrated by him. This kind of falsification may be committed by omission

5. Altering true dates. – date must be essential

For falsification to take place under this paragraph, the date of the document must be material to the right created or to the obligation that is extinguished.

6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning.

Requisites:i. That there be an alteration (change) or intercalation (insertion) on a document

ii. That it was made on a genuine document

iii. That the alteration/intercalation has changed the meaning of the document

iv. That the change made the document speak something false.

7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document when no such original exists, or including in such copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original; (if no knowledge, falsification through negligence) or

The acts of falsification mentioned in this paragraph are committed by a public officer or by a notary public who takes advantage of his official position as custodian of the document. It can also refer to a public officer or notary who prepared and retained a copy of the document. The falsification can be done in two ways. It can be a certification purporting to show that the document issued is a copy of the original on record when no such original exists. It can also be in the form of a certification to the effect that the document on file contains statements or including in the copy issued, entries which are not found on contrary to, or different from the original genuine document on file.

8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book. (genuine document)

d. In case the offender is an ecclesiastical minister, the act of falsification is committed with respect to any record or document of such character that its falsification may affect the civil status of persons.

There is no crime of attempted or frustrated falsification of public document

Alteration or changes to make the document speak the truth do not constitute falsification. (US vs. Mateo, 25 Phil. 324)

Persons liable – public officer, employee or notary public or ecclesiastical minister

Either he has duty to intervene in the preparation of the document or it may be a situation wherein the public officer has official custody of the document.

So even if the offender is a public officer, if her causes the falsification of a document which is not in his official custody or if the falsification committed by him is not related whatsoever to the performance of his duties, he will

still be liable for falsification but definitely not under this Article but under Article 172. (falsification of documents by a private person)

Document: Any written instrument which establishes a right or by which an obligation is extinguished. A deed or agreement executed by a person setting forth any disposition or condition wherein rights and obligations may arise.

Writing may be on anything as long as it is a product of the handwriting, it is considered a document.

Not necessary that what is falsified is a genuine or real document, enough that it gives an appearance of a genuine article

As long as any of the acts of falsification is committed, whether the document is genuine or not, the crime of falsification may be committed. Even totally false documents may be falsified.

Counterfeiting – imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric

Feigning – simulating a signature, handwriting, or rubric out of one of which does not in fact exist

It does not require that the writing be genuine. Even if the writing was through and through false, if it appears to be genuine, the crime of falsification is nevertheless committed.

There are four kinds of documents:

(1) Public document in the execution of which, a person in authority or notary public has taken part;

(2) Official document in the execution of which a public official takes part;

(3) Commercial document or any document recognized by the Code of Commerce or any commercial law; and

(4) Private document in the execution of which only private individuals take part.

Public document is broader than the term official document. Before a document may be considered official, it must first be a public document. But not all public documents are official documents. To become an official document, there must be a law which requires a public officer to issue or to render such document. Example: A cashier is required to issue an official receipt for the amount he receives. The official receipt is a public document which is an official document.

Liability of a private individual in falsification by a public officer when there is conspiracy.

Under Republic Act 7975, when a public officer who holds a position classified as Grade 27 or higher, commits a crime in relation to the performance of his official functions, the case against him will fall under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. If a private person is included in the accusation because of the existence of conspiracy in the commission of the crime, the Sandiganbayan shall maintain jurisdiction over the person of the co-accused, notwithstanding the fact that said co-accused is a private individual. If the public officer is found guilty, the same liability and penalty shall be imposed on the private individual. (U.S. vs. Ponce, 20 Phil. 379)

Article 172FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC, OFFICIAL, OR COMMERCIAL DOCUMENT BY A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL (par 1)

ELEMENTS a. That the offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who did not take advantage of

his official position.

b. That he committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in ART. 171.

1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric.

2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participated.

3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them.

4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;

5. Altering true dates.

6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning.

c. That the falsification was committed in any public or official or commercial document.

Under this paragraph, damage is not essential, it is presumed

If the falsification of public, official or commercial documents, whether they be public official or by private individuals, it is not necessary that there be present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person . What is punished under the law is the violation of public faith and the perversion of the truth as solemnly proclaimed by the nature of the document. (Sarep vs. Sandiganbayan)

Defense: lack of malice or criminal intent

The following writings are public:a. the written acts or records of acts of the sovereign authority of official bodies and tribunals, and of the public

officers, legislative, judicial and executive, whether of the Philippines or of a foreign country.

b. Public records kept in the Philippines.

Examples of commercial documents – warehouse receipts, airway bills, bank checks, cash files, deposit slips and bank statements, journals, books, ledgers, drafts, letters of credit and other negotiable instruments

There is a complex crime of estafa through falsification of public, official or commercial document. In the crime of estafa, damage or intent to cause damage is not an element. It is sufficient that the offender committed or performed the acts of falsification as defined and punished under Article 171. The two offenses can co-exist as they have distinct elements peculiar to their nature as a crime. When the falsification is committed because it is necessary to commit estafa, what we have is a complex crime defined and punished under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.

There is a complex crime of falsification of pubic documents through reckless imprudence.

Cash disbursement vouchers or receipts evidencing payments are not commercial documents

A mere blank form of an official document is not in itself a document

The possessor of falsified document is presumed to be the author of the falsification

FALSIFICATION UNDER PARAGRAPH 2 OF ART. 172. OF PRIVATE DOCUMENT

ELEMENTS :a. That the offender committed any of the acts of falsification, except those in paragraph 7 and 8, enumerated

in art. 171.

b. That the falsification was committed in any private document (must affect the truth or integrity of the document)

c. That the falsification caused damage (essential element; hence, no crime of estafa thru falsification of private document) to a third party or at least the falsification was committed with intent to cause such damage.

Not necessary that the offender profited or hoped to profit from the falsification

Falsification of a private document is consummated when such document is actually falsified with the intent to prejudice a third person whether such falsified document is or is not thereafter put to illegal use for which it is intended. (Lopez vs. Paras, 36 Phil. 146)

What is emphasized at this point is the element of falsification of private document. There must be intent to cause damage or damage is actually caused. The intention is therefore must be malicious or there is deliberate intent to commit a wrong. Reckless imprudence is incompatible with malicious intent.

