BOOK TWO Treason cannot be committed in time of peace (2nd)
CRIMES AND PENALTIES NOTES
TITLE ONE
CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE
LAW OF NATIONS
Crimes against national security
The crimes against national security are:
1. Treason. (Art. 114)
2. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason. (Art. 115)
3. Misprision of treason. (Art. 116)
4. Espionage. (Art. 117)
Crimes against the law of nations.
The crimes against the law of nations are:
1. Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals. (Art. 118)
2.Violation of neutrality. (Art. 119)
3.Correspondence with hostile country. (Art. 120)
4.Flight to enemy's country. (Art. 121)
5.Piracy in general and mutiny on the high sea s or in
Philippine waters. (Art. 122)
Article 114
TREASON
Elements of treason
1. That the offender is a Filipino citizen or an alien residing in
the Philippines;
2. That there is a war in which the Philippines is involved;
3. That the offender either —
a. levies war against the Government, or adheres to
the enemies, giving them aid or comfort.
Treason is a breach of allegiance to a government, committed
by a person who owes allegiance to it.
Treason, in its general sense, is the violation by a subject of
his allegiance to his sovereign or to the supreme authority of
the State.
Executive Order No. 44 – amended Article 114. Now, as
amended, the Revised Penal Code punishes a resident alien
who commits treason.
How to prove the offender is a Filipino Citizen? (1st)
1. Prison record
2. Testimony of witnesses who know him to have been
born in the Philippines of Filipino Parents (Review
Citizenship under 1987 Constitution)
The first element of treason is that the offender owes
allegiance to the Government of the Philippines. By the term
"allegiance" is meant the obligation of fidelity and obedience
which the individuals owe to the government under which
they live or to their sovereign, in return for the protection
they receive.
Allegiance as an element of treason seems to be either
permanent or temporary. Permanent allegiance consists in
the obligation of fidelity and obedience which a citizen or
subject owes to his government or sovereign. Temporary
allegiance is the obligation of fidelity and obedience which a
resident alien owes to our government.
Treason is a war crime. It is not an all-time offense. It cannot
be committed in peace time. While there is peace, there are no
traitors. Treason may be incubated when peace reigns.
Treasonable acts may actually be perpetrated during peace,
but there are no traitors until war has started.
As treason is basically a war crime, it is punished by the state
as a measure of self-defense and self-preservation. The law
of treason is an emergency measure. It remains dormant
until the emergency arises. But as soon as war starts, it is
relentlessly put into effect.
Two modes of committing treason (3rd)
1. By levying war against the Government.
2. By adhering to the enemies of the Philippines, giving them
aid or comfort.
(1.) Levying war requires the concurrence of two things: (1)
that there be an actual assembling of men, (2) for the
purpose of executing a treasonable design by force.
There must be an actual assembling of men: The actual
enlistment of men to serve against the government does not
amount to levying war, because there is no actual assembling
of men.
Case: US vs. De los Reyes - Upon searching the
house of the accused, the Constabulary officers
found a captain's commission under seal. It was
held that the mere acceptance of the commission
from the secretary of war of the Katipunan Society
by the accused, nothing else having been done, was
not an overt act of treason within the meaning of
the law
But if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of
effecting by force a treasonable design, all those who
perform any part, however minute, or however remote from
the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the
general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors.
In treason by levying war, it is not necessary that there be
a formal declaration of the existence of a state of war: to
justify the conclusion that those engaged in such attempt are
levying war and therefore guilty of treason. Actual hostilities
may determine the date of the commencement of war.
The war must be directed against the government: The
levying of war must be with the intent to overthrow the
government as such, not merely to resist a particular statute
or to repel a particular officer.
An organized attempt on the part of persons joined together
in a band to overthrow and destroy the established
government is a levying of war against the government and
constitutes treason.
It matters not how vain and futile the attempt was and how
impossible of accomplishment. It is not necessary that those
attempting to overthrow the government by force of arms
should have the apparent power to succeed in their design in
whole or in part. (U.S. vs. Lagnason)
Those who, during war, rise publicly to inflict an act of hate or
revenge upon the persons of public officers do not commit
treason by levying war because the public uprising is not
directed against the government.
Is it necessary that the purpose of levying war is to deliver
the country in whole or in part to the enemy?
Yes. Levying war as an act of treason must be for the purpose
of executing a treasonable design by force. Although in stating
the acts constituting treason, Art. 114 uses the phrases (1)
"levies war against" the Government of the Philippines or (2)
"adheres to" the enemies of the Philippines, "giving them aid
or comfort," it does not mean that adhering to the enemies is
