2.

3.

TITLE ONE
CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY
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).
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 this title can be prosecuted even if the criminal act or acts were committed
outside the Philippine territorial jurisdiction. However, prosecution can proceed only if the
offender is within Philippine territory or brought to the Philippines pursuant to an extradition
treaty. This is one of the instances where the Revised Penal Code may be given extraterritorial application under Article 2 (5) thereof. 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.

2) Adheres to the enemies, giving them aid and comfort

1. breech of allegiance
2. adherence
3. giving aid or comfort to the enemy
Requirements of levying war
1) Actual assembling of men;
2) To execute a treasonable design by force;
3) Intent is to deliver the country in whole or in part to the enemy; and
4) Collaboration with foreign enemy or some foreign sovereign
* Success is not important. What matters is the actual assembly of men and the execution of
treasonable design by force.

Ways of proving treason:

a.

b.

That there is a war in which the Philippines is involved

c.

That the offender either

1) Levies war against the government,

1. breech of allegiance

2 witnesses testifying to same overt act

> The testimonies must refer to the same act, place and moment of time. Treason cannot be
proved by circumstantial evidence or by extrajudicial confession.
Example: X saw arms landed in La Union and loaded into a motor vehicle. At this
stage, not sufficient to convict yet. Y later saw the arms unloaded in a warehouse. Will
X + Y be sufficient witnesses to convict? Answer: NO. Because the law requires that 2
witnesses see the SAME OVERT ACT.

Article 114
TREASON
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender owes allegiance to the Government of the Philippines

actual assembling of men

for the purpose of executing a treasonable design

b.

Confession of the accused in open court.

Arraignment, pre-trial, trial OK.
> If he has pleaded NOT guilty already during arraignment, he can still confess in
open court by stating the particular acts constituting treason.
> During trial, simply saying Im guilty is not enough.

> Withdrawing plea of not guilty during arraignment not necessary

Actual hostilities may determine the date of the commencement of war

> If during arraignment he pleads guilty, court will ask if the accused understands is
plea. Submission of affidavit during trial, even if assisted by counsel is not enough.

No such thing as attempted treason; mere attempt consummates the crime

GIVING AID OR COMFORT material element, enhances forces of the enemy country.

TREASON: breach of allegiance to the government, committed by a person who owes

allegiance to it. Allegiance: obligation of fidelity and obedience. It is permanent or
temporary depending on whether the person is a citizen or an alien.

Evident premeditation, superior strength and treachery are circumstances inherent in

treason, and are, therefore, not aggravating.

Treason cannot be committed in times of peace, only in times of war actual hostilities.
But no need for declaration of war

Not Treasonous:
a. Acceptance of public office and discharge of official duties under the enemy does
not constitute per se the felony of treason (exception: when it is policy
determining)

b.

Serving in a puppet government (ministerial functions) and in order to serve the

populace is NOT treasonous. But it is treason if: a) there is discretion involved; b)
inflicts harm on Filipinos; c) it is disadvantageous to them.

c.

Purpose of offender: to deliver the Philippines to enemy country; if merely to

change officials not treason

On Citizenship
> Filipino citizens can commit treason outside the Philippines. But that of an alien
must be committed in the Philippines.

> Acts which strengthen or tend to strengthen the enemy in the conduct of war against the
traitors country or that which weaken and tend to weaken the power of the same.
Example: Financing arms procurement of enemy country. But giving of shelter is not
necessarily giving aid and comfort.

Adherence and giving aid or comfort must concur together.

ADHERENCE: when a citizen intellectually or emotionally favors the enemy and harbors
convictions disloyal to his countrys policy. But membership in the police force during the
occupation is NOT treason.
Example: Giving information to, or commandeering foodstuffs for the enemy.

Adherence may be proved by: (1) one witness; (2) from the nature of the act itself; (3)
from the circumstances surrounding the act.
* When this adherence or sympathies are converted into aid and comfort, only then they take
material form. This material form is now what is made punishable. It is usually manifested by
the offender in giving information, commandeering foodstuffs, serving as spy and supplying the
enemy with war materials.

Treason is a CONTINUING CRIME. Even after the war, offender can be prosecuted.

> Only Filipino citizens or permanent resident aliens can be held liable

* 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 criminal intent. In
construing the provisions relating to the commission of several acts, the same must be done in
pursuance or furtherance of the act of treason.

> ALIEN: with permanent resident status from the BID it is neither the length of stay
in the Philippines nor the marriage with a Filipino that matters.

* No matter how many acts of treason are committed by the offender, he will be liable for only
one crime of treason.

If you convict a person for treason by reason of irresistible force or uncontrollable fear, you
may use Art.12. No treason through negligence

* 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.

In sedition, the offender disagrees with certain policies of the State and seeks to disturb public
peace by raising a commotion or public uprising.

Article 115
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TREASON

Defenses that may be availed of by the accused.

b.

1. Duress or uncontrollable fear of immediate death; and

2. Lawful obedience to a de facto government.

When killings and other common crimes are charged as overt act of treason, they cannot
be regarded as (1) separate crimes or (2) as complex with treason.
* In the act of levying war or giving aid or comfort to the enemy, murder, robbery, arson
or falsification may be committed by the offender. BUT the offender does not commit the
crime of treason complexed with common crimes because such crimes are inherent to
treason, being an indispensable element of the same.

ELEMENTS:
a. In time of war
2 or more persons come to an agreement to
1. levy war against the government, or
2. adhere to the enemies and to give them aid or comfort,
c.

ELEMENTS OF PROPOSAL TO COMMIT TREASON

a. In time of war
b.

Treason distinguished from Rebellion.

They decide to commit it

A person who has decided to levy war against the government, or to adhere
to the enemies and to give them aid or comfort, proposes its execution to
some other person/s.

The manner in which both crimes are committed in the same. 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.

Mere agreement and decisions to commit treason is punishable

Mere proposal even without acceptance is punishable too. If the other accepts, it is already
conspiracy.

Treason distinguished from Sedition.

* While Treason as a crime should be established by the two-witness rule, the same is not
observed when the crime committed conspiracy to commit treason or when it is only a proposal
to commit treason.

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.

Article 116
MISPRISION OF TREASON

ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender must be owing allegiance to the government, and not a
foreigner
b.

That he has knowledge of any conspiracy (to commit treason) against the
government

c.

That he conceals or does not disclose and make known the same as soon
as possible to the governor or fiscal of the province or the mayor or fiscal of
the city in which he resides

* While in treason, even aliens can commit said crime because of the amendment to the
article, 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.

Offender is punished as an accessory to the crime of treason

* Take note that the offender is a principal to the crime of misprision of treason, yet he is
penalized only as an accessory. In the imposition of the penalty, the court is not bound by the
provisions of Article 63 and 64, referring to indivisible penalties. In the presence of mitigating
and aggravating circumstances, the offender is punished two degrees lower than the penalty
for the crime of treason.
* The criminal liability arises if the treasonous activity was still at the conspiratorial
stage

This crime does not apply if the crime of treason is already committed

Crime of omission

* This is a felony by omission although committed with dolo, not with culpa.

To report within a reasonable time depends on time, place and circumstance the
RPC did not fix time.

RPC states 4 individuals, what if you report to some other high-ranking government
official? Ex. PNP Director? Judge Pimentel says any govt official of the DILG is OK.

* 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 by entering, without authority therefor, warship, fort, or naval or military
establishments or reservation to obtain any information, plans, photographs or other
data of a confidential nature relative to the defense of the Philippines.

ELEMENTS:
a. 1. That the offender enters any of the places mentioned therein
2
3 2. That he has no authority therefore;
b.

That his purpose is to obtain information, plans, photographs or other data of a

confidential nature relative to the defense of the Philippines

* Under the first mode of committing espionage, the offender must have the intention to obtain
information relative to the defense of the PHIL. 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.

Espionage 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 holds
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a public officer
b.

That he has in his possession the articles, data or information referred to in par
1 of art 117, by reason of the public office he holds

c.

That he discloses their contents to a representative of a foreign nation

Purpose: to gather data

* Under the second mode, the offender must be a public officer who has in 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 are relevant to the
defense of the Philippines.

ESPIONAGE: the offense of gathering, transmitting, or losing information respecting the

national defense with the intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to
the injury of the Philippines or the advantage of any foreign nation. It is not conditioned on
citizenship.

* In crimes against the law of nations, the offenders can be prosecuted anywhere in the world
because these crimes are considered as against humanity in general, like piracy and mutiny.
Crimes against national security can be tried only in the Philippines, as there is a need to bring
the offender here before he can be made to suffer the consequences of the law. The acts
against national security may be committed abroad and still be punishable under our law, but it
can not be tried under foreign law.

Article 118
INCITING TO WAR OR GIVING MOTIVES FOR REPRISALS

b.

Not necessary that Philippines is at war with the country to which the information was
revealed. What is important is that the information related is connected with the defense
system of the Philippines.

Acts punished
1.
Unlawfully obtaining or permitting to be obtained information affecting national
defense;
2.
Unlawful disclosing of information affecting national defense;
3.
Disloyal acts or words in times of peace;
4.
Disloyal acts or words in times of war;
5.
Conspiracy to violate preceding sections;
6.
Harboring or concealing violators of law. and
7.
Photographing vital military information
CRIMES AGAINST LAWS OF NATIONS

That such acts provoke or give occasion for a war involving or liable to involve
the Philippines or expose Filipino citizens to reprisals on their persons or
property

Crime is committed in time of peace, intent is immaterial

Inciting to war offender is any person

Reprisals is not limited to military action, it could be economic reprisals, or denial of entry
into their country.