Falsification is not a continuing offense

There is no falsification through reckless imprudence if the document is a private document.

Falsification by omission

Mere falsification of a private document is not enough to commit crime under paragraph 2 of Article 172. Two acts must be done by the offender. 1) He must have performed in the private document the falsification contemplated under Article 171. 2) He must have performed an independent act which operates to cause damage or prejudice to a third person. The third person mentioned herein may include the government. Damage is not limited to money or pecuniary prejudice. Damage to one’s honor, reputation or good name is included.

A document falsified as a necessary means to commit another crime must be public, official or commercial

There is no complex crime of estafa through falsification of a private document because the immediate effect of the latter is the same as that of estafa

If a private document is falsified to cause damage to the offended party, the crime committed is falsification of a private document. Remember that in estafa, damage or intent to cause damage is an indispensable element of the crime. The same element is necessary to commit the crime of falsification of private document. Since they have a common element, such element cannot be divided into the two parts and considered as two separate offenses.

There is no complex crime of estafa with falsification because deceit is a common element of both. One and the same deceit or damage cannot give rise to more than one crime. It is either estafa or falsification.

Criteria to determine whether the crime is estafa only or falsification only :

IF the falsification of the private document was essential in the commission of estafa because the falsification, estafa cannot be committed, the crime is falsification; estafa becomes the consequence of the crime.

IF the estafa can be committed even without resorting to falsification, the latter being resorted only to facilitate estafa, the main crime is estafa; falsification is merely incidental, since even without falsification, estafa can be committed.

If the estafa was already consummated at the time of the falsification of a private document was committed for the purpose of concealing the estafa, the falsification is not punishable, because as regards the falsification of the private document there was no damage or intent to cause damage.

A private document which is falsified to obtain money from offended party is a falsification of private document only.

A private document may acquire the character of a public document when it becomes part of an official record and is certified by a public officer duly authorized by law

The crime is falsification of public documents even if falsification took place before the private document becomes part of the public records

Examples:An employee of a private company who punches the bundy clock on behalf on a co-employee is guilty of falsification of a private document.

One who will take the civil service examination for another and makes it appear that he is the examinee is guilty of falsification of a public document.

USE OF FALSIFIED DOCUMENT (par. 3, art. 172)

ELEMENTS:

a. Introducing in a judicial proceeding:1. That the offender knew that a document was falsified by another person.

2. That the false document is embraced in art. 171 or in any subdivisions nos. 1 and 2 of art. 172.

3. That he introduced said document in evidence in any judicial proceeding. ( intent to cause damage not necessary)

b. Use in any other transaction:1. That the offender knew that a document was falsified by another person.

2. That the false document is embraced in art. 171 or in any of subdivisions nos. 1 and 2 of art. 172.

3. That he used such documents (not in judicial proceedings).

4. That the use of the documents caused damage to another or at least was used with intent to cause such damage.

The user of the falsified document is deemed the author of falsification, if:a. the use is so closely connected in time with the falsification

b. the user had the capacity of falsifying the document

Falsification of Private Documents Falsification of Public/Official DocumentsPrejudice to third party is an element of the offense.

Prejudice to third persons is immaterial, what is punished is the violation of public faith and perversion of truth which the document proclaims.

Rules to observe in the use of a falsified document.1. It is a crime when knowingly introduced in a judicial proceeding even if there is not intent to cause damage to

another. Knowingly introducing a falsified document in a judicial proceeding, the use alone is not a crime. The mere introduction of the forged document is the crime itself. But when the falsified document is knowingly introduced in an administrative proceeding, the use alone is not a crime. There must be intent to cause damage or damage is actually inflicted.

2. Falsification of document is a separate and distinct offense from that of the use of falsified documents. So if the falsification of document was done or performed because it was necessary to the use of the same and in the

commission of the crime, then we may have a complex crime defined and punished under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.

3. Good faith is a defense in falsification of public document.Article 173FALSIFICATION OF WIRELESS, CABLE, TELEGRAPH, AND TELEPHONE MESSAGES, AND USE OF SAID FALSIFIED MESSAGES

Acts punishable:1. Uttering fictitious, wireless, telegraph or telephone message

Requisites:a. That the offender is an officer or employee of the government or an officer or employee of a private

corporation, engaged in the service of sending or receiving wireless, cable or telephone message.

b. That the accused commits any of the following acts:- uttering fictitious wireless, cable, telegraph, or telephone message, or- falsifying wireless, cable, telegraph, or telephone message

2. Falsifying wireless, telegraph or telephone messageRequisites:a. That the offender is an officer or employee of the government or an officer or employee of a private

corporation, engaged in the service of sending or receiving wireless, cable or telephone message.

b. That the accused commits any of the following acts:- uttering fictitious wireless, cable, telegraph, or telephone message, or- falsifying wireless, cable, telegraph, or telephone message

3. Using such falsified messageRequisites:a. That the accused knew that wireless, cable, telegraph, or telephone message was falsified by any of

the person specified in the first paragraph of art. 173.

b. That the accused used such falsified dispatch.

c. That the use of the falsified dispatch resulted in the prejudice of a third party, or that the use thereof was with intent to cause such prejudice.

The public officer, to be liable must be engaged in the service of sending or receiving wireless, cable and telegraph or telephone message

Article 174FALSIFICATION OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATES, CERTIFCATES OF MERIT OR SERVICE AND THE LIKE:

Persons liable:a. Physician or surgeon who, in connection with the practice of his profession, issued a false certificate (note:

such certificate must refer to the illness or injury of a person)

b. Public officer who issued a false certificate of merit of service, good conduct or similar circumstances

c. Private individual who falsified a certificate under (1) and (2)

Article 175USING FALSE CERTIFICATES

ELEMENTS: a. That a physician or surgeon has issued a false medical certificate, or a public officer has issued a false

certificate of merit or service, good conduct, or similar circumstances, or a private person had falsified any of said certificates.

b. That the offender knew that the certificate was false.

c. That he used the same.

