2017 Notes of Judge Rowena Apao-Adlawan in Titles 1 To 2 of The Revised Penal Code

2017 NOTES OF JUDGE ROWENA APAO-ADLAWAN IN CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II
TITLE I. CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS
Crimes against national security
1. Treason (Art. 114);
2. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason (Art. 115);
3. Misprision of treason (Art. 116); and
4. Espionage (Art. 117).
5. Terrorism & Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism – RA 9372
Crimes against the law of nations
1. Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals (Art. 118);
2. Violation of neutrality (Art. 119);
3. Corresponding with hostile country (Art. 120);
4. Flight to enemy's country (Art. 121); and
5. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas (Art. 122).
The crimes under national security have extra-territorial application. Even if the criminal act or
acts are committed outside the Philippine territorial jurisdiction, the offenders can be charged
and prosecuted before the Philippine Courts.
Note: The prosecution can proceed only if the offender is within the Philippine territory or brought
to the Philippines pursuant to an extradition treaty.
In the case of crimes against the law of nations, the offender can be prosecuted whenever he may
be found because the crimes are regarded as committed against humanity in general. These
crimes are considered crimes against humanity or crimes against mankind.
Almost all of these are crimes committed in times of war, except the following, which can be
committed in times of peace:
(1) Espionage
(2) Inciting to War or Giving Motives for Reprisals under Article 118
(3) Violation of Neutrality, under Article 119
Article 114. Treason. Treason. — Any person who, owing allegiance to (the United States or) the
Government of the Philippine Islands, not being a foreigner, levies war against them or adheres to
1 2017 NOTES OF JUDGE ROWENA APAO-ADLAWAN IN CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II
their enemies, giving them aid or comfort within the Philippine Islands or elsewhere, shall be
punished by reclusion temporal to death and shall pay a fine not to exceed Four million pesos (₱
4,000,000) pesos.
No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses at least to the
same overt act or on confession of the accused in open court.
Likewise, an alien, residing in the Philippine Islands, who commits acts of treason as defined in
paragraph 1 of this Article shall be punished by prision mayor to death and shall pay a fine not to
exceed Four Million pesos. (As amended by Republic Act 10951).
Elements of treason:
1. The offender owes allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;

2. The Philippines is at war with another country;
3. The offender does any of the following overt acts:

a. levies war against the duly constituted authorities or against the forces of Government;
or
b. adheres to the enemy country, giving said enemy country aid or comfort.
When one lives in the Philippines, either as a citizen or as a resident alien, said individual is
presumed to owe allegiance to the Philippine Government. The individual is under obligation to
remain faithful and loyal to the Government of the Philippines.
Originally, treason is committed only by a Filipino citizen which is apparent under the first
paragraph of Article 114. The original concept is to the effect that only Filipino citizens owe their
country allegiance. But in the course of time, history has taught mankind and in particular the
Filipinos that such theory is impractical and has no pragmatic value. And so on May 31, 1945,
Executive Order No, 14 was promulgated introducing an amendment to Article 114, declaring that
resident aliens shall henceforth be liable for the crime of treason.
Because of the amendment, allegiance has earned a secondary meaning. It used to be that
there is only permanent allegiance. Now allegiance can be temporary. And while permanent
allegiance is demanded of a Filipino citizen, such is not required of an alien who is legally
expected to owe permanent allegiance to his mother country. But for staying or residing in the
Philippines, he should owe temporary allegiance to the Philippine Government in exchange for
the protection extended to him.
By its very nature, treason cannot be committed in time of peace. It is not an all time offense.
It is seasonal as it can be committed only during war time wherein the Philippines must
necessarily be involved. As treason is basically a war crime, it is made punishable by the State as
a measure of self-defense and self-preservation.
SC: In Laurel vs. Misa, 77 Phil. 865, “the law of treason is an emergency measure. It remains
dormant until the emergency arises. But as soon as war starts, it is relentlessly put into effect.
While in a state of hibernation during peacetime, it asserts its authority as a self-preserving
measure when actual hostilities begin.”
Why is treason punishable? --- It is made punishable by the State as a measure of self-defense
and self-preservation.

There are two ways of committing treason.
a) The first is by levying war against the Government.
b) The second is by adhering to the enemies of the Philippines, giving them aid or comfort.
The First Mode of committing the crime:
The term "levies war" means overt acts which translate into action the emotional or intellectual
sympathies of the offender towards the enemy country. It is manifested by the actual
assemblying of men who will engage the forces of Government. The war effort of the offenders
must be to overthrow the Government. It matters not how vain and futile the attempt may be.
Success is not important. What matters is the actual assembly of men and the execution of
treasonable design by force.
In the end, the purpose of levying war is to deliver the country in whole or in part to a foreign
country.
The Second Mode of committing the crime:
By adherence and giving aid or comfort to the enemy. The two must go together. This is the most
common.
If first type is committed by multitude, the 2nd type can be committed by an individual.
Adherence must be understood to mean "intent to betray." It is a preparatory act and is not therefore
punishable by itself. When this adherence or sympathies are converted into aid and comfort, only
then do they take material form. This material form is now what is made punishable.
NOTE: Adherence alone without giving aid or comfort is not treason. Both adherence and giving
aid or comfort must go hand in hand.
Q: Is treason a continuing offense?

A: Because of its nature, treason is a continuing offense. It can be committed by a single act or by
a series of acts. It can be committed in one single time or at different times and only one crime is
committed because the offender has only one criminal intent.
Two ways of proving treason
1. Testimony of at least two witnesses to the same overt act; or
2. Confession of accused in open court.
Q: What is the Severely Restrictive Rule?

A: This is the other name for the Two-Witness Rule. It provides that to attain conviction in
Treason, two witnesses must identify on the act of treason committed by the accused and if
the act is separable, two witnesses must testify on each separate act (PP vs Adriano, June
1947)
Principle: No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses at
least to the same overt act or on confession of the accused in open court.
Q: Why so restrictive?
A: The law theoretically assumes that treason is committed during abnormal times and in order to
avoid a miscarriage of justice, the two-witness rule was adopted. The purpose is to prevent mortal
enemies from resorting to unscrupulous means to get even with enemies taking advantage of an
extremely abnormal time (People vs. Escleto, 84 Phil. 121).
Q: Suppose 1 witness testified that Kaloy committed this act on November 9, 2nd witness testified
that Kaloy committed another act in November 10. Will Kaloy be convicted of treason?
A: NO. Because although there are 2 witnesses but each one testify to 2 different acts, not on the
same act of treason. What happens here? – the 2-witness rule is not present – the accused must
be acquitted.
The two-witness rule must be observed for each and every external act performed by the
offender.
Q: Can treason be complexed with common crimes? Example: Can there be Treason with
Homicide or Treason with Arson?
A: Treason cannot be complexed with common crimes. Treason is an umbrella crime or a
component crime under which common crimes committed on the occasion or in furtherance
thereof are deemed absorbed.
By its very nature, treason can only be committed as a felony by means of dolo. It is inherently an
intentional crime and must be committed with malice and with deliberate intent. It cannot be
committed by means of culpa or through reckless imprudence or simple negligence.
Treason distinguished from Rebellion.
The manner in which both crimes are committed is the same. There is levying of war against the
forces of government. In treason however, the purpose of the offender is to deliver the government
to the enemy country or to a foreign power. In rebellion, the purpose of the rebels is to substitute
the government with their own form of government. No foreign power is involved.
Treason distinguished from Sedition.
In treason, the offender repudiates his allegiance to the government by means of force or
intimidation. He does not recognize the supreme authority of the State. He violates his allegiance
by fighting the forces of the duly constituted authorities.
In sedition, the offender disagrees with certain policies of the State and seeks to disturb public
peace by raising a commotion or public uprising.
Points to remember regarding treason.
1) Treason is committed only in times of war.
2) No matter how many acts of treason are committed by the offender, he will be liable for
only one crime of treason. The series of acts performed by the offender are considered
indispensable elements of the crime, hence, they are absorbed.
3) There is no complex crime of treason with murder. Murder is an integral element of