Wiretapping is NOT espionage if the purpose is not something connected with the defense

Commonwealth Act No. 616 An Act to Punish Espionage and Other Offenses against
National Security

ELEMENTS:
a.
That the offender performs unlawful or unauthorized acts

EXAMPLE. X burns Chinese flag. If China bans the entry of Filipinos into China, that is already
reprisal.

Article 119
VIOLATION OF NEUTRALITY
ELEMENTS:
a. That there is war in which the Philippines is not involved

b.

c.

That there is a regulation issued by competent authority for the purpose of

enforcing neutrality
That the offender violates such regulation

1
2
3

Circumstances qualifying the offense:

a. notice or information might be useful to the enemy

Hostile country exist only during hostilities or after the declaration of war

Correspondence to enemy country correspondence to officials of enemy country

even if related to you.

b. offender intended to aid the enemy

Govt must have declared the neutrality of the Phil in a war between 2 other countries

* The regulation must be issued by a competent authority like the President of the Philippines
or the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, during a war between different
countries in which the Philippines is not taking sides.

It is neutrality of the Phil that is violated

It is not correspondence with private individual in enemy country

Congress has the right to declare neutrality

If ciphers were used, no need for prohibition

If ciphers were not used, there is a need for prohibition

In any case, it must be correspondence with the enemy country

Doesnt matter if correspondence contains innocent matters if prohibited, punishable

* The violations can be done either by means of dolo or by means of culpa. So violation of
neutrality can be committed through reckless imprudence.

Article 120
CORRESPONDENCE WITH HOSTILE COUNTRY
ELEMENTS:
a. That it is in time of war in which the Philippines is involved
b.

That the offender makes correspondence with an enemy country or territory

occupied by enemy troops

c.

That the correspondence is either

Article 121
FLIGHT TO ENEMYS COUNTRY

ELEMENTS
a. That there is a war in which the Philippines is involved
b.

That the offender (Filipino or resident alien) must be owing allegiance to the
government

1.

prohibited by the government, or

c.

That the offender attempts to flee or go to enemy country

2.

carried on in ciphers or conventional signs, or

d.

That going to enemy country is prohibited by competent authority

3.

containing notice or information which might be useful to the enemy

Mere attempt consummates the crime

There must be a prohibition. If none, even if went to enemy country no violation

Alien resident may be guilty here.

For purpose of Anti-Fencing Law, piracy is part of robbery and theft

PIRACY

MUTINY

Robbery or forcible degradation on the high seas,

without lawful authority and done with animo
lucrandi and in the spirit and intention of
universal hostility.

Unlawful resistance to a superior

officer, or the raising of
commotion and disturbances on
board a ship against the authority of its commander

2 Ways of Committing Piracy

a. By attacking or seizing a vessel on the high seas or in the Philippine waters (PD 532)

Intent to gain is an element.

Attack from outside. Offenders are strangers to
the vessel.

No criminal intent
Attack from the inside.

b.

Article 122
PIRACY

By seizing the whole or part of the cargo of said vehicles, its equipment or personal
belongings of its complement or passengers

Elements:
a. That a vessel is on the high seas/Philippine waters
b.

That the offenders are not members of its complement or passengers of the
vessel

c.

That the offenders

1. attack or seize that vessel or (hence, if committed by crew or passengers, the
crime is not piracy but robbery in the high seas)
2.

seize the whole or part of the cargo of said vessel, its equipment or
personal belongings of its complement or passengers

High seas: any waters on the sea coast which are without the boundaries of the low water
mark although such waters may be in the jurisdictional limits of a foreign govt

PIRACY IN HIGH SEAS jurisdiction is with any court where offenders are found or
arrested

PIRACY IN INTERNAL WATERS jurisdiction is only with Philippine courts

under the amended article, piracy can only be committed by a person who is not a
passenger nor member of the complement of the vessel irrespective of venue. So if a
passenger or complement of the vessel commits acts of robbery in the high seas,
the crime is robbery, not piracy.
If in the Phil. waters still piracy

* However, despite the amendment, P.D. No. 532 may still apply where the offender is not
stranger to the vessel since it provides: Any attack upon or seize of any vessel, or the taking
away of the whole of part thereof or its cargo, equipment or the personal belongings of its
complement or passengers, irrespective of the value hereof, by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons or force upon things, committed by any person, including a passenger
or member of the complement of said vessel, in Philippine waters, shall be considered as
piracy. The offenders shall be considered as pirates and punished as hereinafter provided.
After all, under the Revised Penal Code, for one to be called a pirate, the offender must be a
stranger to the vessel.

While the Article 122 limits the offenders to non-passengers or non-members of the crew,
P.D. 532 states that the attack upon or seizure of any vessel, or taking away the whole or
part thereof or its cargo, equipment or personal belongings of its complement or
passengers committed by any person including a passenger or member of the
complement of said vessel shall be considered Piracy.

* Note, however, that in Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 532, the act of aiding pirates or
abetting piracy is penalized as a crime distinct from piracy. Said section penalizes any person

who knowingly and in any manner aids or protects pirates, such as giving them information
about the movement of the police or other peace officers of the government, or acquires or
receives property taken by such pirates, or in any manner derives any benefit therefrom; or
who directly or indirectly abets the commission of piracy. Also, it is expressly provided in the
same section that the offender shall be considered as an accomplice of the principal offenders
and punished in accordance with the Revised Penal Code. This provision of Presidential
Decree No. 532 with respect to piracy in Philippine water has not been incorporated in the
Revised Penal Code. Neither may it be considered repealed by Republic Act No. 7659 since
there is nothing in the amendatory law is inconsistent with said section. Apparently, there is still
the crime of abetting piracy in Philippine waters under Presidential Decree No. 532.
* Considering that the essence of piracy is one of robbery, any taking in a vessel with force
upon things or with violence or intimidation against person is employed will always be piracy. It
cannot co-exist with the crime of robbery. Robbery, therefore, cannot be committed on board a
vessel. But if the taking is without violence or intimidation on persons or force upon things, the
crime of piracy cannot be committed, but only theft.

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;
3) Offenders either
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.

MUTINY is the unlawful resistance to a superior officer, or the raising of commotions and
disturbances aboard a ship against the authority of its commander.

Article 123
QUALIFIED PIRACY

QUALIFYING 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

c.

Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries, or

rape. (the above may result to qualified mutiny)

* Murder, rape, homicide, physical injuries are mere circumstances qualifying piracy and cannot
be punished as separate crimes, nor can they be complexed with piracy.

Parricide/infanticide should be included (Judge Pimentel)

Murder/rape/homicide/physical injuries must have been committed on the passengers or

complement

* In piracy, where rape, murder or homicide is committed, the mandatory penalty of death is
imposable. This means that even if the accused enters a plea of guilty, the penalty of death will
still be imposed because death is a single and indispensable penalty. (People vs. Rodriguez,
135 SCRA 485)
* The penalty for qualified piracy is reclusion perpetua to death. If any of the circumstances
enumerated under the law is proven or established, the mandatory penalty of death should be
imposed. The presence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances will be ignored by the court.
Although in Article 123 merely refers to qualified piracy, there is also the crime of qualified
mutiny. Mutiny is qualified under the following circumstances:
(1)

When the offenders abandoned the victims without means of saving themselves; or

(2)

When the mutiny is accompanied by rape, murder, homicide, or physical injuries.

Note that the first circumstance which qualifies piracy does not apply to mutiny.

Republic Act No. 6235 (The Anti Hi-Jacking Law)

Anti hi-jacking is another kind of piracy which is committed in an aircraft. In other countries, this
crime 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.

Between numbers 1 and 2, the point of distinction is whether the aircraft is of Philippine registry
or foreign registry. The common bar question on this law usually involves number 1. 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 pyrotechniques. 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.

Questions & Answers

1.
The pilots of the Pan Am aircraft were accosted by some armed men and
were told to proceed to the aircraft to fly it to a foreign destination. The armed men walked with
the pilots and went on board the aircraft. But before they could do anything on the aircraft,
alert marshals arrested them. What crime was committed?
The criminal intent definitely is to take control of the aircraft, which is hi-jacking. It is a
question now of whether the anti-hi-jacking law shall govern.
The anti hi-jacking law is applicable in this case. Even if the aircraft is not yet about to
fly, the requirement that it be in flight does not hold true when in comes to aircraft of foreign
registry. Even if the problem does not say that all exterior doors are closed, the crime is hijacking. Since the aircraft is of foreign registry, under the law, simply usurping or seizing
control is enough as long as the aircraft is within Philippine territory, without the requirement
that it be in flight.
Note, however, that there is no hi-jacking in the attempted stage. This is a special law
where the attempted stage is not punishable.

2.
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?
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.
3.
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?
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.
However, under Section 7, any physical injury or damage to property which would result from
the carrying or loading of the flammable, corrosive, explosive, or poisonous substance in an
aircraft, the offender shall be prosecuted not only for violation of Republic Act No. 6235, but
also for the crime of physical injuries or damage to property, as the case may be, under the
Revised Penal Code. There will be two prosecutions here. Other than this situation, the crime
of physical injuries will be absorbed. If the explosives were planted in the aircraft to blow up
the aircraft, the circumstance will qualify the penalty and that is not punishable as a separate
crime for murder. The penalty is increased under the anti hi-jacking law.
All other acts outside of the four are merely qualifying circumstances and would bring about
higher penalty. Such acts would not constitute another crime. So the killing or explosion will
only qualify the penalty to a higher one.
Questions & Answers
1.
In the course of the hi-jack, a passenger or complement was shot and killed.
What crime or crimes were committed?
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.
2.
The hi-jackers threatened to detonate a bomb in the course of the hi-jack.
What crime or crimes were committed?
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.

