1.

RA 9372 Human Security Act of 2007

(Note: RA 9372 is often referred to as the Anti-Terror Law or Anti-Terrorism Law. As will be
seen in the text of the law, however, this is properly known as the Human Security Act of
2007. This law takes effect this coming Sunday, 15 July 2007. Heres the full text of the law.)

SEC. 3. Terrorism. Any person who commits an act punishable under any of the following
provisions of the Revised Penal Code:
1. Article 122 (Piracy in General and Mutiny in the High Seas or in the Philippine Waters);
2. Article 134 (Rebellion or Insurrection);
3. Article 134-a (Coup dEtat), including acts committed by private persons;
4. Article 248 (Murder);
5. Article 267 (Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention);
6. Article 324 (Crimes Involving Destruction,
or under
1. Presidential Decree No. 1613 (The Law on Arson);
2. Republic Act No. 6969 (Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Waste Control Act of
1990);
3. Republic Act No. 5207, (Atomic Energy Regulatory and Liability Act of 1968);
4. Republic Act No. 6235 (Anti-Hijacking Law);
5. Presidential Decree No. 532 (Anti-piracy and Anti-highway Robbery Law of 1974); and,
6. Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended (Decree Codifying the Laws on Illegal and Unlawful
Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms, Ammunitions or
Explosives)
thereby sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among
the populace, in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand shall be guilty of
the crime of terrorism and shall suffer the penalty of forty (40) years of imprisonment, without the
benefit of parole as provided for under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, as amended.

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

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

battery, allyl chloroformate, allytrichlorosilane, ammonium dinitro-orthocresolate

and other similar materials and substances.
(4) "Poisonous" is any substance or materials, except medicinal drug, either
liquid, solid or gaseous, which through chemical reactions kills, injuries or impairs
a living organism or person, and shall include but not limited to allyl
isothiocyanate, ammunition (chemical, non-explosive but containing Class A, B or
poison), aniline oil, arsine, bromobenzyle cyanide, bromoacetone and other
similar substances or materials.
Section 6. Any violation of Section three hereof shall be punishable by an
imprisonment of at least five years but not more than ten years or by a fine of
not less than ten thousand pesos but not more than twenty thousand
pesos: Provided, That if the violation is committed by a juridical person, the
penalty shall be imposed upon the manager, representative, director, agent or
employee who violated, or caused, directed, cooperated or participated in the
violation thereof: Provided, further, That in case the violation is committed in the
interest of a foreign corporation legally doing business in the Philippines, the
penalty shall be imposed upon its resident agent, manager, representative or
director responsible for such violation and in addition thereto, the license of said
corporation to do business in the Philippines shall be revoked.
Any violation of Section four hereof shall be an offense punishable with the
minimum of the penalty provided in the next preceding paragraph.
Section 7. For any death or injury to persons or damage to property resulting
from a violation of Sections three and four hereof, the person responsible
therefor may be held liable in accordance with the applicable provisions of the
Revised Penal Code.
Section 8. Aircraft companies which operate as public utilities or operators of
aircraft which are for hire are authorized to open and investigate suspicious
packages and cargoes in the presence of the owner or shipper, or his authorized
representatives if present; in order to help the authorities in the enforcement of
the provisions of this Act: Provided, That if the owner, shipper or his
representative refuses to have the same opened and inspected, the airline or air
carrier is authorized to refuse the loading thereof.
Section 9. Every ticket issued to a passenger by the airline or air carrier
concerned shall contain among others the following condition printed thereon:
"Holder hereof and his hand-carried luggage(s) are subject to search for, and
seizure of, prohibited materials or substances. Holder refusing to be searched
shall not be allowed to board the aircraft," which shall constitute a part of the
contract between the passenger and the air carrier.
Section 10. The Civil Aeronautics Administration is hereby directed to promulgate
within one month after the approval of this Act such regulations as are provided
in Section four hereof and cause the publication of such rules and regulations in
the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of national circulation for at least once a
week for three consecutive weeks. Such regulations shall take effect fifteen days
after publication in the Official Gazette.
Section 11. This Act shall take effect after the publication mentioned in the
preceding section.

3. RA 9208 - AN ACT TO INSTITUTE POLICIES TO ELIMINATE

TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS ESPECIALLY WOMEN AND CHILDREN,
ESTABLISHING THE NECESSARY INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS FOR
THE PROTECTION AND SUPPORT OF TRAFFICKED PERSONS,
PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR ITS VIOLATIONS, AND FOR OTHER

Republic Act No. 9208

May 26, 2003

AN ACT TO INSTITUTE POLICIES TO ELIMINATE TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS

ESPECIALLY WOMEN AND CHILDREN, ESTABLISHING THE NECESSARY
INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS FOR THE PROTECTION AND SUPPORT OF
TRAFFICKED PERSONS, PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR ITS VIOLATIONS, AND FOR
OTHER
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines
in Congress assembled:
Section 1. Title. This Act shall be known as the "Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of
2003".
Section 2. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby declared that the State values the
dignity of every human person and guarantees the respect of individual rights. In
pursuit of this policy, the State shall give highest priority to the enactment of
measures and development of programs that will promote human dignity,
protect the people from any threat of violence and exploitation, eliminate
trafficking in persons, and mitigate pressures for involuntary migration and
servitude of persons, not only to support trafficked persons but more
importantly, to ensure their recovery, rehabilitation and reintegration into the
mainstream of society.
It shall be a State policy to recognize the equal rights and inherent human
dignity of women and men as enshrined in the United Nations Universal
Declaration on Human Rights, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child, United Nations Convention on the Protection of Migrant Workers and their
Families. United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime
Including its Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons,
Especially Women and Children and all other relevant and universally accepted
human rights instruments and other international conventions to which the
Philippines is a signatory.
Section 3. Definition of Terms. - As used in this Act:
(a) Trafficking in Persons - refers to the recruitment, transportation, transfer or
harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim's consent or
knowledge, within or across national borders by means of threat or use of force,
or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of
position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or
receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having
control over another person for the purpose of exploitation which includes at a

minimum, the exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual

exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of
organs.
The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of a child for the
purpose of exploitation shall also be considered as "trafficking in persons" even if
it does not involve any of the means set forth in the preceding paragraph.
(b) Child - refers to a person below eighteen (18) years of age or one who is over
eighteen (18) but is unable to fully take care of or protect himself/herself from
abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination because of a physical or
mental disability or condition.
(c) Prostitution - refers to any act, transaction, scheme or design involving the
use of a person by another, for sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct in
exchange for money, profit or any other consideration.
(d) Forced Labor and Slavery - refer to the extraction of work or services from
any person by means of enticement, violence, intimidation or threat, use of force
or coercion, including deprivation of freedom, abuse of authority or moral
ascendancy, debt-bondage or deception.
(e) Sex Tourism - refers to a program organized by travel and tourism-related
establishments and individuals which consists of tourism packages or activities,
utilizing and offering escort and sexual services as enticement for tourists. This
includes sexual services and practices offered during rest and recreation periods
for members of the military.
(f) Sexual Exploitation - refers to participation by a person in prostitution or the
production of pornographic materials as a result of being subjected to a threat,
deception, coercion, abduction, force, abuse of authority, debt bondage, fraud or
through abuse of a victim's vulnerability.
(g) Debt Bondage - refers to the pledging by the debtor of his/her personal
services or labor or those of a person under his/her control as security or
payment for a debt, when the length and nature of services is not clearly defined
or when the value of the services as reasonably assessed is not applied toward
the liquidation of the debt.
(h) Pornography - refers to any representation, through publication, exhibition,
cinematography, indecent shows, information technology, or by whatever
means, of a person engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities or any
representation of the sexual parts of a person for primarily sexual purposes.
(i) Council - shall mean the Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking created
under Section 20 of this Act.
Section 4. Acts of Trafficking in Persons. - It shall be unlawful for any person,
natural or juridical, to commit any of the following acts:
(a) To recruit, transport, transfer; harbor, provide, or receive a person by any
means, including those done under the pretext of domestic or overseas
employment or training or apprenticeship, for the purpose of prostitution,
pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or
debt bondage;