treason.
4) In the imposition of the penalty for the crime of treason, the court may disregard the
presence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances. It may consider only the number,
nature and gravity of the acts established during the trial. The imposition of the penalty
rests largely on the exercise of judicial discretion.
5) Treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength are absorbed in the
crime of treason.
Article 115. Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit Treason. -Penalty. — The conspiracy and
proposal to commit the crime of treason shall be punished respectively, by prision mayor and a
fine not exceeding Two Million pesos, and by prision correccional and a fine not exceeding One
Million pesos. (As amended by Republic Act 10951)
Elements of conspiracy to commit treason
1. There is a war in which the Philippines is involved;
2. At least two persons come to an agreement to –
a. levy war against the government; or
b. adhere to the enemies, giving them aid or comfort;
3. They decide to commit it.
Elements of proposal to commit treason
2. At least one person decides to –
a. levy war against the government; or
b. adhere to the enemies, giving them aid or comfort;
3. He proposes its execution to some other persons.
General Rule: Under Article 8, conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony or to violate a special
law is not a crime.
Exception: Article 115, the mere conspiracy or proposal to commit treason is a felony.
Note: It is worthy to note at this juncture that while treason as a crime should be established by
the two-witness rule, the same is not observed when the crime committed is conspiracy to
commit treason or when it is only a proposal to commit treason. In the example cited above, even
if only one witness is presented to prove the meeting between General Ricarte and Francisco
Bautista, such testimony will be sufficient to prove the overt act of the actual meeting.
Note that what is being discussed and articulated is a conspiracy to commit treason. Supposing
therefore that the conspiracy was carried out, meaning, that overt acts were performed,
translating into action the emotional and intellectual sympathies of the offender, the crime
committed will no longer be called conspiracy to commit treason. Instead, the crime of treason is
already constituted. What will happen to the conspiracy to commit treason ? It will only be
considered as a means to commit the crime of treason. It is not regarded as a separate offense.
Although theoretically two crimes are committed, one for conspiracy to commit treason and the
other for treason, the conspiracy will only be considered as an element of treason. And because
conspiracy connotes a meeting of minds, then it follows that the act of one should be the act of

all.
This is what we call “conspiracy as a crime by itself”. When the acts of treason are carried out, the
conspiracy becomes a means to commit treason and shall be absorbed in the crime of treason.
Art. 116. Misprision of treason. — Every person owing allegiance to (the United States) the
Government of the Philippine Islands, without being a foreigner, and having knowledge of any
conspiracy against them, conceals or does not disclose and make known the same, as soon as
possible to the governor or fiscal of the province, or the mayor or fiscal of the city in which he
resides, as the case may be, shall be punished as an accessory to the crime of treason.
Elements
1. Offender owes allegiance to the government, and not a foreigner;
2. He has knowledge of conspiracy to commit treason against the government;
3. He conceals or does not disclose and make known the same as soon as possible to the
governor or fiscal of the province in which he resides, or the mayor or fiscal of the city in
which he resides.
Misprision of treason is a felony committed by omission. This is an exception to the general rule
that mere silence of one knowing the commission of a felony does not a commit a crime under
the RPC. --- the offender is liable for failure to do an act.
Note that even aliens can commit the crime of treason because of the amendment to the article,
but no such amendment was made in misprision of treason. Misprision of treason is a crime that
may be committed only by citizens of the Philippines. --- “every person owing allegiance to the
government without being a foreigner”.
Note: The criminal liability arises if the treasonous activity was still at the conspiratorial stage.
Because if the treason already erupted into an overt act, the implication is that the government is
already aware of it. There is no need to report the same. This is a felony by omission although
committed with dolo, not with culpa.
Q: What makes one liable under Art. 116?

A: Because the offender having knowledge of any conspiracy fails to report it to the proper
authorities.
Take Note: you must not be in conspiracy with the other. The situation here is a stranger who has
knowledge of any conspiracy failed to report the matter.
Example: Suppose A has knowledge that X is giving aid or comfort to the enemy but A did not
report this matter to the proper authorities. Is A I liable for misprision of treason?
Ans: NO. There is no conspiracy to commit treason here because treason has already been
committed. Here, knowledge of the crime of treason and not knowledge of the conspiracy.
Whether the conspirators are parents or children, and the ones who learn the conspiracy is a
parent or child, they are required to report the same. The reason is that although blood is thicker
than water so to speak, when it comes to security of the state, blood relationship is always
subservient to national security. Article 20 does not apply here because the persons found liable
for this crime are not considered accessories; they are treated as principals.

Article 117. Espionage — The penalty of prision correccional shall be inflicted upon any person
who:
(a) Without authority therefore, enters a warship, fort, or naval or military establishment or
reservation to obtain any information, plans, photographs, or other data of a confidential nature
relative to the defense of the Philippine Archipelago; or
(b) Being in possession, by reason of the public office he holds, of the articles, data, or
information referred to in the preceding paragraph, discloses their contents to a representative
of a foreign nation.
The penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed if the offender be a public officer or
employee.
There are two of Committing Espionage:
1. By entering, without authority therefore, a warship, fort or naval or military establishment

or reservation to obtain any information, plans, photograph or other data of a confidential
nature relative to the defense of the Philippines;
Elements
1. Offender enters any of the places mentioned;
2. He has no authority therefore;
3. His purpose is to obtain information, plans, photographs or other data of a

confidential nature relative to the defense of the Philippines.
2. By disclosing to the representative of a foreign nation the contents of the articles, data or
information referred to in paragraph 1 of Article 117, which he had in his possession by
reason of the public office he holds.
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He has in his possession the articles, data or information referred to in paragraph 1

of Article 117, by reason of the public office he holds;
3. He discloses their contents to a representative of a foreign nation.
The crime is not conditioned by the citizenship of the offender.
Under the first mode of committing espionage, the offender must have the intention to obtain
information relative to the defense of the Philippines. It is not necessary that the offender has
obtained the information. It is sufficient that he entered the prohibited premises. Here, the
offender is any private individual, whether an alien or a citizen of the Philippines, or a public
officer.
Under the second mode, the offender must be a public officer who has in his possession the
articles, data or information by reason of the office he holds. Taking advantage of his official
position, he reveals or discloses the information which are confidential and relevant to the
defense of the Philippines.

Not all public officers or employees can commit the crime.
If the offender is not the custodian of the said documents, he is not liable for Espionage but for Violation
of Commonwealth Act No. 616 if he discloses information relative to the defense of the Philippines.
If the information disclosed to a representative of a foreign nation does not relate to the defense
of the Philippines and the offender is the custodian thereof, he is liable for Infidelity in the Custody of
Public Records.
Commonwealth Act No. 616 – An Act to Punish Espionage and Other Offenses against National
Security.
Acts punished
(1) Unlawful obtaining or permitting to be obtained information affecting national defense;

(2) Unlawful disclosing of information affecting national defense;
(3) Disloyal acts or words in time of peace;
(4) Disloyal acts or words in time of war;
(5) Conspiracy to violate the preceding sections;
(6) Harboring or concealing violators of the law; and
(7) Photographing vital military information.
Distinctions between treason and espionage.
1. Treason – the offender is a Filipino citizen or a resident alien

Espionage – can be committed by a Filipino citizen or an alien – not conditioned by
citizenship of the offender.
2. Treason – committed during war time
Espionage - committed during war time or peace time
3. Treason – there are 2 ways of committing treason
Espionage – there are many ways
4. Treason – is mala in se
Espionage – mala in se or mala prohibita
CRIMES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS
Section Two. — Provoking war and disloyalty in case of war

Art. 118. Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals. — The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be
imposed upon any public officer or employee, and that ofprision mayor upon any private
individual, who, by unlawful or unauthorized acts, provokes or gives occasion for a war involving
or liable to involve the Philippine Islands or exposes Filipino citizens to reprisals on their
persons or property.
Elements
1. Offender performs unlawful or unauthorized acts;
2. The acts provoke or give occasion for –
a. a war involving or liable to involve the Philippines; or

b. exposure of Filipino citizens to reprisals on their persons or property.
This crime is committed in time of peace. What is important here is on the effect of what you did.
Q: Why prohibited?
A: It disturbs the friendly relation that our country may have with another country.
The crime is committed either by a public officer or a private individual.
Article 119. Violation of Neutrality. — The penalty of prision correccional shall be inflicted upon
anyone who, on the occasion of a war in which the Government is not involved, violates any
regulation issued by competent authority for the purpose of enforcing neutrality.
Elements of violation of neutrality:

1) There is a war in which the Philippines is not involved;
2) There is a regulation issued by competent authorities to enforce neutrality; and
3) Offender violates the regulation.
There must be a war going on between nations, but the Philippines is not a party to the war. To
maintain its neutrality, the Philippine Government promulgates rules to protect its interest. The
offender violates any of the rules promulgated. The violation can be done either by means of dolo
or by means of culpa. So violation of neutrality can be committed through reckless imprudence.
Example: Japan and China are at war. China invaded Japan. The Philippine government did not
want to embroil itself in the war. The President of the Philippines upon due consultation with the
House of Senate and House of Representatives adopted a policy of neutrality and disseminated
the regulations for its enforcement. A, a Filipino businessman, violated the regulations enforcing
neutrality by giving financial and material aid to China. X is liable for Violation of Neutrality.
Article 120. Correspondence with hostile country. — Any person who, in time of war, shall have
correspondence with an enemy country or territory occupied by enemy troops shall be
punished:
1. By prision correccional, if the correspondence has been prohibited by the

Government;
2. By prision mayor, if the correspondence be carried on in ciphers or conventional
signs; and
3. By reclusion temporal, if notice or information be given thereby which might be useful
to the enemy. If the offender intended to aid the enemy by giving such notice or information, he
shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal to death.
Elements
1. It is in time of war in which the Philippines is involved;
2. Offender makes correspondence with an enemy country or territory occupied by enemy

troops;
3. The correspondence is either –
a. prohibited by the government;

b. carried on in ciphers or conventional signs; or
c. containing notice or information which might be useful to the enemy.
Correspondence is communication by means of letters between members of the family, friends

and business associates. The letter must be sent without any intention on the part of the letter
writer to give information to aid the enemy. If the correspondence is meant to give information to
aid the enemy, the crime committed is tantamount to the crime of treason and the penalty for
such crime is imposed upon the offender.
Article 121. Flight to Enemy's Country The penalty of arresto mayor shall be inflicted upon any
person who, owing allegiance to the Government, attempts to flee or go to an enemy country
when prohibited by competent authority.
Elements
2. Offender must be owing allegiance to the government;
3. Offender attempts to flee or go to enemy country;
4. Going to the enemy country is prohibited by competent authority.
Example: Singapore declared war against the Philippines. War raged on. X, a Filipino citizen,
boarded a plane bound for Singapore. Before the plane could take off, X was arrested by the
authorities. Is X liable for Flight to enemy's country?
Answer: Yes, X is liable for Flight to Enemy's Country. He attempted to flee or go to the enemy country.
This crime is consummated by mere attempt.
Art. 122. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas. — The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall
be inflicted upon any person who, on the high seas or in Philippine waters, shall attack or seize a
vessel or, not being a member of its complement nor a passenger, shall seize the whole or part
of the cargo of said vessel, its equipment, or personal belongings of its complement or
passengers.
The same penalty shall be inflicted in case of mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine waters.
(As amended by RA 7659)
Definition of piracy.
It is the robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas without lawful authority and done with
animo lucrandi and in the spirit and intention of universal hostility (People vs. Lol-lo, et al., 43 Phil. 19).
Robbery is the taking of a personal property belonging to another with intent to gain by:
1. Intimidation against persons;

2. Violence against persons;
3. Force upon things.
Piracy is considered as a crime against the whole world. It is a crime against mankind. Along this
line, pirates can be prosecuted wherever they may go and wherever they are arrested. The pirates
violate not the law of a particular country but the law of nations.
Three kinds of piracy:
1. Piracy in the high or open seas (RPC);

2. Piracy in Philippine waters (PD 532 as amended by RA 7659, the Heinous Crime Law);
3. Air piracy (RA 6235).
Piracy in the high or open seas can be committed by the following:
1. By attacking a vessel in the high or open seas;

2. By seizing the whole or part of the cargo of said vessel, its equivalent, or personal
belongings of its complement or its passengers.
Elements of piracy on the high seas:
1. The vessel is on the high seas or Philippine waters;
2. Offenders are neither members of its complement nor passengers of the vessel;
3. Offenders either –
a. attack or seize a vessel on the high seas or in Philippine waters; or
b. seize in the vessel while on the high seas or in Philippine waters the whole or part
of its cargo, its equipment or personal belongings of its complement or
passengers;
4. There is intent to gain.
Q: Who may commit piracy in the high or open seas?

A: Only outsiders. It cannot be committed by passengers or members of the crew or complement of
the vessel.
Q: Who are pirates in the high or open seas?

A: Pirates in the high or open seas are outsiders to the vessel. They should not be passengers or
members of the crew or complement of the vessel. In other words, they should not be insiders.
If a person is lawfully admitted to the vessel other than a crew or a complement of the vessel, then
he is a passenger. If he gets a personal property belonging to another passenger while the vessel is
in the high or open seas by means of force or intimidation, he is liable for ROBBERY and not PIRACY.
(Bar question 2008)
But if he boards the vessel without being lawfully admitted thereto, and divests a passenger of his
personal property by means of violence or intimidation or force upon things, he is liable for PIRACY
on the high or open seas. He is still considered as outsider not being a passenger in the contemplation
of law.
PIRACY IN PHILIPPINE WATERS (PD 532 as superseded by RA 7659)
Q: Who may commit Piracy in Philippine waters (Internal waters)?

A: (1) outsiders; (2) insiders (passengers or members of the crew or complement of the vessel)
Notes: Originally, piracy and mutiny can only be committed on the high seas (outside of Philippine
waters).
In 1974, PD 532 (The Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974) was enacted punishing Piracy
committed in internal waters or Philippine waters, but not Mutiny.
Thus, we now have two kinds of Piracy:
1. Piracy under the Revised Penal Code committed on the high seas;
2. Piracy in Philippine waters or internal waters.
PD 532 was superseded by RA 7659, The Anti-Heinous Crime Law. RA 7659 (The Anti-Heinous
Crime Law) pro tanto superseded PD 532 by punishing Piracy as well as Mutiny, whether committed on the
high seas or in Philippine waters and the penalty was increased from reclusion temporal to
reclusion perpetua.
Thus, Piracy can now be committed on the high or open seas or in Philippine waters. And Mutiny
can now be committed on the high or open seas and also in Philippine waters.
Q: While X was on board his boat at the Agno River, Y attacked him and with the use of a gun
seized his personal belongings. What crime did Y commit? Why?
A: Y committed Piracy. Under PD 532 as amended, Piracy can now be committed in Philippine waters
by outsiders to the vessel or who are not passengers or members of the crew. Pirates are
outsiders of the vessel.
ABETTING PIRACY (PD 532) — is the crime committed by any person who:
1. Gives pirates information about the movement of peace officers of the government;
2. Acquires or receives property taken by the pirates or devices any benefit from it;
3. Directly or indirectly abets the commission thereof.
Q: What is mutiny?
A: it is the unlawful resistance to a superior officer, or the raising of commotions & disturbance on
board a ship against the authority of its commander. The last par of Art. 122 provides that the
same penalty prescribed for piracy shall be inflicted in the case of mutiny on the high seas or in
Philippine waters.
Elements of mutiny
1. The vessel is on the high seas or Philippine waters;
2. Offenders are either members of its complement, or passengers of the vessel;
a. attack or seize the vessel; or
b. seize the whole or part of the cargo, its equipment, or personal belongings of the
crew or passengers.
Distinction between mutiny and piracy

(1) As to offenders
Mutiny is committed by members of the complement or the passengers of the vessel.
Piracy is committed by persons who are not members of the complement or the
passengers of the vessel.
(2) As to criminal intent
In mutiny, there is no criminal intent.
In piracy, the criminal intent is for gain.
Two kinds of Mutiny:
1) Mutiny in the high or open seas; and

2) Mutiny within Philippine waters.
Example of Mutiny in the High or Open Seas: MV Panama is owned and registered under the laws
of Panama. While the vessel was in the Pacific Ocean, the members of the crew rebelled against
internal management of the vessel. They defied the ship captain and controlled the vessel. The
members of the crew are liable for Mutiny on the High or Open Seas.
Example of Mutiny within Philippine Waters: MV PRINCESS OF THE STARS, a merchant ship
registered in Holland docked at Pier 14 Manila Bay. The members of the crew or passengers
attacked the ship captain and seized control of the vessel. What crime was committed? Ans: They
committed the crime of Mutiny within Philippine waters. Under RA 7659, Mutiny can now be committed in
Philippine waters.
Art. 123. Qualified piracy. — The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed upon
those who commit any of the crimes referred to in the preceding article, under any of the
following circumstances:
1. Whenever they have seized a vessel by boarding or firing upon the same;
2. Whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims without means of saving
themselves; or
3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape.