required only in the second mode of committing treason.
Since levying war against the Government is also punished as
rebellion, there must be a difference between treason
committed by levying war and rebellion.
If the levying of war is merely a civil uprising, without any
intention of helping an external enemy, the crime is not
treason. The offenders may be held liable for rebellion under
Art. 135 in relation to Art. 134 of this Code.
(2.) Requirements of the second way or mode of
committing treason: In the second way or mode of
committing treason, (1) adherence and (2) giving aid or
comfort to the enemy must concur together. Adherence
alone, without giving aid or comfort to the enemy, is not
sufficient to constitute treason. And conversely, aid or comfort
alone, without adherence, is not treason.
Adherence defined: The phrase "adherence to the enemy"
means intent to betray. There is "adherence to the enemy"
when a citizen intellectually or emotionally favors the enemy
and harbors sympathies or convictions disloyal to his country's
policy or interest.
Aid or comfort defined: The phrase "aid or comfort" means
an act which strengthens or tends to strengthen the enemy
in the conduct of war against the traitor's country and an act
which weakens or tends to weaken the power of the traitor's
country to resist or to attack the enemy.
Adherence alone, without giving the enemy aid or
comfort, does not constitute treason: The fact that the
accused had friendly relations with the Japanese during the
war, openly revealing himself sympathetic to the cause of
the enemy and also believing in the invincibility of the
Japanese Armed Forces does not constitute in itself
treasonable act as denned by law. The crime of treason
consists of two elements: (1) adherence to the enemy; and
(2) rendering him aid and comfort.
Emotional or intellectual attachment or sympathy to the
enemy, without giving the enemy aid or comfort, is not
treason. (People vs Roble 83 Phil. 1)
Conversely, when there is no adherence to the enemy, the
act which may do aid or comfort to the enemy does not
amount to treason
The sale to the enemy of alum crystals and water pipes does
not per se constitute treason, because said articles or
materials are not exclusively for war purposes and their sale
does not necessarily carry an intention on the part of the
vendor to adhere to the enemy. (People vs. Agoncillo, 80 Phil
33) While the sale to the enemy of alum crystals and water
pipes may do aid or comfort to the enemy, if there is no
evidence of intent to betray, the person making the sale is
not guilty of treason.
Giving information to, or commandeering foodstuffs for,
the enemy is evidence of both adherence and aid or
comfort.
Extent of aid or comfort: It must be a deed or physical
activity, not merely a mental operation. It must be an act that
has passed from the realm of thought into the realm of action.
The expression includes such acts as furnishing the enemy
with arms, troops, supplies, information, or means of
transportation
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.
To make a simple distinction: To lend or give money to an
enemy as a friend or out of charity to the beneficiary so that
he may buy personal necessities is to assist him as an
individual and is not technically traitorous. On the other
hand, to lend or give him money to enable him to buy arms
or ammunition to use in waging war against the giver's
country enhances his strength and by the same count injures
the interest of the government of the giver. That is treason.
(People vs. Perez)
The act committed need not actually strengthen the
enemy: It is not essential that the effort to aid be successful,
provided overt acts are done which if successful would
advance the interest of the enemy.
It is said there is aid and comfort no matter how vain or
futile (useless) the attempt may be, as long as the act
committed tends to strengthen the enemy. It is not the
degree of success, but rather the aim for which the act was
perpetrated, that determines the commission of treason.
Commandeering of women to satisfy the lust of the
enemy is not treason: "Commandeering" of women to satisfy
the lust of Japanese officers or men or to enliven the
entertainments held in their honor was not treason even
though the women and the entertainments helped to make
life more pleasant for the enemies and boost their spirit; he
was not guilty any more than the women themselves would
have been if they voluntarily and willingly had surrendered
their bodies or organized the entertainments. The acts
herein charged were not, by fair implication, calculated to
strengthen the Japanese Empire or its army or to cripple the
defense and resistance of the other side. Whatever favorable
effect the defendant's collaboration with the Japanese might
have in their prosecution of the war was trivial,
imperceptible and unintentional. (People vs. Perez, supra)
Specific acts of aid or comfort constituting treason.
The following are specific acts of aid or comfort:
1. Serving as informer and active member of the Japanese
Military Police, arresting guerilla suspects in an attempt to
suppress the underground movement. (People vs. Fernando,
79 Phil. 719)
2. Serving in the Japanese Army as agent or spy and
participating in the raid of guerrilla hideout. (People vs.
Munoz, et al., 79 Phil. 702)
3. Acting as "finger woman" when a barrio was "zonified" by
the Japanese, pointing out to the Japanese several men
whom she accused as guerillas. (People vs. Nunez, 85 Phil.
448)
4. Taking active part in the mass killing of civilians by the
Japanese soldiers by personally tying the hands of the
victims. (People vs Canibas, 85 Phil. 469)