(b) To introduce or match for money, profit, or material, economic or other

consideration, any person or, as provided for under Republic Act No. 6955, any
Filipino woman to a foreign national, for marriage for the purpose of acquiring,
buying, offering, selling or trading him/her to engage in prostitution,
pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or
debt bondage;
(c) To offer or contract marriage, real or simulated, for the purpose of acquiring,
buying, offering, selling, or trading them to engage in prostitution, pornography,
sexual exploitation, forced labor or slavery, involuntary servitude or debt
bondage;
(d) To undertake or organize tours and travel plans consisting of tourism
packages or activities for the purpose of utilizing and offering persons for
prostitution, pornography or sexual exploitation;
(e) To maintain or hire a person to engage in prostitution or pornography;
(f) To adopt or facilitate the adoption of persons for the purpose of prostitution,
pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or
debt bondage;
(g) To recruit, hire, adopt, transport or abduct a person, by means of threat or
use of force, fraud, deceit, violence, coercion, or intimidation for the purpose of
removal or sale of organs of said person; and
(h) To recruit, transport or adopt a child to engage in armed activities in the
Philippines or abroad.
Section 5. Acts that Promote Trafficking in Persons. - The following acts which
promote or facilitate trafficking in persons, shall be unlawful:
(a) To knowingly lease or sublease, use or allow to be used any house, building or
establishment for the purpose of promoting trafficking in persons;
(b) To produce, print and issue or distribute unissued, tampered or fake
counseling certificates, registration stickers and certificates of any government
agency which issues these certificates and stickers as proof of compliance with
government regulatory and pre-departure requirements for the purpose of
promoting trafficking in persons;
(c) To advertise, publish, print, broadcast or distribute, or cause the
advertisement, publication, printing, broadcasting or distribution by any means,
including the use of information technology and the internet, of any brochure,
flyer, or any propaganda material that promotes trafficking in persons;
(d) To assist in the conduct of misrepresentation or fraud for purposes of
facilitating the acquisition of clearances and necessary exit documents from
government agencies that are mandated to provide pre-departure registration
and services for departing persons for the purpose of promoting trafficking in
persons;
(e) To facilitate, assist or help in the exit and entry of persons from/to the country
at international and local airports, territorial boundaries and seaports who are in

possession of unissued, tampered or fraudulent travel documents for the

purpose of promoting trafficking in persons;
(f) To confiscate, conceal, or destroy the passport, travel documents, or personal
documents or belongings of trafficked persons in furtherance of trafficking or to
prevent them from leaving the country or seeking redress from the government
or appropriate agencies; and
(g) To knowingly benefit from, financial or otherwise, or make use of, the labor or
services of a person held to a condition of involuntary servitude, forced labor, or
slavery.
Section 6. Qualified Trafficking in Persons. - The following are considered as
qualified trafficking:
(a) When the trafficked person is a child;
(b) When the adoption is effected through Republic Act No. 8043, otherwise
known as the "Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995" and said adoption is for the
purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery,
involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
(c) When the crime is committed by a syndicate, or in large scale. Trafficking is
deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more
persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in
large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a
group;
(d) When the offender is an ascendant, parent, sibling, guardian or a person who
exercises authority over the trafficked person or when the offense is committed
by a public officer or employee;
(e) When the trafficked person is recruited to engage in prostitution with any
member of the military or law enforcement agencies;
(f) When the offender is a member of the military or law enforcement agencies;
and
(g) When by reason or on occasion of the act of trafficking in persons, the
offended party dies, becomes insane, suffers mutilation or is afflicted with
Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) or the Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome (AIDS).
Section 6. Confidentiality. - At any stage of the investigation, prosecution and
trial of an offense under this Act, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges,
court personnel and medical practitioners, as well as parties to the case, shall
recognize the right to privacy of the trafficked person and the accused. Towards
this end, law enforcement officers, prosecutors and judges to whom the
complaint has been referred may, whenever necessary to ensure a fair and
impartial proceeding, and after considering all circumstances for the best
interest of the parties, order a closed-door investigation, prosecution or trial. The
name and personal circumstances of the trafficked person or of the accused, or
any other information tending to establish their identities and such
circumstances or information shall not be disclosed to the public.

In cases when prosecution or trial is conducted behind closed-doors, it shall be

unlawful for any editor, publisher, and reporter or columnist in case of printed
materials, announcer or producer in case of television and radio, producer and
director of a film in case of the movie industry, or any person utilizing tri-media
facilities or information technology to cause publicity of any case of trafficking in
persons.
Section 8. Prosecution of Cases. - Any person who has personal knowledge of the
commission of any offense under this Act, the trafficked person, the parents,
spouse, siblings, children or legal guardian may file a complaint for trafficking.
Section 9. Venue. - A criminal action arising from violation of this Act shall be
filed where the offense was committed, or where any of its elements occurred, or
where the trafficked person actually resides at the time of the commission of the
offense: Provided, That the court where the criminal action is first filed shall
acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts.
Section 10. Penalties and Sanctions. - The following penalties and sanctions are
hereby established for the offenses enumerated in this Act:
(a) Any person found guilty of committing any of the acts enumerated in Section
4 shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twenty (20) years and a fine of not
less than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) but not more than Two million pesos
(P2,000,000.00);
(b) Any person found guilty of committing any of the acts enumerated in Section
5 shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of fifteen (15) years and a fine of not
less than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) but not more than One
million pesos (P1,000,000.00);
(c) Any person found guilty of qualified trafficking under Section 6 shall suffer the
penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than Two million pesos
(P2,000,000.00) but not more than Five million pesos (P5,000,000.00);
(d) Any person who violates Section 7 hereof shall suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of six (6) years and a fine of not less than Five hundred thousand
pesos (P500,000.00) but not more than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00);
(e) If the offender is a corporation, partnership, association, club, establishment
or any juridical person, the penalty shall be imposed upon the owner, president,
partner, manager, and/or any responsible officer who participated in the
commission of the crime or who shall have knowingly permitted or failed to
prevent its commission;
(f) The registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and
license to operate of the erring agency, corporation, association, religious group,
tour or travel agent, club or establishment, or any place of entertainment shall
be cancelled and revoked permanently. The owner, president, partner or
manager thereof shall not be allowed to operate similar establishments in a
different name;
(g) If the offender is a foreigner, he shall be immediately deported after serving
his sentence and be barred permanently from entering the country;