Article 176MANUFACTURING AND POSSESSION OF INTRUMENTS OR IMPLEMENTS FOR FALSIFICATION:

Acts punishable:a. Making or introducing into the Philippines any stamps, dies or marks or other instruments or

implements for counterfeiting or falsification

b. Possessing with intent to use the instruments or implements for counterfeiting or falsification made in or introduced into the Philippines by another person

The implement confiscated need not form a complete set

Constructive possession is also punished

OTHER FALSITIES

Article 177USURPATION OF AUTHORITY OR OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS:

2 ways of committing the crime:a. By knowingly and falsely representing oneself to be an officer, agent or representative of any

department or agency of the Philippine gov’t or any foreign gov’t.

b. By performing an act pertaining to any person in authority or public officer of the Phil gov’t or foreign gov’t under the pretense of such official position, and without being lawfully entitled to do so.

In usurpation of authority: The mere act of knowingly and falsely representing oneself is sufficient. Not necessary that he performs an act pertaining to a public officer.

Elements

1. Offender knowingly and falsely represents himself;

2. As an officer, agent or representative of any department or agency of the Philippine government or of any foreign government.

In usurpation of official functions: It is essential that the offender should have performed an act pertaining to a person in authority

Elements

1. Offender performs any act;

2. Pertaining to any person in authority or public officer of the Philippine government or any foreign government, or any agency thereof;

3. Under pretense of official position;

4. Without being lawfully entitled to do so.

A public officer may also be an offender The act performed without being lawfully entitled to do so must pertain:

a. to the gov’tb. to any person in authorityc. to any public office

Foreign government adverted to in this article refers to public officers duly authorized to perform governmental duties in the Philippines. The law cannot refer to other foreign governments as its application may bring us to legal problems which may infringe on constitutional boundaries.

If the offender commits the acts of usurpation as contemplated herein, and he does it because he is a rebel and pursuant to the crime of rebellion or insurrection or sedition, he will not be liable under this article because what is attributed against him as a crime of usurpation is in fact one of the elements of committing rebellion.

The elements of false pretense is necessary to commit the crime of usurpation of official function.

Article 178USING FICTITIOUS NAME AND CONCEALING TRUE NAME

ELEMENTS (using fictitious name) :a. That the offender uses a name other than his real name.

b. That he uses that fictitious name publicly.

c. That the purpose of the offender is –1. To conceal a crime,2. To evade the execution of a judgment, or3. To cause damage to public interest. (ex. Signing fictitious name for a passport)

The name of a person is what appears in his birth certificate. The name of a person refers to his first name, surname, and maternal name. Any other name which a person publicly applies to himself without authority of law is a fictitious name.

ELEMENTS (concealing true name):a. that the offender conceals –

1. his true name, and

2. all other personal circumstances.

b. that the purpose is only to conceal his identity.

What the offender does to violate or commit this act is for him to conceal his true name and other personal circumstances. His only motive in doing so is to conceal his identity. In concealment of true name, the deception is

done momentarily, just enough to conceal the name of the offender. In the use of fictitious name, the offender presents himself before the public with another name.

A person under investigation by the police who gives a false name and false personal circumstances, upon being interrogated, is guilty of this crime.

Use of Fictitious Name (178) Concealing True Name (178)Element of publicity must be present Publicity not necessaryPurpose is to conceal a crime, to evade the execution of a judgement, or to cause damage

Purpose is to conceal identity

Commonwealth Act No. 142 (Regulating the Use of Aliases) No person shall use any name different from the one with which he was registered at birth in the office of the local civil registry, or with which he was registered in the bureau of immigration upon entry; or such substitute name as may have been authorized by a competent court.

Exception: Pseudonym solely for literary, cinema, television, radio, or other entertainment and in athletic events where the use of pseudonym is a normally accepted practice.

Article 179ILLEGAL USE OF UNIFORM OR INSIGNIA

ELEMENTS: a. That the offender makes use of insignia, uniform or dress.

b. That the insignia, uniform or dress pertains to an office not held by the offender or to a class of persons of which he is not a member.

c. That said insignia, uniform or dress is used publicly and improperly.

The wearing of a uniform, or insignia of a non-existing office or establishment is not a crime. It is necessary that the uniform or insignia represents an office which carries authority, respect, dignity, or influence which the public looks up to.

So also, an exact imitation of a uniform or dress is unnecessary; a colorable resemblance calculated to deceive the common run of people is sufficient.

The wearing of insignia, badge or emblem of rank of the members of the armed forced of the Philippines or constabulary (now PNP) is punished by Republic Act No. 493.

When the uniform or insignia is used to emphasize the pageantry of a play or drama or in moving picture films, the crime is not committed.

Three forms of false testimony

1. False testimony in criminal cases under Article 180 and 181;2. False testimony in civil case under Article 182;3. False testimony in other cases under Article 183.

False testimony, definedIt is the declaration under oath of a witness in a judicial proceeding which is contrary to what is true, or to

deny the same, or to alter essentially the truth.

Nature of the crime of false testimony.1. It cannot be committed through reckless imprudence because false testimony requires criminal intent or intent to

violate the law is an essential element of the crime.

2. If the false testimony is due to honest mistake or error or there was good faith in making the false testimony, no crime is committed.

Article 180FALSE TESTIMONY AGAINST A DEFENDANT ELEMENTS:

a. That there be a criminal proceeding.

b. That the offender testifies falsely under oath against the defendant therein.

c. That the offender who gives false testimony knows that it is false.

d. That the defendant against whom the false testimony is given is either acquitted or convicted in a final judgment (prescriptive period starts at this point)

Requires criminal intent, can’t be committed through negligence. Need not impute guilt upon the accused

The defendant must at least be sentenced to a correctional penalty or a fine or must have been acquitted

The witness who gave false testimony is liable even if the court did not consider his testimony

The probative value of the testimonial evidence is subject to the rules of evidence. It may not be considered at all by the judge. But whether the testimony is credible or not or whether it is appreciated or not in the context that the false witness wanted it to be, the crime of false testimony is still committed, since it is punished not because of the effect it produces, but because of its tendency to favor the accused. (People vs. Reyes)

Penalty is dependent upon sentence imposed on the defendant

Article 181FALSE TESTIMONY IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT in a criminal case:

Elements:1. A person gives false testimony;

2. In favor of the defendant;

3. In a criminal case.

False testimony by negative statement is in favor of the defendant

False testimony need not in fact benefit the defendant

A statement of a mere opinion is not punishable

Conviction or acquittal is not necessary (final judgement is not necessary). The false testimony need not influence the acquittal

A defendant who voluntarily goes up on the witness stand and falsely imputes the offense to another person the commission of the offense is liable under this article. If he merely denies the commission of the offense, he is not liable.