Being a Makapili constitutes an overt act of psychological
comfort: Being a Makapili is in itself constitutive of an overt
act. The crime of treason was committed if he placed himself
at the enemy's call to fight side by side with him when the
opportune time came even though an opportunity never
presented itself. Such membership by its very nature gave
the enemy aid and comfort. The enemy derived
psychological comfort in the knowledge that he had on his
side nationals of the country with which he was at war. It
furnished the enemy aid in that his cause was advanced, his
forces augmented, and his courage was enhanced by the
knowledge that he could count on men such as the accused
and his kind who were ready to strike at their own people.
The practical effect of it was no different from that of
enlisting in the invader's army. (People vs. Adriano, 78 Phil.
563; People vs. Villanueva, 92 Phil. 637)
The Makabayang Katipunan ng mga Pilipino (Patriotic
Association of Filipinos), better known as the Makapili, was a
militant group formed in the Philippines in 1944 during World
War II to give military aid to the Imperial Japanese Army
The mere acceptance of a public office and the discharge of
the functions and duties connected therewith, during the
Japanese military occupation in the Philippines, do not
constitute per se the felony of treason. But admitting that
such acts were really of aid and comfort to the enemy, they
can not be punishable in this particular case, because there is
no satisfactory proof of the adherence of the accused to the
cause of the enemy.
But when the positions to which the accused was appointed
were not only highly responsible positions but also policy-
determining, because they defied the norm of conduct that
all the offices and officials under the departments he headed
had to adopt and enforce, and helped in the propagation of
the creed of the invader, and the acts and utterances of the
accused while holding such position were an earnest
implement to such policy, the acceptance of public office and
discharge of official duties constitute treason.
Mere governmental work during the Japanese regime is
not an act of treason: It is now undisputed that mere
governmental work under the Japanese regime — and
pilotage service may be considered in the same light — does
not constitute per se indictable disloyalty
Appellant's membership in the Bureau of Constabulary under
the government of occupation is not treason. That institution
was intended for the promotion and preservation of law and
order which were essential, during war, to the life of the
civilian population.
Membership in the police force during occupation is not
treason; but active participation with the enemies in the
apprehension of guerrillas and infliction of ill-treatments
make such member liable for treason.
Guerilla warfare may be unlawful, but it should not be
suppressed: … while guerrilla warfare may be unlawful from
the standpoint of the conqueror, it cannot be so regarded by
those who, by natural right, are trying to drive him out of
their invaded territory
When the arrest of persons alleged to have been guerrillas
was caused by the accused due to their committing a
common crime, like arson, he is not liable for treason.
The aid or comfort given to the enemies must be after the
declaration of war. The enemies must be the subject of a
foreign power: The aid or comfort given to the enemies
must be after the declaration of war between the countries,
and the term "enemies" applies only to the subjects of a
foreign power in a state of hostility with the traitor's country.
It does not embrace rebels in insurrection against their own
country (63
C.J. 816), because they are still citizens and not enemies.
No treason thru negligence: The overt act of aid and
comfort to the enemy must be intentional, as distinguished
from merely negligent or undesigned ones.
Is there a complex crime of treason with murder, physical
injuries, etc.?
In the case of People vs. Prieto, 80 Phil. 138, where the
accused, besides being a Japanese spy, took part in the
execution of some of the guerrilla suspects and in the
infliction of physical injuries on the others, the Supreme
Court held that murder and physical injuries were inherent
in the crime of treason characterized by the giving of aid
and comfort to the enemy.
When killings and other common crimes are charged as
overt acts of treason, they cannot be regarded: (1) as
separate crimes, or (2) as complexed with treason.
In treason, the giving of aid and comfort can be
accomplished only by some kind of action — a deed or
physical activity. This deed or physical activity may be and
often is in itself a criminal offense under another penal
statute or provision.
Thus, where the accused rendered service to the Japanese
army as a secret agent, informer and spy and, in the
performance of such service, he participated in the Japanese
expeditions against guerrillas and committed mass murders,
arson and robberies (People vs. Villanueva, 104 Phil. 450),
and those deeds or physical activities (committing mass
murders, arson and robberies) were charged an element of
treason (giving the enemy aid or comfort), they become
identified with the crime of treason and cannot be the
subject of a separate punishment or used in conjunction
with treason to increase the penalty as provided in Art. 48.
When the raping mentioned in the information is therein
alleged not as a specific offense but as mere element of the
crime of treason and the illegal detention is another overt act
of treason, they are merged in the crime of treason.
But this rule would not preclude the punishment of murder or
other common crimes as such, if the prosecution should elect
to prosecute the culprit specifically for these crimes, instead
of relying on them as an element of treason.
-
Treason can be committed by a Filipino who is outside of the
Philippines, as Art. 114 says "in the Philippines or elsewhere."
An alien residing in the Philippines can be prosecuted for
treason. (Executive Order No. 44, May 31, 1945) Therefore,
an alien who is not residing in the Philippines cannot commit
treason
Treason is of such a nature that it may be committed by one
single act, by a series of acts, or by several series thereof, not
only in a single time, but in different times, it being a
continuous crime. All overt acts the accused has done
constitute but a single offense. Proof of one count is
sufficient for conviction.
“No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the
testimony of two witnesses at least to the same overt act
or on confession of the accused in open court. (Art. 114,
par. 2)”
Treason cannot be proved by circumstantial evidence or by the
extrajudicial confession of the accused. The Revised Penal
Code as well as the Rules of Court not authorize the
conviction of a person accused of treason if the evidence
against him is circumstantial, however strong or convincing
it may be, or is only an extrajudicial confession.
The two-witness rule
The testimony of two witnesses is required to prove the overt
act of giving aid or comfort. It is not necessary to prove
adherence. An overt act is defined as that physical activity,
that deed that constitutes the rendering of aid and comfort.
The two-witness rule must be adhered to as to each and
every one of all the external manifestations of the overt act
in issue. The treasonous overt act of doing guard duty in the
Japanese garrison on one specific date cannot be identified
with the doing of guard duty in the same garrison on a
different date. Both overt acts, although of the same nature
and character, are two distinct acts. Either one, to serve as a
ground for conviction, must be proved by two witnesses.
That one witness should testify as to one, and another as to
the other, was held not to be enough.
But it is not required that their testimony be identical, as long
as the testimony of both would certainly be to the same
overt act.
The defendant should be acquitted if only one of the two
witnesses is believed by the court. Should be corroborated
by another witness
It is sufficient that the witnesses are uniform in their
testimony on the overt act; it is not necessary that there be
corroboration between them on the point they testified.
The two-witness rule is not affected by discrepancies in
minor details of the testimony.
Reason for requiring the two witnesses to testify to the
same overt act: The special nature of the crime of treason
requires that the accused be afforded a special protection not
required in other cases so as to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
he extreme seriousness of the crime, for which death is one
