Created by HOMER PABLO
CASE DOCTRINES AND ADDITIONAL
NOTES CRIMINAL LAW II (Culled from
Florenz Regalado’s Conspectus and
Ortega’s Notes)
Article 114. TREASON
 “The details of the testimony on
the acts testified by witnesses
need not be identical” (People
vs. Abad)
 “The two-witness rule is not
required to prove adherence to
the enemy” (People vs.
Alitagtag)
 “Treason absorbs crimes
committed in the furtherance
thereof” (People vs. Villanueva)
 “Righteous Action, as when the
collaborator also helped save
some guerrillas from death at
the hands of the invader is
illogical and baseless” (People
vs. Victoria)
 “Defense of Suspended
Allegiance by reason of change
of sovereignty was untenable
since a citizen owes an absolute
allegiance to his country (Laurel
vs. Misa)
 An assemblage even without an
armed public uprising is
sufficient.
Article 115. CONSPIRACY AND
PROPOSAL TO COMMIT TREASON.
 Separately punished only if
Treason was not committed.
 N/A two-witness rule
ARTICLE 116. MISPRISION OF TREASON.
 Felony by omission. Mere
silence is punishable even
without attempt to conceal.
(ACTUAL EXISTENCE OF
CONSPIRACY is the BASIS)
 N/A two-witness rule
ARTICLE 120. CORRESPONDENCE WITH
HOSTILE COUNTRY.
 Express Prohibition by
Government of Correspondence
ZPG & Associates 1
is a mala prohibitum therefore
punishable even if contained
innocent matters.
 N/A two-witness rule
ARTICLE 121. FLIGHT TO ENEMY’S
COUNTRY.
 Express Prohibition by
Competent Authority is a mala
prohibitum therefore punishable
for whatever purpose of the
offender. Mere Attempt
consummates crime.
ARTICLE 124. ARBITRARY DETENTION.
 “A private person can be liable
and punished if he acted in
conspiracy with public officers.”
(People vs. Camerino)
 “Mistake of Fact, Good Faith,
acted without culpable
negligence are valid defenses,
even if it turns out that the
person was innocent.” (People
vs. Ancheta)
 No legal ground, without intent
to deliver to judicial authorities.
(Arbitrary Detention)
 No Legal ground, with intent to
turn over to judicial authorities
(Unlawful Arrest)
 Legal Ground with intent to
deliver to judicial authorities but
unreasonably delays (Undue
Delay under 125)
 No intent to detain, but
unlawfully prevented for an
appreciable length of time from
free movement (Coercion)
 Victim is a woman and detained
with lewd designs from the
outset (abduction)
 Offenses cannot be complexed.
 “Psychological and not only
physical restraint is sufficient for
the crime of arbitrary detention,
as when victim was permitted to
take meals outside of detention
but was too terrorized not to
return.” (People vs. Oliva)
Created by HOMER PABLO ZPG & Associates 2

ARTICLE 125. DELAY IN THE DELIVERY  A public officer entering

OF DETAINED PERSONS TO THE
PROPER JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES.
 Provision applies to arrests
without warrant and it is lawful.
 “Delivery refers to filing of
complaint; Judicial Authority
refers to courts of justice not the
public prosecutor” (Sayo et al.
vs. Chief of Police)
 “Failure to deliver the arrestee
does not make detention illegal,
it just makes the arresting officer
criminally liable” (People vs.
Mabong)
 Article applies to special laws.
(..”or their equivalent”, referring
to penalty categories)
 “The hours during which the
courts are closed and no deliver
can be made are not to be
counted” (People vs. Acasio)
 Arrested person may be
detained beyond stated periods
if he demands preliminary
investigation (Sec. 7 Rule 112
Rev. Rules Crim. Pro.)
 Art. 125 made applicable to
security guards employed by a
company who arrested and
delayed the turnover of public
officers whom they held in
custody (People vs. Sali)
ARTICLE 126. DELAYING RELEASE.