(h) Any employee or official of government agencies who shall issue or approve
the issuance of travel exit clearances, passports, registration certificates,
counseling certificates, marriage license, and other similar documents to
persons, whether juridical or natural, recruitment agencies, establishments or
other individuals or groups, who fail to observe the prescribed procedures and
the requirement as provided for by laws, rules and regulations, shall be held
administratively liable, without prejudice to criminal liability under this Act. The
concerned government official or employee shall, upon conviction, be dismissed
from the service and be barred permanently to hold public office. His/her
retirement and other benefits shall likewise be forfeited; and
(i) Conviction by final judgment of the adopter for any offense under this Act
shall result in the immediate rescission of the decree of adoption.
Section 11. Use of Trafficked Persons. - Any person who buys or engages the
services of trafficked persons for prostitution shall be penalized as follows:
(a) First offense - six (6) months of community service as may be determined by
the court and a fine of Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00); and
(b) Second and subsequent offenses - imprisonment of one (1) year and a fine of
One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00).
Section 12. Prescriptive Period. - Trafficking cases under this Act shall prescribe in
ten (10) years: Provided, however, That trafficking cases committed by a
syndicate or in a large scale as defined under Section 6 shall prescribe in twenty
(20) years.
The prescriptive period shall commence to run from the day on which the
trafficked person is delivered or released from the conditions of bondage and
shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information and shall
commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused
being convicted or acquitted or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not
imputable to the accused.
Section 13. Exemption from Filing Fees. - When the trafficked person institutes a
separate civil action for the recovery of civil damages, he/she shall be exempt
from the payment of filing fees.
Section 14. Confiscation and Forfeiture of the Proceeds and Instruments Derived
from Trafficking in Persons. - In addition to the penalty imposed for the violation
of this Act, the court shall order the confiscation and forfeiture, in favor of the
government, of all the proceeds and properties derived from the commission of
the crime, unless they are the property of a third person not liable for the
unlawful act; Provided, however, That all awards for damages shall be taken from
the personal and separate properties of the offender; Provided, further, That if
such properties are insufficient, the balance shall be taken from the confiscated
and forfeited properties.
When the proceeds, properties and instruments of the offense have been
destroyed, diminished in value or otherwise rendered worthless by any act or
omission, directly or indirectly, of the offender, or it has been concealed,
removed, converted or transferred to prevent the same from being found or to

avoid forfeiture or confiscation, the offender shall be ordered to pay the amount
equal to the value of the proceeds, property or instruments of the offense.
Section 15. Trust Fund. - All fines imposed under this Act and the proceeds and
properties forfeited and confiscated pursuant to Section 14 hereof shall accrue to
a Trust Fund to be administered and managed by the Council to be used
exclusively for programs that will prevent acts of trafficking and protect,
rehabilitate, reintegrate trafficked persons into the mainstream of society. Such
programs shall include, but not limited to, the following:
(a) Provision for mandatory services set forth in Section 23 of this Act;
(b) Sponsorship of a national research program on trafficking and establishment
of a data collection system for monitoring and evaluation purposes;
(c) Provision of necessary technical and material support services to appropriate
government agencies and non-government organizations (NGOs);
(d) Sponsorship of conferences and seminars to provide venue for consensus
building amongst the public, the academe, government, NGOs and international
organizations; and
(e) Promotion of information and education campaign on trafficking.
Section 16. Programs that Address Trafficking in Persons. - The government shall
establish and implement preventive, protective and rehabilitative programs for
trafficked persons. For this purpose, the following agencies are hereby mandated
to implement the following programs;
(a) Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) - shall make available its resources and
facilities overseas for trafficked persons regardless of their manner of entry to
the receiving country, and explore means to further enhance its assistance in
eliminating trafficking activities through closer networking with government
agencies in the country and overseas, particularly in the formulation of policies
and implementation of relevant programs.
The DFA shall take necessary measures for the efficient implementation of the
Machine Readable Passports to protect the integrity of Philippine passports, visas
and other travel documents to reduce the incidence of trafficking through the
use of fraudulent identification documents.
It shall establish and implement a pre-marriage, on-site and pre-departure
counseling program on intermarriages.
(b) Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) - shall implement
rehabilitative and protective programs for trafficked persons. It shall provide
counseling and temporary shelter to trafficked persons and develop a system for
accreditation among NGOs for purposes of establishing centers and programs for
intervention in various levels of the community.
(c) Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) - shall ensure the strict
implementation and compliance with the rules and guidelines relative to the
employment of persons locally and overseas. It shall likewise monitor, document
and report cases of trafficking in persons involving employers and labor
recruiters.

(d) Department of Justice (DOJ) - shall ensure the prosecution of persons accused
of trafficking and designate and train special prosecutors who shall handle and
prosecute cases of trafficking. It shall also establish a mechanism for free legal
assistance for trafficked persons, in coordination with the DSWD, Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP) and other NGOs and volunteer groups.
(e) National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women (NCRFW) - shall actively
participate and coordinate in the formulation and monitoring of policies
addressing the issue of trafficking in persons in coordination with relevant
government agencies. It shall likewise advocate for the inclusion of the issue of
trafficking in persons in both its local and international advocacy for women's
issues.
(f) Bureau of Immigration (BI) - shall strictly administer and enforce immigration
and alien administration laws. It shall adopt measures for the apprehension of
suspected traffickers both at the place of arrival and departure and shall ensure
compliance by the Filipino fiancs/fiances and spouses of foreign nationals with
the guidance and counseling requirement as provided for in this Act.
(g) Philippine National Police (PNP) - shall be the primary law enforcement
agency to undertake surveillance, investigation and arrest of individuals or
persons suspected to be engaged in trafficking. It shall closely coordinate with
various law enforcement agencies to secure concerted efforts for effective
investigation and apprehension of suspected traffickers. It shall also establish a
system to receive complaints and calls to assist trafficked persons and conduct
rescue operations.
(h) Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) - shall implement an
effective pre-employment orientation seminars and pre-departure counseling
programs to applicants for overseas employment. It shall likewise formulate a
system of providing free legal assistance to trafficked persons.
(i) Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) - shall institute a
systematic information and prevention campaign and likewise maintain a
databank for the effective monitoring, documentation and prosecution of cases
on trafficking in persons.
(j) Local government units (LGUs) - shall monitor and document cases of
trafficking in persons in their areas of jurisdiction, effect the cancellation of
licenses of establishments which violate the provisions of this Act and ensure
effective prosecution of such cases. They shall also undertake an information
campaign against trafficking in persons through the establishment of the
Migrants Advisory and Information Network (MAIN) desks in municipalities or
provinces in coordination with DILG, Philippine Information Agency (PIA),
Commission on Filipinos Overseas (CFO), NGOs and other concerned agencies.
They shall encourage and support community based initiatives which address the
trafficking in persons.
In implementing this Act, the agencies concerned may seek and enlist the
assistance of NGOs, people's organizations (Pos), civic organizations and other
volunteer groups.
Section 17. Legal Protection to Trafficked Persons. - Trafficked persons shall be
recognized as victims of the act or acts of trafficking and as such shall not be

penalized for crimes directly related to the acts of trafficking enumerated in this
Act or in obedience to the order made by the trafficker in relation thereto. In this
regard, the consent of a trafficked person to the intended exploitation set forth in
this Act shall be irrelevant.
Section 18. Preferential Entitlement Under the Witness Protection Program. - Any
provision of Republic Act No. 6981 to the contrary notwithstanding, any trafficked
person shall be entitled to the witness protection program provided therein.
Section 19. Trafficked Persons Who are Foreign Nationals. - Subject to the
guidelines issued by the Council, trafficked persons in the Philippines who are
nationals of a foreign country shall also be entitled to appropriate protection,
assistance and services available to trafficked persons under this Act: Provided,
That they shall be permitted continued presence in the Philippines for a length of
time prescribed by the Council as necessary to effect the prosecution of
offenders.
Section 20. Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking. - There is hereby established
an Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking, to be composed of the Secretary of
the Department of Justice as Chairperson and the Secretary of the Department of
Social Welfare and Development as Co-Chairperson and shall have the following
as members:
(a) Secretary, Department of Foreign Affairs;
(b) Secretary, Department of Labor and Employment;
(c) Administrator, Philippine Overseas Employment Administration;
(d) Commissioner, Bureau of Immigration;
(e) Director-General, Philippine National Police;
(f) Chairperson, National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women; and
(g) Three (3) representatives from NGOs, who shall be composed of one (1)
representative each from among the sectors representing women, overseas
Filipino workers (OFWs) and children, with a proven record of involvement in the
prevention and suppression of trafficking in persons. These representatives shall
be nominated by the government agency representatives of the Council, for
appointment by the President for a term of three (3) years.
The members of the Council may designate their permanent representatives who
shall have a rank not lower than an assistant secretary or its equivalent to
meetings, and shall receive emoluments as may be determined by the Council in
accordance with existing budget and accounting, rules and regulations.
Section 21. Functions of the Council. - The Council shall have the following
powers and functions:
(a) Formulate a comprehensive and integrated program to prevent and suppress
the trafficking in persons;
(b) Promulgate rules and regulations as may be necessary for the effective
implementation of this Act;

