Treason

Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit Treason Misprision of Treason

ARTICLES 114-116, TITLE 1 (CRIMES AGAINST THE NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS), RPC

Article 114. Treason. Any Filipino citizen who levies war against the Philippines or adheres to her enemies, giving them aid or comfort within the Philippines or elsewhere,
shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death and shall pay a fine not to exceed 4M pesos.

No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two (2) witnesses at least to the same overt act or on confession of the accused in open court.

Likewise, an alien, residing in the Philippines, who commits acts of treason as defined in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be punished by reclusion temporal to death and
shall pay a fine not to exceed 4M pesos.

Elements

1. Offender is a Filipino citizen or a resident alien:

2. There is a war in which the Philippines is involved:
3. Offender either levies war against the government or adheres to the enemies giving them aid or comfort.
Notes-
Treason is a breach of allegiance to a government, committed by a person who owes allegiance to it.
Allegiance is the obligation of fidelity and obedience which the individual owes to the gov't in return for the protection he receives (Laurel v. Misa). It is the obedience of
an individual to the laws of the government or sovereign in which he resides or is a citizen
• In the dictionary, "allegiance" means loyalty or commitment of a subordinate to a superior or of an individual to a group or cause.
Who are the offenders in treason and what kind of allegiance do they owe the gov't or sovereign?
• Filipino citizen - absolute and permanent allegiance
• Resident alien qualified and temporary allegiance (only temporary allegiance is required because an alien owes permanent allegiance to his own country)

*For purposes of payment of income tax, an alien who is present in the Philippines for at least 2 years is a resident alien. An alien who stays in the Philippines for less than
2 years is considered a non-resident alien.
Treason can only be committed in times of war. "War" here means a war against other countries in which the Philippines is involved. It does not refer to domestic war (i.e.,
versus the CPP- NPA). It cannot be committed in time of peace.

*Under Art. 6, Sec. 23 (1) of the 1987 Constitution, "congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses in joint session assembled, voting separately, shall have the sole
power to declare the existence of a state of war.

 What are the 2 ways of committing treason?

1. By levying war against the gov't;

2. By adhering to the enemies of the Philippines, giving them aid or comfort.

Elements of levying war: (1) there must be an actual assembling of men: (2) for the purpose of executing a treasonable design by force

"actual assembling of men" means that there must be physical gathering of persons (at least by a "band", i.e. a group of more than three armed malefactors); once there is
such gathering, all those who performed any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of the action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy,
are to be considered as traitors:
"treasonable design by force" means to overthrow and destroy the established gov't, not merely to resist a particular statute or to attack/repel a particular gov't official or
gov't branch or institution.
• It is not necessary that those attempting to overthrow the gov't by force of arms should have the apparent power to succeed in their treasonous design (U.S. v. Lagnason).
• "Levying war against the government" is akin to a rebellion (Art. 134), the only difference is that in treason, the levying of war must be in collaboration of a foreign
enemy or with the intention of helping a foreign enemy.

Elements of adhering to the enemy: (1) adherence to the enemy; and (2) giving aid or comfort to the enemy.

 Adherence alone, without giving aid or comfort or vice-versa is not sufficient to constitute treason.

• Ways of proving treason: (1) testimony of 2 witnesses to the same overt act or (2) on confession of the accused in open court. This means that treason cannot be proved by
circumstantial evidence or by the extrajudicial confession of the accused.
• Example of 2-witness rule: X saw Y doing guard duty in a Japanese garrison one night. Z also saw Y doing guard duty in said garrison on said night. The testimony is to
the same overt act.
• Another example: X heard a gun report and see a smoking gun in the hand of Y and see the victim fall. Z saw Y raise and point the gun and see a puff of smoke from it.
While X's and Z's testimonies may not be identical, they still refer to the same overt act
• The 2-witness rule applies to the 2 modes of committing treason:
1. Levying war against the government
2. Adherence to the enemy, giving them aid and comfort (but with respect to adherence, it need not be proved by 2 witnesses)
 Defenses in treason: (1) duress or uncontrollable fear; or (2) lawful obedience to a de facto gov't
*defense of suspended allegiance and change of sovereignty will not be accepted

Article 115 - Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit Treason

Article 115. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason: Penalty. The conspiracy or proposal to commit the crime of treason shall be punished respectively, by prision
mayor and a fine not exceeding 2M pesos, and prision correccional and a fine not exceeding 1M pesos.
1. Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony is not punishable as a rule. (Art. 8)
2. In Art. 115, the mere conspiracy to commit treason or the mere proposal to commit treason is a felony.

*The 2-witness rule does not apply to conspiracy or proposal to commit treason.

Misprision of Treason

Article 116. Misprision of treason. Every person owing allegiance to the Government, 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) the offender owes allegiance to the government, and not a foreigner; (2) he has knowledge of any 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 or the mayor or fiscal of the
city in which he resides.
 The article does not apply when the crime of treason is already committed and the accused does not report its commission to the proper authority. What is punished
is knowledge of any conspiracy to commit treason, not knowledge of treason already committed by another.
  The offender in misprision of treason is punished as an accessory to the crime of treason but also as a principal in the crime of misprision of treason. In such a case,
Art. 20 on exemption from criminal liability (of certain accessories) does not apply, even if the offender is related to the persons in conspiracy against the
government.

ARTICLE 117. REVISED PENAL CODE

Article 117 - Espionage

Article 117. Espionage. The penalty of prision correccional shall be inflicted upon any person who:
1. Without authority therefor, 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
2. 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 rep representative of a foreign nation.
The penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed if the offender be a public officer or employee.

What are the 2 ways of committing espionage?

By entering without authority, a warship, fort, or military or naval establishment or reservation to obtain any information, plan, or other data of confidential nature relative
to the defense of the Philippines:

Elements:

1. That the offender enters any of the places mentioned therein;

2. He has no authority therefor
3. His purpose is to obtain information, plans, photographs or other data of a confidential nature relative to the defense of the Philippines.
By disclosing to the representative of a foreign nation, the contents of the articles, data or information referred to in the preceding paragraph, which he had in his possession
by reason of the public office he holds.

Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer:
2. 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:
3. He discloses their contents to a representative of a foreign nation.