TITLE TWO
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);
* 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. The public officers who may
be held liable are only those acting under supposed exercise of official functions, albeit illegally.
But private persons may also be liable conspires with a public officer. What is required is that
the principal offender must be a public officer. Thus, if a private person conspires with a public
officer, or becomes an accessory or accomplice, the private person also becomes liable for the
same crime. But a private person acting alone cannot commit the crimes under Article 124 to
132 of this title.
CLASSES OF ARBITRARY DETENTION:
a. By detaining a person without legal ground
b. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities
c. Delaying release

Article 124
ARBITRARY DETENTION

ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a public officer or employee (whose official duties include the
authority to make an arrest and detain persons; jurisdiction to maintain peace and
order).

b.

That he detains a person (actual restraint).

c.

That the detention was without legal grounds (cannot be committed if with
warrant).

DETENTION: when a person is placed in confinement or there is a restraint on his person.

* 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.

Though the elements specify that the offender be a public officer or employee, private
individuals who conspire with public officers can also be liable.

* In a case decided by the Supreme Court a Barangay Chairman who unlawfully detains
another was held to be guilty of the crime of arbitrary detention. This is because he is a person
in authority vested with the jurisdiction to maintain peace and order within his barangay. In the
maintenance of such peace and order, he may cause the arrest and detention of troublemakers
or those who disturb the peace and order within his barangay. But if the legal basis for the
apprehension and detention does not exist, then the detention becomes arbitrary.

Legal grounds for the detention of any person:

a. commission of a crime
b.

violent insanity or other ailment requiring compulsory confinement of the patient in a

hospital

c. escaped prisoner
* When the peace officers acted in good faith even if the three (3) grounds mentioned above
are not obtaining, there is no Arbitrary Detention.

Without legal grounds:

a. he has not committed any crime or no reasonable ground of suspicion that he has
committed a crime

b.

not suffering from violent insanity or any other ailment requiring compulsory
confinement in a hospital

Grounds for warrantless arrest:

a. Crime is about to be, is being, has been committed in his presence
b.

Distinction between arbitrary detention and illegal detention

1.

The principal offender must be a public officer. Civilians cannot commit the crime of
arbitrary detention except when they conspire with a public officer committing this
crime, or become an accomplice or accessory to the crime committed by the public
officer; and

Officer must have probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts
and circumstances that the person probably committed the crime

For escaped prisoner no need for warrant

Example: Y was killed by unknown assailant. Officers got a tip and arrested X. X
voluntarily admitted to the officers that he did it although he was not asked. X was detained
immediately. According to the SC, there was NO arbitrary detention. Why? Because once
X made a confession, the officers had a right to arrest him.

* Arbitrary detention can be committed thru simple imprudence or negligence. (People

vs. Misa)
Periods of Detention penalized:
1. Detention not exceeding three days;
2. Detention for more than three days but not more than 15 days;
3. Detention for more than 15 days but not more than 6 months; and
4. Detention for more than 6 months.

Continuing crime is different from a continuous crime

Ramos v. Enrile: Rebels later on retire. According to the SC, once you have committed
rebellion and have not been punished or amnestied, then the rebels continue to engage in
rebellion, unless the rebels renounce his affiliation. Arrest can be made without a warrant
because this is a continuing crime.

In arbitrary detention --

The offender who is a public officer has a duty which carries with it the authority to
detain a person.
2.

In illegal detention -The principal offender is a private person. But a public officer can commit the crime
of illegal detention when he is acting in a private capacity or beyond the scope of his
official duty, or when he becomes an accomplice or accessory to the crime committed
by a private person.
The offender, even if he is a public officer, does not include as his function the power
to arrest and detain a person, unless he conspires with a public officer committing
arbitrary detention.

* 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

(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 1) to accuse the offended party of a crime he did not
commit; 2) to deliver the person to the proper authority; and 3) 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

ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a public officer or employee
b.

That he has detained a person for some legal grounds

c.

That he fails to deliver such person to the proper judicial authority within:
1. 12 hours, if detained for crimes/offenses punishable by light penalties, or their
equivalent
2. 18 hours, for crimes/offenses punishable by correctional penalties, or their
equivalent or
3. 36 hours, for crimes/offenses punishable by capital punishment or afflictive
penalties, or their equivalent

* 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.
* At the beginning, the detention is legal since it is in the pursuance of a lawful arrest.
However, the detention becomes arbitrary when the period thereof exceeds 12, 18 or 36 hours,
as the case may be, depending on whether the crime is punished by light, correctional or
afflictive penalty or their equivalent.

Really means delay in filing necessary information or charging of person detained in court.

May be waived if a preliminary investigation is asked for.

* Under the Revised Rules of Court, when the person arrested is arrested for a crime which
gives him the right to preliminary investigation and he wants to avail his right to a preliminary
investigation, he would have to waive in writing his rights under Article 125 so that the arresting
officer will not immediately file the case with the court that will exercise jurisdiction over the
case. If he does not want to waive this in writing, the arresting officer will have to comply with
Article 125 and file the case immediately in court without preliminary investigation. In such
case, the arrested person, within five days after learning that the case has been filed in court
without preliminary investigation, may ask for preliminary investigation. In this case, the
public officer who made the arrest will no longer be liable for violation of Article 125.

Does not contemplate actual physical delivery but at least there must be a complaint filed.
Duty complied with upon the filing of the complaint with the judicial authority (courts,
prosecutors though technically not a judicial authority, for purposes of this article, hes
considered as one.)

* Delivery of detained person consists in making charge of filing a compliant 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).

The filing of the information in court does not cure illegality of detention. Neither does it
affect the legality of the confinement under process issued by the court.

To escape from this, officers usually ask accused to execute a waiver which should be
under oath and with assistance of counsel. Such waiver is not violative of the accused
constitutional right.

What is length of waiver? Light offense 5 days. Serious and less serious offenses 7
to 10 days. (Judge Pimentel)

Article 126
DELAYING RELEASE

Article does not apply when arrest is via a warrant of arrest

ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a public officer or employee

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?

been delivered to the proper 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.

b.

That 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

c.

That the offender without good reason delays:

If offender is a private person, crime is illegal detention

1.

the service of the notice of such order to the prisoner, or

Before Article 125 may be applied, it is necessary that initially, the detention of the arrested
person must be lawful because the arrest is based on legal grounds. If the arrest is made
without a warrant, this constitutes an unlawful arrest. Article 269(unlawful arrest), not
Article 125, will apply. If the arrest is not based on legal grounds, the arrest is pure and
simple arbitrary detention. Article 125 contemplates a situation where the arrest was
made without warrant but based on legal grounds. This is known as citizens arrest.

2.

the performance of such judicial or executive order for the release of the
prisoner, or
the proceedings upon a petition for the release of such person

A police officer has no authority to arrest and detain a person on the basis merely of the
complaint of the offended party, even if after investigation he becomes convinced that the
accused is guilty of the offense charged. What the complainant may do is to file a
complaint with the court and ask for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
Arbitrary Detention (124)

Detention is illegal from the beginning.

Delay in Delivery of
Detained (125)
Detention is legal in the beginning,
but illegality starts from the
expiration of the specified periods
without the persons detained having

3.

Three acts are punishable:

a. delaying the performance of a judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner
delaying the service of notice of such order to said prisoner
b.

delaying the proceedings upon any petition for the liberation of such person

Wardens and jailers are the persons most likely to violate this provision

Provision does not include legislation

Article 127
EXPULSION

Yes. Expulsion.

ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a public officer or employee

b.

That he expels any person from the Philippines, or compels a person to change
his residence

c.

That the offender is not authorized to do so by law

2.

Grave coercion, not expulsion, because a Filipino cannot be deported. This crime
refers only to aliens.

If X (Filipino) after he voluntarily left, is refused re-entry is considered forcing him to

change his address here

Threat to national security is not a ground to expel or change his address.

2 acts punishable:
a. by expelling a person from the Philippines
b.

If a Filipino citizen is sent out of the country, what crime is committed?

by compelling a person to change his residence

* 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

* In the Philippines, only the President of the Republic has the power to deport aliens whose
continued stay in the country constitutes a menace to the peace and safety of the community.

ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a public officer or employee

* In the case of Filipino citizens, only the court, by final judgment, can order a person to change
his residence.

b.

That he is not authorized by judicial order to enter the dwelling and/or to make
a search therein for papers or other effects

In Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil 778, the mayor of the City of Manila wanted to make the
city free from prostitution. He ordered certain prostitutes to be transferred to Davao, without
observing due processes since they have not been charged with any crime at all. It was held
that the crime committed was expulsion.

c.

That he commits any of the following acts:

1.

entering any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof

2.

searching papers or other effects found therein without the previous

consent of such owner

3.

refusing to leave the premises, after having surreptitiously entered said

dwelling and after having been required to leave the same

Does not include undesirable aliens; destierro; or when sent to prison

Questions & Answers

1.
Certain aliens were arrested and they were just put on the first aircraft which
brought them to the country so that they may be out without due process of law. Was there a
crime committed?

Aggravating Circumstance (medium and maximum of penalty imposed):

a. Offense committed at nighttime
b.

Papers or effects not constituting evidence of a crime be not returned immediately

b.