(c) Monitor and oversee the strict implementation of this Act;

(d) Coordinate the programs and projects of the various member agencies to
effectively address the issues and problems attendant to trafficking in persons;
(e) Coordinate the conduct of massive information dissemination and campaign
on the existence of the law and the various issues and problems attendant to
trafficking through the LGUs, concerned agencies, and NGOs;
(f) Direct other agencies to immediately respond to the problems brought to their
attention and report to the Council on action taken;
(g) Assist in filing of cases against individuals, agencies, institutions or
establishments that violate the provisions of this Act;
(h) Formulate a program for the reintegration of trafficked persons in cooperation
with DOLE, DSWD, Technical Education and Skills Development Authority
(TESDA), Commission on Higher Education (CHED), LGUs and NGOs;
(i) Secure from any department, bureau, office, agency, or instrumentality of the
government or from NGOs and other civic organizations such assistance as may
be needed to effectively implement this Act;
(j) Complement the shared government information system for migration
established under Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known as the "Migrant
Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995" with data on cases of trafficking in
persons, and ensure that the proper agencies conduct a continuing research and
study on the patterns and scheme of trafficking in persons which shall form the
basis for policy formulation and program direction;
(k) Develop the mechanism to ensure the timely, coordinated, and effective
response to cases of trafficking in persons;
(l) Recommend measures to enhance cooperative efforts and mutual assistance
among foreign countries through bilateral and/or multilateral arrangements to
prevent and suppress international trafficking in persons;
(m) Coordinate with the Department of Transportation and Communications
(DOTC), Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), and other NGOs in monitoring
the promotion of advertisement of trafficking in the internet;
(n) Adopt measures and policies to protect the rights and needs of trafficked
persons who are foreign nationals in the Philippines;
(o) Initiate training programs in identifying and providing the necessary
intervention or assistance to trafficked persons; and
(p) Exercise all the powers and perform such other functions necessary to attain
the purposes and objectives of this Act.
Section 22. Secretariat to the Council. - The Department of Justice shall establish
the necessary Secretariat for the Council.
Section 23. Mandatory Services to Trafficked Persons. - To ensure recovery,
rehabilitation and reintegration into the mainstream of society, concerned

government agencies shall make available the following services to trafficked

persons:
(a) Emergency shelter or appropriate housing;
(b) Counseling;
(c) Free legal services which shall include information about the victims' rights
and the procedure for filing complaints, claiming compensation and such other
legal remedies available to them, in a language understood by the trafficked
person;
(d) Medical or psychological services;
(e) Livelihood and skills training; and
(f) Educational assistance to a trafficked child.
Sustained supervision and follow through mechanism that will track the progress
of recovery, rehabilitation and reintegration of the trafficked persons shall be
adopted and carried out.
Section 24. Other Services for Trafficked Persons. (a) Legal Assistance. - Trafficked persons shall be considered under the category
"Overseas Filipino in Distress" and may avail of the legal assistance created by
Republic Act No. 8042, subject to the guidelines as provided by law.
(b) Overseas Filipino Resource Centers. - The services available to overseas
Filipinos as provided for by Republic Act No. 8042 shall also be extended to
trafficked persons regardless of their immigration status in the host country.
(c) The Country Team Approach. - The country team approach under Executive
Order No. 74 of 1993, shall be the operational scheme under which Philippine
embassies abroad shall provide protection to trafficked persons insofar as the
promotion of their welfare, dignity and fundamental rights are concerned.
Section 25. Repatriation of Trafficked Persons. - The DFA, in coordination with
DOLE and other appropriate agencies, shall have the primary responsibility for
the repatriation of trafficked persons, regardless of whether they are
documented or undocumented.
If, however, the repatriation of the trafficked persons shall expose the victims to
greater risks, the DFA shall make representation with the host government for
the extension of appropriate residency permits and protection, as may be legally
permissible in the host country.
Section 26. Extradition. - The DOJ, in consultation with DFA, shall endeavor to
include offenses of trafficking in persons among extraditable offenses.
Section 27. Reporting Requirements. - The Council shall submit to the President
of the Philippines and to Congress an annual report of the policies, programs and
activities relative to the implementation of this Act.
Section 28. Funding. - The heads of the departments and agencies concerned
shall immediately include in their programs and issue such rules and regulations

to implement the provisions of this Act, the funding of which shall be included in
the annual General Appropriations Act.
Section 29. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - The Council shall promulgate
the necessary implementing rules and regulations within sixty (60) days from the
effectivity of this Act.
Section 30. Non-restriction of Freedom of Speech and of Association, Religion and
the Right to Travel. - Nothing in this Act shall be interpreted as a restriction of the
freedom of speech and of association, religion and the right to travel for
purposes not contrary to law as guaranteed by the Constitution.
Section 31. Separability Clause. - If, for any reason, any section or provision of
this Act is held unconstitutional or invalid, the other sections or provisions hereof
shall not be affected thereby.
Section 32. Repealing clause. - All laws, presidential decrees, executive orders
and rules and regulations, or parts thereof, inconsistent with the provisions of
this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly: Provided, That this Act shall
not in any way amend or repeal the provision of Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise
known as the "Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation
and Discrimination Act".
Section 33. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days from the date
of its complete publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

PEOPLE
OF
THE
RECTO y ROBEA, appellant.

PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. JULIO

DECISION
PANGANIBAN, J.:

Treachery cannot be appreciated to qualify a killing to murder, if the accused has not
deliberately sought to attack the vulnerability of the victim. In the present case, the latter
evidently had the opportunity to escape or to defend himself, but chose not to grab the
opportunity; instead, he placed himself in a position more open to attack.
The Case
For automatic review by this Court is the Decision [1] dated April 2, 1997, promulgated by
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Romblon (Branch 81), which found Julio Recto y Robea
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of (1) two counts of the complex crime of qualified direct
assault with frustrated homicide (Criminal Case Nos. 1970 and 1971), (2) the complex crime
of qualified direct assault with murder (Criminal Case No. 1972), and (3) homicide (Criminal
Case No. 1973). The decretal portion of the RTC Decision reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. 1970, this Court finds accused JULIO
RECTO GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of qualified
[d]irect [a]ssault [w]ith [f]rustrated [h]omicide and hereby sentences him to suffer
the indeterminate penalty of from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor,
as minimum, to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, with
the accessory penalties of the law, and to pay the costs.
In Criminal Case No. 1971, this Court finds accused JULIO RECTO GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of qualified [d]irect [a]ssault [w]ith
[f]rustrated [h]omicide and hereby sentences him to suffer the indeterminate
penalty of from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to
ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, with the accessory
penalties of the law, and to pay the costs.
In Criminal Case No. 1972, this Court finds co-accused JULIO RECTO GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of qualified [d]irect [a]ssault [w]ith
[m]urder and hereby sentences him to suffer the supreme penalty of DEATH. He is
ordered to pay the heirs of the victim ANTONIO MACALIPAY the sum
of P50,000.00 as indemnity for his death, without subsidiary imprisonment in case
of insolvency, and to pay the costs.
xxx

xxx

xxx

In Criminal Case No. 1973, this Court finds co-accused JULIO RECTO GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of [h]omicide and hereby sentences him to
suffer the indeterminate penalty of from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor, as minimum, to thirteen (13) years, nine (9) months and ten (10)
days of reclusion temporal, as maximum, with the accessory penalties of the law,
and he is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim EMILIANO RENATO SANTOS,
alias REY, the sum of P50,000.00 as indemnity for his death, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.
xxx

xxx

xxx

The pugakang or homemade shotgun with one (1) live ammunition (Exh. C);
twelve (12) gauge live ammunition (Exh. C-1); the revolver together with the three
(3) live bullets and two (2) empty shells (Exhs. D, D-1 to D-5, respectively) are
confiscated in favor of the government.
After the judgment shall have become final, the [o]fficer-in-[c]harge, Office of the
Clerk of Court, this Court, is ordered to deliver and deposit all the foregoing
exhibits to the [p]rovincial [d]irector, PNP, of the Province of Romblon properly
receipted. Thereafter, the receipt must be attached to any of the records of these
cases and shall form part of these records.