Notes-

*can be committed both in times of war or peace

*In par. 1: (1) there must be physical "entrance" of the places of mentioned; no espionage if the offender does not physically enter: (2) offender must have the intention to
obtain information relative to the defense of the Philippines, merely taking possession of the plans, photographs, etc. without such intention is not enough; (3) information
to be obtained must be in relation to the "defense", not "offense" of the Philippines; (4) it is not necessary that the offender actually obtains such information, plans, etc.; (5)
the offender here may be a citizen, foreigner, private individual, or public officer

In par. 2: (1) the public officer must have possessed the information, plans, data, etc by reason of the office he holds; (2) the offender, to be liable, must have disclosed such
information to the representative of a foreign nation

OTHER ACTS OF ESPIONAGE UNDER C.A. NO. 616

• Unlawfully obtaining or permitting to be obtained information affecting national defense (Sec. 1) -here, physical entrance is not necessary
• Unlawful disclosing of information affecting national defense (Sec. 2)
• Disloyal acts or words in time of peace (Sec. 3)
• Disloyal acts or words in time of war (Sec. 4)
• Conspiracy to violate the preceding sections (Sec. 5)
• Harboring or concealing violators of the law (Sec. 6)

Other unlawful acts (Secs. 9 to 14)

*Difference bet. espionage and treason: (1) treason is committed only in time of war, whereas espionage can be committed both in time of war or peace; (2) treason can
only be committed in 2 ways, whereas espionage can be committed in many ways pursuant to C.A. No. 616
 Inciting to War or Giving Motives for Reprisals
Violation of Neutrality
Correspondence with Hostile Country
Flight to Enemy's Country

ARTICLES 118-121, RPC

Article 118 - Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals

Article 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. A private individual or public officer performs unlawful or unauthorized acts;
2. That such acts provoke or give occasion for a war involving or liable to involve the Phils. or expose our citizens to reprisals on their persons or property.

Notes-
There are 2 crimes here: Inciting to war/ Giving motives for reprisals
• Committed only in time of peace
The intention of the offender is immaterial; as long as the unlawful or unauthorized acts provoke or give occasion for a war or expose our citizens to reprisals on their
persons or property, the crime is deemed committed.

• Examples: public destruction of the flag or seal of another country; or the public manifestations of hostility to the head or
ambassador of another country
 Article 119 - Violation of neutrality

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:
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.

Article 120 - Correspondence with hostile country

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 such 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. That there is a war in which the Philippines is involved;

2. The offender makes correspondence with an enemy country or territory occupied by enemy troops;
3. The correspondence is either (a) prohibited by the gov't; (b) carried on in ciphers or conventional signs; or (c) containing notice or information which might be useful to
the enemy
Notes-
There must be an actual war in which the Philippines is involved.
• "Correspondence" here is communication by means of letters; or it may refer to the letters which pass between those who have friendly or business relations.
• If correspondence is through electronic means, i.e. text mesg, email, the article does not apply.
• "Prohibited by the government" is required only in par. 1, not so in par. 2 and 3; such prohibition applies even if the correspondence involves innocent matters only'.
• "carried on in ciphers or conventional signs" in par. 2 means the correspondence is by means of a secret or disguised way of writing:
• The "notice" or "information" in par. 3 need not be actually useful to the enemy. It is enough that it MIGHT be useful to the enemy.
• In par. 3, the offense becomes qualified (the effect is an increase in penalty) if the offender intended to aid the enemy by the giving of such notice or information (*the
crime amounts to the 2nd way of committing treason).

Article 121 - Flight to enemy's country

Article 121. Flight to enemy 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:
1. There is a war in which the Philippines is involved:
2. The offender owes allegiance to the government;
3. The offender flees or attempts to flee to enemy country;
4. Going to the enemy country is prohibited by competent authority.
Notes-
The "allegiance" here means either permanent or temporary allegiance; hence this article applies even to a resident alien.
• But if the resident alien attempts to flee or flees to enemy country which happens to be his own country to which he owes permanent allegiance to, it is submitted that he
should not be held liable.
 Unlawful use of means of publication and unlawful utterances
Article 154 of the Revised Penal Code

Elements of use false/falsified document in any other transaction:

1. The offender knew that a document was falsified by another person;

2. The false document is embraced in Art. 171 or in paragraphs 1 or 2 of Art. 172;
3. He used such document in any other transaction (not in a judicial proceeding);
4. The use of the false document caused damage to another or at least it was used with intent to cause such damage.

Using the false/falsified document other than in a judicial proceeding means using the same in all kinds of transactions/activities which does not involve presenting/offering
it as evidence in a court case.

(1) "Publishing or causing to be published, by means of printing, lithography or any other means of publication, as news any false news which may endanger the public
order, or cause damage to the interest or credit of the State"-

-Here, the offender publishes as news any false or fake news which may: (a) endanger the public order; or (b) cause damage to the interest or credit of the State.

-It is not necessary that the publication of the false news actually caused public disorder or caused damage to the interest or credit of the State. The mere possibility of
causing such danger or damage is sufficient (Reyes, RPC, p. 165). The offender, of course, must know that the news is false. Example: X, a reporter of Ekaf News Channel,
posts in its news website that the Covid-19 vaccines ordered by the Phil. Gov't from China is fake. X knew that what he posted was fake or at the very least not true, as he
had no proof that the vaccines from China are fake.

(2) "Encouraging disobedience to the law or to the constituted authorities or by praising, justifying or extolling any act punished by law, by the same means or by words,
utterances or speeches"-

Example 1: (encouraging disobedience to the law) X publishes a paid advertisement on a newspaper encouraging the people not to pay taxes as according to him, the taxes
are just being wasted through corruption.
Example 2: (encouraging disobedience to the constituted authorities) X, in his FB account, uploads a post telling his neighbors to disobey the 10pm curfew as according to
him, it violates their freedom of movement.

Example 3: (praising, justifying, or extolling any act punished by law) X, in his campaign speeches, praises the vigilante-killings of suspected drug pushers as he believes
that these people no longer deserve to live.

"Here, it is not necessary that the people are actually encouraged to disobey.

Article 154- Unlawful use of means of publication and unlawful utterances

The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine ranging from 40,000 pesos to 200,000 pesos shall be imposed upon:

1. Any person who by means of printing, lithography, or any other means of publication shall publish or cause to be published as news any false news which may endanger
the public order, or cause damage to the interest or credit of the State;
2. Any person who by the same means, or by words, utterances or speeches shall encourage disobedience to the law or to the constituted authorities or praise, justify, or
extol any act punished by law;
3. Any person who shall maliciously publish or cause to be published any official resolution or document without proper authority, or before they have been published
officially; or
4. Any person who shall print, publish, or distribute or cause to be printed, published, or distributed books, pamphlets, periodicals, or leaflets which do not

Punishable acts in Article 154:

1. Publishing or causing to be published, by means of printing, lithography or any other means of publication, as news any false news which may endanger the public order,
or cause damage to the interest or credit of the State;
2. Encouraging disobedience to the law or to the constituted authorities or by praising, justifying or or extolling any act punished by law, by the same means or by words,
utterances or speeches;
3. Maliciously publishing or causing to be published any official resolution or document without proper authority, or before they have been published officially;
4. Printing, publishing or distributing (or causing the same) books, pamphlets, periodicals, or leaflets which do not bear the real printer's name, or which are classified as
anonymous. (Reyes, RPC, p. 165)

Elements:
1. The offender is any person;
2. The offender commits any of the acts of falsification in Art. 171 (except paragraph 7);
3. The falsification was committed in any private document;
4. The falsification caused damaged to another or at least the falsification was committed with intent to cause such damage.

