2017 Notes of Judge Rowena Apao-Adlawan in Titles 1 To 2 of The Revised Penal Code

2017 NOTES OF JUDGE ROWENA APAO-ADLAWAN IN CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II
TITLE I. CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS
Crimes against national security
1. Treason (Art. 114);
2. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason (Art. 115);
3. Misprision of treason (Art. 116); and
4. Espionage (Art. 117).
5. Terrorism & Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism – RA 9372
Crimes against the law of nations
1. Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals (Art. 118);
2. Violation of neutrality (Art. 119);
3. Corresponding with hostile country (Art. 120);
4. Flight to enemy's country (Art. 121); and
5. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas (Art. 122).
The crimes under national security have extra-territorial application. Even if the criminal act or acts are
committed outside the Philippine territorial jurisdiction, the offenders can be charged and prosecuted
before the Philippine Courts.
Note: The prosecution can proceed only if the offender is within the Philippine territory or brought to the
Philippines pursuant to an extradition treaty.
In the case of crimes against the law of nations, the offender can be prosecuted whenever he may be
found because the crimes are regarded as committed against humanity in general. These crimes are
considered crimes against humanity or crimes against mankind.
Almost all of these are crimes committed in times of war, except the following, which can be committed
in times of peace:
(1) Espionage
(2) Inciting to War or Giving Motives for Reprisals under Article 118
(3) Violation of Neutrality, under Article 119
Article 114. Treason. Treason. — Any person who, owing allegiance to (the United States or) the
Government of the Philippine Islands, not being a foreigner, levies war against them or adheres to
their enemies, giving them aid or comfort within the Philippine Islands or elsewhere, shall be punished
by reclusion temporal to death and shall pay a fine not to exceed Four million pesos (₱4,000,000)
pesos.
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.
1 2017 NOTES OF JUDGE ROWENA APAO-ADLAWAN IN CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II

Likewise, an alien, residing in the Philippine Islands, who commits acts of treason as defined in
paragraph 1 of this Article shall be punished by prision mayor to death and shall pay a fine not to
exceed Four Million pesos. (As amended by Republic Act 10951).
Elements of treason:
1. The offender owes allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;

2. The Philippines is at war with another country;
3. The offender does any of the following overt acts:

a. levies war against the duly constituted authorities or against the forces of Government; or
b. adheres to the enemy country, giving said enemy country aid or comfort.
When one lives in the Philippines, either as a citizen or as a resident alien, said individual is
presumed to owe allegiance to the Philippine Government. The individual is under obligation to remain
faithful and loyal to the Government of the Philippines.
Originally, treason is committed only by a Filipino citizen which is apparent under the first
paragraph of Article 114. The original concept is to the effect that only Filipino citizens owe their country
allegiance. But in the course of time, history has taught mankind and in particular the Filipinos that such
theory is impractical and has no pragmatic value. And so on May 31, 1945, Executive Order No, 14 was
promulgated introducing an amendment to Article 114, declaring that resident aliens shall henceforth be
liable for the crime of treason.
Because of the amendment, allegiance has earned a secondary meaning. It used to be that there is
only permanent allegiance. Now allegiance can be temporary. And while permanent allegiance is de-
manded of a Filipino citizen, such is not required of an alien who is legally expected to owe permanent
allegiance to his mother country. But for staying or residing in the Philippines, he should owe temporary
allegiance to the Philippine Government in exchange for the protection extended to him.
By its very nature, treason cannot be committed in time of peace. It is not an all time offense. It is
seasonal as it can be committed only during war time wherein the Philippines must necessarily be
involved. As treason is basically a war crime, it is made punishable by the State as a measure of self-
defense and self-preservation.
SC: In Laurel vs. Misa, 77 Phil. 865, “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. While in a
state of hibernation during peacetime, it asserts its authority as a self-preserving measure when actual
hostilities begin.”
Why is treason punishable? --- It is made punishable by the State as a measure of self-defense and self-
preservation.
There are two ways of committing treason.
a) The first is by levying war against the Government.
b) The second is by adhering to the enemies of the Philippines, giving them aid or comfort.
The First Mode of committing the crime:
The term "levies war" means overt acts which translate into action the emotional or intellectual sympathies
of the offender towards the enemy country. It is manifested by the actual assemblying of men who will
engage the forces of Government. The war effort of the offenders must be to overthrow the Government.
It matters not how vain and futile the attempt may be. Success is not important. What matters is the actual
assembly of men and the execution of treasonable design by force.

In the end, the purpose of levying war is to deliver the country in whole or in part to a foreign country.
The Second Mode of committing the crime:
By adherence and giving aid or comfort to the enemy. The two must go together. This is the most common.
If first type is committed by multitude, the 2nd type can be committed by an individual.
Adherence must be understood to mean "intent to betray." It is a preparatory act and is not therefore
punishable by itself. When this adherence or sympathies are converted into aid and comfort, only then do
they take material form. This material form is now what is made punishable.
NOTE: Adherence alone without giving aid or comfort is not treason. Both adherence and giving
aid or comfort must go hand in hand.
Q: Is treason a continuing offense?

A: Because of its nature, treason is a continuing offense. It can be committed by a single act or by a series
of acts. It can be committed in one single time or at different times and only one crime is committed
because the offender has only one criminal intent.
Two ways of proving treason
1. Testimony of at least two witnesses to the same overt act; or
2. Confession of accused in open court.
Q: What is the Severely Restrictive Rule?