The period of preventive imprisonment both accused had undergone shall be

credited in their favor to its full extent and the penalties herein imposed shall be
served successively in accordance with Articles 29 and 70, respectively, of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended.[2]
On September 22, 1994, four (4) Informations, [3] all signed by State Prosecutor II Felix
R. Rocero, were filed against appellant. The fifth Information was dated October 18, 1994.
The Informations in Criminal Case Nos. 1970 and 1971 charged appellant with direct
assault with frustrated murder, as follows:

Criminal Case No. 1970

That on or about the 18th day of April 1994, at around 5:00 oclock in the
afternoon, in [B]arangay Ambulong, [M]unicipality of Magdiwang, [P]rovince of
Romblon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused, with intent to kill, did then and there, by means of treachery, wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, and shoot with a shotgun locally called
pugakang one MELCHOR RECTO, knowing that the latter is a duly appointed
[b]arangay [c]hief [t]anod of Ambulong, Magdiwang, Romblon, while he was
engaged in the performance of his official duties, inflicting upon the latter gunshot
wounds in different parts of his body, thus performing all the acts of execution
which should produce the felony of murder as a consequence, but nevertheless, did
not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the accused and that
is by the timely and able medical assistance rendered to the victim which prevented
his death.[4]
Criminal Case No. 1971
That on or about the 18th day of April 1994, at around 5:00 oclock in the
afternoon, in [B]arangay Ambulong, [M]unicipality of Magdiwang, [P]rovince of
Romblon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused, with intent to kill, did then and there, by means of treachery, wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, and shoot with a shotgun locally called
pugakang one Barangay Captain PERCIVAL ORBE, knowing that the latter is a
duly elected barangay captain of Ambulong, Magdiwang, Romblon, while he was
engaged in the performance of his official duties, inflicting upon the latter gunshot
wounds in different parts of his body, thus performing all the acts of execution
which should produce the felony of murder as a consequence, but nevertheless, did
not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the accused and that
is by the timely and able medical assistance rendered to the victim which prevented
his death.[5]
The Information[6] in Criminal Case No. 1972, which charged appellant with direct
assault with murder, was worded thus:

That on or about the 18th day of April 1994, at around 5:00 o clock in the
afternoon, in [B]arangay Ambulong, [M]unicipality of Magdiwang, [P]rovince of
Romblon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this [H]onorable Court, the
said accused with intent to kill, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping
each other, did then and there, by means of treachery, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault and shoot with a shotgun locally called pugakang and
strike with a long bolo, one ANTONIO MACALIPAY, knowing that the latter is a
duly elected [b]arangay [k]agawad of Ambulong, Magdiwang, Romblon, while he
was engaged in the performance of his official duties, inflicting upon the latter
mortal wounds in different parts of his body which were the cause of his untimely
death.[7]
In the Information[8] in Criminal Case No. 1973, appellant was charged with murder, as
indicated hereunder:

That on or about the 18th day of April 1994, at around 5:00 oclock in the
afternoon, in [B]arangay Ambulong, [M]unicipality of Magdiwang, [P]rovince of
Romblon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused, with intent to kill, did then and there, by means of treachery, wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot with a shotgun locally called
pugakang and strike with a long bolo, one EMILIANO RENATO SANTOS [9],
alias EMY, inflicting upon the latter mortal injuries in different parts of his body
which were the direct and immediate cause of his death. [10]
Finally, appellant was charged with illegal possession of firearm and ammunition in the
Information in Criminal Case No. 1975, which we quote:

That on or about the 18th day of April 1994, at around 5:00 oclock in the
afternoon, in [B]arangay Ambulong, [M]unicipality of Magdiwang, [P]rovince of
Romblon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused, with intent to kill, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
have in his possession and under his custody and control, one (1) handgun locally
called pugakang with one live ammunition, which he used in killing Barangay
Kagawad Antonio Macalipay and Emiliano Renato Santos and [which was]
confiscated by the police authorities.[11]
When arraigned on all the five charges on November 24, 1994, appellant, with the
assistance of his counsel,[12] pleaded not guilty.[13] In due course, he was tried and, thereafter,
sentenced.
The Facts
Version of the Prosecution
The Office of Solicitor General summarized the evidence for the prosecution in this
wise:[14]

In the early afternoon of April 18, 1994 at Ambulong, Magdiwang, Sibuyan

Island, Romblon, Barangay Captain Percival Orbe was in his residence together
with Barangay Kagawad Antonio Macalipay and Barangay Tanod Melchor Recto,
appellants cousin. They were trying to settle a land dispute involving Linda
Rance and Cornelio Regis, Jr. While the meeting was in progress, Orbe was
summoned by SPO4 Fortunato Rafol to proceed to the bodega of Rance.
There, they noticed that the padlock of the bodega was destroyed, and the palay
stored therein, stolen. Forthwith, Barangay Kagawad Macalipay, who happened to
be the chairman of the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC), conducted
an investigation.
SPO4 Rafol and SPO1 Male, also made their investigation and reported their
findings to Linda Rance. At this point, Barangay Tanod Melchor Recto passed by.
He saw SPO4 Rafol, Wilfredo Arce, [S]pouses Crestito and Linda Rance at the
bodega. He went to Barangay Captain Orbe and inquired why they were there.
Barangay Captain Orbe told him that the padlock of the bodega was destroyed and
the palay, stolen. Orbe requested Melchor Recto to stay as he might be needed.
Thereupon, Barangay Tanod Melchor Recto began his own ocular investigation.
While SPO4 Rafol and SPO1 Male were leaving the premises, the group of
[A]ppellant Julio Recto, Cornelio Regis, Jr., Dante Regis, Melvar Relox, Teodoro
de la Serna, Enrica Regis and Nida Regis arrived. The group stopped at the first
trampa near the bodega. Barangay Captain Orbe advised them not to create
trouble, but, Dante Regis pulled a piece of wood and threw it towards
them. Thereafter, [A]ppellant Recto, while holding a balisong or fan knife,
approached Barangay Captain Orbe. The latter responded by telling the former to
surrender the balisong. Appellant stepped backward, opened his jacket and pulled
out a gun, a de sabog. Upon seeing the gun, Barangay Captain Orbe retreated,
while Barangay Kagawad Antonio Macalipay stepped forward with both arms
raised and uttered the words: Do not do it. Well just settle this. (Ayoson ta lang
ine). Julio Recto, however, immediately pulled the trigger, hitting Barangay
Kagawad Macalipay, causing him to fall down on the ground. Then Cornelio
Regis, Jr. approached the fallen Macalipay and flipped his bolo at the latter who
rolled and fell into the rice paddy.
Melchor Recto saw the shooting from his hiding place behind a concrete
pillar. He then ran inside the old dilapidated bathroom of the bodega. Barangay
Captain Orbe also followed. Inside the bathroom, Melchor Recto peeped through
the window and saw [A]ppellant Recto fire his gun at Emilio Santos. Santos also
fired his revolver at appellant and later, turned around and crawled. While
crawling, Santos fired another shot towards Regis, Jr[.], but, the latter was able to
reach and hack the former with a bolo.