Mere falsification of a private document without causing damage or without any intent to cause damage will not make the person liable.

Example 1: X falsified a handwritten temporary receipt by imitating the signature of the seller Y, making it appear that he already paid the purchase price for the article sold
to him. However, X just kept the same inside his drawer. Here, there is no falsification because he did not perform a separate, independent act that operated to prejudice Y.

Example 2:, X falsified a handwritten temporary receipt by imitating the signature of the seller Y, making it appear that he already paid the purchase price for the article
sold to him. When Y tried to collect the payment, X refused insisting that he had already paid Y as evidenced by the falsified receipt. Here, there is falsification of a private
document because X performed a separate, independent act- his refusal to pay that prejudiced Y.

Elements of paragraph 1 of Art. 172:

1. The offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who did not take advantage of his official position;
2. He committed any of the acts of falsification under Art. 171;
3. The falsification was committed in a public, official, or commercial document. (Reyes, RPC, p. 234)

Note: Similar to Art. 171, the element of damage or intent to cause damage is not necessary in par. 1 of Art. 172. In other words, it is not necessary that the offender obtains
some gain as a result of the falsification because what is penalized here is the undermining of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as proclaimed in the public or
official document.

The element of damage is also not necessary for commercial documents because here, a credit is sought to be protected.

Liability of any person who falsifies a private document

Article 172. Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not
more than 1 million pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. XxxxxXXXXX

2. Any person who, to the damage of a third party, or with the intent to cause such damage, shall in any private document commit any of the acts of falsification enumerated
in the next preceding article.

Use of falsified documents

Article 172. Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not
more than 1 million pesos shall be imposed upon:

1. XxxxxXXXXX
2. XxxxxXXXXX

Any person who shall knowingly introduce in evidence in any judicial proceeding or to the damage of another or who, with the intent to cause such damage, shall use any
of the false documents embraced in the next preceding article, or in any of the foregoing subdivisions of this article, shall be punished by the penalty next lower in degree.

Elements of introducing in a judicial proceeding:

1. The offender knew that a document was falsified by another person;

2. The false/falsified document is embraced in Art. 171 or in paragraphs 1 or 2 of Art. 172; (whether public, official, commercial, or private documents and committed
through any of the acts of falsification)
3. He introduced said document in evidence in any judicial proceeding.

Notes: (1) judicial proceeding" can refer to a civil or a criminal case pending in a court of law, e.g. MTC, RTC, etc.; (2) the element of "damage" or intent to cause damage
is not necessary when the false document is presented or offered as evidence in a judicial proceeding.

Mere falsification of a private document without causing damage or without any intent to cause damage will not make the person liable.

Example 1: X falsified a handwritten temporary receipt by imitating the signature of the seller Y, making it appear that he already paid the purchase price for the article sold
to him. However, X just kept the same inside his drawer. Here, there is no falsification because he did not perform a separate, independent act that operated to prejudice Y.
Example 2, X falsified a handwritten temporary receipt by imitating the signature of the seller Y, making it appear that he already paid the purchase price for the article sold
to him. When Y tried to collect the payment, X refused insisting that he had already paid Y as evidenced by the falsified receipt. Here, there is falsification of a private
document because X performed a separate, independent act- his refusal to pay that prejudiced Y.

Example 3: X falsified a handwritten temporary receipt by imitating the signature of the seller Y, making it appear that he already paid the purchase price for the article sold
to him. When Y tried to collect the payment, X initially refused insisting that he had already paid Y as evidenced by the falsified receipt. Y then sent X a demand letter,
giving X 10 days within which to pay. X changed his mind and eventually paid Y within the said period. Here, X is still liable for falsification of a private document
because while his initial refusal to pay did not result in damage to Y, he did the same with the intent to cause such damage.

(3) "He falsifies a document by committing any of the acts of falsification"-

(4) "In case the offender is an ecclesiastical minister, the act of falsification is committed with respect to any record or document of such character that its falsification may
affect the civil status of persons"-

Liability of a private individual who falsifies a public, official, or commercial document

Article 172. Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not
more than 1 million pesos shall be imposed upon:

1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications enumerated in the next preceding article in any public or official document or letter of exchange or any
other kind of commercial document;

(1) "The offender is a public officer, employee or notary public"-

The ecclesiastical minister is also included in this article. He is one who is commissioned to perform some act on behalf of the Church or some religion or denomination,
like a priest.

He is liable under this article if he shall commit any of the acts of falsification with respect to any record or document of such character that its falsification may affect the
civil status of persons.
Civil status, or marital status, are the distinct options that describe a person's legal relationship with a significant other: married, single, and widowed are examples of civil
status.

Example: Fr. X issued in an authenticated form a supposed marriage certificate of Y purporting to be a copy of an original marriage certificate when no such original exists.

2) "He takes advantage of his official position"

How does a public officer or notary public take advantage of his official position? (a) when he has the duty to make or to prepare or otherwise to intervene in the
preparation of the document; or (b) when he has the official custody of the document which he falsifies. (Reyes, RPC, p. 213)

Note: If the offender is a public officer but he did not take advantage of his official position, he will be liable as a private individual under Art. 172.

Example: X, a court stenographer, in making a transcription of her notes, deliberately changed the testimony of Y by making it appear that he admitted to having committed
the crime. Here, X not only had the duty to prepare or intervene in the preparation of the document but also had the official custody of the document, in this case the
stenographic notes and its transcript, which she falsified.

Note: To be liable for the crime of "use of falsified documents" under the last paragraph of Art. 172, the person who used the false/falsified document must not be the one
who falsified the document, otherwise, if he was also the one who falsified it, he will be liable for falsification under Art. 171 or under paragraphs 1 and 2 of Art. 172, as
the case may be.

