REPUBLIC ACT No. 6235 AN ACT PROHIBITING CERTAIN ACTS INIMICAL TO CIVIL AVIATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person to compel a change in the course or destination of an aircraft of Philippine registry, or to seize or usurp the control thereof, while it is in flight. An aircraft is in flight from the moment all its external doors are closed following embarkation until any of such doors is opened for disembarkation. It shall likewise be unlawful for any person to compel an aircraft of foreign registry to land in Philippine territory or to seize or usurp the control thereof while it is within the said territory. Section 2. Any person violating any provision of the foregoing section shall be punished by an imprisonment of not less than twelve years but not more than twenty years, or by a fine of not less than twenty thousand pesos but not more than forty thousand pesos. The penalty of imprisonment of fifteen years to death, or a fine of not less than twenty-five thousand pesos but not more than fifty thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person committing such violation under any of the following circumstances: 1. Whenever he has fired upon the pilot, member of the crew or passenger of the aircraft; 2. Whenever he has exploded or attempted to explode any bomb or explosive to destroy the aircraft; or 3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, serious physical injuries or rape. Section 3. It shall be unlawful for any person, natural or juridical, to ship, load or carry in any passenger aircraft operating as a public utility within the Philippines, and explosive, flammable, corrosive or poisonous substance or material. Section 4. The shipping, loading or carrying of any substance or material mentioned in the preceding section in any cargo aircraft operating as a public utility within the Philippines shall be in accordance with regulations issued by the Civil Aeronautics Administration. Section 5. As used in this Act (1) "Explosive" shall mean any substance, either solid or liquid, mixture or single compound, which by chemical reaction liberates heat and gas at high speed and causes tremendous pressure resulting in explosion. The term shall include but not limited to dynamites, firecrackers, blasting caps, black powders, bursters, percussions, cartridges and other explosive materials, except bullets for firearm. (2) "Flammable" is any substance or material that is highly combustible and self-igniting by chemical reaction and shall include but not limited to acrolein, allene, aluminum dyethyl monochloride, and other aluminum compounds, ammonium chlorate and other ammonium mixtures and other similar substances or materials. (3) "Corrosive" is any substance or material, either liquid, solid or gaseous, which through chemical reaction wears away, impairs or consumes any object. It shall include but not limited to alkaline battery fluid packed with empty storage battery, allyl chloroformate, allytrichlorosilane, ammonium dinitroorthocresolate and other similar materials and substances. (4) "Poisonous" is any substance or materials, except medicinal drug, either liquid, solid or gaseous, which through chemical reactions kills, injuries or impairs a living organism or person, and shall include but not limited to allyl isothiocyanate, ammunition (chemical, non-explosive but containing Class A, B or poison), aniline oil, arsine, bromobenzyle cyanide, bromoacetone and other similar substances or materials. Section 6. Any violation of Section three hereof shall be punishable by an imprisonment of at least five years but not more than ten years or by a fine of not less than ten thousand pesos but not more than twenty thousand pesos: Provided, That if the violation is committed by a juridical person, the penalty shall be imposed upon the manager, representative, director, agent or employee who violated, or caused, directed, cooperated or

participated in the violation thereof: Provided, further, That in case the violation is committed in the interest of a foreign corporation legally doing business in the Philippines, the penalty shall be imposed upon its resident agent, manager, representative or director responsible for such violation and in addition thereto, the license of said corporation to do business in the Philippines shall be revoked. Any violation of Section four hereof shall be an offense punishable with the minimum of the penalty provided in the next preceding paragraph. Section 7. For any death or injury to persons or damage to property resulting from a violation of Sections three and four hereof, the person responsible therefor may be held liable in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Revised Penal Code. Section 8. Aircraft companies which operate as public utilities or operators of aircraft which are for hire are authorized to open and investigate suspicious packages and cargoes in the presence of the owner or shipper, or his authorized representatives if present; in order to help the authorities in the enforcement of the provisions of this Act: Provided, That if the owner, shipper or his representative refuses to have the same opened and inspected, the airline or air carrier is authorized to refuse the loading thereof. Section 9. Every ticket issued to a passenger by the airline or air carrier concerned shall contain among others the following condition printed thereon: "Holder hereof and his hand-carried luggage(s) are subject to search for, and seizure of, prohibited materials or substances. Holder refusing to be searched shall not be allowed to board the aircraft," which shall constitute a part of the contract between the passenger and the air carrier. Section 10. The Civil Aeronautics Administration is hereby directed to promulgate within one month after the approval of this Act such regulations as are provided in Section four hereof and cause the publication of such rules and regulations in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of national circulation for at least once a week for three consecutive weeks. Such regulations shall take effect fifteen days after publication in the Official Gazette. Section 11. This Act shall take effect after the publication mentioned in the preceding section. Approved: June 19, 1971