(as amended by RA 7659)
Elements
1. The vessel is on the high seas or Philippine waters:
2. Offenders may or may not be members of its complement, or passengers of the vessel;
a. attack or seize the vessel; or
b. seize the whole or part of the cargo, its equipment., or personal belongings of the
crew or passengers;

4. The preceding were committed under any of the following circumstances:
a. whenever they have seized a vessel by boarding or firing upon the same;
b. whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims without means of saving
themselves; or
c. whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape.
Q: When is Piracy qualified?

Ans: (1) When the pirates seize a vessel by boarding or firing upon the same;
(2) When the pirates abandon their victims without means of saving themselves;
(3) When the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape.
Example: A passenger of an interisland vessel robbed and killed another passenger by stabbing
him at the back for several times. The Prosecutor's Office filed a complex crime of Piracy with
Murder. Is the charge correct? Why?
Ans: The charge is not correct. Murder, rape, homicide, or physical injuries are mere
circumstances qualifying piracy. Any of these crimes cannot be complexed with piracy. A special
law cannot be complexed with a felony under the Revised Penal Code. Only felonies can be
complexed with one another.
When any of the crimes of murder, homicide, rape, physical injuries accompany piracy is
committed, there is no complex crime. Instead, there is only one crime committed — qualified piracy.
Murder, rape, homicide, physical injuries are mere circumstances qualifying piracy and cannot be
punished as separate crimes, nor can they be complexed with piracy.
Rule: There is no complex crime of Piracy with Murder, Piracy with Homicide, Piracy with Rape,
etc.
Qualified Mutiny
Article 123 merely refers to qualified piracy. There is now a crime of qualified mutiny.
Mutiny is qualified under the following circumstances:
(1) When the offenders abandoned the victims without means of saving themselves;
(2) When the mutiny is accompanied by rape, murder, homicide, or physical injuries.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6235 (The Anti-Hijacking Law) – this is known as aircraft piracy.
Four situations governed by anti hi-jacking law:
(1) usurping or seizing control of an aircraft of Philippine registry while it is in flight,

compelling the pilots thereof to change the course or destination of the aircraft;
(2) usurping or seizing control of an aircraft of foreign registry while within Philippine territory,
compelling the pilots thereof to land in any part of Philippine territory;
(3) carrying or loading on board an aircraft operating as a public utility passenger aircraft in
the Philippines, any flammable, corrosive, explosive, or poisonous substance; and

(4) loading, shipping, or transporting on board a cargo aircraft operating as a public utility in
the Philippines, any flammable, corrosive, explosive, or poisonous substance if this was
done not in accordance with the rules and regulations set and promulgated by the Air
Transportation Office on this matter.
It becomes qualified when:
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.
Between numbers 1 and 2, the point of distinction is whether the aircraft is of Philippine registry or
foreign registry.
The important thing is that before the anti hi-jacking law can apply, the aircraft must be in flight. If
not in flight, whatever crimes committed shall be governed by the Revised Penal Code.
The law makes a distinction between aircraft of a foreign registry and of Philippine registry. If the
aircraft subject of the hi-jack is of Philippine registry, it should be in flight at the time of the hi-
jacking. Otherwise, the anti hi-jacking law will not apply and the crime is still punished under the
Revised Penal Code. The correlative crime may be one of grave coercion or grave threat. If
somebody is killed, the crime is homicide or murder, as the case may be. If there are some
explosives carried there, the crime is destructive arson. Explosives are by nature pyro-techniques.
Destruction of property with the use of pyro-technique is destructive arson. If there is illegally
possessed or carried firearm, other special laws will apply.
On the other hand, if the aircraft is of foreign registry, the law does not require that it be in flight
before the anti hi-jacking law can apply. This is because aircrafts of foreign registry are
considered in transit while they are in foreign countries. Although they may have been in a foreign
country, technically they are still in flight, because they have to move out of that foreign country.
So even if any of the acts mentioned were committed while the exterior doors of the foreign
aircraft were still open, the anti hi-jacking law will already govern.
Note that under this law, an aircraft is considered in flight from the moment all exterior doors are
closed following embarkation until such time when the same doors are again opened for
disembarkation. This means that there are passengers that boarded. So if the doors are closed to
bring the aircraft to the hangar, the aircraft is not considered as in flight. The aircraft shall be
deemed to be already in flight even if its engine has not yet been started.
Note: There is no hi-jacking in the attempted stage. This is a special law where the attempted
stage is not punishable.
Q: When is an aircraft considered in flight?

A: an aircraft considered in flight the moment all its external doors are closed following
embarkation until any of such doors is opened for disembarkation.
Q: A Philippine Air Lines aircraft is bound for Davao. While the pilot and co-pilot are taking their
snacks at the airport lounge, some of the armed men were also there. The pilots were followed by
these men on their way to the aircraft. As soon as the pilots entered the cockpit, they pulled out
their firearms and gave instructions where to fly the aircraft. Does the anti hi-jacking law apply?

Ans: No. The passengers have yet to board the aircraft. If at that time, the offenders are
apprehended, the law will not apply because the aircraft is not yet in flight. Note that the aircraft is
of Philippine registry.
Q: While the stewardess of a Philippine Air Lines plane bound for Cebu was waiting for the
passenger manifest, two of its passengers seated near the pilot surreptitiously entered the pilot
cockpit. At gunpoint, they directed the pilot to fly the aircraft to the Middle East. However, before
the pilot could fly the aircraft towards the Middle East, the offenders were subdued and the
aircraft landed. What crime was committed?
Ans: The aircraft was not yet in flight. Considering that the stewardess was still waiting for the
passenger manifest, the doors were still open. Hence, the anti hi-jacking law is not applicable.
Instead, the Revised Penal Code shall govern. The crime committed was grave coercion or grave
threat, depending upon whether or not any serious offense violence was inflicted upon the pilot.
However, if the aircraft were of foreign registry, the act would already be subject to the anti hi-
jacking law because there is no requirement for foreign aircraft to be in flight before such law
would apply. The reason for the distinction is that as long as such aircraft has not returned to its
home base, technically, it is still considered in transit or in flight.
As to numbers 3 and 4 of Republic Act No. 6235, the distinction is whether the aircraft is a
passenger aircraft or a cargo aircraft. In both cases, however, the law applies only to public utility
aircraft in the Philippines. Private aircrafts are not subject to the anti hi-jacking law, in so far as
transporting prohibited substances are concerned.
If the aircraft is a passenger aircraft, the prohibition is absolute. Carrying of any prohibited,
flammable, corrosive, or explosive substance is a crime under Republic Act No. 6235. But if the
aircraft is only a cargo aircraft, the law is violated only when the transporting of the prohibited
substance was not done in accordance with the rules and regulations prescribed by the Air
Transportation Office in the matter of shipment of such things. The Board of Transportation
provides the manner of packing of such kind of articles, the quantity in which they may be loaded
at any time, etc. Otherwise, the anti hi-jacking law does not apply.
Q: During a random inspection inside a Malaysian Airlines at the NAIA and before take off, Mr. X, a
passenger from Syria was found in possession of an explosive substance. The passengers
panicked. Mr. X was arrested. What crime did Mr. X commit? Why?
Ans: Mr. X committed the crime of violation of the Anti-Hijacking Law. The law punishes carrying
or loading on board a public utility passenger aircraft operating in the Philippines, any flammable,
corrosive or poisonous substance.
If it is a cargo plane, it is not covered by RA 6235.
Q: In the course of the hi-jack, a passenger or complement was shot and killed. What crime or
crimes were committed?
Ans: The crime remains to be a violation of the anti hi-jacking law, but the penalty thereof shall be
higher because a passenger or complement of the aircraft had been killed. The crime of homicide
or murder is not committed.
Q: The hi-jackers threatened to detonate a bomb in the course of the hi-jack. What crime or
crimes were committed?
Ans: Again, the crime is violation of the anti hi-jacking law. The separate crime of grave threat is
not committed. This is considered as a qualifying circumstance that shall serve to increase the
penalty.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9372 --- HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007 AN ACT TO SECURE THE STATE
AND PROTECT OUR PEOPLE FROM TERRORISM
What is Terrorism?
Acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or
particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the
considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious, or any other nature
that may be invoked to justify them.
"Any act intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the
purpose of:
(1) Intimidating a population of serious bodily harm;