* 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 prohibition may be expressed or implied. If the signs Do not enter and Strangers keep
out are posted in front of the house or dwelling, then the prohibition is express. If the door is
locked, or even if it is open but these are barriers to indicate the manifest intention of the owner
to bar strangers from entering, there is implied prohibition.

Public officer who enters with consent searches for paper and effects without the
consent of the owner. Even if he is welcome in the dwelling, it does not mean he has
permission to search.
c.

* 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.

If the offender who enters the dwelling against the will of the owner thereof is a private
individual, the crime committed is trespass to dwelling (Art 280)

When a public officer searched a person outside his dwelling without a search warrant
and such person is not legally arrested for an offense, the crime committed by the public
officer is grave coercion, if violence or intimidation is used (Art 286), or unjust vexation, if
there is no violence or intimidation (Art 287)

A public officer without a search warrant cannot lawfully enter the dwelling against the will
of the owner, even if he knew that someone in that dwelling is having unlawful possession
of opium
Under Rule 113(sec. 11) 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.
3 acts punishable:
a. person enters dwelling w/o consent or against the will
In the plain view doctrine, public officer should be legally entitled to be in the place
where the effects were found. If he entered the place illegally and he saw the effects,
doctrine inapplicable; thus, he is liable for violation of domicile.

person enters and searches for papers and effects

person entered secretly and refuses to leave after being asked to

The act punished is not the entry but the refusal to leave. If the offender upon being
directed to leave, followed and left, there is no crime of violation of domicile. Entry
must be done surreptitiously; without this, crime may be unjust vexation. But if
entering was done against the will of the occupant of the house, meaning there was
express or implied prohibition from entering the same, even if the occupant does not
direct him to leave, the crime of violation of domicile is already committed because it
would fall in number 1.

BEING AUTHORIZED BY LAW means with search warrant, to save himself or do

some things good for humanity

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.

Papers and effects need not be part of a crime.

Article 129

b.
c.

SEARCH WARRANTS MALICIOUSLY OBTAINED

ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a public officer or employee
b.
c.
c.

That he procures a search warrant

That there is no just cause

In order that a search warrant may be issued, it must be based on probable cause in
connection with one offense, to be determined by a judge after examination under oath of
the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place
to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

* This means there was no probable cause determined in obtaining the search warrant.

Although void, the search warrant is entitled to respect because of presumption of

regularity. One remedy is a motion to quash the search warrant, not refusal to abide by it.
The public officer may also be prosecuted for perjury, because for him to succeed in
obtaining a search warrant without a probable cause, he must have perjured himself or
induced someone to commit perjury to convince the court.

* 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.

ABUSE IN THE SERVICE OF WARRANT OR EXCEEDING AUTHORITY OR USING

UNNECESSARY SEVERITY IN EXECUTING A SEARCH WARRANT LEGALLY PROCURED
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a public officer or employee

That he has legally procured a search warrant

That he exceeds his authority or uses unnecessary severity in executing the
same

Search warrant is valid for 10 days from its date

Search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name of the People, signed by the
judge and directed to a public officer, commanding him to search for personal property
described therein and bring it before the court

No just cause warrant is unjustified

Search limited to what is described in the warrant, all details must be with particularity

The officer exceeded his authority under the warrant To illustrate, let us say that there was a
pusher in a condo unit. The PNP Narcotics Group obtained a search warrant but the name of
person in the search warrant did not tally with the address stated. Eventually, the person with
the same name was found but in a different address. The occupant resisted but the public
officer insisted on the search. Drugs were found and seized and occupant was prosecuted and
convicted by the trial court. The Supreme Court acquitted him because the public officers are
required to follow the search warrant to the letter. They have no discretion on the matter. Plain
view doctrine is inapplicable since it presupposes that the officer was legally entitled to be in
the place where the effects where found. Since the entry was illegal, plain view doctrine does
not apply.

Malicious warrant. Example. X was a respondent of a search warrant for illegal possession
of firearms. A return was made. The gun did not belong to X and the witness had no
personal knowledge that there is a gun in that place.

Abuse examples:
a. X owner was handcuffed while search was going-on.
b.

Tank was used to ram gate prior to announcement that a search will be made
The search warrant is not a license to commit destruction.

c.

Persons who were not respondents were searched

Article 130
SEARCHING DOMICILE WITHOUT WITNESSES

ELEMENTS :
a. That the offender is a public officer or employee

Article 131
PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION, AND DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL MEETINGS

ELEMENTS:
a. Offender is a public officer or employee

b.

That he is armed with a search warrant legally procured

c.

That he searches the domicile, papers or other belongings of any person

1.

d.

That the owner, or any member of his family, or two witnesses residing in the
same locality are not present

prohibiting or interrupting, without legal ground the holding of a peaceful

meeting, or dissolving the same (e.g. denial of permit in arbitrary manner).

2.

hindering any person from joining any lawful association or from attending
any of its meetings.

Order of those who must witness the search:

a. Homeowner
b.

Members of the family of sufficient age and discretion

c.

Responsible members of the community (cant be influenced by the searching party)

Validity of the search warrant can be questioned only in 2 courts: 1) where issued or 2)
where the case is pending. Latter is preferred for objective determination.

* 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.
* There are searches and seizures which are authorized by law and which can be done without
the attendance of witnesses. For instance, the Tariff and Customs Code authorizes persons
with police authority under Sec. 2203, to enter; pass through or search any land, enclosure,
warehouse, store or building, not being used as a dwelling house; and to inspect, search and
examine any vessel or aircraft, and any trunk, package, box or envelope, or any person on
board, or to stop and search and examine any vehicle, beast or person suspected of holding or
conveying any dutiable or prohibited article introduced into the Philippines contrary to law.

b.

He performs any of the ff. acts:

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

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 detat.

(2)

Clear and present danger rule applied in times of peace. Stricter rule.

If the offender is a private individual, the crime is disturbance of public order (Art 153)

Meeting must be peaceful and there is no legal ground for prohibiting, dissolving or
interrupting that meeting

If in the course of the assembly the participants commit illegal acts like oral defamation or
inciting to sedition, a public officer or law enforcer can stop or dissolve the meeting. The
permit given is not a license to commit a crime.

Meeting is subject to regulation

In Article 131, the offender must be a public officer and, without any legal ground, he
prohibits, interrupts, or dissolves a peaceful meeting or assembly to prevent the
offended party from exercising his freedom of speech and that of the assembly to
petition a grievance against the government.

* If the permit is denied arbitrarily, Article 131 is violated. If the officer would not give the permit
unless the meeting is held in a particular place which he dictates, such defeats the exercise of
the right to peaceably assemble, Article 131 is violated.

Offender must be a stranger, not a participant, in the peaceful meeting; otherwise, its
unjust vexation

Interrupting and dissolving a meeting of the municipal council by a public officer is a crime
against the legislative body, not punishable under this article

The person talking on a prohibited subject at a public meeting contrary to agreement that
no speaker should touch on politics may be stopped

But stopping the speaker who was attacking certain churches in public meeting is a
violation of this article

Prohibition must be without lawful cause or without lawful authority

Those holding peaceful meetings must comply with local ordinances. Example: Ordinance
requires permits for meetings in public places. But if police stops a meeting in a private
place because theres no permit, officer is liable for stopping the meeting.

In Article 153, the offender need not be a public officer. The essence of the crime is
that of creating a serious disturbance of any sort in a public office, public building or
even a private place where a public function is being held.
Article 132
INTERRUPTION OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP

As to the participation of the public officer

In Article 131, the public officer is not a participant.
concerned, the public officer is a third party.

As to the essence of the crime

That religious ceremonies or manifestations of any religion are about to take

place or are going on

c.

That the offender prevents or disturbs the same

Circumstance qualifying the offense: if committed with violence or threats

Reading of Bible and then attacking certain churches in a public plaza is not a ceremony
or manifestation of religion, but only a meeting of a religious sect. But if done in a private
home, its a religious service

Religious Worship: people in the act of performing religious rites for a religious
ceremony; a manifestation of religion. Ex. Mass, baptism, marriage

X, a private person, boxed a priest while the priest was giving homily and while the latter
was maligning a relative of X. Is X liable? X may be liable under Art 133 because X is a
private person.

When priest is solemnizing marriage, he is a person in authority, although in other cases,

hes not.

As far as the gathering is

If the public officer is a participant of the assembly and he prohibits, interrupts, or

dissolves the same, Article 153 is violated if the same is conducted in a public place.
(2)

b.

Distinctions between prohibition, interruption, or dissolution of peaceful meetings

under Article 131, and tumults and other disturbances, under Article 153
(1)

ELEMENTS:
a. That the officer is a public officer or employee

Article 133
OFFENDING RELIGIOUS FEELINGS

ELEMENTS:
a. That the acts complained of were performed
1.
2.
b.

c.

in a place devoted to religious worship, or (for this element, no need of

religious ceremony, only the place is material)
during the celebration of any religious ceremony

state

Crime
against
the
fundamental law of the
state
Crime against public
order

Public
Outsiders

officers,

Public
officers,
private
persons,
outsiders

That the acts must be notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful
(deliberate intent to hurt the feelings)

TITLE THREE

The offender is any person

Crimes against public order

1.
Rebellion or insurrection (Art. 134);
1.a
Coup d etat (Art. 134-A)
2.
Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion (Art. 136);
3.
Disloyalty to public officers or employees (Art. 137);
4.
Inciting to rebellion (Art. 138);
5.
Sedition (Art. 139);
6.
Conspiracy to commit sedition (Art. 141);
7.
Inciting to sedition (Art. 142);
8.
Acts tending to prevent the meeting of Congress and similar bodies (Art. 143);
9.
Disturbance of proceedings of Congress or similar bodies (Art. 144);
10.
Violation of parliamentary immunity (Art. 145);
11.
Illegal assemblies (Art. 146);
12.
Illegal associations (Art. 147);
13.
Direct assaults (Art. 148);
14.
Indirect assaults (Art. 149);
15.
Disobedience to summons issued by Congress, its committees, etc., by the
constitutional commissions, its committees, etc. (Art. 150);
16.
Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such person
(Art. 151);
17.
Tumults and other disturbances of public order (Art. 153);
18.
Unlawful use of means of publication and unlawful utterances (Art. 154);
19.
Alarms and scandals (Art. 155);

d.

