Criminal Law 2 Lecture Callanta

8/10/2019 Criminal Law 2 Lecture Callanta

1/35

TITLE ONE

CRIMES 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 ofcrimes 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 114

TREASON

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 allegiance

2. actual assembling of men

3. for the purpose of executing a treasonable design

2) Adheres to the enemies, giving them aid and comfort

1. breech of allegiance

2. adherence

3. giving aid or comfort to the enemy

Requirements of levying war

1) 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 sovereign

* Success 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.

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

> During trial, simply saying Im guilty is not enough.


2/35

> Withdrawing plea of not guilty during arraignment not necessary

> 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 circumstancesinherentin

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 Citizenship

> Filipino citizens can commit treason outside the Philippines. But that of an alien

must be committed in the Philippines.

> Only Filipino citizens or permanent resident aliens can be held liable

>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

traitors 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 countrys 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.


3/35

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 ade factogovernment.

When killings and other common crimes are charged as overt act of treason, they cannot

be regarded as (1)separate crimesor (2) ascomplex 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 totreason, being an indispensable element of the same.

Treason distinguished from Rebellion.

The manner in which both crimes are committed in the same. Intreasonhowever, 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.

Intreason, 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 hisallegiance by fighting the forces of the duly constituted authorities.

Insedition, the offender disagrees with certain policies of the State and seeks to disturb public

peace by raising a commotion or public uprising.

Article 115

CONSPIRACY 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 116

MISPRISION OF TREASON


4/35

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 govt 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 117

Espionage 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

3 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


5/35

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 espionageif 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 informationCRIMES 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 118

INCITING 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 119

VIOLATION OF NEUTRALITY

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


6/35

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

enforcing neutrality

c. That the offender violates such regulation

Govt 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 ofdoloor by means ofculpa. So violation of

neutrality can be committed through reckless imprudence.

Article 120

CORRESPONDENCE 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:

1 a. notice or information might be useful to the enemy

2

3 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

Doesnt matter if correspondence contains innocent matters if prohibited, punishable

Article 121

FLIGHT TO ENEMYS COUNTRY

ELEMENTS

a. 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


7/35

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

Alien resident may be guilty here.

Article 122

PIRACY

2 Ways of Committing Piracy

a. 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 govt

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 MUTINY

Robbery 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 com

Intent to gain is an element. No criminal intent

Attack 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 takingaway 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


8/35

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.

MUTINYis the unlawful resistance to a superior officer, or the raising of commotions and

disturbances aboard a ship against the authority of its commander.

Article 123

QUALIFIED 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.


9/35

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 asaircraft 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 flightfrom 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.


10/35

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 crimeof 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


11/35

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 legallyobtained (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 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 ground

b. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities

c. Delaying release

Article 124

ARBITRARY 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 aBarangay Chairmanwho 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


12/35

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 publicofficer; 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 powerto 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


13/35

(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 bylight penalties, or their

equivalent

2. 18 hours, for crimes/offenses punishable bycorrectional penalties, or their

equivalent or

3. 36 hours, for crimes/offenses punishable bycapital punishmentorafflictive

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 orafflictive 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, hes

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.


14/35

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 aprivate 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 citizens 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 126

DELAYING RELEASE

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

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, or

3. 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

delaying the service of notice of such order to said prisoner

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

Wardens and jailersare the persons most likely to violate this provision

Provision does not include legislation

Article 127

EXPULSION


15/35

ELEMENTS:


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.

InVillavicencio 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 outwithout 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 tochange his address here

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

Article 128

VIOLATION OF DOMICILE

ELEMENTS:


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


16/35

* 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 aprivate

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 isgrave coercion, if violence or intimidation is used (Art 286), orunjust 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 therefusal 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 129


17/35

SEARCH WARRANTS MALICIOUSLY OBTAINED

ELEMENTS:


b. That he procures a search warrant

c. That there is no just causec.

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 amotion 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.

* Thetrue test of lack of just causeis 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

ELEMENTS:


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 warrantis 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 propertydescribed 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


18/35

Article 130

SEARCHING DOMICILE WITHOUT WITNESSES

ELEMENTS :


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 (cant 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, theTariff and Customs Codeauthorizes 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 131

PROHIBITION, 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 detat.

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

If the offender is aprivate 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


19/35

* 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, such 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, its

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 theres 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 132

INTERRUPTION 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, its 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,

hes not.


20/35

Article 133

OFFENDING 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 andspecial 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

Prohibition,

Interruption and

Crime against the

fundamental law of the

Public officers,

Outsiders

Dissolution of

Peaceful Meeting

(131)

state

Interruption of

Religious Worship

(132)

Crime against the

fundamental law of the

state

Public officers,

Outsiders

Offending the

Religious Feeling(133)

Crime against public

order

Public officers,

private persons,outsiders

TITLE THREE

CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER

Crimes against public order

1. Rebellion or insurrection (Art. 134);

1.a 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);


21/35

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 134

REBELLION 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

45 i. the territory of the Philippines or any part thereof, or

6

7 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 rebellion

a.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

* Theessence of this crimeis a public uprising with the taking up of arms. It requires amultitude 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.

* Thecrime 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.

Successis immaterial,purposeis 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 callrebellion.

REBELLIONused where the object of the movement is completely to overthrow and

supersede the existing government

INSURRECTIONrefers to a movement which seeks merely to effect some change of

minor importance to prevent the exercise of govt authority w/ respect to particular matters

or subjects


22/35

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.

* Allegianceis 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 alsoincludes 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 govt, not necessary to convict the accused who

is in conspiracy w/ others actually taking arms against the govt

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 isno public uprising, the crime is ofdirect 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 theircharacter as common offenses andassume 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,

inEnrile 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 Detat), 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


23/35

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 detat 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 orinsurrection], 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 inpursuance 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 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 byrebellion(People v. Fernando)

Persondeemed leader of rebellionin case he is unknown:

Any person who in fact:

a. directed the others

b. spoke for them

c. signed receipts and other documents issued in their name

d. 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.


24/35

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 tooverthrow it.

Article 134-A

COUP 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

* Theessence of the crimeis 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 detat and rebellion?

Rebellionis committed by any person whether a private individual or a public officer whereas in

coup detat,the offender is a member of the military or police force or holding a public office or

employment.

Inrebellion, the object is to alienate the allegiance of a people in a territory, whether wholly or

partially, from the duly constituted government; incoup detat,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 detat

(134-A)

Sedition (139)


25/35

N Nature

of Crime

Crime against

National Security

Crime against Public

Order

Crime against

Public Order

Crime against Public

Order

Overt

Acts

levying war against

the govt;

OR

adherence and giving

aid or comfort to

enemies

Public uprising

AND

Taking up arms

against the govt

See article. Rising publicly or

tumultuously (caused by

more than 3 armed men

or provided with means

of violence)

P Purpose

OOF

f objective

Deliver the govt to

enemy during war

See article. Seizing or

diminishing

state power.

See enumeration in

article.

Article 135

PENALTIES

Who are liable?

a. Any person who:

1. Promotes

2. Maintains

3. 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 govt

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 detat, 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 Service

Anyone who leads, directs, commands others to Anyone who participates or in

undertake a coup. an manner,

supports, finances, abets, aids in a c

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:

> Public officer must take active part because mere silence or omission not punishable in

rebellion

> It is not a defense in rebellion that the accused never took the oath of allegiance to, or that

they never recognized the government

> 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

Criminal Law 2 Lecture Callanta

Documents

Transcript of Criminal Law 2 Lecture Callanta