What is the concept of treason? It is a crime against the law of nations.

It is the
effort to overthrow the government with the active support of a foreign power.
What constitutes levying of war? Does enlistment constitute levying of war?
Conceptually, treason must be understood in the sense international law because it
is a crime against the law of nations. In international law treason is committed by
persons with the purpose of overthrowing of the government with the active support
of a foreign power.
In levying war as the first mode of committing treason a mere enlistment of men
does not suffice. It does not constitute levying of war there must be an actual
assembly of men for the purpose of effecting a treasonous design even if there were
no actual clashes that took place. Even in the absence of actual clashes.
Art. 115 should be viewed as a crime against the law of nations. Levying war also
requires adherence because it seeks to overthrow with the active support of a
foreign country therefore adherence to the enemy is required even in the act of
levying while the second act of treason expressly requires adherence. In the first act
levying war, implicit is the requirement that there must adherence.
What constitutes adherence? Adherence is intellectually and emotionally favoring
the enemy while giving aid or comfort is to act that tends to strengthen the enemy
in the course of war against the traitor's country or an act that tends to weaken the
capability of the traitors country to resist the enemy. So it is either positive or
negative.
Explain the two witness rule? For a person to be convicted of treason you have to
apply the restrictive 2 witness rule. Restrictive in the sense that there must be 2
witnesses testifying the same overt act. It is the overt act of either levying war
against the RP or giving aid or comfort. Adherence may be proven by any other
evidence. There is no requirement for 2 witnesses to prove adherence. Even 1
witness or any other mode of establishing or proving the elements of the crime may
be used. So the restrictive is applied to treason or on confession in open court. An
alien, a resident alien, may commit acts of treason but the pen is only Reclusion
temporal to Reclusion perpetua.
Common crimes committed in furtherance of treason are as a rule absorbed in the
crime. They are not complexed. They are not also punished separately. Art 48 does
not apply when the doctrine of absorption of crimes apply. In the doctrine of
absorption of crimes for instance in common crimes committed in furtherance of
treason, are absorbed in the crime of treason in the same manner as common
crimes committed during a rebellion are also absorbed in rebellion. Because they
become the essential elements for levying war against RP or may constitute giving
aid or comfort.
Now, raping the wives of the officers of the AFP or public officials may have political
complexion if the purpose is to weaken the morale of the officers of the AFP or the
officers of government in resisting the enemy. That is the only way of construing
rape as having a political agenda. While common crimes are absorbed they may be

appreciated as aggravating circumstances. For instance rape as the aggravating

circumstance of ignominy while murder as the aggravating circumstance of cruelty.
Remember that is not by reason of analogous circum but by reason of the fact that
the additional murders committed in furtherance of treason themselves constitute
the very act of cruelty. Remember that there are no analogous aggravating
circumstances unlike art. 13 par. 10 where you have analogous mitigating
circumstance. But the separate acts of murder by themselves constitutes cruelty. In
the same manner the rape by itself constitutes ignominy.
There is no crime of disloyalty of public officers under treason meaning accepting
appointments to the government established by the foreign power. You are not
under art. 137 - rebellion that is the crime of disloyalty but in treason there is none.
If you accept appointments you commit the crime of treason by adhering to the
enemy and giving them aid. That is itself treason. But that refers to high position
which should be policy determining not like an ordinary clerk.
Proposal and conspiracy are punishable only separately if treason itself is not
committed. Conspiracy and proposal in art. 8 are punishable only in those instances
where the law specially provides a penalty thereof. Why? Because conspiracy and
proposal are mere preparatory acts and the general rule is preparatory acts are not
punishable no matter how wrong unless there is a law that specifically penalizes
them.
115 is one instance where the law specifically penalizes conspiracy or proposal. The
theoretical example given proposal is punishable per se when A first offered or
proposed to B levying war against the RP. B is not liable because there was no
agreement. C is not liable because what he overheard was only a proposal.
In the second example there is now conspiracy. It becomes the preparatory act for
committing the crime of conspiracy. The penalty of proposal is Prision correccional
for conspiracy is Prision mayor. C who overhears the conspiracy becomes criminally
liable. If C is related to A being brothers or falls within art. 20 C is not exempt from
criminal liability because C is not an accessory even if his penalty is a penalty of an
accessory meaning two degrees lower under art 51. Your art. 46 is the main anchor
and 114. The penalty prescribed by law for the commission of crimes shall be
applicable to the principal of the consummated felony. C not being an accessory but
a principal art. 20 does not apply. Besides to be an accessory under art. 19 you
must either conceal the crime or the criminal. Here you did not. It is one instance
where mere silence makes you criminally liable.
When treason was committed the earlier conspiracy becomes a preparatory act to
the commission of the crime not therefore separately punishable. C becomes either
liable as an accomplice or as an accessory thereafter depending upon his
participation in the subsequent events.
The term suspended allegiance has been rejected firmly in the case of Laurel vs
Misa 77 Phil because as you know sovereignty is permanent, exclusive,
comprehensive, absolute, indivisible, inalienable and imprescriptible. While acts of