A: This is the other name for the Two-Witness Rule. It provides that to attain conviction in Treason,
two witnesses must identify on the act of treason committed by the accused and if the act is
separable, two witnesses must testify on each separate act (PP vs Adriano, June 1947)
Principle: 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.
Q: Why so restrictive?
A: The law theoretically assumes that treason is committed during abnormal times and in order to avoid a
miscarriage of justice, the two-witness rule was adopted. The purpose is to prevent mortal enemies from
resorting to unscrupulous means to get even with enemies taking advantage of an extremely abnormal
time (People vs. Escleto, 84 Phil. 121).
Q: Suppose 1 witness testified that Kaloy committed this act on November 9, 2 nd witness testified that
Kaloy committed another act in November 10. Will Kaloy be convicted of treason?
A: NO. Because although there are 2 witnesses but each one testify to 2 different acts, not on the same act
of treason. What happens here? – the 2-witness rule is not present – the accused must be acquitted.
The two-witness rule must be observed for each and every external act performed by the offender.
Q: Can treason be complexed with common crimes? Example: Can there be Treason with Homicide or
Treason with Arson?
A: Treason cannot be complexed with common crimes. Treason is an umbrella crime or a component
crime under which common crimes committed on the occasion or in furtherance thereof are deemed
absorbed.
By its very nature, treason can only be committed as a felony by means of dolo. It is inherently an
intentional crime and must be committed with malice and with deliberate intent. It cannot be committed
by means of culpa or through reckless imprudence or simple negligence.
Treason distinguished from Rebellion.
The manner in which both crimes are committed is the same. There is levying of war against the forces of
government. In treason however, the purpose of the offender is to deliver the government to the enemy
country or to a foreign power. In rebellion, the purpose of the rebels is to substitute the government with
their own form of government. No foreign power is involved.
Treason distinguished from Sedition.
In treason, the offender repudiates his allegiance to the government by means of force or intimidation. He
does not recognize the supreme authority of the State. He violates his allegiance by fighting the forces of
the duly constituted authorities.
In sedition, the offender disagrees with certain policies of the State and seeks to disturb public peace by
raising a commotion or public uprising.
Points to remember regarding treason.
1) Treason is committed only in times of war.
2) No matter how many acts of treason are committed by the offender, he will be liable for only one
crime of treason. The series of acts performed by the offender are considered indispensable
elements of the crime, hence, they are absorbed.
3) There is no complex crime of treason with murder. Murder is an integral element of treason.
4) In the imposition of the penalty for the crime of treason, the court may disregard the presence of
mitigating and aggravating circumstances. It may consider only the number, nature and gravity of
the acts established during the trial. The imposition of the penalty rests largely on the exercise of
judicial discretion.
5) Treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength are absorbed in the crime of
treason.
Article 115. Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit Treason. -P enalty. — The conspiracy and
proposal to commit the crime of treason shall be punished respectively, by prision mayor and a fine
not exceeding Two Million pesos, and by prision correccional and a fine not exceeding One Million
pesos. (As amended by Republic Act 10951)
Elements of conspiracy to commit treason
1. There is a war in which the Philippines is involved;
2. At least two persons come to an agreement to –
a. levy war against the government; or
b. adhere to the enemies, giving them aid or comfort;
3. They decide to commit it.
Elements of proposal to commit treason
2. At least one person decides to –
a. levy war against the government; or
b. adhere to the enemies, giving them aid or comfort;
3. He proposes its execution to some other persons.
General Rule: Under Article 8, conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony or to violate a special law is
not a crime.
Exception: Article 115, the mere conspiracy or proposal to commit treason is a felony.
Note: It is worthy to note at this juncture that while treason as a crime should be established by the two-
witness rule, the same is not observed when the crime committed is conspiracy to commit treason or
when it is only a proposal to commit treason. In the example cited above, even if only one witness is
presented to prove the meeting between General Ricarte and Francisco Bautista, such testimony will be
sufficient to prove the overt act of the actual meeting.
Note that what is being discussed and articulated is a conspiracy to commit treason. Supposing therefore
that the conspiracy was carried out, meaning, that overt acts were performed, translating into action the
emotional and intellectual sympathies of the offender, the crime committed will no longer be called
conspiracy to commit treason. Instead, the crime of treason is already constituted. What will happen to
the conspiracy to commit treason ? It will only be considered as a means to commit the crime of treason.
It is not regarded as a separate offense. Although theoretically two crimes are committed, one for
conspiracy to commit treason and the other for treason, the conspiracy will only be considered as an
element of treason. And because conspiracy connotes a meeting of minds, then it follows that the act of
one should be the act of all.
This is what we call “conspiracy as a crime by itself”. When the acts of treason are carried out, the
conspiracy becomes a means to commit treason and shall be absorbed in the crime of treason.
Art. 116. Misprision of treason. — Every person owing allegiance to (the United States) the
Government of the Philippine Islands, without being a foreigner, and having knowledge of any
conspiracy against them, 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, as the case may be, shall be punished as an accessory to the crime of treason.
Elements
1. Offender owes allegiance to the government, and not a foreigner;
2. He has knowledge of conspiracy to commit treason against the government;
3. He conceals or does not disclose and make known the same as soon as possible to the governor or
fiscal of the province in which he resides, or the mayor or fiscal of the city in which he resides.
Misprision of treason is a felony committed by omission. This is an exception to the general rule that
mere silence of one knowing the commission of a felony does not a commit a crime under the RPC. ---
the offender is liable for failure to do an act.
Note that even aliens can commit the crime of treason because of the amendment to the article, but no
such amendment was made in misprision of treason. Misprision of treason is a crime that may be
committed only by citizens of the Philippines. --- “every person owing allegiance to the government
without being a foreigner”.
Note: The criminal liability arises if the treasonous activity was still at the conspiratorial stage. Because if
the treason already erupted into an overt act, the implication is that the government is already aware of it.
There is no need to report the same. This is a felony by omission although committed with dolo, not with
culpa.
Q: What makes one liable under Art. 116?

A: Because the offender having knowledge of any conspiracy fails to report it to the proper authorities.
Take Note: you must not be in conspiracy with the other. The situation here is a stranger who has
knowledge of any conspiracy failed to report the matter.
Example: Suppose A has knowledge that X is giving aid or comfort to the enemy but A did not report
this matter to the proper authorities. Is A I liable for misprision of treason?
Ans: NO. There is no conspiracy to commit treason here because treason has already been committed.
Here, knowledge of the crime of treason and not knowledge of the conspiracy.

Whether the conspirators are parents or children, and the ones who learn the conspiracy is a parent or
child, they are required to report the same. The reason is that although blood is thicker than water so to
speak, when it comes to security of the state, blood relationship is always subservient to national security.
Article 20 does not apply here because the persons found liable for this crime are not considered
accessories; they are treated as principals.
Article 117. Espionage — The penalty of prision correccional shall be inflicted upon any person who:
(a) Without authority therefore, enters 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 Philippine Archipelago; or
(b) Being in possession, by reason of the public office he holds, of the articles, data, or information
referred to in the preceding paragraph, discloses their contents to a representative of a foreign
nation.
The penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed if the offender be a public officer or employee.
There are two of Committing Espionage:
1. By entering, without authority therefore, a warship, fort or naval or military establishment or

reservation to obtain any information, plans, photograph or other data of a confidential nature
relative to the defense of the Philippines;
Elements
1. Offender enters any of the places mentioned;
2. He has no authority therefore;
3. 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 1 of Article 117, which he had in his possession by reason of
the public office he holds.
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He has in his possession the articles, data or information referred to in paragraph 1 of

Article 117, by reason of the public office he holds;
3. He discloses their contents to a representative of a foreign nation.
The crime is not conditioned by the citizenship of the offender.
Under the first mode of committing espionage, the offender must have the intention to obtain information
relative to the defense of the Philippines. It is not necessary that the offender has obtained the
information. It is sufficient that he entered the prohibited premises. Here, the offender is any private
individual, whether an alien or a citizen of the Philippines, or a public officer.
Under the second mode, the offender must be a public officer who has in his possession the articles, data
or information by reason of the office he holds. Taking advantage of his official position, he reveals or
discloses the information which are confidential and relevant to the defense of the Philippines.
Not all public officers or employees can commit the crime.
If the offender is not the custodian of the said documents, he is not liable for Espionage but for Violation of
Commonwealth Act No. 616 if he discloses information relative to the defense of the Philippines.

If the information disclosed to a representative of a foreign nation does not relate to the defense of the
Philippines and the offender is the custodian thereof, he is liable for Infidelity in the Custody of Public Records.
Commonwealth Act No. 616 – An Act to Punish Espionage and Other Offenses against National Security.
Acts punished
(1) Unlawful obtaining or permitting to be obtained information affecting national defense;

(2) Unlawful disclosing of information affecting national defense;
(3) Disloyal acts or words in time of peace;
(4) Disloyal acts or words in time of war;
(5) Conspiracy to violate the preceding sections;
(6) Harboring or concealing violators of the law; and
(7) Photographing vital military information.
Distinctions between treason and espionage.
1. Treason – the offender is a Filipino citizen or a resident alien

Espionage – can be committed by a Filipino citizen or an alien – not conditioned by citizenship of
the offender.
2. Treason – committed during war time
Espionage - committed during war time or peace time
3. Treason – there are 2 ways of committing treason
Espionage – there are many ways
4. Treason – is mala in se
Espionage – mala in se or mala prohibita
CRIMES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS
Section Two. — Provoking war and disloyalty in case of war

Art. 118. Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals. — The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be
imposed upon any public officer or employee, and that of prision mayor upon any private individual,
who, by unlawful or unauthorized acts, provokes or gives occasion for a war involving or liable to
involve the Philippine Islands or exposes Filipino citizens to reprisals on their persons or property.
Elements
1. Offender performs unlawful or unauthorized acts;
2. The acts provoke or give occasion for –
a. a war involving or liable to involve the Philippines; or
b. exposure of Filipino citizens to reprisals on their persons or property.
This crime is committed in time of peace. What is important here is on the effect of what you did.
Q: Why prohibited?
A: It disturbs the friendly relation that our country may have with another country.
The crime is committed either by a public officer or a private individual.

