1. Mr.

X assembled 300 men for the purpose of levying war against the Philippines;
a. Mr. X is a Filipino citizen and he wants to overthrow the government;
Mr. X is liable. Levying of war as an act of treason must be for the purpose of executing a treasonable design
by force. It must be with the intent of overthrowing the government. The purpose of levying was in treason is
to deliver the country in whole or in part to the enemy. Hence, Mr. X is liable.
Alternative Answer: Mr. X is not liable because the levying of war against the government is without any
intention of helping an external enemy but merely to overthrow the government. Hence, Mr. X could not be
held liable.
b. Mr. X is an alien residing in China;
Not liable. The persons that may be liable for the crime of treason are Filipino citizens and resident aliens only.
Because X is not a resident alien, he is not guilty of treason since his allegiance is also with China and not with
the Philippines.
c. Mr. X is an alien residing in the Philippines;
Mr. X can be prosecuted for treason. Explanation in letter B.
d. Mr. X committed the same during peace time
He could not be prosecuted for treason since treason can only be committed only in time of war. As a general
rule, all crimes against national security can only be committed in times of war. Since treason is a crime against
national security, it falls under the general rule.
e. There is a war between China and the Philippines and he levied war against the two countries;
No treason since the third element is absent. Mr. X levied war against the Philippines but it was not committed
to deliver the country in whole or in part to the enemy and nor was it done because of the adherence of Mr. X
to the enemies by giving them aid and comfort.
f. There is war between US and China.
No treason since one of the elements is absent, that is, that there is a war in which the Philippines is involved.
Since the war is only between US and China, treason cannot be invoked against Mr. X.
g. There was an assembly of men and they went to a public plaza to have a rally;
No treason. No crime committed, unless during the rally they employ force, intimidation or other means
outside of legal methods or utter seditious words or speeches which tend to disturb the public peace. They
could be charged for either sedition or inciting to sedition.
h. There is a war between China and the Philippines and he lend a Chinese friend money for his
plane ticket to China.
Mr. X is not liable for treason. As a general rule, to be treasonous, the extent of the aid and comfort given to
the enemies must be to render assistance to them as enemies and not merely as individuals and, in addition,
be directly in furtherance of the enemies’ hostile designs. In this case Mr. X only assisted the Chinese the latter’s
capacity as an individual and not as an enemy of the country. Hence, Mr. X is not liable for treason.
i. There is a war between China and the Philippines and Mr. X is always vocal about his support
for China.
Jurisprudence provides that emotional or intellectual sympathy to the enemy, without giving the enemy aid or
comfort, is not treason. Adherence alone, without giving the enemy aid or comfort, does not constitute treason
because the two (adherence and giving of aid) must concur.

2. During a war, Mr. X was deciding whether he would levy a war against the Philippines.
 a. Mr. decides to commit it and ready his plan of actions;
As a general rule, conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony is not punishable (Art. 8). Article 115 is an
exception, as it specifically penalizes conspiracy and proposal to commit treason. However, the facts of the
case do not constitute the elements of either conspiracy or proposal to commit treason.
Conspiracy to commit treason:
1. In time of war;
2. Two or more persons come to an agreement to: Levy war against the government, or adhere to
enemies and to give them aid or comfort
3. They decide to commit it
Proposal to commit treason:
1. In time of war
2. A person who has decided to levy war against the government, or to adhere to the enemies and give them
aid and comfort.
3. Proposes its execution to some other person or persons.
Hence, Mr. X is not guilty of either proposal or conspiracy to commit treason.
b. Mr. X conferred with his friend Mr. Y and ask him if he would join him in taking arms against the
Philippines;
Mr X. is liable for proposal to commit treason. It is committed when in times of war 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 or persons.
Alternative Answer: Mr. X is not liable for proposal to commit treason since he only proposed the taking arms
against the government, which is an element of the crime of rebellion.
c. Mr. X and Y agreed that is time to wage a war against the Philippines;
Mr. X is liable for proposal to commit treason while Mr. Y is not liable for either proposal or conspiracy since
the third element of conspiracy is absent.
Elements of conspiracy to commit treason:
1. In time of war;
2. Two or more persons come to an agreement to levy war against the government, or adhere to
enemies and to give them aid or comfort
3. They decide to commit it
In this case they have only come to an agreement but there was no decision to commit it treason.
d. Mr. X and Y agreed to commit their plan their plans of action.
Mr. X and Y are liable for conspiracy to commit treason since all the elements are present.
3. During a war, Mr. X was able to hear that Mr. A and B and that they are conspiring to commit treason
and he did not divulge the same to the proper authorities;
Elements of misprision of treason:

1. Offender must be owing allegiance to the government of the Philippines 2. Offender is not a foreigner
3. He has knowledge of any conspiracy to commit treason against the said government

a. Mr. X is a foreigner;
Mr. X is not liable since the second element of misprision is absent. The offender must not be a foreigner.
b. Mr. X did not know of the conspiracy but he knew that Mr. A and B already committed the crime of
treason by attacking a military installation;
Mr. X is not liable since misprision of treason does not apply when the crime of treason is already committed.
This is so because Art. 116 speaks of “knowledge of any conspiracy against” the Government of the Philippines,
not knowledge of treason actually committed by another.

4. A group of person entered a municipal building by force and took control of the people inside to inflict
revenge to the Mayor who allegedly used his money to be elected as mayor in their town. Is that group
of persons liable of rebellion?
No, they are not liable for rebellion. The following are the elements of rebellion:
1. There be: a. Public uprising, and b. Taking arms against government
2. Purpose of the uprising or movement is either to –
a. Remove from the allegiance to said Government or its laws: i. The territory of the Philippines or any part
thereof; or ii. Any body of land, naval or other armed forces; or
b. Deprive the Chief Executive or Congress, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogative.
The essence of rebellion is public uprising and the taking of arms. It aims to overthrow the duly constituted
government. In this case the purpose of the group was not to overthrow the government but to inflict revenge
to the Mayor. Hence they are not liable for rebellion but may be prosecuted for direct assault.

5. In time of war of the Philippines and Japan, the group of Mr. X, attacked the Municipality of Pirdihon
and declared the independence of Pirdihon from the Philippines. Is the crime of Treason committed?
No, treason was not committed, but the crime of rebellion was committed instead, since the object of the
attack was to remove from allegiance the government or its laws the territory of the Philippines or any part
thereof which Mr. X and his group were successful in doing.
6. The janitor of bulwagan arrested a person walking at Magsaysay Blvd. as the latter is known a drug
pusher in the area. Is the janitor liable of the crime of Arbitrary Detention?
No, the janitor is not liable for arbitrary detention. The proper charge is illegal detention since in arbitrary
detention, the offender is a public officer whose functions have something to do with the protection of life
and/or property and maintenance of peace and order, while illegal detention constitutes one who arrests
another without legal ground, and is without authority to do so. Private individuals may be held liable for
arbitrary detention if they have conspired with public officers in the detention.
Elements of arbitrary detention:

1. Offender is a public officer or employee 2. He detains a person 3. Detention is without legal grounds.
7. Mr. X, who has a pending warrant of arrest, was arrested by Police Officer Ruben who failed to deliver
him to the Court who issued the warrant for more than 36 hours. Is he liable under Art. 125 for the
delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities?
Art. 125 contemplates a situation where arrest was made without a warrant but there exists a legal ground for
the arrest. It does not apply when the arrest is on the strength of a warrant of arrest, because in the latter case,
a person arrested can be detained indefinitely until his case is decided by the court or he posts bail for his
temporary release.
Article 125 elements:
1. Offender is a public officer or employee 2. He has detained a person for some legal ground 3. He fails
to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within: a. 12 hours for crimes/offenses
punishable by light penalties or their equivalent; b. 18 hours for crimes/offenses punishable by
correctional penalties or their equivalent; c. 36 hours for crimes/offenses punishable by afflictive
penalties or their equivalent.

8. The first officer of MV Lumos, while in the high seas, punched the captain who fell asleep and then the
former took control of the ship. Did he commit the crime piracy?
No, he committed mutiny. Mutiny is the unlawful resistance to a superior officer or the raising of
commotions and disturbances on board a ship against the authority of its commander while piracy is
robbery or depredation in the high seas, without lawful authority and done with intent to steal and in the
spirit and intention of universal hostility. In piracy, the offenders are strangers to the vessel. Hence,
offenders are neither passengers nor crew members, while in mutiny the offenders are members of the
complement or the passengers of the vessel, and they may only intend to ignore the ship’s officer or they
may be prompted by a desire to commit plunder.