sovereignty may not be exercised sovereignty itself is not suspended. There is no

valid defense for suspended allegiance.
The provision for art. 117 have been largely subsumed in Commonwealth Act 616
that penalizes espionage. The first 5 provisions of which deals with: 1) unlawfully
permitting to be obtained information concerning the defense of the state, 2)
unlawfully disclosing information, 3) disloyal acts or words in time of peace, 4)
disloyal acts or words in time of war and 5) conspiracy to commit the preceding
acts.
For giving motives for reprisals The penalty there depends on the character of the
accused whether he is a Public Officer or a private individual - Temporal or Prision
mayor but the acts are the same by unlawful or unauthorized acts provokes war
involving or liable to involve the government of Phil. or exposes citizens to reprisals.
In violation of neutrality this crime is malum prohibitum. The essence here of the
violation of 119 is the violation of the regulation that the government have issued to
enforce neutrality.
In art. 120 correspondence with enemy country the first 2 pars are mala prohibita 1)
is if the correspondence is prohibited by the government and 2) if carried out by
ciphers or conventional sign so the penalty is graduated Prision correccional to
Prision mayor. It is temporal if notice or info be given thereby which might be useful
to the enemy. Take note of the second sentence because that constitutes act of
treason. If the giving of the notice or info was with intention to aid the enemy the
penalty is Reclusion temporal to death but that is not treason. What is the
significance? The restrictive 2 witness rule is not required. If there is intent to aid
the enemy by giving notice or info it is penalized as treason committed by a
resident alien - Temporal to death but the 2 witness rule or the requirement of
confession in open court does not apply.
Piracy is committed by an outsider meaning it cannot be committed by a member of
the crew, complement, or passenger or stowaways. If committed by members of the
crew, complements or passenger, or stowaways, the crime is robbery in the high
seas or in Phil. waters. Remember that the concept of piracy as originally defined
and penalized in art. 122 and art. 123 respectively as qualified piracy. Piracy in its
international law sense meaning it is a crime against the law of nation. It is
committed in the high seas, that is depredations in the high seas.
Because art. 122 and art. 123 apply only to piracy as understood in international
law PD 532 a little bit of legal archeology was passed by late Pres. Marcos penalized
piracy in Phil. waters. Remember that one component of PD 532 is piracy in Phil.
waters the other component is of course is brigandage or highway robbery or
brigandage. When RA 7659 reinstating the death penalty was enacted both forms of
piracy was covered by art. 122 or and art. 123 by the simple addition of the phrase
"or in Phil waters". Art. 122 and art. 123 do not define Phil waters. You have to look
at PD 532 because it defines the limits of the Phil waters which is in substance art. 1
of the Constitution called the National Territory.

Remember that piracy is committed only in 2 ways by boarding or firing upon the
same so that assumes that the persons criminl liab are from without the vessel. if
committed by the crew it is robbery in the high seas or in Phil waters. Or seizing not
being a member of its complement...
Take note that art. 122 also defines and penalizes mutiny but art. 123 speaks only
of qualified piracy. Is there qualified mutiny? In the epigraph of art. 123 it speaks
only of qualified piracy the heading says should commit any of the crimes
mentioned in the preceding art as referring to piracy and mutiny. In the first
circumstance - by boarding or firing upon the same - so only an outsider can commit
that. Mutiny is an organized resistance against the administration or the
management of the vessel committed by the crew from within but that does not
apply to piracy. Number 2 is specific when the pirates, referring only to piracy, leave
their victims with no means of saving themselves. Only the third circumstance
qualifies mutiny. The first 2 circumstances do not cover mutiny.
RA 6235 defines and penalizes certain acts inimical to civil aviation like high jacking
of aircraft. Memorize the first 2 sections. Section 1 penalizes the act of compelling
an aircraft of Phil. registry to change its course of destination or to seize or usurp
the control thereof while it is in flight.
When is an aircraft considered in flight? When all its external dooors are closed
following embarkation until any of its dooors is opened for disembarkation.
The 2nd par of section 1 penalizes the act of compelling an aircraft of foreign
registry to land in Phil territory or to seize or usurp the control thereof while it is in
flight. Section 2 provides for the penalties and the qualifying circumstances. The
qualifying circumstances are the same as 123 except that in the matter of physical
injuries accompanying the commission of the crime in 6235 it is limited to serious
physical injuries when the high-jackers fires upon the crew, the complement or
passengers or attempts to explode a grenade or other explosives.
Sections 7 and 8 are authority for the airline company to conduct inspection without
warrant. So the inspection conducted by airline companies or their representatives
is not a violation of the search and seizure clause because what the constitution
prohibits under sec 2 art. 3 is unreasonable searches and seizures. This form of
search is not unreasonable it is reasonably necessary to the maintenance of
security of the passengers and crew of the aircraft and besides the principle of
waiver or consent may apply because once you procure a ticket finely written as
one of the conditions in the ticket is the authority of the airline company to conduct
inspection.