Article 119. Violation of Neutrality. — The penalty of prision correccional shall be inflicted upon
anyone who, on the occasion of a war in which the Government is not involved, violates any
regulation issued by competent authority for the purpose of enforcing neutrality.
Elements of violation of neutrality:

1) There is a war in which the Philippines is not involved;
2) There is a regulation issued by competent authorities to enforce neutrality; and
3) Offender violates the regulation.
There must be a war going on between nations, but the Philippines is not a party to the war. To maintain
its neutrality, the Philippine Government promulgates rules to protect its interest. The offender violates
any of the rules promulgated. The violation can be done either by means of dolo or by means of culpa. So
violation of neutrality can be committed through reckless imprudence.
Example: Japan and China are at war. China invaded Japan. The Philippine government did not want to
embroil itself in the war. The President of the Philippines upon due consultation with the House of Senate
and House of Representatives adopted a policy of neutrality and disseminated the regulations for its
enforcement. A, a Filipino businessman, violated the regulations enforcing neutrality by giving financial
and material aid to China. X is liable for Violation of Neutrality.
Article 120. Correspondence with hostile country. — Any person who, in time of war, shall have
correspondence with an enemy country or territory occupied by enemy troops shall be punished:
1. By prision correccional, if the correspondence has been prohibited by the Government;

2. By prision mayor, if the correspondence be carried on in ciphers or conventional signs;
and
3. By reclusion temporal, if notice or information be given thereby which might be useful to
the enemy. If the offender intended to aid the enemy by giving such notice or information, he shall
suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal to death.
Elements
1. It is in time of war in which the Philippines is involved;
2. Offender makes correspondence with an enemy country or territory occupied by enemy troops;
3. The correspondence is either –
a. prohibited by the government;
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 between members of the family, friends and
business associates. The letter must be sent without any intention on the part of the letter writer to give
information to aid the enemy. If the correspondence is meant to give information to aid the enemy, the
crime committed is tantamount to the crime of treason and the penalty for such crime is imposed upon the
offender.
Article 121. Flight to Enemy's Country The penalty of arresto mayor shall be inflicted upon any
person who, owing allegiance to the Government, attempts to flee or go to an enemy country when
prohibited by competent authority.
Elements
2. Offender must be owing allegiance to the government;

3. Offender attempts to flee or go to enemy country;
4. Going to the enemy country is prohibited by competent authority.
Example: Singapore declared war against the Philippines. War raged on. X, a Filipino citizen, boarded a
plane bound for Singapore. Before the plane could take off, X was arrested by the authorities. Is X liable
for Flight to enemy's country?
Answer: Yes, X is liable for Flight to Enemy's Country. He attempted to flee or go to the enemy country. This
crime is consummated by mere attempt.
Art. 122. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas. — The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be
inflicted upon any person who, on the high seas or in Philippine waters, shall attack or seize a vessel
or, not being a member of its complement nor a passenger, shall seize the whole or part of the cargo
of said vessel, its equipment, or personal belongings of its complement or passengers.
The same penalty shall be inflicted in case of mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine waters. (As
amended by RA 7659)
Definition of piracy.
It is the robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas without lawful authority and done with animo
lucrandi and in the spirit and intention of universal hostility (People vs. Lol-lo, et al., 43 Phil. 19).
Robbery is the taking of a personal property belonging to another with intent to gain by:
1. Intimidation against persons;

2. Violence against persons;
3. Force upon things.
Piracy is considered as a crime against the whole world. It is a crime against mankind. Along this line,
pirates can be prosecuted wherever they may go and wherever they are arrested. The pirates violate not
the law of a particular country but the law of nations.
Three kinds of piracy:
1. Piracy in the high or open seas (RPC);

2. Piracy in Philippine waters (PD 532 as amended by RA 7659, the Heinous Crime Law);
3. Air piracy (RA 6235).
Piracy in the high or open seas can be committed by the following:
1. By attacking a vessel in the high or open seas;

2. By seizing the whole or part of the cargo of said vessel, its equivalent, or personal belongings of
its complement or its passengers.
Elements of piracy on the high seas:
1. The vessel is on the high seas or Philippine waters;
2. Offenders are neither members of its complement nor passengers of the vessel;
3. Offenders either –
a. attack or seize a vessel on the high seas or in Philippine waters; or

b. seize 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;
4. There is intent to gain.
Q: Who may commit piracy in the high or open seas?

A: Only outsiders. It cannot be committed by passengers or members of the crew or complement of the
vessel.
Q: Who are pirates in the high or open seas?

A: Pirates in the high or open seas are outsiders to the vessel. They should not be passengers or members of
the crew or complement of the vessel. In other words, they should not be insiders.
If a person is lawfully admitted to the vessel other than a crew or a complement of the vessel, then he is a
passenger. If he gets a personal property belonging to another passenger while the vessel is in the high or
open seas by means of force or intimidation, he is liable for ROBBERY and not PIRACY. (Bar question
2008)
But if he boards the vessel without being lawfully admitted thereto, and divests a passenger of his
personal property by means of violence or intimidation or force upon things, he is liable for PIRACY on the
high or open seas. He is still considered as outsider not being a passenger in the contemplation of law.
PIRACY IN PHILIPPINE WATERS (PD 532 as superseded by RA 7659)
Q: Who may commit Piracy in Philippine waters (Internal waters)?

A: (1) outsiders; (2) insiders (passengers or members of the crew or complement of the vessel)
Notes: Originally, piracy and mutiny can only be committed on the high seas (outside of Philippine waters).
In 1974, PD 532 (The Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974) was enacted punishing Piracy
committed in internal waters or Philippine waters, but not Mutiny.
Thus, we now have two kinds of Piracy:
1. Piracy under the Revised Penal Code committed on the high seas;
2. Piracy in Philippine waters or internal waters.
PD 532 was superseded by RA 7659, The Anti-Heinous Crime Law. RA 7659 (The Anti-Heinous Crime
Law) pro tanto superseded PD 532 by punishing Piracy as well as Mutiny, whether committed on the high seas or in
Philippine waters and the penalty was increased from reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua.
Thus, Piracy can now be committed on the high or open seas or in Philippine waters. And Mutiny can
now be committed on the high or open seas and also in Philippine waters.
Q: While X was on board his boat at the Agno River, Y attacked him and with the use of a gun seized his
personal belongings. What crime did Y commit? Why?
A: Y committed Piracy. Under PD 532 as amended, Piracy can now be committed in Philippine waters by
outsiders to the vessel or who are not passengers or members of the crew. Pirates are outsiders of the
vessel.
ABETTING PIRACY (PD 532) — is the crime committed by any person who:
1. Gives pirates information about the movement of peace officers of the government;
2. Acquires or receives property taken by the pirates or devices any benefit from it;
3. Directly or indirectly abets the commission thereof.
Q: What is mutiny?

A: it is the unlawful resistance to a superior officer, or the raising of commotions & disturbance on board
a ship against the authority of its commander. The last par of Art. 122 provides that the same penalty
prescribed for piracy shall be inflicted in the case of mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine waters.
Elements of mutiny
1. The vessel is on the high seas or Philippine waters;
2. Offenders are either members of its complement, or passengers of the vessel;
a. attack or seize the vessel; or
b. seize the whole or part of the cargo, its equipment, or personal belongings of the crew or
passengers.
Distinction between mutiny and piracy
(1) As to offenders
Mutiny is committed by members of the complement or the passengers of the vessel.
Piracy is committed by persons who are not members of the complement or the passengers of the
vessel.
(2) As to criminal intent
In mutiny, there is no criminal intent.
In piracy, the criminal intent is for gain.
Two kinds of Mutiny:
1) Mutiny in the high or open seas; and

2) Mutiny within Philippine waters.
Example of Mutiny in the High or Open Seas: MV Panama is owned and registered under the laws of
Panama. While the vessel was in the Pacific Ocean, the members of the crew rebelled against internal
management of the vessel. They defied the ship captain and controlled the vessel. The members of the
crew are liable for Mutiny on the High or Open Seas.
Example of Mutiny within Philippine Waters: MV PRINCESS OF THE STARS, a merchant ship
registered in Holland docked at Pier 14 Manila Bay. The members of the crew or passengers attacked the
ship captain and seized control of the vessel. What crime was committed? Ans: They committed the crime
of Mutiny within Philippine waters. Under RA 7659, Mutiny can now be committed in Philippine waters.
Art. 123. Qualified piracy. — The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed upon
those who commit any of the crimes referred to in the preceding article, under any of the following
circumstances:
1. Whenever they have seized a vessel by boarding or firing upon the same;
2. Whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims without means of saving themselves;
or
3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape. (as
amended by RA 7659)
Elements

1. The vessel is on the high seas or Philippine waters:
2. Offenders may or may not be members of its complement, or passengers of the vessel;
a. attack or seize the vessel; or
b. seize the whole or part of the cargo, its equipment., or personal belongings of the crew or
passengers;
4. The preceding were committed under any of the following circumstances:
a. whenever they have seized a vessel by boarding or firing upon the same;
b. whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims without means of saving themselves;
or
c. whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape.
Q: When is Piracy qualified?