Amidst the din, Percival Orbe and Melchor Recto heard [A]ppellant Julio Recto
saying: Where is that kapitan? When Melchor could no longer see Julio Recto, he
jumped out of the bathroom window and ran. While running, Julio Recto shot him
hitting the latters thigh. Barangay Captain Orbe also got out of the bathroom
through the top and landed [o]nto the ricefield. Before he could take a step, he was
also shot by [A]ppellant Julio Recto at his right elbow, but was still able to
continue running and cross the southern portion of the ricefield. He caught up with
the wounded Melchor Recto and both went their separate ways. On the other hand,
both Barangay Kagawad Antonio Macalipay and Emiliano Renato Santos died
due to multiple wounds inflicted on them by herein appellant. (citations omitted)
Version of the Defense
On the other hand, the trial court presented appellants version of the incident, as
follows:[15]

x x x. Julio Recto interposed self-defense and defense of his co-accused Cornelio

Regis, Jr. x x x According to co-accused Julio Recto they were berated at about 12
meters away from the bodega and it was there that the late Emiliano Santos shot
co-accused Cornelio Regis, Jr. and he was hit and he (Julio) retreated two (2) steps
backward. Then, he took two (2) steps forward and said why are you like that.
Alberto Rance, the son of Mrs. Linda Rance, shot him, hitting him on his left
side. He ran towards Alberto Rance who shot him with the latter behind the
concrete porch holding his gun with his two (2) hands resting on the concrete wall
(porch) of the bodega, and with Emiliano Santos also holding his gun [which] he
used in shooting Regis, Jr. The distance between Alberto Rance and the unarmed
Julio Recto was 11 meters when x x x Julio Recto r[a]n towards Alberto
Rance[;] the latter ran and he saw Wilfredo Arce [turn] and [pick] up a gun and he
grabbed the gun and while pulling it, it fired and he did not know whether it hit
somebody. Emiliano Santos incredibly was no longer there to shoot him. However,
Julio Recto was able to take possession of this gun from Wilfredo Arce, took cover
behind a post and still managed to shoot Santos who was somewhere else. He
threw the gun later on the disputed land and ran to the direction of the banana
plantation of Regis, Jr. and he reached his house. Both of them were outside the
house of Regis, Jr. when x x x [M]aritime [P]oliceman Morada and Galin arrived. x
x x. (citations omitted, underscoring in original)
Ruling of the Trial Court
The trial court found that appellant had fired at a barangay tanod, Melchor Recto, who
was at the crime scene on the occasion of the performance of his official duties. [16] It added
that appellant had shot a barangay captain, Percival Orbe, also on the occasion of the
performance of his official duties.[17]

The lower court ruled out treachery in the killing of Emiliano Santos, because there had
been a gun duel between him and appellant. However, it convicted and sentenced appellant
to death for the murder of Antonio Macalipay.
Because of the trial courts imposition of the death penalty, this review by the Supreme
Court is mandatory and automatic, without need of a notice of appeal.[18]
Assignment of Errors
In his Brief, appellant faults the court a quo with the following alleged errors: [19]
I

The lower court erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty of direct

assault in Criminal Case Nos. 1970 and 1972 which accordingly resulted in his
being convicted of complex crimes in those cases.
II

The lower court erred in finding the presence of the qualifying

circumstance of treachery in Criminal Case No. 1972 which accordingly
resulted in his being convicted of murder in that case.
In the interest of justice and despite appellants anemic Brief, we deem it wise to review
the entire assailed Decision, particularly the crimes imputed and the penalties imposed by the
trial court.
The Courts Ruling
The Decision of the trial court should be MODIFIED.
Self-Defense and Defense of a Relative
Appellant contends that he committed the crimes attributed to him in self-defense and in
defense of his uncle, Cornelio Regis Jr.
By invoking self-defense and defense of a relative, appellant plainly admits that he killed
Antonio Macalipay and Emiliano Renato Santos and fired the shots that injured Melchor
Recto and Percival Orbe. Thus, appellant has shifted the burden of evidence to
himself. Consequently, to escape criminal liability, he must prove, by clear and convincing
evidence, the existence of the essential requisites of self-defense; namely, (1) unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim, (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to
self-defense.[20] For defense of a relative[21]to prosper, appellant must prove the concurrence of
the first and the second requisites of self-defense and the further requisite, in case the

provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making the defense had no part
therein.[22]
Appellant miserably failed to discharge this burden. In fact, he was clearly the
aggressor. Without unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, there can be no viable selfdefense or defense of a relative.[23]
There is unlawful aggression when the peril to ones life, limb or right is either actual or
imminent. There must be actual force or actual use of weapon.[24] In this case, Antonio
Macalipay was unarmed and actually trying to pacify appellant when the latter shot
him. After shooting Antonio, appellant again cocked his gun, pointed it at Emiliano Santos
and shot him. The latters act of drawing his gun and firing at him was merely self-defense.
As for Melchor Recto and Percival Orbe, no aggression ever emanated from them during
the entire incident. They were unarmed and in fact already running away from appellant
when he shot them. Clearly, there was no unlawful aggression from any of the victims.
For purposes of clarity and simplicity, we deem it wise to discuss separately the crimes
attributed to appellant and the proper penalties imposed by the trial court.
Crime and Punishment
The trial court convicted appellant of four (4) crimes: two counts of the complex crime
of qualified direct assault with frustrated homicide, one count of the complex crime of
qualified direct assault withmurder, and one count of homicide. We will now discuss each of
these crimes.
Qualified Direct Assault
with Frustrated Homicide
(Criminal Case Nos. 1970 and 1971)
In these two cases, appellant claims that he did not mind the two victims because they
were not his enemies. He, however, testified that the de sabog gun had merely misfired and
hit them. The court a quo was correct in not giving credence to his attempt to paint the
victims injuries as the result of an accident. Evidence to be believed must be credible in
itself.[25] His weak and incredible testimony cannot prevail over the positive and categorical
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses stating that he deliberately shot them.
However, the trial court erred in convicting appellant of qualified direct assault with
frustrated homicide.
Direct assault, a crime against public order, may be committed in two ways: first, by
any person or persons who, without a public uprising, shall employ force or intimidation for
the attainment of any of the purposes enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and
sedition; and second, by any person or persons who, without a public uprising, shall attack,
employ force, or seriously intimidate or resist any person in authority or any of his agents,
while engaged in the performance of official duties, or on occasion of such
performance.[26] The first mode is tantamount to rebellion or sedition, without the element of
public uprising. The second mode, on the other hand, is the more common form of assault,
and is aggravated when: (a) the assault is committed with a weapon, or (b) when the offender

is a public officer or employee, or (c) when the offender lays a hand upon a person in
authority.[27]
An agent of a person in authority is any person 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, such as barrio councilman, barrio
policeman and barangay leader, and any person who comes to the aid of persons in
authority.[28] In the case at bar, the victim, Melchor Recto [29] -- being then the barangay
chief tanod of Ambulong, Magdiwang, Romblon -- was clearly an agent of a person in
authority. However, contrary to the findings of the trial court, he was not engaged in the
performance of his official duties at the time he was shot. Neither was he attacked on the
occasion of such performance, as we will now show.
It must be emphasized that Melchor Recto was on his way home when he happened to
pass by the bodega of the Rance couple. He testified as follows:
PROSECUTOR MORTEL:
Q:

On April 18, 1994 at around 4:00 oclock in the afternoon, you said you were in the ricefield
gathering the harvested palay[;] what time did you leave that place?

A:

Nearing 5:00 oclock already.

Q:

And in going to your house, do you remember if you ha[d] to pass by the bodega of Rance?

ATTY MONTOJO:
Leading, Your Honor.
COURT:
Leading.
PROSECUTOR MORTEL continuing:
Q:

Now, did you go to your house that afternoon?

A:

No, sir.

Q:

Why?

A:

Because when I pass[ed] in the bodega there were plenty of people.

Q:

Whose bodega are you referring to?

A:

Rance.

Q:

Do you know the name of the owner?

A:

Yes, sir.

Q:

Please give us the name?