(2) Compelling a government or an international organization 'to do or abstain doing any act.'"
Declaration of policy of RA 9372:
1) To protect life, liberty and property from acts of terrorism;

2) To condemn terrorism as inimical and dangerous to the national security of the country
and to the welfare of the people;
3) To make terrorism a crime against the Filipino people, against humanity and against the
law of nations.
Q: What is terrorism under RA 9372?
A: The crime of Terrorism is committed by any person who engages in any of the following acts
punishable under the Revised Penal Code and other special laws:
Revised Penal Code – PRIC-MKC
1. Piracy – Article 122

2. Rebelion or Insurrection – Article 134
3. Coup d’etat – Article 134 - A
4. Murder – Article 248
5. Kidnapping & Serious Illegal Detenion – Artcile 267
6. Crimes Involving Destruction
Special Laws:
1. The Law on Arson – PD 1613

2. Toxic Substances & Hazardous & Nuclear Waste Control Act-RA 6969
3. Atomic Energy Regulatory & Liability act – RA 5207
4. Anti-Hijacking Law – RA 6235
5. Anti-Piracy & Anti-Highway Robbery Law – PD 532
6. Illegal Possession of Firearm -
Provided the following requisites are present:
(1) The act committed sows and creates a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic
among the populace;
(2) In order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand.
Q: What is the Motive of Terrorism:

A: To coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand.
Q: What is the Penalty for Terrorism:

A: Forty years imprisonment without the benefit of parole as provided under Act No. 4103
otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law as amended. (Sec. 3, RA 9372)
Q: Have the enumerated felonies under the Revised Penal Code and the crimes under the
specified special laws been entirely repealed by RA 9372? Are there no more crimes of Piracy,
Rebellion, Coup d' etat, Murder, Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention, Illegal Possession of
Firearms, Hijacking, Piracy and the like?
A: No. The said felonies under the Revised Penal Code and the crimes under the aforementioned
special laws still exist.
Thus, when a person kills another with the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery, the
felony committed is still Murder.
The killing becomes Terrorism only if Murder has reached that magnitude as to sow and create 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.
Terrorism is a Crime of Result
A careful scrutiny of the definition of terrorism would show that the crime can be committed only if any
of the crimes listed under RA 9372 is committed and it sows and creates 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.
Q: What is "unlawful demand?"

A: The element of unlawful demand is what differentiates terrorism from other crimes. Without
unlawful demand there can be no terrorism.
Q: What is Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism?

A: There is Conspiracy to commit Terrorism when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of the crime of terrorism and decide to commit it.
Penalty ---- 40 years of imprisonment. (Sec. 4, RA 9372)
Mere Conspiracy to commit Terrorism is punishable. The moment the conspirators commit any
act of terrorism however, they are no longer liable for Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism. They are
already liable for the crime of Terrorism.
Who are the persons liable for Terrorism and Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism?
1) Principals by direct participation

2) Accomplices
3) Accessories
ACCOMPLICE TO THE CRIME OF TERRORISM is any person who, not being a principal under Art. 17
of the RPC or a conspirator as defined in Sec. 4 of RA 9372, cooperates in the execution of the crime of
terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism by previous or simultaneous acts. (Sec. 5, RA 9372)
Who can be an Accomplice to the crime of Terrorism?

1) One who cooperates in the execution of the crime of Terrorism;
2) One who cooperates in the execution of the crime of Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism by previous or
simultaneous acts.
ACCESSORY TO THE CRIME OF TERRORISM is any person who having knowledge and without
having participated t herein, either as principal or accomplice under Articles 17 and 18 of the RPC,
takes part subsequent to its omission in any of the following manner:
a. by profiting himself or assisting the offender to profit by the effects

of the crime;
b. by concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects, or
instruments thereof, in order to prevents its discovery;
c. by harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal
or conspirator of the crime.
Q: A committed the crime of Terrorism by kidnapping scions of well to do families. He amassed

millions of pesos in the process. A gave B, his best friend the amount of Php500,000.00. Despite
knowing that the money came from the terroristic activities of A, B accepted the money. What is
the criminal liability of B if any? Why?
Ans: B is liable as accessory to the crime of Terrorism. He profited by the effects of the crime by
accepting the money despite knowing that it came from Terrorism.
Accessories to the Crime of Terrorism Who are Exempt from Criminal Liability
No penalties shall be imposed upon the following:
"Spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural and adopted brothers and sisters
or relatives by affinity within the same degrees in paragraphs (b) and (c)."
Notes: The relatives mentioned above are the same as those listed in mitigating circumstances of
vindication of a grave offense [Art. 13(5)] and in the alternative circumstances (Art. 15) and Art.
20 of the Revised Penal Code.
What are the Acts Authorized By RA 9372?
Republic Act 9372 authorized the following acts:
1) Tracking down, tapping, listening to, interception and recording of messages,

communications, conversations, discussions, spoken or written words of any person
suspected of the crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism;
2) Apprehension and detention without warrant of a person suspected of terrorism or
conspiracy to commit terrorism;
3) Judicial authorization to examine bank deposits, accounts and records.
TITLE II. CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE
Crimes against the fundamental laws of the State
1. Arbitrary detention (Art. 124);
2. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities (Art. 125);
3. Delaying release (Art. 126);

4. Expulsion (Art. 127);
5. Violation of domicile (Art. 128);
6. Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those legally obtained
(Art. 129);
7. Searching domicile without witnesses (Art. 130);
8. Prohibition, interruption, and dissolution of peaceful meetings (Art. 131);
9. Interruption of religious worship (Art. 132); and
10. Offending the religious feelings (Art. 133);
Crimes under this title are those which violate the Bill of Rights accorded to the citizens under the
Constitution. Under this title, the offenders are public officers, except as to the last crime –
offending the religious feelings under Article 133, which refers to any person.
Article 124. Arbitrary detention. — Any public officer or employee who, without legal grounds,
detains a person, shall suffer:
1. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum
period, if the detention has not exceeded three days;
2. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the detention
has continued more than three but not more than fifteen days;
3. The penalty of prision mayor, if the detention has continued for more than fifteen days
but not more than six months; and
4. That of reclusion temporal, if the detention shall have exceeded six months.
The commission of a crime, or violent insanity or any other ailment requiring the
compulsory confinement of the patient in a hospital, shall be considered legal grounds for the
detention of any person.
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. He detains a person;
3. The detention is without legal grounds.
Meaning of absence of legal grounds
1. No crime was committed by the detained;
2. There is no violent insanity of the detained person; and
3. The person detained has no ailment which requires compulsory confinement in a hospital.
What are the legal grounds for detention of a person:
1. Commission of a crime
2. Violent insanity or other ailment requiring compulsory confinement of a patient in a hospital.

Usual cause of arbitrary detention – a public officer arrests & detains somebody without any
warrant.
A person is considered detained when he is placed in confinement or where there is restraint on

his person. His detention is without legal ground if he has not committed any crime, or there is at
least no reasonable ground of suspicion that he has committed a crime; or when he is not
suffering from violent insanity or any other ailment requiring his compulsory confinement
Note: In the crime of arbitrary detention, although the offender is a public officer, not any public
officer can commit this crime. Only those public officers whose official duties carry with it the
authority to make an arrest and detain persons can be guilty of this crime. So, if the offender does
not possess such authority, the crime committed by him is illegal detention. A public officer who
is acting outside the scope of his official duties is no better than a private citizen.
Under Rule 113, Section 6 of the Rules of Court, the following are considered as legal grounds for
a warrantless arrest and for detaining a person, without violating the law on arbitrary detention:
when the person to be arrested has committed, is already committing or is attempting to commit
an offense in the presence of the public officer; or when an offense has in fact been committed
and he has personal knowledge of the fact that the person to be arrested has committed it; or
when the person to be arrested is an escaped prisoner.
Arbitrary detention can be committed thru simple imprudence or negligence.
Example: A janitor at the Quezon City Hall was assigned in cleaning the men’s room. One day, he
noticed a fellow urinating so carelessly that instead of urinating at the bowl, he was actually
urinating partly on the floor. The janitor resented this. He stepped out of the men’s room and
locked the same. He left. The fellow was able to come out only after several hours when people
from the outside forcibly opened the door. Is the janitor liable for arbitrary detention?
Ans: No. Even if he is a public officer, he is not permitted by his official function to arrest and
detain persons. Therefore, he is guilty only of illegal detention. While the offender is a public
officer, his duty does not include the authority to make arrest; hence, the crime committed is
illegal detention.
Example: A municipal treasurer has been courting his secretary. However, the latter always
turned him down. Thereafter, she tried to avoid him. One afternoon, the municipal treasurer
locked the secretary inside their office until she started crying. The treasurer opened the door and
allowed her to go home. What crime was committed?
Ans: Illegal detention. This is because the municipal treasurer has no authority to detain a person
although he is a public officer.
Distinction between arbitrary detention and illegal detention
1. In arbitrary detention, the offender is a public officer. In illegal detention, the offender
is a private person or a public officer whose function does not include the power to
arrest and detain a person;
2. In arbitrary detention, the public officer has a duty to arrest and detain a person. In
illegal detention, the private person or even if he is a public officer does not have the
power to arrest and detain a person.
Whether the crime is arbitrary detention or illegal detention, it is necessary that there must be an
actual restraint of liberty of the offended party. If there is no actual restraint, as the offended party
may still go to the place where he wants to go, even though there have been warnings, the crime of