 “Order of release may be given
verbally.” (People vs. Misa)
ARTILCE 127. EXPULSION.
another’s dwelling to prevent
some serious harm to himself or
the dwelling’s occupants or a
third person or entry into taverns
and other public houses
absolves a person from criminal
liability.
ARTICLE 129. SEARCH WARRANTS
MALICIOUSLY OBTAINED AND ABUSE
IN THE SERVICE OF THOSE LEGALLY
OBTAINED.
 Perjury and others crime
separate.
 If a private individual conspired
he is liable under this article.
(US vs. Ponte)
ARTICLE 130. SEARCHING DOMICILE
WITHOUT WITNESSES.
 Applicable in searches with a
warrant or valid warrantless
searches; also where there is
consent of owner, or incidental
to a lawful arrest.
ARTICLE 131. PROHIBITION,
INTERRUPTION AND DISSOLUTION OF
PEACEFUL MEETINGS.
 Public Officers vs. 153- Private
Individuals
 “This cannot be committed by a
person who is a participant in
the meeting” (People vs.
Calera)- <Unjust Vexation,
proper crime here>

 Only Chief Executive can order ARTICLE 132. INTERRUPTION OF

deportation. RELIGIOUS WORSHIP

ARTICLE 128. VIOLATION OF DOMICILE.  Public Officers vs. 153- Private

Individuals
 Implied objection, where entry  Customarily observed and
was effected through an authorized by authorities of a
opening not intended for that religion.
purpose. (first mode liable)  “There must actually be a
 If Offender is a private religious ceremony. If the
individual, “trespass to dwelling” offense was committed only in a
is committed meeting or a rally of a sect it
Created by HOMER PABLO
would be punishable under Art.
131” (People vs. Reyes)
ARTICLE 133. OFFENDING RELIGIOUS
FEELINGS.
 Public Officer/Private Individuals
 “A public rally by itself
conducted by a religious group
is not religious ceremony.”
(People vs. Mandoriao, Jr.)
 If acts committed in a place
devoted to religious worship,
unnecessary that a religious
ceremony is conducted.
ARTICLE 134. REBELLION OR
INSURRECTION.
ARTICLE 134-A. COUP D’ETAT.
 Both crimes can be committed
in peace or war time
 An armed public uprising by a
substantial number of rebels is
generally required.
 “Rebellion cannot be complexed
with but absorbs acts committed
in the furtherance of the
rebellious movement.” (People
vs. Hernandez; Enrile vs.
Salazar)
 “Offenses committed for
personal reasons or other
motives are punished separately
even if committed
simultaneously with the
rebellious acts” (People vs.
Oliva)
 “Illegal Possession of firearm in
furtherance of rebellion under
PD 1866 is distinct from the
crime of rebellion under the
RPC. Therefore violation of PD
1866 being malum prohibitum,
invalidates the defenses of good
faith and absence of criminal
intent.” (People vs. de Gracia)
 “A crime under the RPC cannot
be absorbed by a statutory
offense, therefore charging one
of illegal possession of firearms
in furtherance of rebellion is
proper.” (People vs. Tiozon).
ZPG & Associates 3
 “No crime of misprision of
rebellion” (US vs. Ravidas)
*Misprision is only to treason!
 Concealment by the offender of
the rebellious activities may
make him an accessory.
ARTICLE 137. DISLOYALTY OF PUBLIC
OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES.
 No Crime under this article if
principal crime is treason.
ARTICLE 139. SEDITION.
 Arms not necessary as long as
there is tumultuous public
uprising.
 “Sedition does not absorb
murder committed by reason or
in furtherance of the seditious
activities.” (People vs. Cabrera)
MAJOR CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL
SECURITY AND PUBLIC ORDER.