Ans: (1) When the pirates seize a vessel by boarding or firing upon the same;
(2) When the pirates abandon their victims without means of saving themselves;
(3) When the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape.
Example: A passenger of an interisland vessel robbed and killed another passenger by stabbing him at
the back for several times. The Prosecutor's Office filed a complex crime of Piracy with Murder. Is the
charge correct? Why?
Ans: The charge is not correct. Murder, rape, homicide, or physical injuries are mere circumstances
qualifying piracy. Any of these crimes cannot be complexed with piracy. A special law cannot be
complexed with a felony under the Revised Penal Code. Only felonies can be complexed with one
another.
When any of the crimes of murder, homicide, rape, physical injuries accompany piracy is committed,
there is no complex crime. Instead, there is only one crime committed — qualified piracy. Murder, rape,
homicide, physical injuries are mere circumstances qualifying piracy and cannot be punished as separate
crimes, nor can they be complexed with piracy.
Rule: There is no complex crime of Piracy with Murder, Piracy with Homicide, Piracy with Rape,
etc.
Qualified Mutiny
Article 123 merely refers to qualified piracy. There is now a crime of qualified mutiny.
Mutiny is qualified under the following circumstances:
(1) When the offenders abandoned the victims without means of saving themselves;
(2) When the mutiny is accompanied by rape, murder, homicide, or physical injuries.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6235 (The Anti-Hijacking Law) – this is known as aircraft piracy.
Four situations governed by anti hi-jacking law:
(1) usurping or seizing control of an aircraft of Philippine registry while it is in flight, compelling the
pilots thereof to change the course or destination of the aircraft;
(2) usurping or seizing control of an aircraft of foreign registry while within Philippine territory,
compelling the pilots thereof to land in any part of Philippine territory;
(3) carrying or loading on board an aircraft operating as a public utility passenger aircraft in the
Philippines, any flammable, corrosive, explosive, or poisonous substance; and
(4) loading, shipping, or transporting on board a cargo aircraft operating as a public utility in the
Philippines, any flammable, corrosive, explosive, or poisonous substance if this was done not in
accordance with the rules and regulations set and promulgated by the Air Transportation Office
on this matter.
It becomes qualified when:
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.
Between numbers 1 and 2, the point of distinction is whether the aircraft is of Philippine registry or
foreign registry.
The important thing is that before the anti hi-jacking law can apply, the aircraft must be in flight. If not in
flight, whatever crimes committed shall be governed by the Revised Penal Code.
The law makes a distinction between aircraft of a foreign registry and of Philippine registry. If the
aircraft subject of the hi-jack is of Philippine registry, it should be in flight at the time of the hi-jacking.
Otherwise, the anti hi-jacking law will not apply and the crime is still punished under the Revised Penal
Code. The correlative crime may be one of grave coercion or grave threat. If somebody is killed, the
crime is homicide or murder, as the case may be. If there are some explosives carried there, the crime is
destructive arson. Explosives are by nature pyro-techniques. Destruction of property with the use of
pyro-technique is destructive arson. If there is illegally possessed or carried firearm, other special laws
will apply.
On the other hand, if the aircraft is of foreign registry, the law does not require that it be in flight before
the anti hi-jacking law can apply. This is because aircrafts of foreign registry are considered in transit
while they are in foreign countries. Although they may have been in a foreign country, technically they
are still in flight, because they have to move out of that foreign country.
So even if any of the acts mentioned were committed while the exterior doors of the foreign aircraft were
still open, the anti hi-jacking law will already govern.
Note that under this law, an aircraft is considered in flight from the moment all exterior doors are closed
following embarkation until such time when the same doors are again opened for disembarkation. This
means that there are passengers that boarded. So if the doors are closed to bring the aircraft to the hangar,
the aircraft is not considered as in flight. The aircraft shall be deemed to be already in flight even if its
engine has not yet been started.
Note: There is no hi-jacking in the attempted stage. This is a special law where the attempted stage is not
punishable.
Q: When is an aircraft considered in flight?

A: an aircraft considered in flight the moment all its external doors are closed following embarkation until
any of such doors is opened for disembarkation.
Q: A Philippine Air Lines aircraft is bound for Davao. While the pilot and co-pilot are taking their
snacks at the airport lounge, some of the armed men were also there. The pilots were followed by these
men on their way to the aircraft. As soon as the pilots entered the cockpit, they pulled out their firearms
and gave instructions where to fly the aircraft. Does the anti hi-jacking law apply?
Ans: No. The passengers have yet to board the aircraft. If at that time, the offenders are apprehended, the
law will not apply because the aircraft is not yet in flight. Note that the aircraft is of Philippine registry.

Q: While the stewardess of a Philippine Air Lines plane bound for Cebu was waiting for the
passenger manifest, two of its passengers seated near the pilot surreptitiously entered the pilot cockpit. At
gunpoint, they directed the pilot to fly the aircraft to the Middle East. However, before the pilot could fly
the aircraft towards the Middle East, the offenders were subdued and the aircraft landed. What crime was
committed?
Ans: The aircraft was not yet in flight. Considering that the stewardess was still waiting for the passenger
manifest, the doors were still open. Hence, the anti hi-jacking law is not applicable. Instead, the Revised
Penal Code shall govern. The crime committed was grave coercion or grave threat, depending upon
whether or not any serious offense violence was inflicted upon the pilot.
However, if the aircraft were of foreign registry, the act would already be subject to the anti hi-jacking
law because there is no requirement for foreign aircraft to be in flight before such law would apply. The
reason for the distinction is that as long as such aircraft has not returned to its home base, technically, it is
still considered in transit or in flight.
As to numbers 3 and 4 of Republic Act No. 6235, the distinction is whether the aircraft is a passenger
aircraft or a cargo aircraft. In both cases, however, the law applies only to public utility aircraft in the
Philippines. Private aircrafts are not subject to the anti hi-jacking law, in so far as transporting prohibited
substances are concerned.
If the aircraft is a passenger aircraft, the prohibition is absolute. Carrying of any prohibited, flammable,
corrosive, or explosive substance is a crime under Republic Act No. 6235. But if the aircraft is only a
cargo aircraft, the law is violated only when the transporting of the prohibited substance was not done in
accordance with the rules and regulations prescribed by the Air Transportation Office in the matter of
shipment of such things. The Board of Transportation provides the manner of packing of such kind of
articles, the quantity in which they may be loaded at any time, etc. Otherwise, the anti hi-jacking law
does not apply.
Q: During a random inspection inside a Malaysian Airlines at the NAIA and before take off, Mr. X, a
passenger from Syria was found in possession of an explosive substance. The passengers panicked. Mr. X
was arrested. What crime did Mr. X commit? Why?
Ans: Mr. X committed the crime of violation of the Anti-Hijacking Law. The law punishes carrying or
loading on board a public utility passenger aircraft operating in the Philippines, any flammable, corrosive
or poisonous substance.
If it is a cargo plane, it is not covered by RA 6235.
Q: In the course of the hi-jack, a passenger or complement was shot and killed. What crime or crimes
were committed?
Ans: The crime remains to be a violation of the anti hi-jacking law, but the penalty thereof shall be higher
because a passenger or complement of the aircraft had been killed. The crime of homicide or
murder is not committed.
Q: The hi-jackers threatened to detonate a bomb in the course of the hi-jack. What crime or crimes were
committed?
Ans: Again, the crime is violation of the anti hi-jacking law. The separate crime of grave threat is not
committed. This is considered as a qualifying circumstance that shall serve to increase the penalty.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9372 --- HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007 AN ACT TO SECURE THE
STATE AND PROTECT OUR PEOPLE FROM TERRORISM
What is Terrorism?
Acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or
particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations
of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious, or any other nature that may be invoked
to justify them.