Basis of penalty: gravity of the felony charged against the defendant

Article 182FALSE TESTIMONY IN CIVIL CASES

ELEMENTS: a. That the testimony must be given in a civil case.

b. That the testimony must relate to the issues presented in said case.

c. That the testimony must be false.

d. That the false testimony must be given by the defendant knowing the same to be false.

e. That the testimony must be malicious and given with an intent to affect the issues presented in the said case

Not applicable when testimony given in a special proceeding (in this case, the crime is perjury)

Basis of penalty: amount involved in the civil case

Distinctions between perjury and false testimony:PERJURY FALSE TESTIMONY

1. Non-judicial proceedings. 1. Given in a judicial proceeding.2. Statement or testimony is required by law. 2. Testimony need not be required by law.3. Amount involved is not material. 3. Amount involved in civil cases is material.4. immaterial whether statement or testimony is favorable or not to the accused.

4. It is always material in criminal cases.

Article183FALSE TESTIMONY IN OTHER CASES AND PERJURY IN SOLEMN AFFIRMATION

ELEMENTS: a. That an accused made a statement under oath or made an affidavit upon a material matter.

b. That the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer, authorized to receive and administer oath.

c. That in that statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood, and

d. That the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law.

2 ways of committing perjury:a. by falsely testifying under oathb. by making a false statement

Subornation of perjury: procures another to swear falsely.

Solemn affirmation: refers to non-judicial proceedings and affidavits

A false affidavit to a criminal complaint may give rise to perjury

Two contradictory sworn statements are not sufficient to convict the affiant for the crime of perjury. There must be evidence to show which is false. The same must be established or proved from sources other than the two contradictory statements. (People vs. Capistrano, 40 Phil. 902)

A matter is material when it is directed to prove a fact in issue

The test of materiality is whether a false statement can influence the court (People vs. Bnazil).

A “competent person authorized to administer an oath” means a person who has a right to inquire into the questions presented to him upon matters under his jurisdiction

There is no perjury if the accused signed and swore the statement before a person not authorized to administer oath (People vs. Bella David).

There is no perjury through negligence or imprudence since the assertion of falsehood must be willful and deliberate

Because of the nature of perjury, which is the willful and corrupt assertion of a falsehood, there is no perjury committed through reckless imprudence or simple negligence under Article 365. Since admittedly perjury can only be committed by means of dolo, then good faith or lack of malice is a good defense when one is indicted for the crime of perjury.

Even if there is no law requiring the statement to be made under oath, as long as it is made for a legal purpose, it is sufficient

If there is no requirement of law to place the statement or testimony under oath, there is no Perjury considering the phrases “oath in cases in which the law so requires” in Article 183.

The affidavit or sworn statement must be required by law like affidavit of adverse claim to protect one’s interest on real property; or an affidavit of good moral character to take the bar examination. So if the affidavit was made but the same is not required by law, even if the allegations are false, the crime of perjury is not committed. (Diaz vs. People, 191 SCRA 86)

Perjury is an offense which covers false oaths other than those taken in the course of judicial proceedings

False testimony before the justice of the peace during the P.I. may give rise to the crime of perjury because false testimony in judicial proceedings contemplates an actual trial where a judgment of conviction or acquittal is rendered

A person who knowingly and willfully procures another to swear falsely commits subornation of perjury and the witness suborned does testify under circumstances rendering him guilty of perjury.

The false testimony is not in a judicial proceeding

False testimony vs. PerjuryWhen one testifies falsely before the court, the crime committed is false testimony. If one testifies falsely in a non-judicial proceeding, the crime committed is perjury. In false testimony, it is not required that the offender asserts a falsehood on a material matter. It is enough that he testifies falsely with deliberate intent. In perjury, the witness must testify or assert a fact on a material matter with a full knowledge that the information given is essentially contrary to the truth. Material matter means the main fact which is the subject or object of the inquiry.

Article 184OFFERING FALSE TESTIMONY IN EVIDENCE

ELEMENTS: a That the offender offered in evidence a false witness or false testimony.

b That he knew the witness or the testimony was false.

c That the offer was made in a judicial or official proceeding.

The false witness need not be convicted of false testimony. The mere offer is sufficient.

The offender in this article knows that the witness to be presented is a false witness or that the witness will lie while testifying. The proceedings is either judicial or official. There is a formal offer of testimonial evidence in the proceedings. The witness is able to testify and the offender, knowing the testimony is given by the witness to be false, nevertheless offers the same in evidence. In this case, the person offering the false testimony must have nothing to do in the making of the false testimony. He knows that the witness is false and yet he asks him to testify and thereafter offers the testimony in evidence. So if the offeror, aside from being such, is also the person responsible in inducing or convincing the false witness to lie, Article 184 will not apply. The applicable article will be Article 180, 181, 182, or 183 as the case may be. The offenders in this case will be charged with perjury; the inducer as principal by inducement and the induced party as the principal by direct participation.

It is for this reason that subornation of perjury is no longer treated as a specific felony with a separate article of its own. Nevertheless, it is a crime defined and punished under the Revised Penal Code. The crime committed by one who induces another to testify falsely and the person who agrees and in conspiracy with the inducer, testifies falsely, is perjury. (People vs. Padol, 66 Phil. 365)

FRAUDS

Article 185MACHINATIONS IN PUBLIC AUCTION

ELEMENTS: a That there be a public auction.

b That the accused solicited any gift or a promise from any of the bidders.

c That such gifts or promise was the consideration for his refraining from taking part in that public auction.

d That the accused had the intent to cause the reduction of the price of the thing auctioned.