of the penalties provided by law, and the fact that the crime
is committed on abnormal times, require that, at least, two
witnesses must testify as to overt acts of treason.
Adherence may be proved:
1. by one witness,
2. from the nature of the act itself, or
3. from the circumstances surrounding the act.
Adherence to the enemy may be inferred from his act of
arresting persons suspected of being guerrillas, his being
armed, and his being in company with armed Japanese
soldiers.
Reason why adherence to the enemy need not be proved
by two witnesses: It seems obvious that adherence to the
enemy, in the sense of a disloyal state of mind, cannot be,
and is not required to be, proved by deposition of two
witnesses, because what is designed in the mind of an
accused never is susceptible of proof by direct testimony.
Confession must be made in open court: The confession
means a confession of guilt. It is not only an admission of facts
made by the accused in giving his testimony after a plea of
not guilty, from which admissions of his guilt can be inferred.
Thus, if the accused testified in his behalf after he had
pleaded not guilty that he had been carried off by force by
the insurgent soldiers; that he was forced to join them; that
they made him a lieutenant and gave him a revolver; and
that he stayed with them two weeks, although it was against
his will; there was only an admission, but not a confession of
guilt. It means pleading guilty in open court; that is, before
the judge while actually hearing the case.
Aggravating Circumstances in treason: Cruelty (e.g.
barbaric torture) and ignominy (abusing wife in front of
husband guerilla). Evident premeditation is not aggravating
in treason, because in treason, adherence and the giving of
aid and comfort to the enemy is usually a long continued
process requiring reflective and persistent determination
and planning. Superior strength and treachery are
circumstances inherent in treason. Treachery is merged in
superior strength. They are, therefore, not aggravating in
treason.
The penalty for treason committed by Philippine citizens is
reclusion perpetua to death and a fine not to exceed
P100,000. In determining the proper penalty for treason, the
amount or degree of aid or comfort given the enemy as well
as the gravity of the separate and distinct acts of treason
committed by the accused, rather than the circumstances
aggravating or mitigating the offense, determine the period
of the penalty to be imposed. (Art. 64 is not applicable)
Defense of suspended allegiance and change of
sovereignty, not accepted.
Reasons:
(a) A citizen owes an absolute and permanent allegiance to
his Government;
(b) The sovereignty of the Government is not transferred to
the enemy by mere occupation;
(c) The subsistence of the sovereignty of the legitimate
Government in a territory occupied by the military forces of
the enemy during the war is one of the rules of International
Law; and
(d) What is suspended is the exercise of the rights of
sovereignty.
In addition to the defense of duress, lawful obedience to a de
facto Government is a good defense in treason
Defense of duress or uncontrollable fear: In the eyes of the
law, nothing will excuse that act of joining an enemy, but the
fear of immediate death; not the fear of any inferior
personal injury, nor the apprehension of any outrage upon
property.
People vs. Manayao (Defense of loss of citizenship by
joining the army of the enemy)
Facts: The accused, being a Makapili, considered himself a
member of the Japanese armed forces. He contended that he
thereby lost his Filipino citizenship under paragraphs 3, 4 and
6 of Sec. 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 63 providing: "... a
Filipino may lose his citizenship x x x by accepting
commission in the military, naval or air service of a foreign
country x x x.
Held: The accused cannot divest himself of his Philippine
citizenship by the simple expedient of accepting a commission
in the military, naval or air service of such country. If the
contention of the accused would be sustained, his very crime
would be the shield that would protect him from punishment.
Art. 115
CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT
TREASON
How are the crimes of conspiracy and proposal to commit
treason committed?
Conspiracy to commit treason is committed when in time of
war, two or more persons come to an agreement to levy war
against the Government or to adhere to the enemies and to
give them aid or comfort, and decide to commit it. (Arts. 8
and 114)
Proposal to commit treason is committed when in time 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.
Although the general rule is that conspiracy and proposal to
commit a felony is not punishable (Art. 8), under Art. 115 the
mere conspiracy to commit treason is a felony. The mere
proposal to commit treason is also a felony. Both are
punishable under Art. 115
The reason is that in treason the very existence of the state
is endangered.
The two-witness rule does not apply to this crime, because
this is a separate and distinct offense from that of treason.
Art. 116
MISPRISION OF TREASON
Elements:
1. That the offender must be owing allegiance to the
Government, and not a foreigner.
2. That he has knowledge of any conspiracy (to commit
treason) against the Government.
3. 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.
Misprision of treason cannot be committed by a resident
alien: The offender must be owing allegiance to the
Government, without being a foreigner.
The phrase "having knowledge of any conspiracy against
them" has reference to conspiracy to commit treason defined
in Art. 115
Art. 116 does not apply when the crime of treason is already
committed by someone and the accused does not report its
commission to the proper authority. 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.
The offender under Art. 116 is "punished as an accessory to
the crime of treason." Note that Art. 116 does not provide for
a penalty. Hence, the penalty for misprision of treason is two
decrees lower than that provided for treason. But the offender
in Art. 116 is a principal in the crime of misprision of treason.
Misprision of treason is a separate and distinct offense from
the crime of treason.
Since the offender in misprision of treason is a principal in
that crime, Art. 20 does not apply, even if the offender is
related to the persons in conspiracy against the government,
because Art. 20 applies only to accessory.
The provision of Art. 116 is an exception (the rule that mere
silence does not make a person criminally liable) to the
general rule laid down in connection with Art. 19 that a
person who keeps silent as to what he knows about the
perpetration of an offense is not criminally liable, either as a
principal, or as an accomplice, or as an accessory.
Art. 117
ESPIONAGE
Espionage is the offense of gathering, transmitting, or
losing information respecting the national defense with
intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used
to the injury of the Republic of the Philippines or to the
advantage of any foreign nation.
Two ways of committing espionage under Art. 117
1. By entering, without authority therefor, a warship, fort, or
naval or military establishment or reservation to obtain any
information plans, photographs or other data of a
confidential nature relative to the defense of the Philippines.
Elements
(a) That the offender enters any of the places
mentioned therein;
(b) That he has no authority therefor;
(c) That his purpose is to obtain information, plans,
photographs or other data of a confidential nature
relative to the defense of the Philippines.
2. By disclosing to the representative of a foreign nation the
contents of the articles, data or information referred to in
paragraph No. 1 of Art. 117, which he had in his possession by
reason of the public office he 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 paragraph No. 1 of
Art. 117, by reason of the public office he holds;
(c)That he discloses their contents to a
representative of a foreign nation.
To be liable under par. 1, the offender must have the
intention to obtain information relative to the national
defense of the Philippines. If the accused has no such
intention, even if he takes possession of plans or
photographs referred to in paragraph No. 1 of Art. 117, he is
not liable under that provision.
Further, under the first way of committing espionage, it is
not necessary that the offender should have obtained any
information, plans, etc. mentioned in paragraph No. 1 of Art.
117. It is sufficient that he has the purpose to obtain any of
them when he entered a warship, fort, or naval or military materials of the
establishment.