"Any act intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose
of:
(1) Intimidating a population of serious bodily harm;

(2) Compelling a government or an international organization 'to do or abstain doing any act.'"
Declaration of policy of RA 9372:
1) To protect life, liberty and property from acts of terrorism;

2) To condemn terrorism as inimical and dangerous to the national security of the country and to the
welfare of the people;
3) To make terrorism a crime against the Filipino people, against humanity and against the law of
nations.
Q: What is terrorism under RA 9372?
A: The crime of Terrorism is committed by any person who engages in any of the following acts
punishable under the Revised Penal Code and other special laws:
Revised Penal Code – PRIC-MKC
1. Piracy – Article 122

2. Rebelion or Insurrection – Article 134
3. Coup d’etat – Article 134 - A
4. Murder – Article 248
5. Kidnapping & Serious Illegal Detenion – Artcile 267
6. Crimes Involving Destruction
Special Laws:
1. The Law on Arson – PD 1613

2. Toxic Substances & Hazardous & Nuclear Waste Control Act-RA 6969
3. Atomic Energy Regulatory & Liability act – RA 5207
4. Anti-Hijacking Law – RA 6235
5. Anti-Piracy & Anti-Highway Robbery Law – PD 532
6. Illegal Possession of Firearm -
Provided the following requisites are present:
(1) The act committed sows and creates a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among
the populace;
(2) In order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand.
Q: What is the Motive of Terrorism:

A: To coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand.
Q: What is the Penalty for Terrorism:

A: Forty years imprisonment without the benefit of parole as provided under Act No. 4103 otherwise
known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law as amended. (Sec. 3, RA 9372)
Q: Have the enumerated felonies under the Revised Penal Code and the crimes under the specified special
laws been entirely repealed by RA 9372? Are there no more crimes of Piracy, Rebellion, Coup d' etat,
Murder, Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention, Illegal Possession of Firearms, Hijacking, Piracy and
the like?
A: No. The said felonies under the Revised Penal Code and the crimes under the aforementioned special
laws still exist.
Thus, when a person kills another with the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery, the felony
committed is still Murder.

The killing becomes Terrorism only if Murder has reached that magnitude as to sow and create 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.
Terrorism is a Crime of Result
A careful scrutiny of the definition of terrorism would show that the crime can be committed only if any of the
crimes listed under RA 9372 is committed and it sows and creates 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.
Q: What is "unlawful demand?"

A: The element of unlawful demand is what differentiates terrorism from other crimes. Without unlawful
demand there can be no terrorism.
Q: What is Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism?

A: There is Conspiracy to commit Terrorism when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning
the commission of the crime of terrorism and decide to commit it.
Penalty ---- 40 years of imprisonment. (Sec. 4, RA 9372)
Mere Conspiracy to commit Terrorism is punishable. The moment the conspirators commit any act of
terrorism however, they are no longer liable for Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism. They are already liable
for the crime of Terrorism.
Who are the persons liable for Terrorism and Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism?
1) Principals by direct participation

2) Accomplices
3) Accessories
ACCOMPLICE TO THE CRIME OF TERRORISM is any person who, not being a principal under Art. 17
of the RPC or a conspirator as defined in Sec. 4 of RA 9372, cooperates in the execution of the crime of
terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism by previous or simultaneous acts. (Sec. 5, RA 9372)
Who can be an Accomplice to the crime of Terrorism?
1) One who cooperates in the execution of the crime of Terrorism;

2) One who cooperates in the execution of the crime of Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism by previous or
simultaneous acts.
ACCESSORY TO THE CRIME OF TERRORISM is any person who having knowledge and without
having participated t herein, either as principal or accomplice under Articles 17 and 18 of the RPC, takes
part subsequent to its omission in any of the following manner:
a. by profiting himself or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of

the crime;
b. by concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects, or
instruments thereof, in order to prevents its discovery;
c. by harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal or
conspirator of the crime.
Q: A committed the crime of Terrorism by kidnapping scions of well to do families. He amassed millions
of pesos in the process. A gave B, his best friend the amount of Php500,000.00. Despite knowing that the
money came from the terroristic activities of A, B accepted the money. What is the criminal liability of B
if any? Why?
Ans: B is liable as accessory to the crime of Terrorism. He profited by the effects of the crime by
accepting the money despite knowing that it came from Terrorism.
Accessories to the Crime of Terrorism Who are Exempt from Criminal Liability
No penalties shall be imposed upon the following:
"Spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural and adopted brothers and sisters or
relatives by affinity within the same degrees in paragraphs (b) and (c)."
Notes: The relatives mentioned above are the same as those listed in mitigating circumstances of
vindication of a grave offense [Art. 13(5)] and in the alternative circumstances (Art. 15) and Art. 20 of the
Revised Penal Code.
What are the Acts Authorized By RA 9372?
Republic Act 9372 authorized the following acts:
1) Tracking down, tapping, listening to, interception and recording of messages, communications,
conversations, discussions, spoken or written words of any person suspected of the crime of
terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism;
2) Apprehension and detention without warrant of a person suspected of terrorism or conspiracy to
commit terrorism;
3) Judicial authorization to examine bank deposits, accounts and records.
TITLE II. CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE
Crimes against the fundamental laws of the State
1. Arbitrary detention (Art. 124);
2. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities (Art. 125);
3. Delaying release (Art. 126);
4. Expulsion (Art. 127);
5. Violation of domicile (Art. 128);
6. Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those legally obtained (Art.
129);
7. Searching domicile without witnesses (Art. 130);
8. Prohibition, interruption, and dissolution of peaceful meetings (Art. 131);
9. Interruption of religious worship (Art. 132); and
10. Offending the religious feelings (Art. 133);
Crimes under this title are those which violate the Bill of Rights accorded to the citizens under the
Constitution. Under this title, the offenders are public officers, except as to the last crime – offending the
religious feelings under Article 133, which refers to any person.
Article 124. Arbitrary detention. — Any public officer or employee who, without legal grounds, detains
a person, shall suffer:
1. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum
period, if the detention has not exceeded three days;
2. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the detention
has continued more than three but not more than fifteen days;
3. The penalty of prision mayor, if the detention has continued for more than fifteen days but
not more than six months; and
4. That of reclusion temporal, if the detention shall have exceeded six months.

The commission of a crime, or violent insanity or any other ailment requiring the compulsory
confinement of the patient in a hospital, shall be considered legal grounds for the detention of any
person.
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. He detains a person;
3. The detention is without legal grounds.
Meaning of absence of legal grounds
1. No crime was committed by the detained;
2. There is no violent insanity of the detained person; and
3. The person detained has no ailment which requires compulsory confinement in a hospital.
What are the legal grounds for detention of a person:
1. Commission of a crime
2. Violent insanity or other ailment requiring compulsory confinement of a patient in a hospital.
Usual cause of arbitrary detention – a public officer arrests & detains somebody without any warrant.
A person is considered detained when he is placed in confinement or where there is restraint on his
person. His detention is without legal ground if he has not committed any crime, or there is at least no
reasonable ground of suspicion that he has committed a crime; or when he is not suffering from violent
insanity or any other ailment requiring his compulsory confinement
Note: In the crime of arbitrary detention, although the offender is a public officer, not any public officer
can commit this crime. Only those public officers whose official duties carry with it the authority to make
an arrest and detain persons can be guilty of this crime. So, if the offender does not possess such
authority, the crime committed by him is illegal detention. A public officer who is acting outside the
scope of his official duties is no better than a private citizen.
Under Rule 113, Section 6 of the Rules of Court, the following are considered as legal grounds for a
warrantless arrest and for detaining a person, without violating the law on arbitrary detention: when the
person to be arrested has committed, is already committing or is attempting to commit an offense in the
presence of the public officer; or when an offense has in fact been committed and he has personal
knowledge of the fact that the person to be arrested has committed it; or when the person to be arrested is
an escaped prisoner.
Arbitrary detention can be committed thru simple imprudence or negligence.
Example: A janitor at the Quezon City Hall was assigned in cleaning the men’s room. One day, he
noticed a fellow urinating so carelessly that instead of urinating at the bowl, he was actually urinating
partly on the floor. The janitor resented this. He stepped out of the men’s room and locked the same. He
left. The fellow was able to come out only after several hours when people from the outside forcibly
opened the door. Is the janitor liable for arbitrary detention?
Ans: No. Even if he is a public officer, he is not permitted by his official function to arrest and detain
persons. Therefore, he is guilty only of illegal detention. While the offender is a public officer, his duty
does not include the authority to make arrest; hence, the crime committed is illegal detention.
Example: A municipal treasurer has been courting his secretary. However, the latter always turned him
down. Thereafter, she tried to avoid him. One afternoon, the municipal treasurer locked the secretary
inside their office until she started crying. The treasurer opened the door and allowed her to go home.
What crime was committed?