arbitrary detention or illegal detention is not committed. There is either grave or light threat.
However, if the victim is under guard in his movement such that there is still restraint of liberty,
then the crime of either arbitrary or illegal detention is still committed.
Distinction between arbitrary detention and unlawful arrest(Art. 269)
(1) As to offender
In arbitrary detention, the offender is a public officer possessed with authority to make
arrests.
In unlawful arrest, the offender may be any person.
(2) As to criminal intent
In arbitrary detention, the main reason for detaining the offended party is to deny him of
his liberty.
In unlawful arrest, the purpose is to accuse the offended party of a crime he did not
commit, to deliver the person to the proper authority, and to file the necessary charges in a
way trying to incriminate him.
When a person is unlawfully arrested, his subsequent detention is without legal grounds.
Article 125. Delay in the Delivery of Detained Persons to the Proper Judicial Authorities.-The
penalties provided in the next preceding articles shall be imposed upon the public officer or
employee who shall detain any person for some legal ground and shall fail to deliver such
person to the proper judicial authorities within the period of twelve (12) hours, for crimes or
offenses punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent; eighteen (18) hours for crimes or
offenses punishable by correctional penalties, or their equivalent, and thirty-six (36) hours, for
crimes or offenses punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or their equivalent.
In every case, the person detained shall be informed of the cause of his detention and
shall be allowed, upon his request, to communicate and confer at any time with his attorney or
counsel. (As amended by Executive Order Nos. 59 and 72, Nov. 7,1986 and July 25, 1987, respectively.)
Elements
2. He detains a person for some legal ground;
3. He fails to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within –
a. 12 hour for light penalties;
b. 18 hours for correctional penalties; and
c. 36 hours for afflictive or capital penalties.
Note: This is a felony by omission.

In this offense, the initial detention of the person is lawful unlike the situation contemplated under
Article 124, wherein the detention of the person is unlawful from the very beginning. The only
reason why the offender under Article 125 is punished for arbitrary detention is because of his
failure to deliver the offended party to the proper judicial officer within the period prescribed by
law. (See Executive Order No. 272 which directs the delivery of any person deprived of his liberty to judicial
officers within 12 hours if the crime committed is light; 18 hours if the crime committed is less
grave and within 36 hours if the crime committed is grave.)
Article 125 covers situations wherein the person detained has been arrested without a warrant
but his arrest is nonetheless lawful. It is a felony committed by omission because of the failure of
the offender to deliver the detained person to the proper judicial authority within 12 hours, 18
hours and 36 hours as the case may be. Under the law, when the person detained is charged with
a crime punishable by light penalties, he should be referred to the proper judicial authorities
within 12 hours; 18 hours if he is charged of an offense punishable by correctional penalties; and
36 hours if he is charged of an offense punishable by afflictive penalties.
Q: What do you mean by “delivery of a detained person”?

A: Delivery of detained person consists in making charge or filing a complaint against the prisoner
with the proper judicial authority. It does not involve the physical delivery of the prisoner before
the judge (Sayo vs. Chief of Police, supra). --- It simply means putting the arrested person under the
jurisdiction of the court. This is done by filing the necessary complaint or information against the
person arrested in court within the period specified in Article 125. The purpose of this is for the court
to determine whether the offense is bailable or not and if bailable, to allow him the right to bail.
When a person is detained for the commission of a crime, his arrest having been effected
without a warrant and his case is within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court, he may ask for
a preliminary investigation but he must sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125, as
amended. When such is availed of by the accused, the preliminary investigation must be
terminated within a period of fifteen (15) days from its inception. This is the requirement of
Section 7, par. 2, Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
This article does not apply if the arrest is with a warrant. The situation contemplated here is an
arrest without a warrant.
Q: Within what period should a police officer who has arrested a person under a warrant of arrest
turn over the arrested person to the judicial authority?
A: There is no time limit specified except that the return must be made within a reasonable time.
The period fixed by law under Article 125 does not apply because the arrest was made by virtue of
a warrant of arrest.
Q: The arrest of the suspect was done in Baguio City. On the way to Manila, where the crime was
committed, there was a typhoon so the suspect could not be brought to Manila until three days
later. Was there a violation of Article 125?
A: There was a violation of Article 125. The crime committed was arbitrary detention in the form
of delay in the delivery of arrested person to the proper judicial authority. The typhoon or flood is
a matter of defense to be proved by the accused, the arresting officer, as to whether he is liable. In
this situation, he may be exempt under paragraph 7 of Article 12.
Q: What if the law violated is a special law? What is the allowable period that the said person be
detained by the policemen?
A: In case the law violated is a special law, check the penalty imposable by the special law and
determine if it is grave, less grave or light felony. That is the basis for determining the period of
time during which an arresting officer can legally hold on to the person arrested with legal ground
and without a warrant of arrest.
Q: What should be done by an arresting officer who legally arrested a person without warrant of
arrest.
A: Have the person arrested charged in court within the proper period provided for under Art. 125
so that he will not be liable for Ar bitrary detention. Filing of the appropriate case at the fiscal's
office i s a sufficient compliance of the law. If he cannot file the case for whatever reason, valid or not, he should
release the person nrrested from detention.
Example: A police officer arrested a person without warrant of arrest with legal ground in a far
flung place for the crime of Attempted Homicide. In bringing the person arrested to the
municipality, they have to cross seven mountains, seven hills and seven seas. Under the law,
Attempted Homicide is punishable with Prision correccional which has a legal duration of 6 months
and one day to 6 years. Since the penalty is a correctional penalty, the arresting officer should file
the case within 18 hours from the time that he arrested the person.
What if for the reason given above, the arresting officer fails to cause the filing of the case within
the time provided for by law, was there violation of Art. 125?
Ans: Yes, there was a violation of Art. 125 and the arresting officer maybe charged criminally.
Q: If you were the counsel for the arresting officer what is your defense?
Ans: If I were the counsel for the arresting officer, I will invoke as defense the exempting
circumstance of insuperable cause under paragraph 7 of Art. 12 of the Revised Penal Code. The
arresting officer was prevented from performing an act
required by law by the physical impossibility of bringing the person arrested to the fold of law.
Republic Act No. 9372-Human Security Act of 2007
SEC. 18. Period of Detention Without Judicial Warrant of Arrest. - The provisions of Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code to the contrary notwithstanding, any police or law enforcement personnel,
who, having been duly authorized in writing by the Anti-Terrorism Council has taken custody of a
person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to commit
terrorism shall, without incurring any criminal liability for delay in the delivery of detained persons
to the proper judicial authorities, deliver said charged or suspected person to the proper judicial
authority within a period of three (3) days counted from the moment the said charged or
suspected person has been apprehended or arrested, detained, and taken into custody by the said
police, or law enforcement personnel: Provided, That the arrest of those suspected of the crime of
terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism must result from the surveillance under Section 7
and examination of bank deposits under Section 27 of this Act.
The police or law enforcement personnel concerned shall, before detaining the person suspected
of the crime of terrorism, present him or her before any judge at the latter's residence or office
nearest the place where the arrest took place at any time of the day or night. It shall be the duty of
the judge, among other things, to ascertain the identity of the police or law enforcement personnel
and the person or persons they have arrested and presented before him or her, to inquire of them
the reasons why they have arrested the person and determine by questioning and personal
observation whether or not the suspect has been subjected to any physical, moral or
psychological torture by whom and why. The judge shall then submit a written report of what
he/she had observed when the subject was brought before him to the proper court that has
jurisdiction over the case of the person thus arrested, the judge shall forthwith submit his/her
report within three (3) calendar days from the time the suspect was brought to his/her residence
or office.
Immediately after taking custody of a person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism
or conspiracy to commit terrorism, the police or law enforcement personnel shall notify in writing
the judge of the court nearest the place of apprehension or arrest: Provided, That where the arrest
is made during saturdays, sundays, holidays or after office hours, the written notice shall be
served at the residence of the judge nearest the place where the accused was arrested.
The penalty of ten (10) years and one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment shall be imposed
upon the police or law enforcement personnel who fails to notify any judge as provided in the
preceding paragraph.
SEC. 19 Period of Detention in the Event of an Actual or Imminent Terrorist Attack. - In the event of an actual
or imminent terrorist attack, suspects may not be detained for more than three (3) days without
the written approval of a municipal, city, provincial or regional official of a Human Rights
Commission or judge of the municipal, regional trial court, the Sandiganbayan or a justice of the
Court of Appeals nearest the place of the arrest. If the arrest is made during Saturdays, Sundays,
holidays or after office hours, the arresting police or law enforcement personnel shall bring the
person thus arrested to the residence of any of the officials mentioned above that is nearest the
place where the accused was arrested. The approval in writing of any of the said officials shall be
secured by the police or law enforcement personnel concerned within five (5) days after the date
of the detention of the persons concerned: Provided, however, That within three (3) days after the
detention the suspects, whose connection with the terror attack or threat is not established, shall
be released immediately.
SEC. 20. Penalty for Failure to Deliver Suspect to the Proper Judicial Authority Within Three (3) Days. - The
penalty of ten (10) years and one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment shall be imposed upon
any police or law enforcement personnel who has apprehended or arrested, detained and taken
custody of a person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit
terrorism and fails to deliver such charged or suspected person to the proper judicial authority
within the period of three (3) days.
What are the liabilities of public officers under the Human Security Act?
1. Failure to turn over detainee within three (3) days to judicial authorities.
2. Infidelity in the custody of detainees.
3. Furnishing false evidence, forged document or spurious evidence.
Article 126. Delaying Release. - The penalties provided for in Article 124 shall be imposed upon
any public officer or employee who delays for the period of time specified therein the
performance of any judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner or detention
prisoner, or unduly delays the service of the notice of such order to said prisoner or the
proceedings upon any petition for the liberation of such person.
Acts punished
1. Delaying the performance of a judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner;
2. Unduly delaying the service of the notice of such order to said prisoner;
3. Unduly delaying the proceedings upon any petition for the liberation of such person.
Elements