Under paragraph No. 1 of Art. 117, the offender is any

person, whether a citizen or a foreigner, a private individual
or a public officer. When the offender is a public officer or
employee, the penalty next higher in degree shall be
imposed.

Under paragraph No. 2, the offender must be a public officer

who has in his possession the article, data, or information by
reason of the public office he holds.

Other acts of espionage are punished by Com. Act No. 616

(An act to punish espionage and other offenses against
national security)
---
SEC. 1. Unlawfully obtaining or permitting to be obtained
information affecting national defense.

a. By going upon, entering, flying over or otherwise by obtaining

information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense or
other place connected with the national defense, or any other place
where any vessels, aircraft, arms, munitions or other materials for
the use in time of war are being made, or stored, for the purpose of
obtaining information respecting national defense, with intent to
use it to the injury of the Philippines or to the advantage of any
foreign nation.

b. By copying, taking, making or attempting or inducing or aiding

another to copy, take, make or obtain any sketch, photograph,
photographic negative, blue print, plan, map instrument, appliance,
document, writing or note of anything connected with the national
defense, for the same purpose and with like intent as in paragraph
a.

c. By receiving or obtaining or agreeing or attempting or inducing or

aiding another to receive or obtain from any sources any of those data
mentioned in paragraph b, code book or signal book, knowing that
it will be obtained or disposed of by any person contrary to the
provisions of this Act.

d. By communicating or transmitting, or attempting to

communicate or transmit to any person not entitled to receive it, by
willfully retaining and failing to deliver it on demand to any officer
or employee entitled to receive it, the offender being in possession
of, having access to, control over, or being entrusted with any of
the data mentioned in paragraph b, or code book or signal book.

e. By permitting, through gross negligence, to be removed from its

proper place or custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his
trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted or destroyed any of the data
mentioned in paragraph b, code book or signal book, the offender
being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of the
same.

Sec. 2. Unlawful disclosing of information affecting

national defense.

a. By communicating, delivering or transmitting or attempting or

aiding or inducing another to do it, to any foreign government or
any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign
country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the Philippines, or
to any representative, officer, employee, subject or citizen thereof,
any of the data mentioned in paragraph b of Section 1 hereof, code
book or signal book.

If committed in time of war, the penalty is death or imprisonment

for not more than 30 years.

b. In time of war, by collecting, recording, publishing or

communicating or attempting to elicit any information with
respect to the movement, number, description, condition, or
disposition of any of the armed forces, ships, aircraft, or war
Philippines, or with respect to the plans or conduct of any military,
naval or air operations or with respect to any works or measures
undertaken for the fortification or defense of any place, or any
other information relating to the public defense, which might be
useful to the enemy.
The penalty is death or imprisonment for not more than 30 years.

SEC. 3. Disloyal acts or words in time of peace.

a. By advising, counselling, urging or in any other manner by

causing insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny or refusal of duty of
any member of the military, naval or air forces of the Philippines.

b. By distributing any written or printed matter which advises,

counsels, or urges such insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or
refusal of duty.

SEC. 4. Disloyal acts or words in time of war.

a. By willfully making or conveying false reports or false statements

with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines; or

b. To promote the success of its enemies, by willfully causing or

attempting to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny or refusal
of duty in the Armed Forces of the Philippines; or

c. By willfully obstructing the recruiting or enlistment service.

SEC. 5. Conspiracy to violate preceding sections.

Requisites:
a. Two or more persons conspire to violate the provisions of
sections one, two, three or four of this Act;

b. One or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of

the conspiracy.

Each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as in said

sections provided in the case of the doing of the act the
accomplishment of which is the object of such conspiracy.

SEC. 6. Harboring or concealing violators of the law.

Requisites:
a. The offender knows that a person has committed or is about to
commit an offense under this Act;
b. The offender harbors or conceals such person, x x x.

Other acts punished by Commonwealth Act No. 616

1. Using or permitting or procuring the use of an aircraft for the
purpose of making photograph, sketch, etc. of vital installations or
equipment of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. (Sec. 9)

2. Reproducing, publishing, selling, etc. uncensored copies of

photograph, sketch, etc. of the vital military, naval or air post,
camp or station, without permission of the commanding officer.
(Sec. 10)

3. Injuring or destroying or attempting to injure or destroy war

materials, premises or war utilities when the Philippines is at war.
(Sec. 11)

4. Making or causing war materials to be made in a

defective manner when the Philippines is at war. (Sec. 12)

5. Injuring or destroying national defense material, premises

or utilities. (Sec. 13)

6. Making or causing to be made in a defective manner, or

attempting to make or cause to be made in a defective manner,
national defense material. (Sec. 14)