Ans: Illegal detention. This is because the municipal treasurer has no authority to detain a person
although he is a public officer.
Distinction between arbitrary detention and illegal detention
1. In arbitrary detention, the offender is a public officer. In illegal detention, the offender is a
private person or a public officer whose function does not include the power to arrest and
detain a person;
2. In arbitrary detention, the public officer has a duty to arrest and detain a person. In illegal
detention, the private person or even if he is a public officer does not have the power to arrest
and detain a person.
Whether the crime is arbitrary detention or illegal detention, it is necessary that there must be an actual
restraint of liberty of the offended party. If there is no actual restraint, as the offended party may still go
to the place where he wants to go, even though there have been warnings, the crime of arbitrary detention
or illegal detention is not committed. There is either grave or light threat.
However, if the victim is under guard in his movement such that there is still restraint of liberty, then the
crime of either arbitrary or illegal detention is still committed.
Distinction between arbitrary detention and unlawful arrest(Art. 269)
(1) As to offender
In arbitrary detention, the offender is a public officer possessed with authority to make arrests.
In unlawful arrest, the offender may be any person.
(2) As to criminal intent
In arbitrary detention, the main reason for detaining the offended party is to deny him of his
liberty.
In unlawful arrest, the purpose is to accuse the offended party of a crime he did not commit, to
deliver the person to the proper authority, and to file the necessary charges in a way trying to
incriminate him.
When a person is unlawfully arrested, his subsequent detention is without legal grounds.
Article 125. Delay in the Delivery of Detained Persons to the Proper Judicial Authorities.-The
penalties provided in the next preceding articles shall be imposed upon the public officer or
employee who shall detain any person for some legal ground and shall fail to deliver such person to
the proper judicial authorities within the period of twelve (12) hours, for crimes or offenses
punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent; eighteen (18) hours for crimes or offenses
punishable by correctional penalties, or their equivalent, and thirty-six (36) hours, for crimes or
offenses punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or their equivalent.
In every case, the person detained shall be informed of the cause of his detention and shall
be allowed, upon his request, to communicate and confer at any time with his attorney or counsel.
(As amended by Executive Order Nos. 59 and 72, Nov. 7,1986 and July 25, 1987, respectively.)
Elements
2. He detains a person for some legal ground;
3. He fails to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within –
a. 12 hour for light penalties;

b. 18 hours for correctional penalties; and
c. 36 hours for afflictive or capital penalties.
Note: This is a felony by omission.
In this offense, the initial detention of the person is lawful unlike the situation contemplated under Article
124, wherein the detention of the person is unlawful from the very beginning. The only reason why the
offender under Article 125 is punished for arbitrary detention is because of his failure to deliver the
offended party to the proper judicial officer within the period prescribed by law. (See Executive Order No.
272 which directs the delivery of any person de prived of his liberty to judicial officers within 12 hours if the
crime committed is light; 18 hours if the crime committed is less grave and within 36 hours if the crime
committed is grave.)
Article 125 covers situations wherein the person detained has been arrested without a warrant but his
arrest is nonetheless lawful. It is a felony committed by omission because of the failure of the offender to
deliver the detained person to the proper judicial authority within 12 hours, 18 hours and 36 hours as the
case may be. Under the law, when the person detained is charged with a crime punishable by light
penalties, he should be referred to the proper judicial authorities within 12 hours; 18 hours if he is
charged of an offense punishable by correctional penalties; and 36 hours if he is charged of an offense
punishable by afflictive penalties.
Q: What do you mean by “delivery of a detained person”?

A: Delivery of detained person consists in making charge or filing a complaint against the prisoner with
the proper judicial authority. It does not involve the physical delivery of the prisoner before the judge
(Sayo vs. Chief of Police, supra). --- It simply means putting the arrested person under the jurisdiction of
the court. This is done by filing the necessary complaint or information against the person arrested in
court within the period specified in Article 125. The purpose of this is for the court to determine whether
the offense is bailable or not and if bailable, to allow him the right to bail.
When a person is detained for the commission of a crime, his arrest having been effected without a
warrant and his case is within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court, he may ask for a prelimi nary
investigation but he must sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125, as amended. When such is
availed of by the accused, the preliminary investigation must be terminated within a period of fifteen (15)
days from its inception. This is the requirement of Section 7, par. 2, Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure.
This article does not apply if the arrest is with a warrant. The situation contemplated here is an arrest
without a warrant.
Q: Within what period should a police officer who has arrested a person under a warrant of arrest turn
over the arrested person to the judicial authority?
A: There is no time limit specified except that the return must be made within a reasonable time. The
period fixed by law under Article 125 does not apply because the arrest was made by virtue of a warrant
of arrest.
Q: The arrest of the suspect was done in Baguio City. On the way to Manila, where the crime was
committed, there was a typhoon so the suspect could not be brought to Manila until three days later. Was
there a violation of Article 125?
A: There was a violation of Article 125. The crime committed was arbitrary detention in the form of
delay in the delivery of arrested person to the proper judicial authority. The typhoon or flood is a matter
of defense to be proved by the accused, the arresting officer, as to whether he is liable. In this situation,
he may be exempt under paragraph 7 of Article 12.
Q: What if the law violated is a special law? What is the allowable period that the said person be detained
by the policemen?
A: In case the law violated is a special law, check the penalty imposable by the special law and determine
if it is grave, less grave or light felony. That is the basis for determining the period of time during which

an arresting officer can legally hold on to the person arrested with legal ground and without a warrant of
arrest.
Q: What should be done by an arresting officer who legally arrested a person without warrant of arrest.
A: Have the person arrested charged in court within the proper period provided for under Art. 125 so that
he will not be liable for Ar bitrary detention. Filing of the appropriate case at the fiscal's office i s a
sufficient compliance of the law. If he cannot file the case for whatever reason, valid or not, he should release the person
nrrested from detention.
Example: A police officer arrested a person without warrant of arrest with legal ground in a far flung
place for the crime of Attempted Homicide. In bringing the person arrested to the municipality, they have
to cross seven mountains, seven hills and seven seas. Under the law, Attempted Homicide is punishable
with Prision correccional which has a legal duration of 6 months and one day to 6 years. Since the penalty
is a correctional penalty, the arresting officer should file the case within 18 hours from the time that he
arrested the person.
What if for the reason given above, the arresting officer fails to cause the filing of the case within the time
provided for by law, was there violation of Art. 125?
Ans: Yes, there was a violation of Art. 125 and the arresting officer maybe charged criminally.
Q: If you were the counsel for the arresting officer what is your defense?
Ans: If I were the counsel for the arresting officer, I will invoke as defense the exempting circumstance of
insuperable cause under paragraph 7 of Art. 12 of the Revised Penal Code. The arresting officer was
prevented from performing an act
required by law by the physical impossibility of bringing the person arrested to the fold of law.
Republic Act No. 9372-Human Security Act of 2007
SEC. 18. Period of Detention Without Judicial Warrant of Arrest. - The provisions of Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code to the contrary notwithstanding, any police or law enforcement personnel, who,
having been duly authorized in writing by the Anti-Terrorism Council has taken custody of a person
charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism shall,
without incurring any criminal liability for delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial
authorities, deliver said charged or suspected person to the proper judicial authority within a period of
three (3) days counted from the moment the said charged or suspected person has been apprehended or
arrested, detained, and taken into custody by the said police, or law enforcement personnel: Provided,
That the arrest of those suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism must result
from the surveillance under Section 7 and examination of bank deposits under Section 27 of this Act.
The police or law enforcement personnel concerned shall, before detaining the person suspected of the
crime of terrorism, present him or her before any judge at the latter's residence or office nearest the place
where the arrest took place at any time of the day or night. It shall be the duty of the judge, among other
things, to ascertain the identity of the police or law enforcement personnel and the person or persons they
have arrested and presented before him or her, to inquire of them the reasons why they have arrested the
person and determine by questioning and personal observation whether or not the suspect has been
subjected to any physical, moral or psychological torture by whom and why. The judge shall then submit
a written report of what he/she had observed when the subject was brought before him to the proper court
that has jurisdiction over the case of the person thus arrested, the judge shall forthwith submit his/her
report within three (3) calendar days from the time the suspect was brought to his/her residence or office.
Immediately after taking custody of a person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or
conspiracy to commit terrorism, the police or law enforcement personnel shall notify in writing the judge
of the court nearest the place of apprehension or arrest: Provided, That where the arrest is made during
saturdays, sundays, holidays or after office hours, the written notice shall be served at the residence of the
judge nearest the place where the accused was arrested.
The penalty of ten (10) years and one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment shall be imposed upon the
police or law enforcement personnel who fails to notify any judge as provided in the preceding paragraph.
SEC. 19 Period of Detention in the Event of an Actual or Imminent Terrorist Attack. - In the event of an actual or
imminent terrorist attack, suspects may not be detained for more than three (3) days without the written
approval of a municipal, city, provincial or regional official of a Human Rights Commission or judge of
the municipal, regional trial court, the Sandiganbayan or a justice of the Court of Appeals nearest the
place of the arrest. If the arrest is made during Saturdays, Sundays, holidays or after office hours, the
arresting police or law enforcement personnel shall bring the person thus arrested to the residence of any
of the officials mentioned above that is nearest the place where the accused was arrested. The approval in
writing of any of the said officials shall be secured by the police or law enforcement personnel concerned
within five (5) days after the date of the detention of the persons concerned: Provided, however, That
within three (3) days after the detention the suspects, whose connection with the terror attack or threat is
not established, shall be released immediately.
SEC. 20. Penalty for Failure to Deliver Suspect to the Proper Judicial Authority Within Three (3) Days. - The
penalty of ten (10) years and one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment shall be imposed upon any
police or law enforcement personnel who has apprehended or arrested, detained and taken custody of a
person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism and fails to
deliver such charged or suspected person to the proper judicial authority within the period of three (3)
days.
What are the liabilities of public officers under the Human Security Act?
1. Failure to turn over detainee within three (3) days to judicial authorities.
2. Infidelity in the custody of detainees.
3. Furnishing false evidence, forged document or spurious evidence.
Article 126. Delaying Release. - The penalties provided for in Article 124 shall be imposed upon
any public officer or employee who delays for the period of time specified therein the performance
of any judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner or detention prisoner, or unduly
delays the service of the notice of such order to said prisoner or the proceedings upon any petition
for the liberation of such person.
Acts punished
1. Delaying the performance of a judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner;
2. Unduly delaying the service of the notice of such order to said prisoner;
3. Unduly delaying the proceedings upon any petition for the liberation of such person.
Elements
2. There is a judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner or detention prisoner, or that
there is a proceeding upon a petition for the liberation of such person;
3. Offender without good reason delays –
a. the service of the notice of such order to the prisoner;
b. the performance of such judicial or executive order for the release of the prisoner; or
c. the proceedings upon a petition for the release of such person.
Example: The judge ordered the dismissal of the criminal case & ordered the release of the prisoner but
the Warden refused to release the accused – liable.
The public officers most likely to commit this offense are the wardens, jailers and peace officers,
temporarily in charge of prisoners or detained persons.