2. There is a judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner or detention prisoner, or
that there is a proceeding upon a petition for the liberation of such person;
3. Offender without good reason delays –
a. the service of the notice of such order to the prisoner;
b. the performance of such judicial or executive order for the release of the prisoner;
or
c. the proceedings upon a petition for the release of such person.
Example: The judge ordered the dismissal of the criminal case & ordered the release of the
prisoner but the Warden refused to release the accused – liable.
The public officers most likely to commit this offense are the wardens, jailers and peace officers,
temporarily in charge of prisoners or detained persons.
Article 127. Expulsion. - The penalty of prision correctional shall be imposed upon any public
officer or employee who, not being thereunto authorized by law, shall expel any person from the
Philippine Islands or shall compel such person to change his residence.
There are two acts made punishable under this law: One is by expelling a person from the
Philippines; and the other is by compelling a person to change his residence.
Elements
2. He either –
a. expels any person from the Philippines; or
b. compels a person to change residence;
3. Offender is not authorized to do so by law.
This crime should be correlated with Section 6, Art. II of the 1987 Constitution. – what is violated
here is your liberty of abode.
Only the President of the Philippines can expel a person (power of deportation) thru the
Commission of Immigration – overstaying aliens. The power of the President to deport aliens is
an ACT OF THE STATE where the SC has no power to interfere with or to control the action of the
President. The discretionary power to deport “undesirable aliens” whose continued presence in
the country is a menace to the peace and safety of the community is an act of the State.
The essence of this crime is coercion but the specific crime is “expulsion” when committed by a
public officer. If committed by a private person, the crime is grave coercion.
Article 128. Violation of Domicile. — The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period
shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who, not being authorized by judicial
order, shall enter any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof, search papers or other
effects found therein without the previous consent of such owner, or, having surreptitiously
entered said dwelling, and being required to leave the premises, shall refuse to do so.

If the offense be committed in the nighttime, or if any papers or effects not constituting
evidence of a crime be not returned immediately after the search made by the offender, the
penalty shall be prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
Element:
2. He is not authorized by judicial order to enter the dwelling or to make a search therein for
papers or other effects.
Circumstances qualifying the offense
1. If committed at nighttime; or
2. If any papers or effects not constituting evidence of a crime are not returned immediately
after the search made by offender.
In order to commit this crime, the entry must be against the will of the owner. If the entry is only
without the consent of the owner, the crime of violation of domicile is not committed.
The primary object of the law is to preserve the privacy of abode of the offended party. Hence, if
the privacy is already lost, as when the offender has been allowed by the owner to enter the
dwelling together with other persons, any subsequent change of attitude will not restore the
privacy which was already lost. When privacy is waived, trespass to dwelling or violation of
domicile cannot be committed.
Take Note: Article 128 is limited to public officers. The public officers who may be liable for
crimes against the fundamental laws are those who are possessed of the authority to execute
search warrants and warrants of arrests.
Under Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Court, when a person to be arrested enters a premise and
closes it thereafter, the public officer, after giving notice of an arrest, can break into the premise.
He shall not be liable for violation of domicile.
There are only three recognized instances when search without a warrant is considered valid, and,
therefore, the seizure of any evidence done is also valid. Outside of these, search would be invalid
and the objects seized would not be admissible in evidence.
(1) Search made incidental to a valid arrest;
(2) Where the search was made on a moving vehicle or vessel such that the exigency of he
situation prevents the searching officer from securing a search warrant;
(3) When the article seized is within plain view of the officer making the seizure without
making a search therefore.
There are three ways of committing the violation of Article 128:
(1) By entering a dwelling against the will of the owner;

(2) Searching papers or other effects without the previous consent of the owner;
(3) Refusing to leave the premises after having surreptitious entered said dwelling and after
having been required to leave.
Q: A person surreptitiously enters the dwelling of another. What crime or crimes were possibly
committed?
Ans: The crimes committed are (1) qualified trespass to dwelling under Article 280, if there was
an express or implied prohibition against entering. This is tantamount to entering against the will
of the owner; and (2) violation of domicile in the third form if he refuses to leave after being told to.
Article 129. Search Warrants Maliciously Obtained, and Abuse in the Service of Those Legally
Obtained - In addition to the liability attaching to the offender for the commission of any other
offense, the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its
minimum period and a fine not exceeding Two Hundred Thousand pesos shall be imposed
upon any public officer or employee who shall procure a search warrant without just cause, or,
having legally procured the same, shall exceed his authority or use unnecessary severity in
executing the same. (As amended by Republic Act 10951)
Acts punished
1. Procuring a search warrant without just cause;
Elements
2. He procures a search warrant;
3. There is no just cause.
2. Exceeding his authority or by using unnecessary severity in executing a search warrant

legally procured.
Elements
2. He has legally procured a search warrant;
3. He exceeds his authority or uses unnecessary severity in executing the same.
The true test of lack of just cause is whether the sworn statement filed in support of the
application for search warrant has been done in such a manner that perjury could be charged and
the affiant can be held liable for making such false statement. The oath required refers to the truth
of the facts within the personal knowledge of the applicant and his witnesses.
Q: May a search and seizure be conducted without a search warrant?