A:

First owned by Jose Rance now owned by Crestito and Linda Rance.

Q:

What relation has this Crestito Rance to Jose Rance?

A:

Jose is the father of Crestito Rance.

Q:

And this Linda, what relation has she with Crestito Rance?

A:

Wife.

Q:

You said, that when you passed by the bodega on your way to your house there were people
in that bodega, please give us [the] names of the people thereat whom you know?

A:

SPO4 Fortunato Rafol, SPO1 Male, Bgy. Captain Percival Orbe, Kag. Antonio Macalipay,
Wilfredo Arce and Spouses Crestito and Linda Rance and those who were threshing palay
thereat.[30]

Melchor explained that when appellants group arrived, it was Barangay Captain Percival
Orbe and Kagawad Antonio Macalipay who talked to the group. Melchor did not do anything
to avert the tension. He only watched what was transpiring and later hid himself when the
first shot was fired. He continued:
PROSECUTOR MORTEL continuing:
Q:

Because of that, what did Orbe tell you as a barangay tanod?

ATTY. MONTOJO:
Leading, Your Honor.
COURT: Leading.
PROSECUTOR MORTEL continuing:
Q:

What else did he say?

A:

He told me not to leave because he might need me.

Q:

And did you remain?

A:

Yes, sir.

Q:

As you were there, did you observe what [t]he policemen were doing?

A:

I observed [them] going there and through around [sic] the bodega.

xxx

xxx

xxx

Q:

Now later on, do you remember what the policemen did?

A:

I observed that the policemen were already passing the rice paddies towards the road.

Q:

And after they were gone . . . . By the way, who were these policemen whom you observed
going towards the road, will you please name them?

A:

SPO4 Fortunato Rafol and Male.

Q:

Do you know the first name of SPO1 Male?

A:

No sir.

Q:

Now, after they were gone, do you remember if there were persons who arrived?

ATTY. MONTOJO:
Misleading.
COURT:
Leading.
PROSECUTOR MORTEL (continuing):
Q:

After they were gone, what happened?

A:

I saw Cornelio Regis, Jr., Julio Recto, Melver Relox, Dante Regis, Teodoro dela Serna, Nida
Regis, Enrica Regis. I saw these seven (7) passing through the rice paddies towards the
bodega.

xxx

xxx

xxx

PROSECUTOR MORTEL continuing:

Q:

Were these group of people able to reach the bodega?

A:

No, sir.

Q:

Why?

A:

They stopped on the first trampa that they reached.

Q:

And upon reaching that place, what happened?

A:

Dante Regis thr[e]w a piece of wood.

Q:

Going to what direction?

A:

Towards the bodega.

Q:

And when Dante Regis thr[e]w that piece of wood towards the direction of the bodega, what
happened?

A:

The barangay captain, Percival Orbe, approached them and told them not to do it.

Q:

And what did you observe . . . . By the way, who was that barangay captain?

A:

Orbe.

Q:

And what did you observe when [B]arangay [C]aptain Orbe [told] them not to do it?

A:

I observed that the group got angry so Percival Orbe retreated.

Q:

And when Percival Orbe approached the group, did he have any companion?

A:

Yes, sir.

Q:

Who?

A:

Kagawad Antonio Macalipay.

Q:

And when Percival Orbe retreated, what did Antonio Macalipay do?

A:

When the barangay captain retreated, Antonio Macalipay proceeded towards the group and
stop[ped] at the second trampa coming from the bodega.

Q:

Now, when you reached that place of the second trampa, what happened?

A:

Julio Recto raised his jacket and pulled out a gun and pointed it to Antonio Macalipay.

INTERPRETER:
Witness standing and demonstrating.
PROSECUTOR MORTEL continuing:
Q:

And when the gun was pointed to Kagawad Antonio Macalipay, what did Antonio Macalipay
do?

A:

He raised both hands.

INTERPRETER:
Witness demonstrating by raising his two (2) arms up with open palms as if in surrender, and
said [D]o not do it we will just settle this.[]
PROSECUTOR MORTEL continuing:
Q:

And after Macalipay had said that, what happened?

A:

Julio Recto shot him.

Q:

And what happened to Macalipay after being shot?

A:

Antonio Macalipay fell down backward.

INTERPRETER:
Witness demonstrating x x x fall[ing] backward.
PROSECUTOR MORTEL continuing:
Q:

And when you saw Antonio Macalipay fall down backward, what did you do?

A:

I hid behind a pil[l]ar?

xxx

xxx

Q:

After hiding behind the pil[l]ar, what did you do?

A:

I ran towards an old broken down bathroom. x x x.[31]

xxx

Thinking that appellant had already left the bodega, Melchor, while hiding inside the old
bathroom for several minutes, decided to jump out of a broken down window [32]and ran
towards the national road.[33]
Clearly, from his arrival at the scene of the crime to his departure therefrom, Melchor
was not engaged in the performance of his official duties. Neither was he attacked on the
occasion thereof.
This fact was corroborated further by the testimony of Linda Rance, who said that it was
Orbe and Macalipay who had pacified appellant and his six companions. She testified thus:
PROSECUTOR VICTORIANO continuing:
Q:

While they were discussing, what happened?

A:

When they were discussing, Dante Regis thr[e]w a piece of wood.

Q:

To what direction was that piece of wood thr[own] by Dante Regis?

A:

Going towards our group.

Q:

And how is this Dante Regis related to Cornelio Regis, Jr.?

A:

He is the son of Cornelio Regis, Jr.

Q:

When that piece of wood was thrown towards your direction, was somebody hit?

A:

No, sir.

Q:

Where did that piece of wood land?

A:

In front of our bodega.

Q:

Was there anything hit by that piece of wood?

A:

No, sir.

Q:

When that piece of wood was thrown, what followed next?

A:

They were already agitated.

Q:

Now, because of the agitation, what happened?

A:

Bgy. Captain Orbe was trying to pacify them.

Q:

What about Bgy. Kagawad Antonio Macalipay, what did he do?

A:

He was trying to pacify but they would not be pacified.

Q:

Now, when they refused to be pacified, what did Julio Recto do?

A:

Julio Recto turned his way (witness turning to her left side) and open[ed] his jacket and drew
a gun.

Q:

When Julio Recto drew his gun, what did Antonio Macalipay do?

A:

Antonio Macalipay said, [L]et us settle this (witness raising x x x both [of her] hands) and
do not do it. (at the same time raising x x x both [of her] hands as if in surrender[)].

INTERPRETER:
Witness demonstrating.
PROSECUTOR VICTORIANO continuing:
Q:

Now, [in] spite of what Barangay Kagawad Antonio Macalipay did, what happened?

A:

Julio Recto shot him once.[34]

Unquestionably, Melchor Recto was a barangay chief tanod; however, at the crime scene
he was a mere bystander. Apparently, he was not acting and had no occasion to act in the
performance of his official duties that afternoon. Thus, the attack on him did not amount to
direct assault.[35]
We now determine the criminal liability of appellant with respect to the attack. He shot
Melchor only once, but the latter sustained five gunshot entry wounds [36]all located at his
backside, at the vicinity of his buttocks. Because the gun used by the former was a de sabog,
[37]
each bullet contained several pellets inside.[38] In other words, a single shot from a de
sabog results in the spewing of several pellets. The nature of the weapon used for the attack
and the direction at which it was aimed -- the victims back -- unmistakably showed
appellants intent to kill.
However, for reasons other than his own desistance, appellant was not able to perform all
the acts of execution necessary to consummate the killing, since the wounds he inflicted were
not mortal. InUnited States v. Eduave,[39] this Court has held that if the wounds would not
normally cause death, then the last act necessary to produce homicide has not been performed
by the offender. Thus, appellants liability amounted only to attempted, not frustrated,
homicide.
The penalty that is lower by two degrees [40]than that prescribed by law for consummated
homicide shall be imposed upon appellant. After applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
it shall be taken from the medium period, since there were no aggravating or mitigating
circumstances proven.
In Criminal Case No. 1971, the trial court was correct in ruling that the attack on
Percival Orbe then a barangay captain, a person in authority [41] -- amounted to qualified
direct assault, because he was attacked on the occasion of the performance of his duty. At the
time, he was attempting to pacify appellant and to keep the peace between the two groups.
A felony is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of
causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. In this case, the nature of the weapon used
by appellant unmistakably shows that he intended to kill Orbe. However, like the wounds
inflicted by the accused on Melchor Recto, those on Orbe were not fatal.