1. Treason: Conspiracy and
proposal (Art. 115), Misprision
of Treason (Art. 116) <No Crime
of Inciting to Treason>
2. Rebellion: Conspiracy and
Proposal (Art. 136), Disloyalty of
Public Officers (Art. 137),
inciting (Art. 138)
3. Coup d’etat: Conspiracy and
proposal (Art. 136)
4. Sedition: Conspiracy (Art. 141),
Inciting (Art. 142)
 BASIC RULE: Conspiracy,
proposal and inciting are
punishable only if “major crimes”
are NOT COMMITTED.
Otherwise they are absorbed
and offenders will be principal
by inducement.
 Acts or words of incitement
must have been premeditated,
otherwise if they were only
spontaneous the crime will be
tumultuous disturbance as an
outcry tending to incite rebellion
or sedition (Art.153)
 The assemblage of persons
present must not have been
Created by HOMER PABLO
called for the purpose of
listening to such incitement,
otherwise the crime will be
illegal assembly (Art. 146).
 Misprision of Treason and
disloyalty of public officers can
be prosecuted independently.
 In re: Sedition, “Knowingly
conceal such evil practices”
<Art. 142> principal not
accessory!
ARTICLE 143. ACTS TENDING TO
PREVENT THE MEETING OF THE
CONGRESS AND SIMILAR BODIES.
ARTICLE 144. DISTURBANCE OF
PROCEEDINGS.
 No public uprising involved.
 Force producing physical
injuries, or Fraud involving
falsification. Said offenses are
complexed as necessary means
employed.
ARTICLE 146. ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES.
 Assembly was for the purpose
of committing offenses other
than treason, rebellion, sedition
or assault. Presumption is that
there are persons armed
otherwise it will be covered by
Public Disorder (Art. 153) or
unlawful utterances (Art. 154[2])
ARTICLE 148. DIRECT ASSAULT.
FIRST FORM: (Force/Intimidation +
Objectives of Rebellion/Sedition – Public
Uprising
 “To constitute direct assault
against an agent of a person in
authority the violence,
intimidation or resistance
employed by the offender must
be serious.” (US vs. Tabiana)
 “If the victim is a person in
authority the degree of force
employed against him is
immaterial as the mere laying of
hands on him is sufficient” (US
vs. Gumban)
ZPG & Associates 4
 “In all forms of assault,
resistance or disobedience, it is
required that (a) the accused
knew the identity of the victim
and (b) the victim was then
acting in the due and lawful
performance of his duties, or the
reason for the attack against
him was his performance of
such official duties.” (People vs.
Rellin)
 If both are accused and victim
are public officers, NO DIRECT
ASSAULT, because it
presupposes that the accused
was not discharging his official
duties during the attack. Offense
may be coercion or physical
injuries <II Viada 246>
 “Attack was on the occasion of
the performance by victim of his
official duties, motive is
immaterial.” (US vs. Garcia)
 “If the cause of the direct
assault was the past
performance by the victim of his
official duties which the accused
resented, the accused is guilty
of direct assault even if he
attacked the victim while both
were going out to fight (Justo vs.
CA)
 “Direct assault is committed
even if several days had
transpired between the victim’s
performance of his official duty
and the assault, as where the
judge was attacked by the
offender by reason of a
contempt order he issued for the
incarceration of the latter
several days before the offense”
(People vs. Torrecarion)
 “If motive will not be
established, as when a judge
was boxed out while it is
standing on a railway station,
crime will be physical injuries”
(People vs. Sañiel)
 “If a school teacher was slapped
by the accused not while she
was performing her school
functions nor by reason thereof,
but in the presence of her
pupils, the crime was held to be
Created by HOMER PABLO
slander by deed” (People vs.