Elements of Art. 171:

1. The offender is a public officer, employee or notary public;
2. He takes advantage of his official position;
3. He falsifies a document by committing any of the acts of falsification;
4. In case the offender is an ecclesiastical minister, the act of falsification is committed with respect to any record or document of such character that its falsification may
affect the civil status of persons.
Example 4: If, in the same example, X falsified his certificate of candidacy by falsely stating his date of birth to make it appear that he was eligible to run for public office,
it can be said that it was made with the wrongful intent of injuring a third person the public who will be prejudiced by the election of someone who is not qualified in the
first place.
*Note: The requirement, however, that the falsification must be made with the wrongful intent of injuring a third person is not material/essential when the document
falsified is a public or official document.
(5) "Altering true dates"- There is falsification under this paragraph only when the date mentioned in the document is essential. The alteration of the date in a document
must affect either the veracity of the document or the effects thereof. (Reyes, RPC, p. 225)
Example 1: The payroll clerk of a certain company certified that he paid the salary of X on November 30. The truth was that he actually paid X in advance on
November 20. X, however, worked up to November 30. Here, while there was an alteration of the date of the actual payment of the salary, such alteration did not
affect the veracity of the document or the effects thereof.
Example 2: X, a clerk in the office of the civil registrar, altered the date of death in the death certificate of Y to make it appear that Y was still alive when he sold a
piece of land to Z. Here, the alteration is essential because it not only affects the veracity of the death certificate but also the effects thereof.
(4) "Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts"-
Requisites: (a) the offender makes in a document statement in a narration of facts; (b) he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him; (c) the facts
narrated by the offender are absolutely false; and (d) the perversion of the truth in the narration of facts was made with the wrongful intent of injuring a third person.
(Reyes, RPC, p. 220)
Example 1: X declared in his certificate of candidacy that he was eligible to run for office when in fact he was not eligible because he had not reached the minimum
age requirement. He, however, wrote in the said certificate his exact date of birth. Here, he is not liable under par. 4 because his declaration that he was "eligible" is
a mere "conclusion of law", not a "narration of fact". Had he purposely stated the wrong date of birth to make it appear that he was eligible, he would be liable for
falsification because the date of his birth is a matter of fact.
Example 2: In the same example, X had the legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him in his certificate of candidacy because our election law
requires him to do so. "Legal obligation" means there must be a law requiring, expressly or impliedly, the disclosure of the truth of the fact alleged to have been
falsified.
Example 3: X, a clerk in the Personnel Dept., made it appear that Y, a janitor, had performed his work from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. during the days stated in the payroll by
certifying the said payroll as correct. The truth, however, was that Y only worked for a few hours each day because Y had to attend to his ailing child in the hospital.
 Here, X is not liable because Y really worked during the days he was said to have worked although not for the whole day. The rule is that if the statements are not
altogether false, there being some colorable truth" in such statements, the crime of falsification is not committed. (Reyes, RPC, p. 223)
Only public officers and/or notaries public who take advantage of their official positions can be held liable under this paragraph because the authentication of a document
can be made only by the custodian or the one who prepared and retained a copy of the original document. A private individual, however, who conspires with a public officer
or notary public will also be liable under this paragraph.
Example 1: Atty. X, a notary public, upon the request of his client Y who paid X a huge amount of money, made a supposed copy of a deed of sale which is actually non-
existent to make it appear that Z had sold a piece of land to Y. Here, Atty. X issued in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document
when no such original exists.
Example 2: X, a civil registrar, stated in a certified copy of Y's birth certificate that he was "legitimate" when there was no such statement in the original document. Here, X
included in such a copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original.

Liability of a public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastical minister who takes advantage of his official position

Article 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastical minister. The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed 1 million pesos shall be
imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts:
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any ecclesiastical minister who shall commit any of the offenses enumerated in the preceding paragraphs of this article, with
respect to any record or document of such character that its falsification may affect the civil status of persons.

➤(6) "Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning"-

➤(8) "Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book"-

Elements:
1. There is an alteration (change) or intercalation (insertion) on a document;
2. It was made on a genuine document;
3. The alteration or intercalation has changed the meaning of the document; and
4. The change made the document speak something false. (Reyes, RPC, p. 226)
 Example 1: X falsified the traffic violation report issued to him by erasing the originally written figure "2" after the words "number of violations" and by
superimposing thereon the figure "1" to make it appear that he committed a traffic violation only once. The city ordinance authorizes traffic enforcers to arrest
individuals should they be caught committing a 3rd traffic violation. Here, there is falsification because the alteration changed the meaning of the document.
Example 2: X, in his community tax certificate (cedula), altered the age appearing in the said cedula from "46" to "45" to reflect his true age which is 45. Here, there
is no falsification because an alteration which speaks the truth is merely a correction. An alteration connotes the idea of deception, that is, to make the instrument
speak something which the person concerned did not intend it to speak.

IN THE CASE OF PUBLIC, OFFICIAL, COMMERCIAL, or PRIVATE DOCUMENTS

it is committed through any of the 8 ways of falsification mentioned in Art. 171, which are:

1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric;

• 2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate;
3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them;8
Must there be a genuine document in falsification?
In the first 5 acts of falsification (paragraphs 1 to 5) in Art. 171, the falsification may be committed by simulating or fabricating a document. Hence, it may be a genuine
document or a simulated document.
However, in the last 3 acts of falsification (paragraphs 6, 7 in ts 2nd part, and 8) in Art. 171, there must be a genuine document that is falsified.
Elements of Art. 170:
1. There is a bill, resolution or ordinance enacted or approved or pending approval by either House of the Legislature or any provincial board or municipal council;
2. The offender (who can be any person) alters the same;
3. He has no authority to alter the same;
4.The alteration has changed the meaning of the document.
In the case of legislative documents, the only act of falsification punished in Art. 170 is the act of altering which changes the meaning of the document (that is, the
alteration made the document speak something false).
All other acts of falsification, if committed on a legislative document are punishable either under Art. 171 or 172.
Also, to be liable under Art. 170, the legislative document that is falsified must be genuine. If the legislative document is not merely altered but fabricated or simulated,
then Article 171 or 172 applies.
(3) "Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them-
Requisites: (a) a person or persons participated in an act or a proceeding; (b) such person or persons made statements in that act or proceeding; (c) the offender, in making a
document, attributed to such person or persons statements other than those in fact made by such person or persons. (Reyes, RPC, p. 219)
Example: X, a barangay councilor, opposed the approval of a barangay resolution during a barangay session held for such purpose. In order to get the required
number of votes for the approval of said resolution, Y, the barangay secretary, caused it to appear in the minutes that X voted in favor of the said resolution.
(1) "Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric"-
There are 2 ways of committing falsification under this first act of falsification: (a) counterfeiting and (b) feigning.

Counterfeiting - imitating/forging a handwriting, signature or rubric

Requisites:
(1) there must be an attempt to imitate, and (2) the two signatures or handwritings, the genuine and the forged, must bear some resemblance to each other. (Reyes, RPC, p.
216)
*In counterfeiting, there is an original signature or handwriting which is imitated. An imitation is necessary but need not be perfect. (Reyes, Ibid)
*The resemblance must be such that it is likely to deceive an ordinary person receiving or dealing with the document. (Reyes, ibid
Feigning In feigning, there is no original signature, handwriting or rubric, but a forgery/simulation of a signature, handwriting or rubric that does not in
fact exist.
Example 1: X made up a deed of sale to the effect that Y sold his house and lot to him (X). Y, however, had died a year before. Here, there is feigning because X simulated
Y's signature and handwriting to a document which does not exist. "In the said example, while Y may have known how to write and may have had a signature while he was
still alive, the fact of the matter is that his signature or handwriting does not in fact exist because there is no such document in the first place.