A: The Rules of Court provide that a person charged with an offense may be searched for
dangerous weapons or anything which may be used us proof of the commission of the offense.
This is usually the c;ise when a lawful arrest is made without a warrant and a search is made to
find and seize things connected with the crime as its fruits or as the means by which the crime

was committed.
Q: SP02 Martinez led a team of policemen that implemented a search warrant in the house of
Mary Ann. While they were conducting the search, Martinez destroyed the dividing walls and
employed violence upon Mary Ann and the members of her household inflicting physical injuries
upon them. What crime or crimes can SP02 Martinez be charged with?
Ans: SP02 Martinez can be charged with Violation of Domicile and separate crimes of Physical Injuries.
There is no complex crime. The two felonies have different elements
Article 130. Searching domicile without witnesses. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and
maximum periods shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee who, in cases where a
search is proper, shall search the domicile, papers or other belongings of any person, in the
absence of the latter, any member of his family, or in their default, without the presence of two
witnesses residing in the same locality.
The offender in this case is legally armed with a search warrant but he conducts the search in the
absence of the owner or any member of the family or two witnesses residing in the same locality.
The law says that even if you are not around, search may be made if there are members of his
family. The policemen do not have to wait for the owner of the house to arrive. – if any member of
his family is present – pwede na. – or in default, any 2 witnesses from the neighborhood who is
usually barangay officials.
“Sec. 7, Rule 121, No search of a house, room or any other premises shall be made except in the
presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the
latter, in the presence of 2 witnesses of sufficient age & discretion residing in the same locality.”
The papers and effects mentioned in the law must be found inside the dwelling house. Article 130
has no application to search and seizure made on moving vehicles because the application of
this law is limited to dwelling and personal properties such as papers and effects found therein.
Q: Who must be present when a valid search is conducted on a domicile?

Ans: (1) The house owner; (2) In his absence, any member of his family; (3) In the absence of the
two, at least 2 witnesses residing in the same community
The obvious reason behind this requirement is to avoid incriminatory machination or planting of
evidence.
Article 131. Prohibition, interruption, and dissolution of peaceful meetings. — The penalty of prision correccional
in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who, without legal
ground, shall prohibit or interrupt the holding of a peaceful meeting, or shall dissolve the same.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall hinder
any person from joining any lawful association or from attending any of its meetings.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee who shall prohibit
or hinder any person from addressing, either alone or together with others, any petition to the
authorities for the correction of abuses or redress grievances.
There are three acts made punishable under this article:
(1) by prohibiting or interrupting, without legal ground, the holding of a peaceful meeting or by
dissolving the same;
(2) by hindering any person from joining any lawful association or from attending any of its
meetings; and,
(3) by prohibiting or hindering any person from addressing, either alone or together with others,
any petition to the authorities for the correction of abuses or redress of grievances.
This right however is not absolute. It may be regulated in order that it may not cause injury to its
equal enjoyment by others having equal rights. The power to regulate is justified under the police
power of the State.
Under this Article, the policemen/public officers or employee do not have the right to prevent
a peaceful meeting. If they do - then they are liable.
Q: The Municipal Mayor was presiding a meeting attended by VM, SB members, Punong
Barangays and the Chief of Police. When a Councilor was speaking, - the COP stood up & said
that the councilor should not proceed with his speech – heated argument followed – disorder
- the meeting was dissolved. The COP was prosecuted under Art. 131. Prosecution said that
although the accused did not prohibit the holding of the meeting in question, but he
interrupted the holding of the meeting which is within the meaning of Art. 131. Is the COP
liable?
A: NO. In order, therefore, to make said provision applicable, it is necessary that the accused
be a stranger, not a participant of the meeting that has been interrupted and eventually
dissolved.
Important: The offender here who is a public officer must be a stranger, not a participant in
the meeting.
There are two criteria to determine whether Article 131 would be violated:
(1) Dangerous tendency rule – applicable in times of national unrest such as to prevent coup
d’etat.
(2) Clear and present danger rule – applied in times of peace. Stricter rule.
Read: Ruiz vs Gordon 126 SCRA 233,en banc and Reyes vs Bagatsing (Anti-Bases Coalition), 125
SCRA 553(en banc)
Article 132. Interruption of religious worship. —The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period
shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall prevent or disturb the
ceremonies or manifestations of any religion.
If the crime shall have been committed with violence or threats, the penalty shall be prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
There are 2 acts that are punishable here: 1) to prevent the holding of ceremonies of any religion
and 2) to disturb the ceremonies or manifestations
Elements
2. Religious ceremonies or manifestations of any religious are about to take place or are
going on;
3. Offender prevents or disturbs the same.

Under this article, the offender is a public officer or employee who prevents or disturbs a religious
ceremony or a manifestation of any religion which is about to take place or is going on. If the
ceremony is prevented or disturbed with the use of violence or threat, it will qualify the crime and
the penalty is correspondingly increased.
There is no provision of law which requires religious services to be conducted in a certain form or
style. So persons who meet for the purpose of religious worship, by any method which is not
indecent and unlawful, have a right to do so without being molested (Hull vs. State, 120 Ind. 153, cited
in the case of U.S. vs. Balcorta, 25 Phil. 279).
Read: German vs Barangan, 135 SCRA 514
Article 133. Offending the religious feelings. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon anyone who, in a place devoted
to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony shall perform acts
notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.
Elements
1. Acts complained of were performed in a place devoted to religious worship, or during the
celebration of any religious ceremony;
2. The acts must be notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.
There must be deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the faithful.
Note: A private individual may be liable here because the law says “anyone” unlike in Art. 132.
Take Note: That the act must be notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful and performed
in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of a religious ceremony.
An act be notoriously offensive to the religious feelings must be directed against a religious
practice or dogma. An act intended to ridicule or mock another religion.—mocks or scoffs at
anything devoted to religious ceremonies; plays or destroys any object of veneration by the
faithful. In determining whether an act is offensive to the feelings of the faithful, the same must
be viewed or judged from the standpoint of the offended religion and not from the point of view of
the offended (Pp vs Baes, 68 Phil. 203)

2017 Notes of Judge Rowena Apao-Adlawan in Titles 1 To 2 of The Revised Penal Code

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2017 Notes of Judge Rowena Apao-Adlawan in Titles 1 To 2 of The Revised Penal Code

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2017 NOTES OF JUDGE ROWENA APAO-ADLAWAN IN CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II

TITLE I. CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS

Crimes against national security

1. Treason (Art. 114);

2. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason (Art. 115);

3. Misprision of treason (Art. 116); and

4. Espionage (Art. 117).

5. Terrorism & Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism – RA 9372

Crimes against the law of nations

1. Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals (Art. 118);

2. Violation of neutrality (Art. 119);

3. Corresponding with hostile country (Art. 120);

4. Flight to enemy's country (Art. 121); and

5. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas (Art. 122).

(3) Violation of Neutrality, under Article 119

1. The offender owes allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;

3. The offender does any of the following overt acts:

2 2017 NOTES OF JUDGE ROWENA APAO-ADLAWAN IN CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II

a) The first is by levying war against the Government.

The First Mode of committing the crime:

The Second Mode of committing the crime:

Q: Is treason a continuing offense?

Two ways of proving treason

1. Testimony of at least two witnesses to the same overt act; or

2. Confession of accused in open court.

Q: What is the Severely Restrictive Rule?

Treason distinguished from Rebellion.

Treason distinguished from Sedition.

Points to remember regarding treason.

1) Treason is committed only in times of war.

3) There is no complex crime of treason with murder. Murder is an integral element of

Elements of conspiracy to commit treason

1. There is a war in which the Philippines is involved;

2. At least two persons come to an agreement to –

a. levy war against the government; or

b. adhere to the enemies, giving them aid or comfort;

3. They decide to commit it.

Elements of proposal to commit treason

1. There is a war in which the Philippines is involved;

2. At least one person decides to –

a. levy war against the government; or

b. adhere to the enemies, giving them aid or comfort;

3. He proposes its execution to some other persons.

5 2017 NOTES OF JUDGE ROWENA APAO-ADLAWAN IN CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II

1. Offender owes allegiance to the government, and not a foreigner;

2. He has knowledge of conspiracy to commit treason against the government;

Q: What makes one liable under Art. 116?

6 2017 NOTES OF JUDGE ROWENA APAO-ADLAWAN IN CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II

There are two of Committing Espionage:

1. By entering, without authority therefore, a warship, fort or naval or military establishment

1. Offender enters any of the places mentioned;

2. He has no authority therefore;

3. His purpose is to obtain information, plans, photographs or other data of a

1. Offender is a public officer;

2. He has in his possession the articles, data or information referred to in paragraph 1

The crime is not conditioned by the citizenship of the offender.

7 2017 NOTES OF JUDGE ROWENA APAO-ADLAWAN IN CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II

(1) Unlawful obtaining or permitting to be obtained information affecting national defense;

Distinctions between treason and espionage.

1. Treason – the offender is a Filipino citizen or a resident alien

CRIMES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS

Section Two. — Provoking war and disloyalty in case of war