ELEMENTS OF ATTEMPTING TO CAUSE BIDDERS TO STAY AWAY: a That there be a public auction.

b That the accused attempted to cause the bidders to stay away from that public auction

c That it was done by threats, gifts, promises, or any other artifice.

d That the accused had the intent to cause the reduction of the price of the thing auctioned.

Article 186MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE:

Acts punished:

a. Combination to prevent free competition in the market

Elements

1. Entering into any contract or agreement or taking part in any conspiracy or combination in the form of a trust or otherwise;

2. In restraint of trade or commerce or to prevent by artificial means free competition in the market.

b. By entering into a contract or agreement or taking part in any conspiracy or combination in the form of a trust or otherwise, in restraint of trade or commerce or prevent by artificial means free competition in the market (It is enough that initial steps are taken. It is not necessary that there be actual restraint of trade)

c. Monopoly to restrain free competition in the market

Elements

1. By monopolizing any merchandise or object of trade or commerce, or by combining with any other person or persons to monopolize said merchandise or object;

2. In order to alter the prices thereof by spreading false rumors or making use of any other artifice;

3. To restrain free competition in the market

d. Manufacturer, producer or processor or importer combining, conspiring or agreeing with any person to make transactions prejudicial to lawful commerce or to increase the market price of the merchandise.

Elements

1. Manufacturer, producer, processor or importer of any merchandise or object of commerce;

2. Combines, conspires or agrees with any person;

3. Purpose is to make transactions prejudicial to lawful commerce or to increase the market price of any merchandise or object of commerce manufactured, produced, processed, assembled or imported into the Philippines.

Person/s liable:a. manufacturerb. producerc. processord. importer

Crime is committed by:a. combiningb. conspiringc. agreeing with another person

The purpose is:a. to make transactions prejudicial to lawful commerceb. to increase the market price of any merchandise or object of commerce manufactured, produced, processed,

assembled or imported into the Phil

Also liable as principals:

a. corporation/associationb. agent/representativec. director/manager – who willingly permitted or failed to prevent commission of above offense

Aggravated if items are:a. food substanceb. motor fuel or lubricantsc. goods of prime necessity

Article 187IMPORTATION AND DISPOSITION OF FALSELY MARKED ARTICLES OR MERCHANDISE MADE OF GOLD, SILVER, OR OTHER PRECIOUS METALS OR THEIR ALLOYS

ELEMENTS: a That the offender imports, sells or disposes of any of those articles or merchandise.

b That the stamps, brands, or marks or those articles or merchandise fails to indicate the actual fineness or quality of said metals or alloys.

c That the offender knows that the said stamp, brand, or mark fails to indicate the actual fineness or quality of the metals or alloys.

To be criminally liable, it is important to establish that the offender knows the fact that the imported merchandise fails to indicate the actual fineness or quality of the precious metal. If the importer has no expertise on the matter such that he has no way of knowing how the fraud was committed, the existence of such fact may be seriously considered as a defense.

What the law punishes herein is the selling of misbranded goods made of gold, silver and other precious metals. Therefore, it must be shown that the seller knows that the merchandise is misbranded. Hence, dishonesty is an essential element of the crime.

Article 188SUBSTITUTING – ALTERING TRADE-MARK, TRADENAME, OR SERVICE MARK

Acts punishable:a By (a) substituting the trade name (t/n) or trademark (t/m) of some other manufacturer or dealer or a

colorable imitation thereof, for the t/n or t/m of the real manufacturer or dealer upon any article of commerce and (b) selling the same.

b By selling or by offering for sale such article of commerce, knowing that the t/n or t/m has been fraudulently used

c By using or substituting the service mark of some other person, or a colorable imitation of such marks, in the sale or advertising of services

d By printing, lithographing or reproducing t/n, t/m or service mark of one person, or a colorable limitation thereof, to enable another person to fraudulently use the same, knowing the fraudulent purpose for which it is to be used.

If a particular person is defrauded by the offender; as in the case of locally manufactured goods, which the offender, by altering the label, are made to appear as imported articles and sold to a particular person, the crime committed is undoubtedly estafa as far as the particular person is concerned. But if the falsely mislabeled goods are displayed in a store and offered for sale to the public in general, the crime committed is punished under

Article 188. So, if the deception is isolated and is confined to a particular person or group of persons, estafa is committed. If the fraud is employed against the public, Article 188 is violated.

Must not be another manufacturer otherwise unfair competition

Take note that after making the substitution the goods are displayed in the store or market for sale, Article 188 is already committed even if no customer comes to buy any of the goods on display. The mere offer for sale to the public consummates the crime.

The pendency of the administrative aspect of the case is not a prejudicial question in the resolution of the criminal case.

Article 189UNFAIR COMPETITION, FRAUDULENT REGISTRATION OF TRADENAME, TRADEMARK SERVICE MARK, FRAUDULENT DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN, AND FALSE DESCRIPTION

Acts punished:a Unfair competition by selling his goods, giving them the general appearance of the goods of another

manufacturer or dealer

b Fraudulent designation of origin; false description by (a) affixing to his goods or using in connection with his services a false designation of origin; or any false description or representation, and (b) selling such goods or services

c Fraudulent registration by procuring fraudulently from the patent office the registration of t/m, t/m or service mark.

ELEMENTS:a That the offender gives his goods the general appearance of the goods of another manufacturer or dealer

b That the general appearance is shown in the (a) goods themselves, or in the (b) wrapping of their packages, or in the (c) device or words therein, or in (d) any other feature of their appearance

c That the offender offers to sell or sells those goods or gives other persons a chance or opportunity to do the same with a like purpose.

d That there is actual intent to deceive the public or defraud a competitor.

Under Republic Act No. 166, Section 29, paragraph 2, unfair competition is defined as follows: It consists in employing deception or any other means contrary to good faith by which any person shall pass off the goods manufactured by him or in which he deals, or his business, or services for those of the one having established goodwill, or committing any acts calculated to produce such result.

The true test of unfair competition is whether certain goods have been clothed with an appearance which is likely to deceive the ordinary purchaser exercising ordinary care. (U.S. vs. Manuel, 7 Phil. 221)

For unfair competition to take place, it must be the manufacturer of the goods who will cloth or label his goods with the trade name or trademark of another manufacturer, who has established a good name or good will in the mind of the public because of the quality of the merchandise manufactured by him. The imitator is also a manufacturer of the same kind of product but of inferior quality. By labeling his product with the trademark or trade name of said manufacturer, he profits from the goodwill of another.