Example 2: X, being illiterate, does not know how to read or write. Y simulated a deed of sale to the effect that X had sold the land to him. Here, there is feigning because
X's signature does not really exist.
-In example 1, it is not necessary that there is an attempt to simulate the original signature.
-In example 2, there is no genuine signature to imitate.

What is falsification?

Falsification is the commission of any of the eight acts of falsification mentioned in Art. 171 of the RPC on legislative (only the act of alteration), public, official,
commercial, and private documents.
But first, what is a document?
1. It is any written statement by which a right is established or an obligation is extinguished.
2. It can also be any writing or instrument by which a fact may be proven and affirmed.
3. It is also one that proves, evidences, or sets forth some disposition or agreement.

The writing must be complete, otherwise there is no falsification because this crime can be committed only with respect to documents and an incomplete or unfilled-up
form is not a document. (Dava v. People, GR 73905)
It must have the appearance of a true and genuine document and must be of apparent legal efficacy.
Example: a payroll draft is which is unsigned is not a document because it neither proves nor affirms anything; a blank receipt is not a document.
(3) "Maliciously publishing or causing to be published any official resolution or document without proper authority, or before they have been published officially"
Example: X, secretary in the office of Fiscal Y, released to Z without authority Fiscal Y's resolution dismissing a criminal complaint against Z in the hope of obtaining a
"thank you gift" from the latter.
(4) "Printing, publishing or distributing (or causing the same) books, pamphlets, periodicals, or leaflets which do not bear the real printer's name, or which are classified as
anonymous"-
Example: X caused to be published an anonymous book exposing the alleged immoral acts of a public figure.
*The evil sought to be avoided here is the non-accountability resulting from the fact that the author is unknown, hence he cannot be charged in court for his libelous words.
But of course, the publisher will be criminally liable.

Falsification of documents
Articles 170-172 of the Revised Penal Code

• (4) COMMERCIAL DOCUMENT - a document or instrument used by businessmen to promote or facilitate trade; it is one that is regulated by mercantile laws. Examples:
letters of credit; bank checks; promissory notes; bonds; books of accounts; warehouse receipts; deposit slips; bank statements; journal books, ledgers, bills of lading.
*cash disbursement vouchers; receipts evidencing payment to borrowers of loans are considered private documents only
How are documents falsified?
IN THE CASE LEGISLATIVE DOCUMENTS (which are also official documents)-
The governing article is Art. 170, RPC: Falsification of legislative documents. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine not exceeding 1.2
million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, without proper authority therefor alters any bill, resolution, or ordinance enacted or approved or pending approval by
either House of the Legislature or any provincial board or municipal council.
In criminal law, there are 4 kinds of documents that can be the subject of falsification:
• (1) PRIVATE DOCUMENT is a deed or instrument executed by a private person or between private individuals by which something is proved, evidenced or set forth and
for which anotary public has not intervened. A private document becomes a public document after it is notarized or made part of a public record.
Examples: a deed of sale which is not yet notarized; a concert ticket; love letter written and signed by Juan declaring his love for his mistress named Maria; a temporary
receipt for the purchase of goods or merchandise.
(2) PUBLIC DOCUMENT - a private document that has been notarized; or one that has become part of public record. Examples: a deed of sale or any deed acknowledged
before a notary public; a temporary receipt presented and offered as evidence in court.
• (3) OFFICIAL DOCUMENT - a document issued by a public official in the exercise of the functions of his office (the issuance is mandated by law and in the performance
of official duty). Examples: driver's license; teacher's DTR; duly filled-up and signed leave application of a gov't employee; time and payroll sheet signed by the municipal
treasurer, certificate of title; PDS; an official receipt prescribed by the BIR to be issued upon the receipt of money is a public or official document
"An official document is also a public document.
"A public document starts as a private document while an official document is from the start an official document. (RPC, Boado, p. 485)
Can a person charged with Qualified theft be convicted for Estafa?

As a rule, a person charged with qualified theft cannot be convicted for Estafa. As provided by Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, qualified theft is defined as the taking
of one's property without the owner's consent, and must be done by a domestic servant, with grave abuse of confidence, if the property stolen is a motor vehicle, mail
matter, or cattle, consists of coconuts from premises of property stolen is a motor vehicle, mail matter, or cattle, consists of coconuts from premises of plantation, fish from
fishpond, and taken during a calamity. Also, in theft, he only took material possession of the thing. Meanwhile, Estafa or swindling is defined in the Revised Penal Code as
defrauding another through abuse of confidence or through means of deceit, wherein the owner consented to the voluntary giving of a thing to the offender and was
entrusted to take care of property stolen is a motor vehicle, mail matter, or cattle, consists of coconuts from premises of plantation, fish from fishpond, and taken during a
calamity. Also, in theft, he only took material possession of the thing. Meanwhile, Estafa or swindling is defined in the Revised Penal Code as defrauding another through
abuse of confidence or through means of deceit, wherein the owner consented to the voluntary giving of a thing to the offender and was entrusted to take care of it for
administration, trust or commission. Thus, in Qualified Theft, the owner did not consent to the taking of the property, while in Estafa, there is a voluntary entrustment of the
property.

However, by applying the variance doctrine and by analogy with the recent case of Tan vs. People, 27, it may well be possible to convict an offender with the crime of
Estafa even if he is charged in the information for the crime of Qualified Theft.
Difference between Material and Juridical Possession
As early as 1956, the Court, in Guzman vs. Court of Appeals, 29 already demarcated the line between possession by an employee who receives funds in behalf of the
company and possession of an agent, thus:
"There is an essential distinction between the possession by a receiving teller of funds received from third persons paid to the bank, and an agent who receives the
proceeds of sales of merchandise delivered to him in agency by his principal. In the former case, payment by third persons to the teller is payment to the bank itself; the
teller is a mere custodian or keeper of the funds received, and has no independent right or title to retain or possess the same as against the bank. An agent, on the other hand,
can even assert, as against his own principal, an independent, autonomous, right to retain the money or goods received in consequence of the agency; as when the principal
fails to reimburse him for advances he has made, and indemnify him for damages suffered without his fault."
"Therefore, as it now stands, a sum of money received by an employee in behalf of an employer is considered to be only in the material possession of the employee.
Notably, such material possession of an employee is adjunct, by reason of his employment, to a recognition of the juridical possession of the employer. As long as the
juridical possession of the thing appropriated did not pass to the employee, the offense committed is theft, qualified or otherwise."