As evidenced by the Medico-Legal Certificate[42]prepared by Dr. Ramon D. Villanueva of

the Romblon Provincial Hospital and the testimony given by Dr. Giovannie C. Fondevilla of
the same hospital, Orbe sustained several gunshot wounds in the vicinity of his right
elbow. Those injuries could not have caused his death. Moreover, according to Dr.
Fondevilla, no surgical intervention was required; only medication was given to him [43] to
prevent any secondary infection from setting in.[44]
Evidently, appellant had not yet been able to perform all the acts of execution necessary
to bring about the death of Orbe, because the latter was able to run away after being fired
at. Although appellant had already directly commenced the commission of a felony by overt
acts (shooting Orbe with a de sabog), he was not able to consummate that felony for some
reason other than his spontaneous desistance. Thus, he committed attempted homicide.
Given these circumstances, appellant should therefore be convicted of the complex crime
of qualified direct assault with attempted homicide. To be imposed therefor should be the
penalty for the most serious crime -- in this case qualified direct assault -- the same to be
imposed in its maximum period.[45] The Indeterminate Sentence Law should also be applied in
this case.
Qualified Direct Assault with Murder
(Criminal Case No. 1972)
In Criminal Case No. 1972, appellant does not question the finding of the trial court that
he shot Antonio Macalipay. However, he submits that it erred in finding the presence of the
qualifying circumstance of treachery. We agree.
First, the victims companions outnumbered those of appellant. As shown by the
pleadings and records of the case, his group consisted of seven individuals; the victims,
sixteen.[46]
Second, the heated confrontation on April 18, 1994 arose as a consequence of an earlier
judgment[47]of the trial court in favor of appellants group. This case strained the relations of
the parties who, after all, were related by blood and marriage. In fact, prior to this event,
appellant -- believing that his uncle Cornelio Regis Jr. should get the landlords share of
the palay or rice harvest -- attempted to harvest the fields thrice: (1) in October 1993; (2) in
December 1993; and, (3) in March 1994.[48] All of these attempts failed, because Linda Rance
hired a group of bodyguards headed by the victim, Emiliano Renato Santos. [49] In short, the
confrontation was not totally unexpected.
Third, both groups were armed. The exchange of gunfire was substantiated by the
Medico-legal Certificates presented by both the prosecution and the defense. [50] Moreover, the
deceased Santos carried a gun which Alberto Rance, son of Crestito and Linda, had given him
for his protection.[51]
Fourth, appellants group asked the police station commander to assemble the workers of
the disputed rice field on April 15, 1994 at the Municipal Building of Magdiwang, Romblon,
to inform them of the trial courts Decision awarding the land to Cornelio Regis Jr. For this
reason, the members of the group were to start collecting the landlords share of the harvest
starting April 18, 1994.[52]
Fifth, appellant was seen holding a balisong or fan knife during the heated confrontation,
before he pulled out the shotgun and pointed it at the other group. [53] Macalipay, in a bold yet

foolish attempt, stepped forward in front of appellant and told him: Ayosan ta lang ini?
[54]
(No, dont, because we will just settle this).[55] And [s]imultaneously with the last word in
the phrase []dont because we will just settle this,[] [56] appellant fired his gun, killing the
victim.
Evidently, the victim had all the opportunity to escape or defend himself from the
aggression that was to ensue, yet chose not to grab the opportunity and instead placed himself
in a position more open to attack.[57] Equally important, his vulnerable position had not been
deliberately sought by appellant. It was thrust on the latter by the former himself. In short,
appellant did not deliberately choose the mode of attack to kill the victim with impunity and
without risk to himself.
Jurisprudence teaches us:

Treachery does not exist [when] the evidence does not show that appellant
deliberately adopted a mode of attack intended to ensure the killing of [the victim]
with impunity, and without giving the victim an opportunity to defend
himself. Further, the shooting took place after a heated exchange of words and a
series of events that forewarned the victim of aggression from appellant. In this
case, it appears to have occurred on sudden impulse but preceded by acts of
appellant showing hostility and a heated temper that indicated an imminent attack
and put the deceased on guard.[58]
If the decision to kill was sudden, there is no treachery, even if the position of the
victim was vulnerable, because it was not deliberately sought by the accused, but
was purely accidental.[59]
"When there is no evidence that the accused has, prior to the moment of the killing,
resolved to commit the crime, or there is no proof that the death of the victim was
the result of meditation, calculation or reflection, treachery cannot be
considered."[60]
Section 16 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code states that there is treachery when
the offender commits any of crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms
in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk
to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.
In this case, appellant was out in the open during the entire span of time from the heated
discussion, to the brewing of the violence, and up to the shooting of Macalipay. At the time,
his every action, which indicated the imminence of more violence, was visible to them -- to
the victim and the latters companions. Appellant was actually vulnerable to any attack that
they could have made at the time, had they chosen to. His mode of attack was therefore not
without risk to himself. Absent treachery, the killing is homicide, not murder.
Considering that Antonio Macalipay was a kagawad who was in the actual performance
of his duties when he was shot, the attack on him constituted direct assault.
Applying the provisions of Articles 148 (direct assault), 249 (homicide) and 48 (penalty
for complex crimes), appellant should be held liable for the complex crime of qualified direct
assault with homicide. The penalty to be imposed on him should be for homicide, which is
the more serious crime, to be imposed in the maximum period. This penalty shall comprise

the maximum of his indeterminate sentence, and the minimum shall be within the range of
the penalty next lower than that prescribed for homicide.
Homicide (Criminal Case No. 1973)
We sustain appellants conviction for homicide in Criminal Case No. 1973 because, in
the words of the trial judge: The late Emiliano Santos was only beaten to the draw by coaccused Julio Recto. It was a gun duel between the two. [61] In his Brief, appellant hardly
disputed this holding. Neither do we. The maximum of the penalty imposed by the court a
quo in this case was, however, taken from the minimum period of the penalty for
homicide. Considering that no mitigating or aggravating circumstances were proven, the
maximum of the indeterminate sentence in this case should be taken from the medium period.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated April 2, 1997, issued by the Regional Trial Court of
Romblon, is hereby MODIFIED as follows:
First, in Criminal Case No. 1970, appellant is hereby CONVICTED of attempted
homicide and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for an indeterminate penalty of four (4)
months of arresto mayor as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
correccional as maximum.
Second, in Criminal Case No. 1971, appellant is hereby CONVICTED of the complex
crime of qualified direct assault with attempted homicide and is hereby sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate penalty, of six (6)months of arresto mayor as minimum, to six (6) years
of prision correctional as maximum.
Third, in Criminal Case No. 1972, appellant is hereby CONVICTED of qualified direct
assault with homicide aggravated by the use of a weapon and is sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years of prision mayor as minimum, to twenty (20)
years of reclusion temporal as maximum. We AFFIRM the award of P50,000 as
indemnity ex delicto.
Fourth, in Criminal Case No. 1973, the trial courts judgment convicting appellant of
homicide and awarding to the victims heirs an indemnity ex delicto of P50,000
is AFFIRMED; but the maximum of the penalty imposed is increased to fourteen (14) years,
eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal.
All other portions of the trial courts disposition that were not modified in the above
pronouncement are deemed AFFIRMED.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.