If the labeling or clothing of the goods is not done by another manufacturer, the crime committed is not unfair competition but substitution of trademark or trade name under Article 188.

When the honorable Supreme Court declared that unfair competition is broader and more inclusive than infringement of trade name or trademark. In infringement of trade name or trademark, the offended party has a peculiar symbol or mark on his goods which is considered a property right which must therefore be protected. In unfair competition, the offended party has identified in the mind of the public the goods he manufactures to distinguish it from the goods of the other manufacturers. In infringement of trade name or trademark, the offender uses the trade name or trademark of another in selling his goods, while in unfair competition, the offender gives his goods the general appearance of the goods of another manufacturer and sells the same to the public. (E. Spinner & Co. vs. New Hesslein Corp., 54 Phil. 224)

TITLE FIVECRIMES RELATED TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS (190-194)

COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002(RA No. 9165)

I. Acts Punishable:a. importation of prohibited drugsb. sale, administration, delivery, distribution and transportation of prohibited drugsc. maintenance of a den, dive or resort for prohibited drug usersd. being employees or visitors of drug dene. manufacture of prohibited drugsf. possession or useg. cultivation of plantsh. failure to comply with provisions relative to keeping of records of prescriptioni. unnecessary prescriptionj. possession of opium pipe and other paraphernaliak. Importation, sale, etc. of regulated drugs

DRUG SYNDICATE – any organized group of two(2) or more persons forming or joining together with the intention of committing any offense prescribed under the act.

PLANTING OF EVIDENCE – the willful act by any person of maliciously and surreptitiously inserting, placing, adding or attaching directly or indirectly, through any overt or covert act, whatever quantity of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical in the person, house, effects, or in the immediate vicinity of an innocent individual for the purpose of implicating, incriminating or imputing the commission of any violation of this Act.

P D E A – Philippine Drug Enforcement Unit

Importation of prohibited/regulated drugs.

PENALTY : Life to death & fine of 500,000 to 10 million regardless of the Quantity and purity involved MAXIMUM PENALTY :

1) Use of diplomatic Passport 2) Financier

Sale, administration, delivery, distribution and transaction of prohibited/regulated drugs.

- NOT BAILABLE

PENALTY : Life to death & fine of 500,000 to 10 million regardless of the Quantity and purity involved ( includes BROKER )Qualifying Circumstances – 1) if the victim of the offense is a minor or should a prohibited/regulated drug involve in any offense under this section be the proximate cause of the death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty herein shall be imposed.

2) Financier

3) Sale made within 100m from school

Maintenance of a den, dive, or resort for prohibited/regulated drug users.** Property escheated in favor of the governmentQualifying Circumstance – where a prohibited/regulated drug is administered, delivered, or sold to a minor who is allowed to use the same in such place, or should a prohibited drug be the proximate cause of the death of the person using the same in such den, dive or resort, the maximum of the penalty shall be imposed.

Manufacture of prohibited/regulated drugs.

Possession of prohibited/regulated drugs.PENALTY :

a. Life to death & fine of 500,000 to 10 million10 gms. Opium, morphine, heroine, cocaine, marijuana resin and Ecstasy.50 gms. Shabu500 gms. Marijuana

b. Life Imprisonment and a fine of P400,000.00-P500,000.0010-50 gms. Shabu

c. 20 years to Life and a fine of 400,000.00-500,000.005-10 gms. Shabu

d. 12 – 20 years and a fine of 300,000.00-400,000.00Less than 5 gms. Of any dangerous drugs

Possession of paraphernalia6 mos. – 4 yrs. & fine of 10,000 – 50,000

Use of Dangerous Drugs – A person apprehended or arrested, who is found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug, after a confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6) months rehabilitation in a government center for the first offense, subject to the provisions of Article VIII of this Act.

If apprehended using any dangerous drug act for the second time, he/she shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve(12) years and a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00);

Provided, That this section shall not be applicable where the person tested is also found to have in his/her possession such quantity of any dangerous drug provided for under Section 11 of this Act, in which case the provisions stated therein shall apply.

Cultivation of plants which are sources of prohibited drugs.Penalty - Life to death and a fine of P500,000.00 to P10 Million

a Note: The land/portions thereof and/or greenhouses in which any of the 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 of such cultivation or culture despite the exercise of due diligence on his part.

b Qualifying Circumstance – 1. If the land involved is part of the public domain, the maximum of the penalty herein provided shall be imposed.

2. Maximum penalty imposed on financier

Failure to keep records of prescription, sales, purchases, acquisitions and/or deliveries of prohibited/regulated drugs

Persons liable:Pharmacist, Physician, Dentist, Veterinarian, Manufacturer, Wholesaler, Importer, Distributor, Dealer, Retailer

Unlawful prescription of prohibited/regulated drugsPenalty – life to death and a fine of P500,000 to P10 Million

Unnecessary prescription of prohibited/regulated drugsPenalty – 12 to 20 years and fine of P100,000 to P500,000 plus revocation of license

Persons Liable: Physician or dentist who shall prescribe any prohibited/regulated drug for any person whose physical/physiological condition does not require the use of thereof.

Confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments of the unlawful act, including the properties of the proceeds derived from the illegal trafficking of dangerous drugs.

Forfeited infavor of the government

After the conviction in the Regional Trial Court in the appropriate criminal case filed, the Court shall immediately schedule a hearing for the confiscation and forfeiture of all the proceeds of the offense and all the assets and properties of the accused either owned or held by him or in the name of some other persons if the same shall be found to be manifestly out of proportion of his/her income; Provided, however, That if the forfeited property is a vehicle, the same shall be auctioned off not later than five (5) days upon order of confiscation or forfeiture.

During the pendency of the case in the Regional Trial Court, no property, or income derived therefrom, which may be confiscated and forfeited, shall be disposed, alienated or transferred and the same shall be in custodia legis and no bond shall be admitted for the release of the same.

