Title III – CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER

Compiled by: Lea Donna M. Divina

ARTICLE DEVELOPMENTS AND OTHER NOTES

Article 134 – Lagman vs Medialdea, GR No. 231658, July 4, 2017:

Rebellion or One of the issues raised by petitioners is that the declaration of martial law has no
Insurrection sufficient factual basis because there is no rebellion or invasion in Marawi City or in any
part of Mindanao. It argues that acts of terrorism in Mindanao do not constitute rebellion.
Terrorism neither negates nor absorbs rebellion. There is nothing in Art. 134 of the
RPC and RA 9372 which states that rebellion and terrorism are mutually exclusive of each
other or that they cannot co-exist together. RA 9372 does not expressly or impliedly repeal
Art. 134 of the RPC. And while rebellion is one of the predicate crimes of terrorism, one
cannot absorb the other as they have different elements.

Note:
• This pronouncement is inconsistent with Section 49 of the Human Security Act of 2007,
which states that:

SEC. 49. Prosecution Under This Act Shall Be a Bar to Another Prosecution Under the
Revised Penal Code or Any Special Penal Laws. – When a person has been prosecuted
under a provision of this Act, upon a valid complaint or information or other formal
charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had
pleaded to the charge, the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a
bar to another prosecution for any offense or felony which is necessarily included in the
offense charged under this Act.

• But note further that the Human Security Act has been repealed by Republic Act
11479 or The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, which does not contain a similar
provision.

Republic Act No. 10951 – adjusted the amount of FINES imposed under the Revised Penal Code for the
following crimes:
Art. 136 Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d’etat
Art. 140 Penalty for sedition
Art. 141 Conspiracy to commit sedition
Art. 142 Inciting to sedition
Art. 143 Acts tending to prevent the meeting of Congress
Art. 144 Disturbance of proceedings of Congress
Art. 145 Violation of parliamentary immunity
Art. 146 Illegal assemblies
Art. 147 Illegal associations
Art. 148 Direct assaults
Art. 149 Indirect assaults
Art. 150 Disobedience to summons by Congress
Art. 151 Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority
Art. 153 Tumults and other disturbances of public order
Art. 154 Unlawful means of publication and unlawful utterances
Art. 155 Alarms and scandals

Article 138 – Republic Act No. 10175 – Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012
Inciting to (in relation to Articles 138 and 142)
Rebellion
Article 142 – “SEC. 6. All crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as
Inciting to amended, and special laws, if committed by, through and with the use of
Sedition information and communications technologies shall be covered by the relevant
provisions of this Act xxx”

Under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, one may now be prosecuted for committing the so-
called cyber incitement cases:

 A case for inciting to sedition (Article 142) was filed against Ronnel Mas, a public
school teacher, after he posted this on Twitter: “I will give a 50 million reward kung
sino makakapatay kay Duterte.” The case was, however, dismissed because the arrest
was illegal.

 Karen Aizha Hamidon, the widow of slain militant Mohammad Jaafar Maguid, faces
295 counts of inciting to rebellion (Article 138) in relation to Section 6 of RA 10175.
Her act of inciting others to commit rebellion was done by posting various
messages through social media applications (ie, WhatsApp and Telegram)
multiple times.