Gamo)
 “If direct assault was committed
with slight physical injuries and
the victim is a person in
authority, they will be separate
crimes; but if the victim is an
agent of a person in authority,
the slight physical injuries will be
absorbed in the direct assault”
(People vs. Acierto)
 “If the public officer was acting
with abuse of his official
functions, he is deemed to be
acting in a private capacity and
if he is attacked, there would be
no crime of direct assault. Thus,
where two councillors fought in
the session hall, there could be
no direct assault if the cause of
the fight was a private matter.”
(People vs. Yosoya)
ARTICLE 149. INDIRECT ASSAULT.
 Whether or not there is request
or order from the person in
authority to aid the latter. (Said
person is considered an agent
of a person in authority)
 If the agent of a person in
authority is attacked and a third
person comes to aid, and the
latter was also attacked, the
offender is liable for physical
injuries or coercion depending
on the acts committed.
ARTICLE 153. TUMULTS AND OTHER
DISTURBANCES OF PUBLIC ORDER.
 “There can be separate crimes
of physical injuries thru reckless
imprudence and tumultuous
disturbance caused by the firing
of a submachine gun. “ (People
vs. Bacolod)
 “An accused could also be liable
for the complex crime of assault
and tumultuous disturbance if
the latter offense was committed
on the same occasion and by
the same means of attacking
ZPG & Associates 5
some election inspectors.”
(Villanueva vs. Ortiz)
ARTICLE 154. UNLAWFUL USE OF
MEANS OF PUBLICATION AND
UNLAWFUL UTTERANCES.
 “Paragraph 2, should be
distinguished from inciting to
sedition as the latter requires
offender at the same time to
incite the people to rise publicly
against the government.”
(People vs. Arrogante)
ARTICLE 156. DELIVERY OF PRISONERS
FROM JAIL.
 “Conspirators are liable under
the article, but the warden or jail
custodian of prisoners is liable
for infidelity in the custody of
prisoners” (Alberto vs. dela
Cruz)
 Bribery shall be a separate
crime.
 If the prisoner is detained for the
crime of treason, parricide,
murder or an attempt against
the President’s life it has been
suggested that those who
delivered him from jail are
accessories to those crimes.
 “When a guard who was off duty
took out a prisoner from jail for 5
hours replacing him in his cell
another prisoner, guard is liable
under the article” (People vs.
Del Barrio)
ARTICLE 157.EVASION OF SERVICE OF
SENTENCE
ARTICLE 158. EVASION OF SERVICE OF
SENTENCE ON THE OCCASION OF
DISORDERS, CONFLAGRATIONS,
EARTHQUAKES, OR OTHER
CALAMITIES.
ARTICLE 159. OTHER CASES OF
EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE.
 “There is no evasion of service
of sentence if the escapee is (a)
Created by HOMER PABLO
only a detention prisoner, (b) is
a youthful offender committed to
a rehabilitation center, (c) is a
deportee who violates the
deportation order.” (US vs. Loo
Hoe)
 Article 157. Applicable to
Destierro (People vs. Abilong)
 Article 158. Imprisonment. N/A
Destierro
 Article 159. Applicable to
Destierro
 “Accused was forced by some
detainees to leave the jail, but
he returned thereafter. There
was no mutiny.” (People vs.
Padilla)
 “Violation under Art. 159 is
substantive if penalty remitted is
6 years or less since a penalty
is imposed therein” (People vs.
Martin)
ARTICLE 160. QUASI-RECIDIVISM
 “The offense committed while
the accused is serving sentence
must be a felony, not a crime
punished by a special law. With
regard to the offense of which
the accused was already
sentenced by final judgment, it
does not matter whether it was
also a felony or a crime
punished by a special law.”
(People vs. Peralta)
 “Quasi-recidivism can also be
committed while offender was at
large after escaping from the
penal institution” (People vs.
Maternal) or “while he was in
the act of escaping therefrom”
(People vs. Tiongson)
ARTICLE 161. COUNTERFEITING THE
GREAT SEAL OF THE GOVT. OF THE
PHILIPPINES, FORGING THE
SIGNATURE OR STAMP OF THE CHIEF
EXECUTIVE.