Custody and disposition of confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs

PDEA in charge and custody for proper disposition

Procedure in Disposal 1. Apprehending team immediately after seizure shall make physical inventory and photograph the seized drugs in the presence of the accused or his counsel, a representative of the media and DOJ and any elected public official who shall sign the copies of the inventory.

2. Within 24 hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, such drug shall be submitted to the PDEA forensic laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination.

3. Certification of the forensic examination results shall be issued within 24 hours.

4. After the filing of the criminal case, the proper court shall conduct and ocular inspection within 72 hours of the confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs.

5. After ocular inspection by the court, PDEA shall destroy or burn the confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs within 24 hours in the presence of the accused or his counsel, representative of the media and the DOJ, civil society groups and any elected public officer.

6. PDEA shall issue a certification of such destruction and samples of the dangerous drugs shall be submitted to the court.

Plea-Bargaining

Any person charged under any commission of this act regardless of the imposable penalty shall not be allowed to avail of the provision on plea-bargaining.

Probation LawAny person convicted for drug trafficking regardless of the penalty imposed cannot avail of the privilege granted by the probation law.

Qualifying Aggravating CircumstanceA positive finding for the use of dangerous drugs shall be a qualifying aggravating circumstance in the commission of a crime by an offender and the application of the penalty provided for in the RPC.

Possession of opium pipe, equipment, apparatus or any paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or otherwise using opium or any other prohibited drug, shall be prima facie evidence that the possessor has smoked, consumed, administered to himself, injected or used a prohibited drug.

Attempt and conspiracy to commit the following offenses:a Importation of dangerous drugs

b Sale, administration, delivery, distribution and transportation of dangerous drugs

c Maintenance of a den, dive or resort for prohibited drugs

d Manufacture of dangerous drugs

e Cultivation or culture of plants which are sources of prohibited drugs

Other persons liable:

a If the violation of the Act is committed by a partnership, corporation, association or any judicial person, the partner, president, director, or manager who consents to or knowingly tolerates such violation shall be held criminally liable as co-principal.

b Partner, president, director, manager, officer or stockholder, who knowingly authorizes, tolerates, or consents to the use of a vehicle, vessel, or aircraft as an instrument in the importation, sale, delivery, distribution or transportation of dangerous drugs, or to the use of their equipment, machines or other instruments in the manufacture of any dangerous drugs, if such vehicle, vessel, aircraft, equipment, or other instrument, is owned or under the control and supervision of the partnership, corporation, association or judicial entity to which they are affiliated.

Criminal liability of a public officer or employee for misappropriation, misapplication or failure to account for the confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs

Penalty - life to death and a fine of P500,000.00 to P10 Million in addition to absolute perpetual disqualification from any public office.

Any elective local or national official found to have benefited from the proceeds of the trafficking of dangerous drugs or have received any financial or material contributions from persons found guilty of drug trafficking dangerous drugs, shall be removed from office and perpetually disqualified from holding any elective or appointive positions in the government.

Planting of EvidenceAny person who is found guilty of planting any dangerous drug regardless of the quantity and purity, shall suffer the penalty of death.

Drug Testing 1. Applicants for driver’s license - mandatory

2. Applicants for firearms license and for permit to carry - mandatory

3. Students of secondary and tertiary schools – random (school shall shoulder expenses)

4. Officers and employees of private and public offices – random (employer shall shoulder expenses)Any officer or employee found positive for use of dangerous drug shall be dealt with administratively which shall be a ground for suspension or termination subject to Art. 282 of the Labor Code and pertinent provisions of the Civil Service Law.

5. Officers and members of the military, police and other law enforcement agencies – annual mandatory

6. All persons charged before the prosecutor’s office with a criminal offense having an impossible penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day shall have to undergo a mandatory drug test

7. All candidates for public office whether appointed or elected both in the national or local government shall undergo a mandatory drug test.

Issuance of False or fraudulent drug test results (whether willfully or through gross negligence)

Penalty – 6 to 12 years and fine P100,000.00 to P500,000.00 Additional penalty – revocation of license to practice and closure of the drug testing center

II. For the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this Act, all school heads, supervisors and teachers shall be deemed to be persons in authority and, as such, are vested with the power to apprehend, arrest, or cause the apprehension or arrest of any person who shall violate any of the said provision.

a. NOTE: They shall be considered as persons in authority if they are in the school or within its immediate vicinity, or beyond such immediate vicinity if they are in attendance in any school or class function in their official capacity as school heads, supervisors or teachers.

b. Any teacher or school employee who discovers or finds that any person in the school or within its immediate vicinity is violating this Act shall have the duty to report the violation to the school head or supervisor who shall, in turn, report the matter to the proper authorities. Failure to report in either case shall, after hearing, constitute sufficient cause for disciplinary action.

III. Rules regarding rehabilitation of drug dependents

Voluntary submission a. Voluntary submission of a drug dependent to confinement, treatment and rehabilitation by the drug dependent

himself or through his parent, guardian or relative within the 4 th civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, in a center and compliance with such conditions therefor as the Dangerous Drugs Board may prescribe shall

exempt from criminal liability for possession or use of the prohibited/regulated drug. (Applicable only to those liable for use of dangerous drugs and not to possession and sale)

b. Should the drug dependent escape from the center, he may submit himself for confinement within 1 week from the date of his escape, of his parent guardian or relative may, within the same period surrender him for confinement.

c. Upon application of the Board, the Court shall issue an order for recommitment if the drug dependent does not resubmit himself for confinement or if he is not surrendered for recommitment.

d. If, subsequent to such recommitment, he should escape again, he shall no longer be exempt from criminal liability for the use or possession of any dangerous drug.

e. If a person charged with an offense is found by the fiscal or by the Court at any stage of the proceedings, to be a drug dependent, the fiscal or court as the case may be, shall suspend all further proceedings and transmit records of the case to the Board.

f. After his rehabilitation, he shall be prosecuted for such violation. In case of conviction, the judgement shall, if the accused is certified by the treatment and rehabilitation center to have maintained good behavior, indicate that he shall be given full credit for the period he was confined in the center.