Espionage distinguished from treason

Espionage is a crime not conditioned by the citizenship of the
offender. (Santos vs. Misa, 76 Phil. 415) This is also true as
regards treason, in view of the amendment to Art. 114
But treason is committed only in time of war, while
espionage may be committed both in time of peace and in
time of war. Treason is limited in two ways of committing the
crime: levying war, and adhering to the enemy giving him aid
or comfort; while espionage may be committed in many ways.
(Com. Act No. 616)
Section Two. — Provoking war and disloyalty in case of war
What are the crimes classified as provoking war and
disloyalty in case of war?
They are:
1. Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals.
2. Violation of neutrality.
3. Correspondence with hostile country.
4. Flight to enemy's country.
Art. 118
INCITING TO WAR OR GIVING MOTIVE FOR REPRISALS
Elements:
1. That the offender performs unlawful or unauthorized acts.
2. 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.
Examples:
- The raising, without sufficient authorization, of
troops within the Philippines for the service of a
foreign nation against another nation
- The public destruction of the flag or seal of a foreign
state or the public manifestations of hostility to the
head or ambassador of another state.
The intention of the offender is immaterial: Viada says that
to be liable for inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals,
the intention of the accused is immaterial.
If the unlawful or unauthorized acts of the accused provoke
or give occasion for a war or expose Filipino citizens to
reprisals, the crime is committed regardless of his intentions.
The law considers the effects produced by the acts of the
accused.
Such acts might disturb the friendly relation that we have
with a foreign country, and they are penalized even if they
constitute a mere imprudence.
Further, the crime of inciting to war or giving motives for
reprisals is committed in time of peace.
If the offender is a private individual, the penalty is prision
mayor. If the offender is a public officer or employee, the
penalty is reclusion temporal.
Art. 119
VIOLATION OF NEUTRALITY
Elements:
1. That there is a war in which the Philippines is not involved;
2. That there is a regulation issued by competent authority
for the purpose of enforcing neutrality;
3. That the offender violates such regulation.
A nation or power which takes no part in a contest of arms
going on between others is referred to as neutral.
There must be regulation issued by competent authority
for the enforcement of neutrality
Art. 120
CORRESPONDENCE WITH HOSTILE COUNTRY
Elements:
1. That it is in time of war in which the Philippines
is involved;
2. That the offender makes correspondence with an enemy
country or territory occupied by enemy troops;
3. That the correspondence is either —
(a) prohibited by the Government, or
(b) carried on in ciphers or conventional signs, or
(c) containing notice or information which might be
useful to the enemy.
Correspondence is communication by means of letters; or it
may refer to the letters which pass between those who
have friendly or business relations.
Even if correspondence contains innocent matters, if the
correspondence has been prohibited by the Government,
it is punishable because of the possibility that some
information useful to the enemy might be revealed
unwittingly.
The phrases "if such correspondence" or "if notice or
information be given thereby" in paragraphs 2 and 3,
respectively, do not require that there should be
prohibition by the Government to make the
correspondence. The word "such" in paragraph 2 makes
reference to the correspondence mentioned in the opening
sentence of Art. 120.
Circumstances qualifying the offense
The following must concur together:
a. That the notice or information might be useful to the
enemy.
b. That the offender intended to aid the enemy.
Note: If the offender intended to aid the enemy by giving
such notice or information, the crime amounts to treason;
hence, the penalty is the same as that for treason.
Art. 121
FLIGHT TO ENEMY’S COUNTRY
Elements:
1. That there is a war in which the Philippines is involved;
2. That the offender must be owing allegiance to the
Government;
3. That the offender attempts to flee or go to enemy country;
4. That going to enemy country is prohibited by competent
authority.
An alien resident in the country can be held liable under this
article. The law does not say "not being a foreigner." Hence,
the allegiance contemplated in this article is either natural or
temporary allegiance.
It should be noted that mere attempt to flee or go to enemy
country when prohibited by competent authority
consummates the felony.
Art. 121 must be implemented by the Government. If
fleeing or going to an enemy country is not prohibited by
competent authority, the crime defined in Art. 121 can not
be committed.
Section Three. — Piracy and mutiny on the high seas
in Philippine waters
Art. 122
PIRACY IN GENERAL AND MUTINY ON THE HIGH
SEAS OR IN PHILIPPINE WATERS
Two ways or modes of committing piracy:
1. By attacking or seizing a vessel on the high seas or in
Philippine waters;
2. By seizing in the vessel while on the high seas or in
Philippine waters the whole or part of its cargo, its equipment
or personal belongings of its complement or passengers.
Elements of piracy:
1. That a vessel is on the high seas or in Philippine waters;
2. That the offenders are not members of its complement
or passengers of the vessel;
3. That the offenders (a) attack or seize that vessel, or (b)
seize the whole or part of the cargo of said vessel, its
equipment or personal belongings of its complement or
passengers.
Meaning of "high seas."
It does not mean that the crime be committed beyond the
three-mile limit of any state. It means any waters on the sea
coast which are without the boundaries of low-water mark,
although such waters may be in the jurisdictional limits of a
foreign government.
The Convention on the Law of the Sea defines "high seas" as
parts of the seas that are not included in the exclusive
economic zone, in the territorial seas, or in the internal waters
of a state, or in the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic
state.
Piracy - robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas,
without lawful authority and done with animo furandi
(intention to steal) and in the spirit and intention of universal
hostility. (Lol-lo Case)
Seizure of a Vessel
People vs. Catantan
(G.R. No. 118075, September 5, 1997)
Facts: Accused-appellant argues that in order that piracy
may be committed it is essential that there be an attack
on or
seizure of a vessel. He claims that he and his companion did
not attack or seize the fishing boat of the Pilapil brothers by
using force or intimidation but merely boarded the boat, and