Article 127. Expulsion. - The penalty of prision correctional shall be imposed upon any public officer
or employee who, not being thereunto authorized by law, shall expel any person from the Philippine
Islands or shall compel such person to change his residence.
There are two acts made punishable under this law: One is by expelling a person from the
Philippines; and the other is by compelling a person to change his residence.
Elements
2. He either –
a. expels any person from the Philippines; or
b. compels a person to change residence;
3. Offender is not authorized to do so by law.
This crime should be correlated with Section 6, Art. II of the 1987 Constitution. – what is violated here is
your liberty of abode.
Only the President of the Philippines can expel a person (power of deportation) thru the Commission of
Immigration – overstaying aliens. The power of the President to deport aliens is an ACT OF THE STATE
where the SC has no power to interfere with or to control the action of the President. The discretionary
power to deport “undesirable aliens” whose continued presence in the country is a menace to the peace
and safety of the community is an act of the State.
The essence of this crime is coercion but the specific crime is “expulsion” when committed by a public
officer. If committed by a private person, the crime is grave coercion.
Article 128. Violation of Domicile . — The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall
be imposed upon any public officer or employee who, not being authorized by judicial order, shall
enter any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof, search papers or other effects found
therein without the previous consent of such owner, or, having surreptitiously entered said
dwelling, and being required to leave the premises, shall refuse to do so.
If the offense be committed in the nighttime, or if any papers or effects not constituting evidence of
a crime be not returned immediately after the search made by the offender, the penalty shall be
prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
Element:
2. He is not authorized by judicial order to enter the dwelling or to make a search therein for papers
or other effects.
Circumstances qualifying the offense
1. If committed at nighttime; or
2. If any papers or effects not constituting evidence of a crime are not returned immediately after the
search made by offender.
In order to commit this crime, the entry must be against the will of the owner. If the entry is only without
the consent of the owner, the crime of violation of domicile is not committed.
The primary object of the law is to preserve the privacy of abode of the offended party. Hence, if the
privacy is already lost, as when the offender has been allowed by the owner to enter the dwelling together

with other persons, any subsequent change of attitude will not restore the privacy which was already lost.
When privacy is waived, trespass to dwelling or violation of domicile cannot be committed.
Take Note: Article 128 is limited to public officers. The public officers who may be liable for crimes
against the fundamental laws are those who are possessed of the authority to execute search warrants and
warrants of arrests.
Under Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Court, when a person to be arrested enters a premise and closes it
thereafter, the public officer, after giving notice of an arrest, can break into the premise. He shall not be
liable for violation of domicile.
There are only three recognized instances when search without a warrant is considered valid, and,
therefore, the seizure of any evidence done is also valid. Outside of these, search would be invalid and
the objects seized would not be admissible in evidence.
(1) Search made incidental to a valid arrest;
(2) Where the search was made on a moving vehicle or vessel such that the exigency of he situation
prevents the searching officer from securing a search warrant;
(3) When the article seized is within plain view of the officer making the seizure without making a
search therefore.
There are three ways of committing the violation of Article 128:
(1) By entering a dwelling against the will of the owner;
(2) Searching papers or other effects without the previous consent of the owner;
(3) Refusing to leave the premises after having surreptitious entered said dwelling and after having
been required to leave.
Q: A person surreptitiously enters the dwelling of another. What crime or crimes were possibly
committed?
Ans: The crimes committed are (1) qualified trespass to dwelling under Article 280, if there was an
express or implied prohibition against entering. This is tantamount to entering against the will of the
owner; and (2) violation of domicile in the third form if he refuses to leave after being told to.
Article 129. Search Warrants Maliciously Obtained, and Abuse in the Service of Those Legally
Obtained - In addition to the liability attaching to the offender for the commission of any other
offense, the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum
period and a fine not exceeding Two Hundred Thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any public
officer or employee who shall procure a search warrant without just cause, or, having legally
procured the same, shall exceed his authority or use unnecessary severity in executing the same.
(As amended by Republic Act 10951)
Acts punished
1. Procuring a search warrant without just cause;
Elements
2. He procures a search warrant;
3. There is no just cause.

2. Exceeding his authority or by using unnecessary severity in executing a search warrant legally
procured.
Elements
2. He has legally procured a search warrant;
3. He exceeds his authority or uses unnecessary severity in executing the same.
The true test of lack of just cause is whether the sworn statement filed in support of the application for
search warrant has been done in such a manner that perjury could be charged and the affiant can be held
liable for making such false statement. The oath required refers to the truth of the facts within the
personal knowledge of the applicant and his witnesses.
Q: May a search and seizure be conducted without a search warrant?