Republic Act 6235 Anti Hijacking Law Approved: June 19, 1971 The crime of hi-jacking can be committed by any person in 3 ways: 1.) Changing the course or destination of a Philippine aircraft while in flight or to take control of the aircraft while it is in flight. An aircraft is considered "in flight" when its doors are closed after all passengers have boarded and ends when the doors are opened for disembarking. 2.) Compelling a foreign aircraft to land in the Philippines or seizing control of it while it's in Philippine territory. (May not be on flight) 3.) Loading, shipping or carrying explosive, flammable, corrosive or poisonous substances in a passenger aircraft within the Philippines. Loading such substances on cargo aircraft must follow the rules and regulations of the Civil Aeronautics Board. PENALTIES: For violation 1 and 2: 1.) 12 to 20 years imprisonment or a fine of Php20,000 to 40,000 2.) 15 years to life imprisonment or a fine of Php25,000 to 50,000 if any of the qualifying circumstances are present: a.) If he fired on the pilot/s, crew and passengers b.) If he blew up, or tried to blow up, an explosive to try to destroy the aircraft c.) If murder, homicide, rape or serious physical injuries were committed For violation 3, it shall be punishable by an imprisonment of at least five years but not more than ten years or a fine of Php10, 000 to 20,000. If the crime was committed by a juridical person, the penalty will be imposed on its resident agent, manager, representative or director responsible for the violation and its license to do business in the Philippines will be revoked. In case the violation is committed in the interest of a foreign corporation legally doing business in the Philippines, the penalty shall be imposed upon its resident agent, manager, representative or director responsible for such violation and in addition thereto, the license of said corporation to do business in the Philippines shall be revoked.

Bar Examination Questions: 2013 (Criminal Law) Bar Exam Questions: Multiple Choice Question 8 Compelling the pilot of an aircraft of Philippine Registry to change its destination is ________. (0.5%) (A) grave coercion (B) a violation of the Anti-Hijacking Law or R.A. No. 6235 (C) grave threats (D) a violation of the Human Security Act of 2007 or the Anti-Terrorism Law (E) All of the above.