it was only when they were already on board that they used
force to compel the Pilapils to take them to some other
place. Appellant also insists that he and Ursal had no
intention of permanently taking possession or depriving
complainants of their boat. As a matter of fact, when they
saw another pumpboat they ordered the complainants to
approach that boat so they could leave the complainants
behind in their boat. Accordingly, appellant claims, he
simply committed grave coercion and not piracy.
Held: We do not agree. Under the definition of piracy in PD
No. 532 as well as grave coercion as penalized in Art. 286 of
the Revised Penal Code, this case falls squarely within the
purview of piracy. While it may be true that complainants
were compelled to go elsewhere other than their place of
destination, such compulsion was obviously part of the act
of seizing their boat.
Mutiny is punished in Art. 122: The last paragraph of this
article provides that the same penalty provided for piracy
shall be inflicted in the case of mutiny on the high seas or in
Philippine waters.
Mutiny is usually committed by the other members of the
complement and may be committed by the passengers of
the vessel.
Mutiny - It 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.
Piracy distinguished from mutiny: In piracy, the persons
who attack a vessel or seize its cargo are strangers to said
vessels; while in mutiny, they are members of the crew or
passengers.
While the intent to gain is essential in the crime of piracy, in
mutiny, the offenders may only intend to ignore the ship's
officers or they may be prompted by a desire to commit
plunder.
When is piracy and mutiny considered as Terrorism?
Under Republic Act No. 9372, otherwise known as the
Human Security Act of 2007, approved on March 6, 2007, a
person who commits an act punishable as piracy and
mutiny under Art. 122 thereby sowing and creating a
condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic
among the populace, in order to coerce the government to
give in to an unlawful demand shall be guilty of the crime of
terrorism, and shall suffer the penalty of forty (40) years of
imprisonment, without the benefit of parole.
Art. 123
QUALIFIED PIRACY
"Upon those who commit any of the crimes referred to in
the preceding article."
The word "crimes" in the quoted phrase in the opening
sentence of Art. 123, refers to piracy and mutiny on the high
seas. Piracy or mutiny is, therefore, qualified if any of the
following circumstances is present:
(a) Whenever the offenders have seized the 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.
Paragraph 2 of Art. 123 specifically mentions "pirates"
thereby excluding mutineers from said paragraph. It would
seem, however, that it should be in paragraph 1 where the
word "pirates" should be specifically mentioned and not in
paragraph 2, because in paragraph 1, the mutineers, being
already in the vessel, cannot seize the vessel by boarding or
firing upon the same.
Thus, it is qualified piracy when the crime was accompanied
by rape and the offenders abandoned their victims without
means of saving themselves.
It is qualified piracy when the crime was accompanied by
rape and the offenders abandoned their victims without
means of saving themselves
A boat, in which there were eleven men, women and
children, arrived between the islands of Buang and Bukid in
the Dutch East Indies. There the boat was surrounded by six
vintas manned by twenty-four Moros all armed. The Moros
first asked for food, but once on the boat, took for
themselves all of the cargo, attacked some of the men, and
brutally violated two of the women by methods too horrible
to be described.
All of the persons on the boat, with the exception of the two
young women, were again placed on it and holes were made
on it, with the idea that it would submerge, but after eleven
days of hardship and privation they were succored. Two of
the Moro marauders were Lol-lo and Saaraw who later
returned to their home in Sulu, Philippines. There they were
arrested and were charged in the Court of First Instance of
Sulu with the crime of piracy.
Held: It cannot be contended with any degree of force that
the Court of First Instance of Sulu was without jurisdiction
on the case. Piracy is a crime not against any particular
state but against all mankind. It may be punished in the
competent tribunal of any country where the offender may be
found or into which he may be carried. Nor does it matter
that the crime was committed within the jurisdictional 3-
mile limit of a foreign state. The crime of piracy was
accompanied by (1) rape, and (2) the abandonment of
persons without means of saving themselves.
Lol-lo who raped one of the women was sentenced to death,
there being the aggravating circumstance of cruelty, abuse
of superior strength, and ignominy, without any mitigating
circumstance.
Before Art. 122 was amended by R.A. No. 7659, only
piracy and mutiny on high seas was covered by the RPC.
The commission of the acts described in Arts. 122 and/or
123 in Philippine waters was punished as piracy under P.D.
No. 532.
Under P.D. No. 532, 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, shall be considered as piracy. The offenders shall be
considered as pirates and punished by the penalty of reclusion
temporal in its medium and maximum periods.
If physical injuries or other crimes are committed as a result or
on the occasion thereof, the penalty of reclusion perpetua
shall be imposed. If rape, murder, or homicide is committed
as a result or on the occasion of piracy or when the offender
abandoned the victims without means of saving themselves,
or when the seizure is accomplished by firing upon or
boarding a vessel, the mandatory penalty of death shall be
imposed.
Note: Republic Act 9346 prohibited the imposition of the
death penalty. Thus, instead of the mandatory penalty of
death under PD 532, reclusion perpetua without eligibility
for parole shall be imposed.
P.D. 532 covers any person while Art. 122 as amended covers
only persons who are not passengers or members of its
complement.
To summarize, Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code, before
its amendment, provided that piracy must be committed on
the high seas by any person not a member of its
complement nor a passenger thereof.
Upon its amendment by Republic Act No. 7659, the
coverage of the pertinent provision was widened to include
offenses committed "in Philippine waters.”
On the other hand, under Presidential Decree No. 532 (issued
in 1974), the coverage of the law on piracy embraces any
person including "a passenger or member of the complement
of said vessel in Philippine waters." Hence, passenger or not,
a member of the complement or not, any person is covered
by the law.
Republic Act No. 7659 neither superseded nor amended the