Dissolution
of
Peaceful Meeting
(131)
Interruption
of
Religious Worship
(132)
Offending
the
Religious Feeling
(133)

There is a deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the faithful, directed against
religious tenet
If in a place devoted to religious purpose, there is no need for an ongoing religious
ceremony

Example of religious ceremony (acts performed outside the church). Processions and
special prayers for burying dead persons but NOT prayer rallies

Acts must be directed against religious practice or dogma or ritual for the purpose of
ridicule, as mocking or scoffing or attempting to damage an object of religious veneration

There must be deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the faithful, mere arrogance or
rudeness is not enough

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 offender (People vs. Baes, 68 Phil. 203).

CRIME
Prohibition,
Interruption

Nature of Crime
and

Crime
against
the
fundamental law of the

Who are Liable

Public
Outsiders

officers,

CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER

20.
21.
22.
23.
24.

Delivering prisoners from jails (Art. 156);

Evasion of service of sentence (Art. 157);
Evasion on occasion of disorders (Art. 158);
Violation of conditional pardon (Art. 159); and
Commission of another crime during service of penalty imposed for another previous
offense (Art. 160).

Article 134
REBELLION OR INSURRECTION

ELEMENTS:
a. That there be

b.

1.

public uprising and

2.

taking arms against the government (force/violence)

That the purpose of the uprising or movement is either

1. to remove from the allegiance to said government or its laws
4
5 i. the territory of the Philippines or any part thereof, or
6
7 ii. any body of land, naval or other armed forces, or
2 To deprive the chief executive or congress, wholly or partially, of any of their
powers or prerogatives

Persons liable for rebellion

a. Any person who: 1. promotes
2. maintains, or
3. heads a rebellion or insurrection; or
b.

Any person who, while holding any public office or employment, takes part therein by:
1. engaging in war against the forces of the government

2.
3.

destroying property or committing serious violence

exacting contributions or diverting public funds from the lawful purpose for which
they have been appropriated (Note: diverting public funds is malversation
absorbed in rebellion);

4.

Any person merely participating or executing the command of others in rebellion

* The essence of this crime is a public uprising with the taking up of arms. It requires a
multitude of people. It aims to overthrow the duly constituted government. It does not require
the participation of any member of the military or national police organization or public officers
and generally carried out by civilians. Lastly, the crime can only be committed through force
and violence.
* The crime of rebellion cannot be committed by a single individual. Invariably, it is
committed by several persons for the purpose of overthrowing the duly constituted or
organized government. In the Philippines, what is known to the ordinary citizen as a
symbol of Government would be the barangay, represented by its officials; the local
government represented by the provincial and municipal officials; and the national
government represented by the President, the Chief Justice and the Senate President
and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Success is immaterial, purpose is always political

* The crime of rebellion is essentially a political crime. The intention of the rebel is to substitute
himself in place of those who are in power. His method of placing himself in authority with the
use of violence, duress or intimidation, assassination or the commission of common crimes like
murder, kidnapping, arson, robbery and other heinous crimes in what we call rebellion.

REBELLION used where the object of the movement is completely to overthrow and
supersede the existing government

INSURRECTION refers to a movement which seeks merely to effect some change of

minor importance to prevent the exercise of govt authority w/ respect to particular matters
or subjects

The phrase to remove allegiance from the government is used to emphasize that the
object of the uprising could be limited to certain areas, like isolating a barangay or
municipality or a province in its loyalty to the duly constituted government or the national
government.

Not necessary that there is killing, mere threat of removing Phil is sufficient

* Rebellion may be committed even without a single shot being fired. No encounter needed.
Mere public uprising with arms enough.
Rebellion cannot be complexed with any other crime.

* Allegiance is a generic term which includes loyalty, civil obedience and civil service.

* The law on rebellion however, does not speak only of allegiance or loss of territory. It also
includes the efforts of the rebel to deprive the President of the Philippines of the exercise of his
power to enforce the law, to exact obedience of laws and regulations duly enacted and
promulgated by the duly constituted authorities.

> Common crimes perpetrated in furtherance of a political offense are divested of their
character as common offenses and assume the political complexion of the main crime which
they are mere ingredients, and consequently, cannot be punished separately from the principal
offense, or complexed with the same.

Actual clash of arms w/ the forces of the govt, not necessary to convict the accused who
is in conspiracy w/ others actually taking arms against the govt

Purpose of the uprising must be shown but it is not necessary that it be accomplished

A change of government w/o external participation

RISING PUBLICLY and TAKING ARMS AGAINST GOVERNMENT actual participation.

If there is no public uprising, the crime is of direct assault.

* When any of the objectives of rebellion is pursued but there is no public uprising in the legal
sense, the crime is direct assault of the first form. But if there is rebellion, with public uprising,
direct assault cannot be committed.

Mere giving of aid or comfort is not criminal in the case of rebellion. Merely sympathizing is
not participation, there must be ACTUAL participation

* There must be a public apprising and taking up of arms for the specified purpose or purposes
mentioned in Article 134. The acts of the accused who is not a member of the Hukbalahap
organization of sending cigarettes and food supplies to a Huk leader; the changing of dollars
into pesos for a top level communist; and the helping of Huks in opening accounts with the
bank of which he was an official, do not constitute Rebellion. (Carino vs. People, et al., 7
SCRA 900).

ORTEGA OPINION:
Rebellion can now be complexed with common crimes. Not long ago, the Supreme Court,
in Enrile v. Salazar, 186 SCRA 217, reiterated and affirmed the rule laid down in
People v. Hernandez, 99 Phil 515, that rebellion may not be complexed with common
crimes which are committed in furtherance thereof because they are absorbed in
rebellion. In view of said reaffirmation, some believe that it has been a settled doctrine
that rebellion cannot be complexed with common crimes, such as killing and destruction
of property, committed on the occasion and in furtherance thereof.
This thinking is no longer correct; there is no legal basis for such rule now.
The statement in People v. Hernandez that common crimes committed in furtherance of
rebellion are absorbed by the crime of rebellion, was dictated by the provision of Article 135 of
the Revised Penal Code prior to its amendment by the Republic Act No. 6968 (An Act
Punishing the Crime of Coup Detat), which became effective on October 1990. Prior to its
amendment by Republic Act No. 6968, Article 135 punished those who while holding any
public office or employment, take part therein by any of these acts: engaging in war against
the forces of Government; destroying property; committing serious violence; exacting
contributions, diverting funds for the lawful purpose for which they have been appropriated.
Since a higher penalty is prescribed for the crime of rebellion when any of the specified acts
are committed in furtherance thereof, said acts are punished as components of rebellion and,
therefore, are not to be treated as distinct crimes. The same acts constitute distinct crimes

when committed on a different occasion and not in furtherance of rebellion. In short, it was
because Article 135 then punished said acts as components of the crime of rebellion that
precludes the application of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code thereto. In the eyes of the
law then, said acts constitute only one crime and that is rebellion. The Hernandez doctrine was
reaffirmed in Enrile v. Salazar because the text of Article 135 has remained the same as it was
when the Supreme Court resolved the same issue in the People v. Hernandez. So the
Supreme Court invited attention to this fact and thus stated:
There is a an apparent need to restructure the law on rebellion, either to raise the penalty
therefore or to clearly define and delimit the other offenses to be considered absorbed thereby,
so that it cannot be conveniently utilized as the umbrella for every sort of illegal activity
undertaken in its name. The court has no power to effect such change, for it can only interpret
the law as it stands at any given time, and what is needed lies beyond interpretation.
Hopefully, Congress will perceive the need for promptly seizing the initiative in this matter,
which is purely within its province.
Obviously, Congress took notice of this pronouncement and, thus, in enacting Republic Act No.
6968, it did not only provide for the crime of coup detat in the Revised Penal Code but
moreover, deleted from the provision of Article 135 that portion referring to those
who, while holding any public office or employment takes part therein [rebellion or
insurrection], engaging in war against the forces of government, destroying property or
committing serious violence, exacting contributions or diverting public funds from the lawful
purpose for which they have been appropriated
Hence, overt acts which used to be punished as components of the crime of rebellion have
been severed therefrom by Republic Act No. 6968. The legal impediment to the application of
Article 48 to rebellion has been removed. After the amendment, common crimes involving
killings, and/or destructions of property, even though committed by rebels in furtherance of
rebellion, shall bring about complex crimes of rebellion with murder/homicide, or rebellion with
robbery, or rebellion with arson as the case may be.
To reiterate, before Article 135 was amended, a higher penalty is imposed when the offender
engages in war against the government. "War" connotes anything which may be carried out in
pursuance of war. This implies that all acts of war or hostilities like serious violence and
destruction of property committed on occasion and in pursuance of rebellion are component

crimes of rebellion which is why Article 48 on complex crimes is inapplicable. In amending

Article135, the acts which used to be component crimes of rebellion, like serious acts of
violence, have been deleted. These are now distinct Article 48, therefore, has been removed.
Ortega says legislators want to punish these common crimes independently of rebellion.
Ortega cites no case overturning Enrile v. Salazar.