RENATO L. CAYETANO vs. CHRISTIAN MONSOD September 3, 1991 | G.R. No. 100113 Facts: - President Corazon Aquino Appointed Christian Monsod as the chairman of COMELEC. - Renato Cayetano opposed the nomination because according to him, the respondent fall short of the ten year requirement for the position. - The 1987 Constitution provides in Section 1 (1), Article IX-C: There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and six Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, holders of a college degree, and must not have been candidates for any elective position in the immediately preceding -elections. However, a majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. (Emphasis supplied) - June 5, 1991: COA approved the appointment. - June 18, 1991: Monsod took his oath and assumed office. - Petitioner prayed for certiorari and prohibition against Monsod. Issue: Whether or not Monsod is engaged in the practice of law for more than ten years. Held: Atty. Monsods past work experiences as a lawyer -economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyernegotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich and the poor verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement that he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. The Commission on the basis of evidence submitted doling the public hearings on Monsods confirmation, implicit ly determined that he possessed the necessary qualifications as required by law. The judgment rendered by the Commission in the exercise of such an acknowledged power is beyond judicial interference except only upon a clear showing of a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. (Art. VIII, Sec. 1 Constitution). Thus, only where such grave abuse of discretion is clearly shown shall the Court interfere with the Commissions judgment. In the instant case, there is no occasion for the exercise of the Courts corrective power, since no abuse, much less a grave abuse of discretion, that would amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction and would warrant the issuance of the writs prayed, for has been clearly shown. The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts wh ich are characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of service, which device or service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledg e or skill. Case Digest on People v. Hon. Bonifacio Maceda January 24, 2000 This case stems from denial by the SC of the Peoples motion seeking reconsideration of our August 13, 1990 decision holding that respondent Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda committed no grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order of August 8, 1989 giving custody over private respondent Avelino T. Javellana to the Clerk of Court of the Antique RTC, Atty. Deogracias del Rosario, during the pendency of Criminal Cases Nos. 3350-3355. At that time, sufficient reason was shown why Javellana should not be detained at the Antique Provincial Jail. The trial courts order specifically provided for private respondents detention at the residenc e of Atty. del Rosario. However, private respondent was not to be allowed liberty to roam around but was to be held as detention prisoner in said residence. It was howevere found that the order was not strictly complied with because Javellana was not detained in the residence of Atty. Del Rosario. He went about his normal activities as if he were a free man, including engaging in the practice of law. Held: Private respondent Javellana has been arrested based on the filing of criminal cases against him. By such arrest, he is deemed to be under the custody of the law. The trial court gave Atty. Deogracias del Rosario the custody of private respondent Javellana with the obligation to hold and detain him in Atty. del Rosarios residence in his official capacity as the clerk of court of the re gional trial court. Hence, when Atty. del Rosario was appointed judge, he ceased to be the personal custodian of accused Javellana and the succeeding clerk of court must be deemed the custodian under the same undertaking. As a matter of law, when a person indicted for an offense is arrested, he is deemed placed under the custody of the law. He is placed in actual restraint of liberty in jail so that he may be bound to answer for the commission of the offense. He must be detained in jail during the pendency of the case against him, unless he is authorized by the court to be released on bail or on recognizance. Let it be stressed that all prisoners whether under preventive detention or serving final sentence can not practice their profession nor engage in any business or occupation, or hold office, elective or appointive, while in detention. case digests, case digests of supreme court decisions, case digests Philippines, mobile phone deals, laptop computers, gadgets, free legal opinion, online jobs, best law firms in Mindanao

Atty. Misael Ladaga, Branch Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, appeared as counsel for and in behalf of his cousin, Narcisa Naldoza Ladaga, an accused in Criminal Case No. 84-885 for Falsification of Public Documents before the METC of Quezon City. It is also denied that the appearance of said respondent in said case was without the previous permission of the Court. During the occasions that the respondent appeared as such counsel before the METC of Quezon City, he was on official leave of absence. Moreover, his Presiding Judge, Judge Napoleon Inoturan was aware of the case he was handling. Respondent appeared as pro bono counsel for his cousin-client Narcisa Ladaga. Respondent did not receive a single centavo from her. Helpless as she was and respondent being the only lawyer in the family, he agreed to represent her out of his compassion and high regard for her. This is the first time that respondent ever handled a case for a member of his family who is like a big sister to him. He appeared for free and for the purpose of settling the case amicably. Furthermore, his Presiding Judge was aware of his appearance as counsel for his cousin. On top of this, during all the years that he has been in government service, he has maintained his integrity and independence. He failed to obtain a prior permission from the head of the Department. The presiding judge of the court to which respondent is assigned is not the head of the Department contemplated by law. Issue: WON Atty. Ladaga, upon such several appearances, was engages into private practice? NO Held: Respondent is charged under Sec. 7(b)(2) of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees which prohibits civil servants from engaging in the private practice of their profession. A similar prohibition is found under Sec. 35, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court which disallows certain attorneys from engaging in the private practice of their profession. THERE WAS NO PRIVATE PRACTICE: In People vs. Villanueva: Practice is more than an isolated appearance, for it consists in frequent or customary action, a succession of acts of the same kind. In other words, it is frequent habitual exercise (State vs. Cotner, 127, p. 1, 87 Kan. 864, 42 LRA, N.S. 768). Practice of law to fall within the prohibition of statute has been interpreted as customarily or habitually holding ones self out to the public, as a lawye r and demanding payment for such services (State vs. Bryan, 4 S. E. 522, 98 N. C. 644, 647). The appearance as counsel on one occasion, is not conclusive as determinative of engagement in the private practice of law. Based on the foregoing, it is evident that the isolated instances when respondent appeared as pro bono counsel of his cousin in Criminal Case No. 84885 does not constitute the private practice of the law profession contemplated by law. DECISION: Reprimanded.