ARTICLE 162. USING FORGED
SIGNATURE OR COUNTERFEIT SEAL OR
STAMP.
ZPG & Associates 6
 If the document is one
supposedly signed by the
President in a private capacity
the crime would be falsification
and not forgery under the Article
161.
ARTICLE 166-169. FORGING TREASURY
OR BANK NOTES, OBLIGATIONS AND
SECURITIES; IMPORTING AND
UTTERING FALSE OR FORGED NOTES,
OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES.
 “A Philippine Charity
Sweepstakes ticket has been
declared to be a governmental
obligation” (People vs.
Balmores)
 Intent to use illegally possessed
counterfeit notes and
instruments of credit may be
determined from the volume or
number of said notes and the
acts of the accused taken in
connection therewith.
 No impossible crime here, as it
deals with crimes against
persons and property only.
 “Where the accused encashed a
treasury warrant, which is a
governmental obligation, but he
did so by posing and signing as
the payee thereof, the crime is
falsification and not forgery”
(People vs. Samson) <Art. 171
Par. 2>
ARTICLE 171. FALSIFICATION BY
PUBLIC OFFICER, EMPLOYEE OR
NOTARY OR ECCLESIASTIC MINISTER.
 “In imitating or counterfeiting
there must be some similarity or
resemblance between the
original and the counterfeit” (US
vs. Lampa)
 “Voting in place of a registered
voter, an example of violation
under par. 2” (People vs.
Abubakar)
 Paragraph 4:
“Making false statements in an
application form for patrolman
examination (Civil Service Form
No. 2), under oath as required
Created by HOMER PABLO
constitutes perjury not
falsification” (People vs. Cruz)
“No such legal obligation in the
preparation of the formation
papers of a corporation to state
the truth, so there is no
falsification” (People vs.
Quasha)
“There was no legal obligation
to disclose the fact of a previous
conviction in the personal data
form submitted by the offender
to the police department since
that form was not an official
document, hence no falsification
was committed.”(People vs.
Poserio)
“There is a legal obligation to
disclose the truth in entries
made in a residence certificate,
hence the accused was liable
for falsification.” (People vs. Po
Giok To)
“NBI personal data sheet is an
official document” (People vs.
Uy)
 “Where force was employed to
compel another to execute a
contract, the offender is not
liable for falsification as such
compulsion does not make it a
false instrument, but only a
voidable one.” (US vs. Milla)
 “Falsification can be committed
by imprudence, either by a
private individual (People vs.
Bañas) or by a public officer”
(People vs. Castillo)
 “The person in possession of a
falsified document is presumed
to have falsified the same,
especially so if he had the
opportunity and the motive to do
so.” (People vs. Manansala)
 “What is required to be true is
an assertion of fact by the
accused; hence where the
declarant stated that she was
“eligible” for the public position,
an inaccuracy therein could not
hold her liable for falsification as
she was actually expressing
only an opinion.” (People vs.
Yanza) Similar to the case of
ZPG & Associates 7
claimant of land (People vs. San
Jose).
 “Making alterations or
corrections in a document to
make it speak the truth, even if
unilaterally done, cannot be
falsification as the essence of
this offense is to make the
document tell a lie.” (US vs. San
Mateo)
ARTICLE 172. FALSIFICATION BY
PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS.
 “Damage or intent to cause
damage is an essential element.
Damage to honor is sufficient.”
(People vs. Marasigan)
 No crime of estafa thru
falsification of a private
document.
 “Falsification is not a continuing
offense and is consummated
when the document is actually
falsified, regardless of whether
or not it was thereafter put to
illegal use.” (Alfelor et al vs.
Intia)
 “Damage is not required if the
falsified document is introduced
as evidence in a judicial
proceeding. Damage is an
element only when the
document is introduced in a
proceeding or transaction other
than judicial. (People vs.
Prudente)