Qualified Theft Penalty

While Art. 310 of the Revised Penal Code has not been amended by Republic Act [RA] No. 10951,30 the threshold value of money for the application of Qualified Theft
Penalty has been amended. It must be noted that the penalty for qualified theft relates to the amount of money embezzled under the felony of Simple Theft
Hence, prior to the amendment of Art. 309, the crime of Simple Theft and Qualified Theft are punished, as follows, to wit: Article 309. Penalties. Any person guilty of theft
shall be punished by:31
1. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the thing stolen is more than 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, but if
the value of the thing stolen exceeds the latter amount the penalty shall be the maximum period of the one prescribed in this paragraph, and one year for each
additional ten thousand pesos, but the total of the penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory
penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the
case may be.32 correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the value of the thing stolen is more than 6,000 pesos but does not exceed 12,000 pesos.33
3. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the property stolen is more than 200 pesos but does not exceed 34 6,000
pesos.
 4. Arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period, if the value of the property stolen is over 50 pesos but does not exceed 200
pesos.35
5 Arresto mayor to its full extent, if such value is over 5 pesos but does not exceed 50 pesos.36
6 Arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if such value does not exceed 5 pesos.37
7Arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, if the theft is committed under the circumstances enumerated in paragraph 3 of the next preceding article and the
value of the thing stolen does not exceed 5 pesos. If such value exceeds said amount, the provision of any of the five preceding subdivisions shall be made applicable.38
8.Arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding 50 pesos, when the value of the thing stolen is not over 5 pesos, and the offender shall have acted under
the impulse of hunger, poverty, or the difficulty of earning a livelihood for the support of himself or his family. 39

Article 310. Qualified theft. The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees than those respectively specified in the next preceding article,
if committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or consists of coconuts taken
from the premises of the plantation or fish taken from a fishpond or fishery, or if property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic erruption, or any
other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance. (As amended by R.A. 120 and B.P. Blg. 71. May 1, 1980).40

Under Republic Act No. 10951

Presently, under RA No. 10951, which was signed into law on August 29, 2017, the crime of Simple Theft, without amending the provision on Qualified Theft, is penalized
as follows, to wit:
Section 81. Article 309 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:41
"Art. 309. Penalties. - Any person guilty of theft shall be punished by:42
"1. The penalty of prisión mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the thing stolen is more than One million two hundred thousand pesos (1,200,000) but
does not exceed Two million two hundred thousand pesos (P2,200,000); but if the value of the thing stolen exceeds the latter amount, the penalty shall be the maximum
period of the one prescribed in this paragraph, and one (1) year for each additional One million pesos (1,000,000), but the total of the penalty which may be imposed shall
not exceed twenty (20) years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code,
the penalty shall be termed prisión mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.43
"2. The penalty of prisión correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the value of the thing stolen is more than Six hundred thousand pesos (P600,000) but does
not exceed One million two hundred thousand pesos (1,200,000).44
"3. The penalty of prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the property stolen is more than Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000) but does not
exceed Six hundred thousand pesos (P600,000).45
"4. Arresto mayor in its medium period to prisión correccional in its minimum period, if the value of the property stolen is over Five thousand pesos (5,000) but does not
exceed Twenty thousand pesos (+20,000).46
"5. Arresto mayor to its full extent, if such value is over Five hundred pesos (P500) but does not exceed Five thousand pesos (P5,000).47
"6. Arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if such value does not exceed Five hundred pesos (P500).48
"7. Arresto menor or a fine not exceeding Twenty thousand pesos (+20,000), if the theft is committed under the circumstances enumerated in paragraph 3 of the next
preceding article and the value of the thing stolen does not exceed Five hundred pesos (500). If such value exceeds said amount, the provisions of any of the five preceding
subdivisions shall be made applicable.49

"8. Arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine of not exceeding Five thousand pesos (5,000), when the value of the thing stolen is not over Five hundred pesos (500),
and the offender shall have acted under the impulse of hunger, poverty, or the difficulty of earning a livelihood for the support of himself or his family."50
Without RA No. 10951 amending the provision of Art. 310 [Qualified Theft] of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for such crime is still two (2) degrees higher than those
respectively specified in Art. 309 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA No. 10951.

Published 21 August 2023, The Daily Tribune

Lying is bad. Lying under oath may even be criminal. If a person deliberately and wilfully makes untruthful statements under oath or makes an affidavit upon any material
matter required by law, he may be criminally charged with perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

Previously, perjury was penalized with a light penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period (or a period of four months and one day to six months) to prision
correccional in its minimum period (or a period of six months and one day to two years and four months).

In October 2021, then President Rodrigo Duterte signed into law Republic Act 11594, amending Article 183, and thereby increasing the penalty for perjury.

With the amendment of the Revised Penal Code by Republic Act 11594, perjury is now punishable by a penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period (six years and one
day to eight years) to its medium period (eight years and one day to 10 years). If the offender is a public officer or employee, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum
period, or 10 years and one day to 12 years.

In addition, the person found guilty of perjury may be made liable to pay a fine of up to P1 million and may be perpetually disqualified from holding any appointive or
elective position in government or in any of its agencies, instrumentalities. entities, or with the harsher and stiffer prescribed penalties for perjury, let us revisit how this
crime is committed.

Under our established jurisprudence, for perjury to exist, the following elements must be present, namely: (a) there must be a statement made under oath or an affidavit was
executed upon a material matter; (b) the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer, authorized to receive and administer an oath; (c) in that statement or
affidavit, there was a wilful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood; and (d) the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law or made for a legal
purpose. (Villanueva v Secretary of Justice, G.R. 162187, 18 November 2005)

On the first element, a material matter is defined as the main fact that is the subject of the inquiry or any fact or circumstance which tends to prove that fact; or any fact or
circumstance which tends to corroborate or strengthen the testimony relative to the subject of inquiry, or which legitimately affects the credit of any witness who testifies.
(Masangkay V People, G.R. 164443, 18 June 2010)

This means that not all falsehoods committed under oath may be punishable by perjury. The falsified matter must be a material matter. For instance, in an intra-corporate
case where the directorship of the company is contested, the corporate secretary who filed a General Information Sheet stating that a different set of directors were elected
they were not liable for perjury election of the when in truth may be held because the directors is a material fact in the intra-corporate case. Meanwhile, the falsity of the
indicated telephone number of the corporation in the GIS may not be considered material matter.