However, illegal possession of firearms in furtherance of rebellion is distinct from the crime
of rebellion.

* The offense of illegal possession of firearm is a malum prohibitum, in which case, good faith
and absence of criminal intent are not valid defenses.

Furthermore, it is a continuing crime such along with the crime of conspiracy or proposal to
commit such

A private crime may be committed during rebellion. Examples: killing, possessions of

firearms, illegal association are absorbed. Rape, even if not in furtherance of rebellion
cannot be complexed

If killing, robbing were done for private purposes or for profit, without any political
motivation, the crime would be separately be punished and would not be embraced by
rebellion (People v. Fernando)

Person deemed leader of rebellion in case he is unknown:

Any person who in fact:
a. directed the others
b. spoke for them
c. signed receipts and other documents issued in their name
d. performed similar acts on behalf of the rebels

Distinctions between rebellion and sedition

(1)

As to nature
In rebellion, there must be taking up or arms against the government.

(2)

In sedition, it is sufficient that the public uprising be tumultuous.

e.

With or without civilian support or participation

As to purpose

f.

Purpose of seizing or diminishing state power

In rebellion, the purpose is always political.

* In sedition, the purpose may be political or social. Example: the uprising of squatters against
Forbes park residents. The purpose in sedition is to go against established government, not to
overthrow it.

* The essence of the crime is a swift attack upon the facilities of the Philippine government,
military camps and installations, communication networks, public utilities and facilities essential
to the continued possession of governmental powers. It may be committed singly or
collectively and does not require a multitude of people.

Article 134-A
COUP D ETAT

ELEMENTS:
a. Swift attack
b.

Accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth

c.

Directed against:

The objective may not be to overthrow the government but only to destabilize or paralyze
the government through the seizure of facilities and utilities essential to the continued
possession and exercise of governmental powers. It requires as principal offender a
member of the AFP or of the PNP organization or a public officer with or without civilian
support. Finally, it may be carried out not only by force or violence but also through
stealth, threat or strategy.

How do you distinguish between coup detat and rebellion?

Rebellion is committed by any person whether a private individual or a public officer whereas in
coup detat, the offender is a member of the military or police force or holding a public office or
employment.

1.

duly constituted authorities

2.

any military camp or installation

3.

communication networks or public utilities

In rebellion, the object is to alienate the allegiance of a people in a territory, whether wholly or
partially, from the duly constituted government; in coup detat, the object or purpose is to seize
or diminish state power.

4.

other facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of

power

In both instances, the offenders intend to substitute themselves in place of those who are in
power.

d. Singly or simultaneously carried out anywhere in the Philippines

d.

Committed by any person or persons belonging to the military or

police or holding any public office or employment; with or without
civilian support or participation

Treason (114)

Rebellion (134)

Coup
(134-A)

detat

Sedition (139)

N Nature
of Crime

Overt

Acts

P Purpose
OOF
f objective

Crime
against
National Security
levying war against
the govt;
OR
adherence and giving
aid or comfort to
enemies
Deliver the govt to
enemy during war

Crime against Public

Order
Public uprising
AND
Taking
up
arms
against the govt

See article.

Crime against
Public Order
See article.

Seizing
diminishing
state power.

or

Crime against Public

Order
Rising
publicly
or
tumultuously (caused by
more than 3 armed men
or provided with means
of violence)

undertake a coup.

See enumeration
article.

NOTES:
> Public officer must take active part because mere silence or omission not punishable in
rebellion

c.

Serious violence is that inflicted upon civilians, which may result in homicide. It is not
limited to hostilities against the armed force.

Diverting public funds is malversation absorbed in rebellion

> Rebellion cannot be complexed with murder and other common crimes committed in
pursuance of the movement to overthrow the government

Who are liable?

a. Any person who:
1. Promotes
2. Maintains
3. heads a rebellion or insurrection
b.

> It is not a defense in rebellion that the accused never took the oath of allegiance to, or that
they never recognized the government

Article 135
PENALTIES

in

an manner,
supports, finances, abets, aids in a coup.

* Subversion, just like the crimes of rebellion, conspiracy or proposal to commit the crimes of
rebellion or subversion and crimes or offenses committed in furtherance thereof constitute
direct assaults against the State and are in the nature of continuing crimes ( Umil vs. Ramos).

Any person who, while holding any public office or employment, takes part therein
1. engaging in war against the forces of the govt
2. destroying property or committing serious violence
3. exacting contributions or diverting public funds from the lawful purpose for which
they have been appropriated
Any person merely participating or executing the command of other in a rebellion

* When conspiracy is present in the commission of the crime, the act of one is the act of all. In
committing rebellion and coup detat, even if conspiracy as a means to commit the crime is
established, the principal of criminal liability under Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code is not
followed.
In Government Service

Not in Government Service

Anyone who leads, directs, commands others to

Anyone who participates or in

> Killing, robbing etc for private persons or for profit, without any political motivation, would be
separately punished and would not be absorbed in the rebellion.

Article 136
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT COUP D ETAT, REBELLION OR INSURRECTION

ELEMENTS:
a. 2 more persons come to an agreement to rise publicly and take arms against
the government
b.

For any of the purposes of rebellion

c.

They decide to commit it

If there are means to prevent the rebellion but did not resist it, then theres disloyalty. If
there are no means, no fault

If position is accepted in order to protect the people, not covered by this

The collaborator must not have tried to impose the wishes of the rebels on the people.

PROPOSAL TO COMMIT COUP D ETAT, REBELLION OR INSURRECTION (136)

ELEMENTS:
a.

A person who has decided to rise publicly and take arms the government

b.
c.

For any of the purposes of rebellion

person/s

Organizing a group of soldiers, soliciting membership in, and soliciting funds for the
organization show conspiracy to overthrow the govt

The mere fact of giving and rendering speeches favoring Communism would not make the
accused guilty of conspiracy if theres no evidence that the hearers then and there agreed
to rise up in arms against the govt

Conspiracy must be immediately prior to rebellion

If it is during the rebellion, then it is already taking part in it.

* Disloyalty as a crime is not limited to rebellion alone but should now include the crime of coup
detat. Rebellion is essentially a crime committed by private individuals while coup detat is a
crime that should be classified as a crime committed by public officers like malversation,
bribery, dereliction of duty and violations of the anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
* If the public officer or employee, aside from being disloyal, does or commits acts constituting
the crime of rebellion or coup detat, he will no longer be charged for the simple crime of
disloyalty but he shall be proceeded against for the grave offense of rebellion or coup detat.

Article 138
INCITING TO REBELLION OR INSURRECTION

Article 137
DISLOYALTY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES

ACTS PUNISHED:
a. Failing to resist rebellion by all the means in their power
b.

Continuing to discharge the duties of their offices under the control of rebels

c.

Accepting appointment to office under rebels

Presupposes existence of rebellion

Must not be in conspiracy with rebels or coup plotters

ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender does not take arms or is not in open hostility against the
government
b.

That he incites others to the execution of any of the acts of rebellion

c.

That the inciting is done by means of speeches, proclamations, writings,

emblems, banners or other representations tending to the same end

Intentionally calculated to seduce others to rebellion

There must be uprising to take up arms and rise publicly for the purposes indicated in Art
134

* One who promotes, maintains or heads a rebellion and who act at the same time incites or
influences others to join him in his war efforts against the duly constituted government cannot

be held criminally liable for the crime of inciting to rebellion because, as the principal to the
crime of rebellion, the act of inciting to commit a rebellion is inherent to the graver crime of
rebellion.

Proposal to Commit Rebellion (136)

Inciting to Rebellion (138)

The person who proposes has decided to commit

rebellion.
The person who proposes the execution of the
crime uses secret means.

Not required that the offender has decided to

commit rebellion.
The inciting is done publicly.

Article 139
SEDITION

Publicly (if no public uprising = tumult and other disturbance of public order)
Tumultuously (vis--vis rebellion where there must be a taking of arms)

b.

That they employ force, intimidation, or other means outside of legal methods

c.

That the offenders employ any of those means to attain any of the following
objects:
1.

to prevent the promulgation or execution of any law or the holding of any

popular election

2.

to prevent the national government, or any provincial or municipal

government, or any public thereof from freely exercising its or his
functions, or prevent the execution of any administrative order

3.

to inflict any act or hate or revenge upon the person or property of any
public officer or employee

to commit for any political or social end, any act of hate or revenge against
private persons or any social class (hence, even private persons may be
offended parties)

5.

to despoil, for any political or social end, any person, municipality or

province, or the national government of all its property or any part thereof

Sedition: raising of commotion or disturbances in the State. Its ultimate object is a

violation of the public peace or at least such measures that evidently engenders it.

The crime of sedition is committed by rising publicly and tumultuously. The two elements
must concur.

The crime of sedition does not contemplate the taking up of arms against the government
because the purpose of this crime is not the overthrow of the government. Notice from the
purpose of the crime of sedition that the offenders rise publicly and create commotion and
disturbance by way of protest to express their dissent and obedience to the government or
to the authorities concerned. This is like the so-called civil disobedience except that the
means employed, which is violence, is illegal.

Difference from rebellion object or purpose of the uprising.

ELEMENTS:
a. That the offenders rise
1.
2.

4.