provisions on piracy under Presidential Decree No. 532.
There is no contradiction between the two laws. There is
likewise no ambiguity and hence, there is no need to
construe or interpret the law. All the presidential decree did
was to widen the coverage of the law, in keeping with the
intent to protect the citizenry as well as neighboring states
from crimes against the law of nations. As expressed in one
of the "whereas" clauses of Presidential Decree No. 532,
piracy is "among the highest forms of lawlessness
condemned by the penal statutes of all countries." For this
reason, piracy under the Article 122, as amended, and piracy
under Presidential Decree No. 532 exist harmoniously as
separate laws. (People vs. Tulin, G.R. No. 111709, August 30,
2001)
Piracy under PD 532, when considered as Terrorism: Under
Republic Act No. 9372, otherwise known as the Human
Security Act of 2007, approved on March 6, 2007, a person
who commits an act punishable under Presidential Decree
No. 532 (Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of
1974), thereby sowing and creating a condition of
widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the
populace, in order to coerce the government to give in to an
unlawful demand shall be guilty of the crime of terrorism.
(Sec. 3)
Qualified piracy is a special complex crime punishable by
reclusion perpetua to death, regardless of the number of
victims: The number of persons killed on the occasion of
piracy is not material. P.D. No. 532 considers qualified
piracy,
i.e., rape, murder, or homicide is committed as a result or on
the occasion of piracy, as a special complex crime punishable
by death, regardless of the number of victims. (People vs.
Siyoh, 141 SCRA 356)
Note: Qualified piracy is now punishable by reclusion perpetua
to death.
Philippine waters and vessel, defined.
Philippine Waters. — It shall refer to all bodies of water, such
as but not limited to, seas, gulfs, bays around, between and
connecting each of the Islands of the Philippine Archipelago,
irrespective of its depth, breadth, length or dimension, and
all other waters belonging to the Philippines by historic or
legal title, including territorial sea, the sea-bed, the insular
shelves, and other submarine areas over which the
Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction.
Vessel. — Any vessel or watercraft used for transport of
passengers and cargo from one place to another through
Philippine waters. It shall include all kinds and types of
vessels or boats used in fishing.
Any person who knowingly and in any manner aids or
protects pirates, such as giving them information about the
movement of 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
any person who directly or indirectly abets the commission
of piracy, shall be considered as an accomplice of the
principal offenders and be punished in accordance with the
Rules prescribed by the Revised Penal Code.
It shall be presumed that any person who does any of these
acts has performed them knowingly, unless the contrary is
proven.
Acts inimical to civil aviation is punished by Republic Act
No 6235:
EXCERPTS FROM REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6235
An Act Prohibiting Certain Acts Inimical to Civil Aviation
SECTION 1. It shall be unlawful for any person to compel a
change in the course or destination of an aircraft of
Philippine registry, or to seize or usurp the control thereof,
while it is in flight. An aircraft is in flight from the moment all
its external doors are closed following embarkation until any
of such doors is opened for disembarkation.
It shall likewise be unlawful for any person to compel an
aircraft of foreign registry to land in Philippine territory or to
seize or usurp the control thereof while it is within the said
territory.
SEC. 2. Any person violating any provision of the foregoing
section shall be punished by an imprisonment of not less
than twelve years but not more than twenty years, or by a
fine of not less than twenty thousand pesos but not more
than forty thousand pesos.
The penalty of imprisonment of fifteen years to death, or a
fine not less than twenty-five thousand pesos but not more
than fifty thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person
committing such violation under any of the following
circumstances:
1. Whenever he has fired upon the pilot, member of the crew
or passenger of the aircraft;
2. Whenever he has exploded or attempted to explode any
bomb or explosive to destroy the aircraft; or
3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide,
serious physical injuries or rape.
SEC. 3. It shall be unlawful for any person, natural or juridical,
to ship, load or carry in any passenger aircraft operating as a
public utility within the Philippines, any explosive,
flammable, corrosive or poisonous substance or material.
SEC. 4. The shipping, loading or carrying of any substance or
material mentioned in the preceding section in any cargo
aircraft operating as a public utility within the Philippines
shall be in accordance with regulations issued by the Civil
Aeronautics Administration.
SEC. 5. (Meaning of "explosive," "flammable," "corrosive"
and "poisonous")
SEC. 6. Any violation of Section three hereof shall be
punishable by an imprisonment of at least five years but not
more than ten years or by a fine of not less than ten thousand
pesos but not more than twenty thousand pesos: Provided,
That if the violation is committed by a juridical person, the
penalty shall be imposed upon the manager, representative,
director, agent or employee who violated, or caused,
directed, cooperated or participated in the violation thereof:
Provided, further, That in case the violation is committed in
the interest of a foreign corporation legally doing business in
the Philippines, the penalty shall be imposed upon its
resident agent, manager, representative or director
responsible for such violation and in addition thereto, the
license of said corporation to do business in the
Philippines shall be revoked.
Any violation of Section four hereof shall be an offense
punishable with the minimum of the penalty provided in the
next preceding paragraph.
SEC. 7. For any death or injury to persons or damage to
property resulting from a violation of Sections three and four
hereof, the person responsible therefor may be held liable in
accordance with the applicable provisions of the Revised
Penal Code.
The act of the accused in People vs. Ang Cho Kio, 95 Phil.
475, who compelled the pilot to change the course of the
airplane from Laoag to Amoy instead of directing it to Aparri
and, in not complying with such illegal requirement, the
accused discharged various revolver shots, killing him, could
have been punished under Section 2 of Republic Act No.
6235, had this law been already in effect.