As to the second element of subscribing the statement or affidavit under oath before a competent officer, this usually pertains to the swearing of a statement before a notary
public or for instance, in criminal cases, before a public prosecutor.
Next, as to the element of wilful and deliberate falsehood, this means that there is a corrupt and intentional perversion of truth. As explained in the case of Saulo v People of
the Philippines (G.R. 242900, 8 June 2020), "wilful" means intentional. There is evil intent and legal malice on the part of the accused, that is, there is consciousness that
the alleged perjurious statement is false with the intent that it should be received as a statement of what was true in fact. "Deliberate", on the other hand, means it was
meditated. The accused must know his statement to be false or is consciously ignorant of its truth.

Thus, perjury cannot be wilful where the oath is according to belief or conviction as to its truth. A false statement of a belief is not perjury. Bona fide belief in the truth of
adequate a statement is a defense. A false statement which is obviously the result of an honest mistake is not perjury. (Villanueva v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. 162187, 18
November 2005).

For example, one's testimony under oath that he or she saw a particular person at the scene of the crime, when in fact, the particular person he or she saw is a twin of that
particular person, there is no wilful and deliberate falsehood.

Finally, as to the element that the affidavit or sworn statement is required by law or for a legal purpose, this is satisfied when the particular affidavit or sworn statement is
submitted in a legal proceeding or is required to be submitted by law. Going back to our first example, a General Information Sheet is required by the Revised Corporation
Code (Section 177) to be submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Accordingly, perjury may attach in the case of submission of a GIS with falsified material
entries.

Charged with the foregoing knowledge, extreme caution must be made in executing sworn statements or affidavits, or in making statements under oath. More importantly,
our sworn declarations must always correspond with the truth or our bona fide belief of the truth. Note that perjury is an obstruction of justice; its perpetration may affect
the earnest concerns of the parties before a tribunal. (Villanueva v Secretary of Justice, G.R. 162187, 18 November 2005)

SC orders immediate destruction of seized drug evidence

July 18, 2020 8:59 am
By Ruth Abbey Gita-Carlos July 17, 2020, 2:27 pm
NEWS EXCERPT AND IMAGE FROM PNA.GOV.PH

On Wednesday, the SC directed all regional trial courts (RTC) handling illegal drug cases to expedite their inspection and order the immediate destruction of seized illegal
drugs used as pieces of evidence. The high tribunal's directive came after PNP chief Police Gen. Archie Francisco Gamboa notified Court Administrator Jose Midas
Marquez that illegal drugs confiscated in police operations remain in the custody of enforcement agents due to the delayed issuance of court orders for their destruction.

In Circular 118-2020, Marquez reminded RTC judges to strictly comply with the requirements of Section 21 (4) of Republic Act (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 on the immediate destruction of illegal drugs seized during police operations. Marquez said RTC judges are mandated under RA 9165 to
conduct ocular inspection of the seized dangerous drugs within 72 hours from the filing of a criminal complaint in court.

He added that they are required to issue a destruction order within 24 hours after the ocular inspection. On Thursday, Gamboa said the PNP will immediately seek orders
from lower courts for the disposal of seized illegal drugs. (PNA).

ARSON LAW
Arson- is defined as the malicious burning of property by fire. As long as fire is used, arson is committed for P.D 1613 repealed Article 323 which regarded burning of
property less than P25 as malicious mischief

Can Arson be committed through negligence?

Yes. Where a person burns trash disregarding the strong wind blowing and the cinders landed on the property of another, the crime is reckless imprudence resulting to arson
or simple imprudence, depending upon the circumstance, place and how strong the wind is blowing.
• Justice Leonor R Boado, Revised Penal Code, pp 943
• What is the basis for the penalty for arson?
The enormity of the offense is not measured is not measured by the value of the property that may be destroyed but rather by the human lives exposed to destruction. It is
indeed a heinous crime that the law seeks to suppress with the most serious penalty because of its grave anti-social character.

Is there frustrated arson?

• Before there was a frustrated arson, example if the person is able to light or set fire to the rags but the fire was put out before any part of the building was burned, it is
frustrated (U.S vs Valdez, 39 Phil 240). Justice Reyes, RPC, pp. 835. 2001 Edition
• None, because arson is defined as burning of property if no burning resulted but offender commenced the commission of the felony directly by overt acts but was not able
to produce felony because of causes of causes other than his spontaneous desistance attempted arson is committed. Justice Boado, RPC. pp 944. 2012 Edition

Attempted Arson

• A person, intending to burn a wooden structure, collects some rags soak them in gasoline and places them beside the wooden wall of the building. When he is about to
light a match to set fire to the rags, he is discovered by another who chases him away.
• The crime committed is attempted arson, because the offender commences the commission of the crime directly by overt acts (placing the rags soaked in gasoline beside
the wooden wall of the building and lighting match) but he does not perform all the acts of execution (the setting fire of the fire to the rags) due to timely intervention of
another who chases away the offender.
Consummated Arson
• But if before the fire was put out, it had burned a part of the building it is consummated.
• Any charring of the wood of a building, whereby the fiber of the wood is destroyed, is sufficient. It is not necessary that the would should be ablaze. (4 Am. Jur. 88-89)
• There must be burning or changing, in example, the fiber of the wood must be destroyed or decomposed, or its identity or physical state changed.
• And the mere fact that a building is scorched or disicolored by heat is not sufficient to constitute consummated arson.

Consummated Arson

• Setting fire to the contents of a building constitutes the consummated crime of setting fire to a building, even if no part of the building was burned. (U.S vs. Go Foo Suy,
25 Phil. 187.

Is there complex crime of Arson with homicide?

P.D No. 1613 provides that if by reason of or on the occasion of arson death results, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed. The crime of homicide is
absorbed.
• Under RA 7659 the crime of arson was categorized as Heinous crime.
• But Under R. A 9346 the penalty of death has been reduced to reclusion perpetua.

Circumstantial Evidence

• Arson is established by proving the corpus delicti, usually in the form of CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE such as the criminal agency, meaning the substance used like
gasoline, kerosene, or other combustible materials which caused the fire. It can also be in the form of electrical wires, mechanical, chemical or electronic contrivance
designed to start a fire; or ashes or traces of such objects which are found in the ruins of the burned premises.

ARSON OR MURDER?