For sedition sufficient that uprising is tumultuous. In rebellion there must be taking up
of arms against the government.
Sedition purpose may be either political or social. In rebellion always political
TUMULTUOUS is a situation wherein the disturbance or confusion is caused by at least four
persons. There is no requirement that the offenders should be armed.

Preventing public officers from freely exercising their functions

In sedition offender may be a private or public person (Ex. Soldier)

Public uprising and the object of sedition must concur

Q: Are common crimes absorbed in sedition?

In P v. Umali, SC held that NO. Crimes committed in that case were independent of each other.

Article 142
INCITING TO SEDITION

Preventing election through legal means NOT sedition

But when sugar farmers demonstrated and destroyed the properties of sugar barons
sedition

Persons liable for sedition:

a. leader of the sedition, and
b.

b.

That he incites others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which

constitute sedition (134)

c.

That the inciting is done by means of speeches, proclamations, writing,

emblems, cartoons, banners, or other representations tending to the same end
(purpose: cause commotion not exactly against the government; actual disturbance
not necessary)

other persons participating in the sedition

* The objective of the law in criminalizing sedition is to put a limit to the freedom of expression
or the right of the people to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievance.

ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender does not take a direct part in the crime of sedition

The demonstrations conducted or held by the citizenry to protest certain policies of the
government is not a crime. But when the protest in manifested in the form of rallies where
the participants, in order to attain their objective of overcoming the will of the government,
resort to force or violence, the mantle of protection guaranteed under the Constitution to
express their dissent peacefully, shall cease to exist, as in the meantime, the participants
have encroached or stayed in the domain or realm of criminal law.

Article 141.
Conspiracy to Commit Sedition
* In this crime, there must be an agreement and a decision to rise publicly and tumultuously to
attain any of the objects of sedition.
* There is no proposal to commit sedition.
* The conspiracy must be to prevent the promulgation or execution of any law or the holding of
any popular election. It may also be a conspiracy to prevent national and local public officials
from freely exercising their duties and functions, or to prevent the execution of an administrative
order.

Different acts of inciting to sedition:

a.

Inciting others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute sedition by
means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems etc.

b.

Uttering seditious words or speeches which tend to disturb the public peace or writing,
publishing, or circulating scurrilous [vulgar, mean, libelous] libels against the
government or any of the duly constituted authorities thereof, which tend to disturb the
public peace

c.

Knowingly concealing such evil practices

When punishable:
a. when they tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing the functions of his
office; or
b.

when they tend to instigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes;
or

c.

when they suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots; or

d.

when they lead or tend to stir up the people against the lawful authorities or to disturb
the peace of the community, the safety and order of the government

* Only non-participant in sedition may be liable.

meeting and performing their duties, the system of government is disturbed. The three
branches of government must continue to exist and perform their duties.

* Inciting to sedition is an element of sedition. It cannot be treated as a separate offense

against one who is a part of a group that rose up publicly and tumultuously and fought the
forces of government.
* Considering that the objective of sedition is to express protest against the government and in
the process creating hate against public officers, any act that will generate hatred against the
government or a public officer concerned or a social class may amount to Inciting to sedition.
Article 142 is, therefore, quite broad.

Article 144
DISTURBANCE OF PROCEEDINGS

* The mere meeting for the purpose of discussing hatred against the government is inciting to
sedition. Lambasting government officials to discredit the government is Inciting to sedition.
But if the objective of such preparatory actions is the overthrow of the government, the crime is
inciting to rebellion.

ELEMENTS:
a. That there be a projected or actual meeting of Congress or any of its
committees or subcommittees, constitutional commissions or committees or
division thereof, or of any provincial board or city or municipal council or board
b.

That the offender who may be any persons prevents such meeting by force or
fraud

* The crime is against popular representation because it is directed against officers whose
primary function is to meet and enact laws. When these legislative bodies are prevented from

ELEMENTS:
a. That there be a meeting of Congress or any of its committees, constitutional
commissions or committees or divisions thereof, or of any provincial board or
city or municipal council or board
b.

CRIMES AGAINST POPULAR REPRESENTATION

Article 143
ACTS TENDING TO PREVENT THE MEETING OF CONGRESS AND SIMILAR BODIES

Chief of Police and mayor who prevented the meeting of the municipal council are liable
under Art 143, when the defect of the meeting is not manifest and requires an investigation
before its existence can be determined.

That the offender does any of the following acts

1.

He disturbs any of such meetings

2.

He behaves while in the presence of any such bodies in such a manner as

to interrupt its proceedings or to impair the respect due it

* The disturbance can be in the form of utterances, speeches or any form of expressing dissent
which is not done peacefully but implemented in such a way that it substantially interrupts the
meeting of the assembly or adversely affects the respect due to the assembly of its members.

Complaint must be filed by member of the Legislative body. Accused may also be
punished for contempt.

Article 145
VIOLATION OF PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY

Acts punishable:

a.

By using force, intimidation, threats, or frauds to prevent any member of

Congress from
1.

attending the meeting of the assembly or any of its committees,

constitutional commissions or committees or divisions thereof, or from

2.

expressing his opinions or

3.

casting his vote

* The offender is any person and the offended party who is a member of Congress, has not
committed any crime to justify the use of force, threat, intimidation or fraud to prevent him from
attending the meeting of Congress.

ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES AND ASSOCIATIONS

b.

By arresting or searching any member thereof while Congress is in a regular or

special session, except in case such member has committed a crime
punishable under the code by a penalty higher than prision mayor ( 6 years up )

Article 146
ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES

Two (2) Types of illegal assemblies:

a. Meeting of the first form

Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee

1.

Meeting, gathering or group of persons whether in a fixed place or moving

purpose : to commit any of crimes punishable under the code

2.

That he arrests or searches any member of Congress

2.

meeting attended by armed persons

3.

That Congress, at the time of arrest or search, is in a regular or special

session

4.

That the member searched has not committed a crime punishable under
the code by a penalty higher than prision mayor (1987 constitution: privilege
from arrest while congress in session in all offenses punishable by not more than
6 years imprisonment).

* Under Section 11, Article VI of the Constitution, a public officer who arrests a member of
Congress who has committed a crime punishable by prision mayor (six years and one day, to
12 years) is not liable Article 145.

b. Meeting of the second form

1.

Meeting, gathering or group of persons whether in a fixed place or moving

2.

Audience whether armed or not, is incited to the commission of the crime of

treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition or direct assault.

Not all the persons present at the meeting of the first form of illegal assembly must be
armed

Persons liable for illegal assembly

a. the organizers or leaders of the meeting

* According to Reyes, to be consistent with the Constitution, the phrase "by a penalty higher
than prision mayor" in Article 145 should be amended to read: "by the penalty of prision mayor
or higher."

b.

persons merely present at the meeting (except when presence is out of curiosity not
liable)

Responsibility of persons merely present at the meeting

a.

if they are not armed, penalty is arresto mayor

b.

if they carry arms, like bolos or knives, or licensed firearms, penalty is prision
correccional

Presumptions if person present at the meeting carries an unlicensed firearm:

a.

purpose of the meeting is to commit acts punishable under the RPC

b.

considered as leader or organizer of the meeting

* Those who incite the audience, by means of speeches, printed matters, and other
representation, to commit treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition or assault a person in
authority, shall be deemed leaders or organizers of said meeting.

The gravamen of the offense is mere assembly of or gathering of people for illegal purpose
punishable by the Revised Penal Code. Without gathering, there is no illegal assembly. If
unlawful purpose is a crime under a special law, there is no illegal assembly. For example,
the gathering of drug pushers to facilitate drug trafficking is not illegal assembly because
the purpose is not violative of the Revised Penal Code but of The Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972, as amended, which is a special law.

Two forms of illegal assembly

(1)

(2)

No attendance of armed men, but persons in the meeting are incited to commit
treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition or assault upon a person in authority.
When the illegal purpose of the gathering is to incite people to commit the crimes
mentioned above, the presence of armed men is unnecessary. The mere gathering
for the purpose is sufficient to bring about the crime already.
Armed men attending the gathering If the illegal purpose is other than those
mentioned above, the presence of armed men during the gathering brings about the
crime of illegal assembly.

Example: Persons conspiring to rob a bank were arrested. Some were with firearms.
Liable for illegal assembly, not for conspiracy, but for gathering with armed men.
Distinction between illegal assembly and illegal association
In illegal assembly, the basis of liability is the gathering for an illegal purpose which constitutes
a crime under the Revised Penal Code.
In illegal association, the basis is the formation of or organization of an association to engage
in an unlawful purpose which is not limited to a violation of the Revised Penal Code. It
includes a violation of a special law or those against public morals. Meaning of public morals:
inimical to public welfare; it has nothing to do with decency., not acts of obscenity.

Article 147
ILLEGAL ASSOCIATIONS

ELEMENTS:
a. Organized totally or partially for the purpose of committing any of the crimes in
RPC
Or
b. For some purpose contrary to public morals

Persons liable:
a. founders, directors and president of the association
b. mere members of the association

ILLEGAL ASEEMBLY

Must be an actual meeting of armed persons to

commit any of the crimes punishable under the RPC,
or of individuals who, although not armed, are incited
to the commission of treason, rebellion, sedition or

LRGAL ASSOCIATION (147)

No need for such

assault upon a person in authority of his agent.

It is the meeting and the attendance at such that are
punished
Persons liable: leaders and those present

ELEMENTS OF THE 2ND FORM OF DIRECT ASSAULT:

Act of forming or organizing and membership in a. That the offender (a) makes an attack, (b) employs force, (c) makes a serious
intimidation, or (d) makes a serious resistance.
the association
Founders, directors, president and
b. That the person assaulted is a person in authority or his agent.
members

Public morals refers to crimes punished under Title Six of the Revised Penal Code, namely,
gambling, grave scandal, prostitution and vagrancy.