NOTE: When the offense is use of dangerous drugs and the accused is not a recidivist, the penalty thereof shall be deemed to have been served in the center upon his release therefrom.

g. The period of prescription of the offense charged shall not run during the time that the respondent/accused is under detention or confinement in a center.

h. Requisites of suspension of sentence for first offense in a minor:

1. If accused is a minor (under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense but not more than 21 years of age when the judgement should have been promulgated.

2. He has not been previously convicted of violating any provision of this Act or of the RPC or placed on probation.

Sentence shall be deferred and the accused shall be placed on probation under the supervision of the Board.

In case of violation of conditions of pardon, court shall pronounce judgment of conviction and he shall serve sentence.

If accused did not violate conditions of probation, case shall be dismissed upon expiration of the designated period.

Compulsory submission If a person charged with an offense where the imposable penalty is imprisonment of not more than six (6) years and one (1) day, and is found by the prosecutor or by the court, at any stage of the proceedings, to be a drug dependent, the prosecutor of the court as the case may be, shall suspend all further proceedings and transmit copies of the record of the case to the Board.

Jurisdiction Over Dangerous Drug Cases

Section 90. Jurisdiction – The Supreme Court shall designate special courts from among the existing Regional Trial Court in each judicial region to exclusively try and hear cases involving violations of this

Act. The number of court designated in each judicial region shall be based on population and the number of cases pending in their respective jurisdiction.

The DOJ shall designate special prosecutors to exclusively handle cases involving violations of this Act.

The preliminary investigation of cases filed under this Act shall be terminated within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of their filing.

When the preliminary investigation is conducted by a public prosecutor and a probable cause is established, the corresponding information shall be filed in court within 24 hours from the termination of the investigation. If the preliminary investigation is conducted by a judge and a probable cause is found to exist, the corresponding information shall be filed by the proper prosecutor within 48 hours from the receipt of the records of the case.

Section 91. Responsibility and Liability of Law Enforcement Agencies and Other Government Officials and Employees Testifying as Prosecution Witnesses in Dangerous Drugs Cases – Any member of law enforcement agencies or any other government official and employees who, after due notice, fails or refuses intentionally or negligently, to appear as a witness for the prosecution in any proceedings, involving violations of this Act, without any valid reason, shall be punished with imprisonment of not less than twelve (12) years and one (1) day to 20 years and a fine of not less than P500,000.00, in addition to the administrative liability he/she may be meted out by his/her immediate superior and/or appropriate body.

The immediate superior of a member of the law enforcement agency or any other government employee mentioned in the preceding paragraph shall be penalized with imprisonment of not less than two (2) months and one (1) day but not more than six (6) years and a fine of not less than P10,000.00 but not more than P50,000 and in addition, perpetual absolute disqualification from public office if despite due notice to them and to the witness concerned, the former does not exert reasonable effort to present the latter to the court.

The member of the law enforcement agency or any other government employee mentioned in the preceding paragraphs shall not be transferred or re-assigned to any other territorial jurisdiction during the pendency of the case in court. However, the concerned member of the law enforcement agency or government employee may be transferred or re-assigned for compelling reasons; Provided, That his/her immediate superior shall notify the court where the case is pending of the order of transfer or re-assign, within 24 hours from its approval; Provided further, That his/her immediate superior shall be penalized with imprisonment of not less than two (2) months and one (1) day but not less than six (6) years and a fine of not less than P10,000.00 but not more than P50,000.00 and in addition, perpetual absolute disqualification from public office, should he/she fail to notify the court of such order to transfer or re-assign.

Prosecution and punishment under this Section shall be without prejudice to any liability for violation of any existing law.

Section 92. Delay and Bungling in the Prosecution of Drug Cases. - Any government officer or employee tasked with the prosecution of drug-related cases under this Act, who, through patent laxity, inexcusable neglect, unreasonable delay or deliberately causes the unsuccessful prosecution and/or dismissal ranging from 12 years and 1 day to 20 years without prejudice to his/her prosecution under the pertinent provisions of the Revised Penal Code.

a Buy Bust Operation – no law or rule to require policemen to adopt a uniform way of identifying BUY MONEY (P v. Abedes)

b Absence of ultraviolet powder is not fatal in the prosecution

c Transportation/importation of MJ – immaterial whether there may or may not be a distinction for the MJ

d Distinguish Entrapment and Instigation:

1. If prosecution can prove the crime without presenting the informer or asset – not necessary because their testimonies are merely corroborative. Poseur buyer – it depends on whether the prosecution can prove the crime without their testimonies (P v. Rosalinda Ramos)

2. Under the RA, special aggravating circumstance if a crime has been committed while the accused was high on drugs (P v. Anthony Belgar)

3. Delivery or Sale of Prohibited Drugs – the accused must be aware that what he is selling or delivering was prohibited drug. But the moment the fact of sale or delivery is proved by prosecution, the burden to prove that the accused is not aware that drugs are prohibited falls on the defense (P v. Aranda)

4. P v. Angelito Manalo – burden of proving the authority to possess shabu is a matter of defense

5. P v. Hilario Moscaling – court may take judicial notice of the word “shabu”

6. Criminal liabilities of a policeman who sold the drugs confiscated from a pusher : violation of RA 9165 and malversation under RPC.

e Planting evidence – to implicate another

f Buy Bust Operation – form of entrapment (P v. Alberto) – not necessary to have prior police surveillance (P v. Carlos Franca)

g Possession – constructive or actual – not necessary to adduce the marked money as evidence (P v. Romeo Macara)

h Separate crimes – sale/possession of MJ found in his possession after he was frisked but he can’t be convicted for possession of MJ that he sold

i If victim is minor or drug is proximate cause of death – max penalty is imposed

1. First offense of a minor – suspension of sentence

CONDITIONS: under 18 at time of commission but not more than 21 at time when judgment was promulgated

found guilty of possession or use of prohibited or regulated drugs

not been previously convicted of violating any provision of this Act or the RPC

not been placed on probation

defer sentence, place on probation for 6 months to 1 year

violation of probation – pronounce sentence – convict and serve sentence

no violation – discharge him and dismiss the proceeding

if minor is drug dependent – commit to a center for treatment and rehabilitation

Crim Law 2[Legis Sanctum]

Documents

Transcript of Crim Law 2[Legis Sanctum]