• If the fire or burning was employed by the offender as a means to kill the offended party, the crime committed is MURDER. The burning of the property as the MEANS to
kill the victim is what is contemplated by the word "FIRE" under Article 248, paragraph 3, of RPC
• When the burning of the property was done by the offender only to cause damage but the ARSON resulted to the DEATH of the person, the crime committed is still
ARSON because the death of the victim.
• There is no special complex crime of ARSON WITH HOMICIDE. What matters in resolvingf cases involving arson is the CRIMINAL INTENT of the offender.
ARSON OR MURDER
• When the burning of one's property results from reckless imprudence and it leads to serious physical injuries and or damage to property of another, the penalty to be
imposed shall not be for the crime of arson under P.D 1613 but rather, the penalty shall be based on Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code as a felony committed by means
of culpa-imprudence and negligence (e.g Reckless imprudence Resulted to Damage to Property/ Reckless Imprudence Resulted to Serious Physical Injuries)

Separate and distinct crimes

• But if the principal purpose is to kill a particular person, and in fact the offender has already done the killing, but fire is employed as a means to cover up the killing or to
erase any evidence of killing, then the accused could be indicted for two separate and distinct crimes of homicide/murder and arson. It is also worthy of note that like the
crimes of rape and adultery, the crime of arson admits only of two stages, attempted arson and consummated arson. So, the moment any part of the building or structure
intended to be burned is blackened, the felony of arson is already in the consummated stage.

ARSON

1. If the main objective is the burning of the building or edifice, but death results by reason or on the occasion of arson, the crime is simply ARSON, and the resulting
homicide is absorbed.
2. If the main objective is to kill a particular person who may be in a building or edifice, when fire is resorted to as the means to accomplish such goal the crime committed
is MURDER only.
3. If the objective is, likewise, to kill a particular person, and in fact the offender has already done so, but fire is resorted to as a means to cover up the killing, then there are
two separate and distinct crimes committed - HOMICIDE/MURDER and ARSON.
People of the Philippines v. Abayon G.R. No. 204891, September 14, 2016 citing People v. Malngan G.R. No. 170470, September 26, 2006.

Penalties for Arson

Arson is punished severely; generally, as a felony, while reckless burning is considered a less serious felony or misdemeanor. [5] Some jurisdictions simply refer to both
crimes is different levels under the name "arson." While arson is almost always a felony, the severity of the punishment is determined based on several factors.
If the burned property is personal property, the punishment would often be less severe than it would be if the burned property was a home. Moreover, burning an
unoccupied building is punished less severely as compared to punishment for burning an occupied building. Third, if a person is harmed because of the fire, the penalty also
increases. [6] In California, if an arsonist harms at least one person, she can face up to nine years in prison.[7]
Rhode Island, as another example, breaks down arson into seven levels, starting with 7th degree arson - making an unauthorized bonfire in a public place which is
punishable by a fine of $100, all the way up to first- degree arson which is causing a fire or explosion in an occupied building that causes substantial risk of serious physical
harm, which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment and, if a death results, a minimum sentence of 20 years.[8]
An interesting offshoot of arson is that in certain circumstances, an arsonist can be convicted of felony murder when a victim dies as a result of the arson. In Bonhart v.
United States, a drug dealer set an apartment on fire after having sold crack cocaine to two individuals who lived in the apartment who had refused to pay. One of his
customers died in the fire. The drug dealer, though he did not intend to kill the individual, could still be convicted of murder under the felony-murder rule.[9]
The intent element requires the intent to cause damage upon starting the fire. It does not require that the targeted property actually be damaged by the fire and liability can
attach even though the "wrong" property caught fire. In one case, a man set fire to his wife's apartment and it spread to a neighbours’ garage and destroyed the neighbour’s
car. Though he did not intend to burn the neighbours’ car, he could still be convicted of arson because he did intend to burn down his wife's apartment. Though the damage
to the neighbours’ car was accidental, the intent to destroy the apartment could be transferred to the destruction of the car. [3]
Arson requires intent and therefore does not cover unintentional burnings, even if they result from negligent or reckless behavior. Some states have created a separate
offense called "reckless burning," which is punished less severely. Reckless burning, also called "unlawfully causing a fire," does not require that the person intend to start a
fire that causes damage. Instead the person must only act recklessly, being aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, yet ignoring the risk that her actions could cause a
fire.
For example, when a person builds a legal fire in a forest but fails to adequately safeguard it, such as by building a firepit, ringing stones around the fire or by failing to
extinguish it before leaving, and that fire gets out of control and causes damage, he can be held criminally responsible if it is determined that he acted recklessly. If he takes
adequate safeguards, but unforeseen circumstances arise through no fault of his own that spread the fire, he should not incur criminal liability. [4] Accidents that do not
arise from criminal negligence or recklessness are not punishable, as they do not demonstrate the mens rea necessary for criminal liability.
The Role of Insurance Companies
Arson, unlike some other crimes, is not exclusively investigated by the police. Insurance companies also investigate arson, as potential insurance payouts have proven to be
arson motives in all too many cases. One study revealed that in the wake of the collapse of the real estate market in the late 2000's, there was a significant uptick in the
number of residential fires set across the United States because people were trying to collect the insurance money on their own homes that could no longer be sold at
profits. During that time, private insurance companies investigated these arson claims to determine their nature, as many homeowners' insurance policies contain arson
exclusions. [10]
Any arson case investigated by an insurance company can also result in criminal charges. Every state has arson reporting statutes requiring insurance companies to inform
the authorities, either the fire marshal or the police, that it's investigating a potential arson case.
Furthermore, if the investigating insurance company does disclose information about a potential arson to the police, the company is protected from civil defamation claims
that could result from the disclosure.[11]
Those who harness fire to destroy another's property are punished severely under criminal statutes. While there are variations among states, especially with regards to
whether something is arson or reckless burning, states always have, and will continue to, criminalize the underlying conduct of burning something that belongs to someone
else.
Footnotes
[1] State v. Robertson, No. W2009-01853-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 987 (Crim. App. Nov. 18, 2010)
[2] See e.g. Cal Pen Code § 451

The Crime of Arson

David Berkowitz, the infamous serial killer known as the "Son of Sam," terrorized New York City during the summer of 1976. But very few people know that from 1974 to
1977, he set approximately 500 fires a year and then reported some of them to various fire officials. The police eventually caught Berkowitz and discovered a notebook he
kept detailing the specifics of each fire that he started. While certainly not as serious as murder, the crime of arson is considered a serious felony.

In this presentation, we will discuss the crime of arson. We will look at the elements of the crime, the difference between arson and reckless burning, penalties for
committing arson and how insurance companies play a key role in preventing arson.

Elements of Arson

Under the common law and several state statues, a person commits arson when he wilfully burns a dwelling, such as a house or apartment, of another person. Today,
however, many states have removed the "dwelling" requirement and only require that some type of property be burned, even personal property. For example, if one person
sets fire to the shirt of another person, that may be considered arson today, though it certainly didn't fit the common law, historical definition.[1]

Arson requires that the person setting the fire intend to start a fire, knowing that the fire will destroy something. For example, California requires that an arsonist set a fire
"willfully" and "maliciously." This behavioural element and intent requirement distinguishes arson from accidental or unintentional burnings.[2]