ASSAULT, RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE

Article 148
DIRECT ASSAULT

c.

That at the time of the assault the person in authority or his agent (a) is
engaged in the actual performance of official duties (motive is not essential), or
that he is assaulted (b) by reason of the past performance of official duties
(motive is essential).

d.

That the offender knows that the one he is assaulting is a person in authority or
his agent in the exercise of his duties (with intention to offend, injure or assault).

e.

That there is no public uprising.

ST

ELEMENTS OF THE 1 FORM OF DIRECT ASSAULT

a. That the offender employs force or intimidation.
b.

That the aim of the offender is to attain any of the purposes of the crime of
rebellion or any of the objects of the crimes of sedition. (victim need not be
person in authority)

c.

That there is no public uprising.

Example of the first form of direct assault:

Three men broke into a National Food Authority warehouse and lamented sufferings of the
people. They called on people to help themselves to all the rice. They did not even help
themselves to a single grain.
The crime committed was direct assault. There was no robbery for there was no intent to gain.
The crime is direct assault by committing acts of sedition under Article 139 (5), that is, spoiling
of the property, for any political or social end, of any person municipality or province or the
national government of all or any its property, but there is no public uprising.

* Crime of direct assault can only be committed by means of dolo. It cannot be committed by
culpa.

Always complexed with the material consequence of the act (e.g. direct assault with
murder) except if resulting in a light felony, in which case, the consequence is absorbed

* The crime is not based on the material consequence of the unlawful act. The crime of direct
assault punishes the spirit of lawlessness and the contempt or hatred for the authority or the
rule of law.
* To be specific, if a judge was killed while he was holding a session, the killing is not the direct
assault, but murder. There could be direct assault if the offender killed the judge simply
because the judge is so strict in the fulfillment of his duty. It is the spirit of hate which is the
essence of direct assault.
* So, where the spirit is present, it is always complexed with the material consequence of the
unlawful act. If the unlawful act was murder or homicide committed under circumstance of
lawlessness or contempt of authority, the crime would be direct assault with murder or
homicide, as the case may be. In the example of the judge who was killed, the crime is direct
assault with murder or homicide.

* The only time when it is not complexed is when material consequence is a light felony, that is,
slight physical injury. Direct assault absorbs the lighter felony; the crime of direct assault can
not be separated from the material result of the act. So, if an offender who is charged with
direct assault and in another court for the slight physical Injury which is part of the act, acquittal
or conviction in one is a bar to the prosecution in the other.

Hitting the policeman on the chest with fist is not direct assault because if done against an
agent of a person in authority, the force employed must be of serious character

The force employed need not be serious when the offended party is a person in authority
(ex. Laying of hands)

The intimidation or resistance must be serious whether the offended party is an agent only
or a person in authority (ex. Pointing a gun)

to the aid of the person in authority, policeman, municipal treasurer, postmaster, sheriff,
agents of the BIR, Malacaang confidential agent)

Even when the person in authority or the agent agrees to fight, still direct assault.

When the person in authority or the agent provoked/attacked first, innocent party is entitled
to defend himself and cannot be held liable for assault or resistance nor for physical
injuries, because he acts in legitimate self-defense

* The offended party in assault must not be the aggressor. If there is unlawful aggression
employed by the public officer, any form of resistance which may be in the nature of force
against him will be considered as an act of legitimate defense. (People vs. Hernandez, 59
Phil. 343)

Person in Authority
Agent

Force Employed

Intimidation/Resistance

Need not be serious

Must be of serious character

Serious
Serious

PERSON IN AUTHORITY: any person directly vested with jurisdiction (power or authority
to govern and execute the laws) whether as an individual or as a member of some court or
governmental corporation, board or commission

A barangay captain is a person in authority, so is a Division Superintendent of schools,

President of Sanitary Division and a teacher

* In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151, teachers, professors, and persons charged
with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges and universities and
lawyers in the actual performance of their duties or on the occasion of such performance, shall
be deemed a person in authority.

AGENT: is one who, by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by

competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection
and security of life and property. (Example. Barrio councilman and any person who comes

There can be no assault upon or disobedience to one authority by another when they both
contend that they were in the exercise of their respective duties.

* The offender and the offended party are both public officers. The Supreme Court said that
assault may still be committed, as in fact the offender is even subjected to a greater penalty
(U.S. vs. Vallejo, 11 Phil. 193).
When assault is made by reason of the performance of his duty there is no need for actual
performance of his official duty when attacked
In direct assault of the first form, the stature of the offended person is immaterial. The crime is
manifested by the spirit of lawlessness.

In the second form, you have to distinguish a situation where a person in authority or his agent
was attacked while performing official functions, from a situation when he is not performing
such functions.

If attack was done during the exercise of official functions, the crime is always direct
assault. It is enough that the offender knew that the person in authority was performing an
official function whatever may be the reason for the attack, although what may have
happened was a purely private affair.

* On the other hand, if the person in authority or the agent was killed when no longer
performing official functions, the crime may simply be the material consequence of he unlawful
act: murder or homicide. For the crime to be direct assault, the attack must be by reason of his
official function in the past. Motive becomes important in this respect. Example, if a judge was
killed while resisting the taking of his watch, there is no direct assault.
In the second form of direct assault, it is also important that the offended knew that the person
he is attacking is a person in authority or an agent of a person in authority, performing his
official functions. No knowledge, no lawlessness or contempt.

Article 149
INDIRECT ASSAULT

For example, if two persons were quarreling and a policeman in civilian clothes comes and
stops them, but one of the protagonists stabs the policeman, there would be no direct assault
unless the offender knew that he is a policeman.
In this respect it is enough that the offender should know that the offended party was exercising
some form of authority. It is not necessary that the offender knows what is meant by person in
authority or an agent of one because ignorantia legis non excusat.

Circumstances qualifying the offense (Qualified Assault):

a. when the assault is committed with a weapon
b.
c.

when the offender is a public officer or employee

when the offender lays hand upon a person in authority

Complex crime of direct assault with homicide or murder, or with serious physical injuries.

* If the crime of direct assault is committed with the use of force and it resulted in the infliction
of slight physical injuries, the latter shall not be considered as a separate offense. It shall be
absorbed by the greater crime of direct assault. (People vs. Acierto, 57 Phil. 614)

Direct assault cannot be committed during rebellion.

May direct assault be committed upon a private individual? Yes. When a private person
comes to the aid of a person in authority, and he is likewise assaulted. Under Republic Act
No. 1978,

a private person who comes to the aid of a person in authority is by fiction of law deemed
or is considered an agent of a person in authority.

ELEMENTS:
a. That a person in authority or his agent is the victim of any of the forms of direct
assault defined in ART. 148.
b.

That a person comes to the aid of such authority or his agent.

c.

That the offender makes use of force or intimidation upon such person coming
to the aid of the authority or his agent.

Indirect assault can be committed only when a direct assault is also committed

To be indirect assault, the person who should be aided is the agent (not the person in
authority because it is already direct assault, the person coming to the aid of the person in
authority being considered as an agent and an attack on the latter is already direct
assault). Example. Aiding a policeman under attack.

* The victim in indirect assault should be a private person who comes in aid of an agent of a
person in authority. The assault is upon a person who comes in aid of the agent of a person in
authority. The victim cannot be the person in authority or his agent.
* Take note that under Article 152, as amended, when any person comes in aid of a person in
authority, said person at that moment is no longer a civilian he is constituted as an agent of
the person in authority. If such person were the one attacked, the crime would be direct
assault

Article 150
DISOBEDIENCE TO SUMMONS

Acts punishable:
a. refusing without legal excuse to obey summons

SIMPLE DISOBEDIENCE (par. 2)

b.

refusing to be sworn or placed under affirmation

c.

refusing to answer any legal inquiry to produce books, records etc.

ELEMENTS:
a. That an agent of a person in authority is engaged in the performance of official
duty gives a lawful order to the offender.

d.

restraining another from attending as witness in such body

b.

e.

inducing disobedience to a summons or refusal to be sworn

* The act punished is refusal, without legal excuse, to obey summons issued by the House of
Representatives or the Senate. If a Constitutional Commission is created, it shall enjoy the
same privilege.
* The exercise by the legislature of its contempt power is a matter of self-preservation,
independent of the judicial branch. The contempt power of the legislature is inherent and sui
generis.
* The power to punish is not extended to the local executive bodies. The reason given is that
local legislative bodies are but a creation of law and therefore, for them to exercise the power of
contempt, there must be an express grant of the same.

Article 151
RESISTANCE/DISOBEDIENCE TO A PERSON IN AUTHORITY OR THE AGENT OF SUCH
PERSON (par. 1)

ELEMENTS:
a. That a person in authority or his agent is engaged in the performance of official
duty or gives a lawful order to the offender.
b. disobeys such person in authority or his agent.
c.

That the act of the offender is not included in the provisions of arts. 148, 149
and 150.

That the offender disobeys such agent of a person in authority.

c. That such disobedience is not of a serious nature.

US vs. Ramayrat, 22 Phil. 183
The Supreme Court held that: the violation does not refer to resistance or disobedience to the
legal provisions of the law, nor to judicial decisions defining or declaring the rights and
obligations of the parties for the same give reliefs only in the form of civil actions. Rather, the
disobedience or resistance is to the orders directly issued by the authorities in the exercise of
their official duties.