A: The Rules of Court provide that a person charged with an offense may be searched for dangerous
weapons or anything which may be used us proof of the commission of the offense. This is usually the
c;ise when a lawful arrest is made without a warrant and a search is made to find and seize things
connected with the crime as its fruits or as the means by which the crime was committed.
Q: SP02 Martinez led a team of policemen that implemented a search warrant in the house of Mary Ann.
While they were conducting the search, Martinez destroyed the dividing walls and employed violence
upon Mary Ann and the members of her household inflicting physical injuries upon them. What crime or
crimes can SP02 Martinez be charged with?
Ans: SP02 Martinez can be charged with Violation of Domicile and separate crimes of Physical Injuries. There is
no complex crime. The two felonies have different elements
Article 130. Searching domicile without witnesses. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum
periods shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee who, in cases where a search is proper,
shall search the domicile, papers or other belongings of any person, in the absence of the latter, any
member of his family, or in their default, without the presence of two witnesses residing in the same
locality.
The offender in this case is legally armed with a search warrant but he conducts the search in the absence
of the owner or any member of the family or two witnesses residing in the same locality.
The law says that even if you are not around, search may be made if there are members of his family. The
policemen do not have to wait for the owner of the house to arrive. – if any member of his family is
present – pwede na. – or in default, any 2 witnesses from the neighborhood who is usually barangay
officials.
“Sec. 7, Rule 121, No search of a house, room or any other premises shall be made except in the presence
of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter, in the presence
of 2 witnesses of sufficient age & discretion residing in the same locality.”
The papers and effects mentioned in the law must be found inside the dwelling house. Article 130 has no
application to search and seizure made on moving vehicles because the application of this law is limited
to dwelling and personal properties such as papers and effects found therein.
Q: Who must be present when a valid search is conducted on a domicile?

Ans: (1) The house owner; (2) In his absence, any member of his family; (3) In the absence of the two, at
least 2 witnesses residing in the same community
The obvious reason behind this requirement is to avoid incriminatory machination or planting of
evidence.

Article 131. Prohibition, interruption, and dissolution of peaceful meetings. — The penalty of prision correccional in
its minimum period shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who, without legal
ground, shall prohibit or interrupt the holding of a peaceful meeting, or shall dissolve the same.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall hinder
any person from joining any lawful association or from attending any of its meetings.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee who shall prohibit or
hinder any person from addressing, either alone or together with others, any petition to the
authorities for the correction of abuses or redress grievances.
There are three acts made punishable under this article:
(1) by prohibiting or interrupting, without legal ground, the holding of a peaceful meeting or by
dissolving the same;
(2) by hindering any person from joining any lawful association or from attending any of its meetings;
and,
(3) by prohibiting or hindering any person from addressing, either alone or together with others, any
petition to the authorities for the correction of abuses or redress of grievances.
This right however is not absolute. It may be regulated in order that it may not cause injury to its equal
enjoyment by others having equal rights. The power to regulate is justified under the police power of the
State.
Under this Article, the policemen/public officers or employee do not have the right to prevent a
peaceful meeting. If they do - then they are liable.
Q: The Municipal Mayor was presiding a meeting attended by VM, SB members, Punong Barangays
and the Chief of Police. When a Councilor was speaking, - the COP stood up & said that the
councilor should not proceed with his speech – heated argument followed – disorder- the meeting
was dissolved. The COP was prosecuted under Art. 131. Prosecution said that although the accused
did not prohibit the holding of the meeting in question, but he interrupted the holding of the meeting
which is within the meaning of Art. 131. Is the COP liable?
A: NO. In order, therefore, to make said provision applicable, it is necessary that the accused be a
stranger, not a participant of the meeting that has been interrupted and eventually dissolved.
Important: The offender here who is a public officer must be a stranger, not a participant in the
meeting.
There are two criteria to determine whether Article 131 would be violated:
(1) Dangerous tendency rule – applicable in times of national unrest such as to prevent coup d’etat.
(2) Clear and present danger rule – applied in times of peace. Stricter rule.
Read: Ruiz vs Gordon 126 SCRA 233,en banc and Reyes vs Bagatsing (Anti-Bases Coalition), 125
SCRA 553(en banc)
Article 132. Interruption of religious worship. —The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall
be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall prevent or disturb the ceremonies or
manifestations of any religion.
If the crime shall have been committed with violence or threats, the penalty shall be prision correccional
in its medium and maximum periods.
There are 2 acts that are punishable here: 1) to prevent the holding of ceremonies of any religion and 2) to
disturb the ceremonies or manifestations
Elements

2. Religious ceremonies or manifestations of any religious are about to take place or are going on;
3. Offender prevents or disturbs the same.
Under this article, the offender is a public officer or employee who prevents or disturbs a religious
ceremony or a manifestation of any religion which is about to take place or is going on. If the cer emony
is prevented or disturbed with the use of violence or threat, it will qualify the crime and the penalty is
correspondingly increased.
There is no provision of law which requires religious services to be conducted in a certain form or style.
So persons who meet for the purpose of religious worship, by any method which is not indecent and
unlawful, have a right to do so without being molested (Hull vs. State, 120 Ind. 153, cited in the case of U.S.
vs. Balcorta, 25 Phil. 279).
Read: German vs Barangan, 135 SCRA 514
Article 133. Offending the religious feelings. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon anyone who, in a place devoted to
religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony shall perform acts
notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.
Elements
1. Acts complained of were performed in a place devoted to religious worship, or during the
celebration of any religious ceremony;
2. The acts must be notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.
There must be deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the faithful.
Note: A private individual may be liable here because the law says “anyone” unlike in Art. 132.
Take Note: That the act must be notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful and performed in a
place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of a religious ceremony.
An act be notoriously offensive to the religious feelings must be directed against a religious practice or
dogma. An act intended to ridicule or mock another religion.—mocks or scoffs at anything devoted to
religious ceremonies; plays or destroys any object of veneration by the faithful. In determining whether
an act is offensive to the feelings of the faithful, the same must be viewed or judged from the standpoint
of the offended religion and not from the point of view of the offended (Pp vs Baes, 68 Phil. 203)

2017 Notes of Judge Rowena Apao-Adlawan in Titles 1 To 2 of The Revised Penal Code

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2017 Notes of Judge Rowena Apao-Adlawan in Titles 1 To 2 of The Revised Penal Code

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2017 NOTES OF JUDGE ROWENA APAO-ADLAWAN IN CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II

TITLE I. CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS

Crimes against national security

1. Treason (Art. 114);

2. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason (Art. 115);

3. Misprision of treason (Art. 116); and

4. Espionage (Art. 117).

5. Terrorism & Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism – RA 9372

Crimes against the law of nations

1. Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals (Art. 118);

2. Violation of neutrality (Art. 119);

3. Corresponding with hostile country (Art. 120);

4. Flight to enemy's country (Art. 121); and

5. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas (Art. 122).

(3) Violation of Neutrality, under Article 119

1 2017 NOTES OF JUDGE ROWENA APAO-ADLAWAN IN CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II

1. The offender owes allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;

3. The offender does any of the following overt acts:

There are two ways of committing treason.

a) The first is by levying war against the Government.

The First Mode of committing the crime:

2 2017 NOTES OF JUDGE ROWENA APAO-ADLAWAN IN CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II

The Second Mode of committing the crime:

Q: Is treason a continuing offense?

Two ways of proving treason

1. Testimony of at least two witnesses to the same overt act; or

2. Confession of accused in open court.

Q: What is the Severely Restrictive Rule?

Treason distinguished from Rebellion.

Treason distinguished from Sedition.

Points to remember regarding treason.

1) Treason is committed only in times of war.

Elements of conspiracy to commit treason

1. There is a war in which the Philippines is involved;

2. At least two persons come to an agreement to –

a. levy war against the government; or

b. adhere to the enemies, giving them aid or comfort;

3. They decide to commit it.

Elements of proposal to commit treason

1. There is a war in which the Philippines is involved;

2. At least one person decides to –

a. levy war against the government; or

b. adhere to the enemies, giving them aid or comfort;

3. He proposes its execution to some other persons.

1. Offender owes allegiance to the government, and not a foreigner;

2. He has knowledge of conspiracy to commit treason against the government;

Q: What makes one liable under Art. 116?

5 2017 NOTES OF JUDGE ROWENA APAO-ADLAWAN IN CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II

There are two of Committing Espionage:

1. By entering, without authority therefore, a warship, fort or naval or military establishment or

1. Offender enters any of the places mentioned;

2. He has no authority therefore;

3. His purpose is to obtain information, plans, photographs or other data of a confidential

1. Offender is a public officer;

2. He has in his possession the articles, data or information referred to in paragraph 1 of

The crime is not conditioned by the citizenship of the offender.

Not all public officers or employees can commit the crime.

6 2017 NOTES OF JUDGE ROWENA APAO-ADLAWAN IN CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II

(1) Unlawful obtaining or permitting to be obtained information affecting national defense;

Distinctions between treason and espionage.

1. Treason – the offender is a Filipino citizen or a resident alien

CRIMES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS

Section Two. — Provoking war and disloyalty in case of war