9. During peace time, Mr. X, a citizen of the Philippines, was able to hack the Department of Defense
server and he was able to collect data respecting to the national defense. He then sent it to Mr. Y so
that the latter could sell it to China. Mr. Y made a copy and stored the same in his safe. What was the
crime committed?
Mr X committed the crime of espionage. Espionage is the offense of gathering, transmitting, or losing
information respecting the national defense with intent, or there is reason to believe that information is to
be used to the injury of the Republic of the Philippines or to the advantage of any foreign nation. It can be
committed in times of peace or war.
Alternative answer: Mr. X committed an offense against the national security of the State as provided for
by Commonwealth Act 616 (An Act Punishing espionage and other offenses against the national security),
and that is unlawful obtaining of information relative to the defense of the Philippines or to the advantage
of any foreign nation.

10. The first officer of MV Lumos punched the captain who fell asleep and then the former took control of
the ship. It was actually a small boat manned by 5 persons and it happened on a river. Did he commit
the crime piracy?
Yes, the officer committed piracy in the Philippine waters. Piracy is any attack upon or seizure of any vessel
or the taking away of the whole or part thereof or its cargo, equipment or the personal belongings of its
complement or passengers, irrespective of the value thereof, 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. Further, the term vessel shall include all kinds and types
of vessels or boats used in fishing, so the small boat manned by 5 people may still be considered as a vessel.
Hence, the officer is liable for piracy.

11. In a buy bust operation, Mr. X was arrested by Police Officer Ruben. On the 35th hour, he filed the case
against Mr. X for selling of shabu. On the 72nd hour, the prosecutor filed the case in the court. Mr. X
was still detained in the detention cell of the police. Is Police Officer Ruben liable? Is the prosecutor
liable?
The Police officer is not liable because he was able to deliver or file the correct information or complaint
with the proper judicial authorities within the prescribed time for offenses or crimes punishable by afflictive
penalties. However, the prosecutor is already liable.
Elements of delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authority:

1. Offender is a public officer or employee 2. He has detained a person for some legal ground 3. He fails
to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within: a. 12 hours for crimes/offenses
punishable by light penalties or their equivalent; b. 18 hours for crimes/offenses punishable by
correctional penalties or their equivalent; c. 36 hours for crimes/offenses punishable by afflictive
penalties or their equivalent

12. PO1 Sakto saw Mr. X killing Mr. Y. PO1 Sakto arrested Mr. X and charge him for Murder. On the 35th
hour, the case was filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor. The prosecutor was not able to file the
Information in Court on the 42nd hour. Mr. X demanded that he be released from detention but PO1
Sakto refused. Is he criminally liable?
PO1 Sakto is liable for arbitrary detention.

13. PO1 Saktola received an Information that there was pot session inside the house of Mr. X. He
immediately went to the house. The house is closed including the windows. He kicked the door and
declare that he is a police officer. Mr. X and his companion was caught off guard having a pot session.
Is PO1 Saktola liable?
Assuming that PO1 Saktola is a public officer authorized to implement a search warrant or warrant of arrest
but at the time of incident, he is not armed with warrant, he has committed the offense of Violation to
domicile through the second mode: Searching papers or other effects found in the owner’s dwelling without
the previous consent of such owner.
However, if he is an officer not authorized to implement a search warrant or warrant of arrest, he is liable
for qualified trespass to dwelling.
Modes of committing violation to domicile:
First mode: Entering any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof Note: In the first mode, lack of
consent would not suffice as the law requires that the offender’s entry must be over the owner’s objection,
express or implied.
Second mode: Searching papers or other effects found therein without the previous consent of such owner
Note: In the second mode, mere lack of consent is sufficient.
Third mode: Refusing to leave the premises after having surreptitiously entered said dwelling and after
having been required to leave the same Note: In the third mode, what is punished is the refusal to leave,
the entry having been made surreptitiously.