TITLE ONE: CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAW OF

NATIONS

Q. What are the crimes punished under this title?

A. The crimes may be stated in these words: TEMC VICEP2 which stand for Treason,
Espionage, Misprision of Treason, Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason; Violation
of neutrality, Inciting to War or giving motives for reprisals, correspondence to hostile
country; Flight to enemy’s country; piracy and mutiny and qualified piracy.

Treason (Article 114)

Q. How is treason committed?

A. There are two (2) ways of committing treason: (1) by levying war and (2) by adhering
to the enemies, giving them aid or comfort.

Q. What is meant “by levying war”?

A. It means assemblage of men for the purpose of waging war against the State. It is
similar to rebellion since in rebellion there is public armed uprising. Their difference is
that the purpose of the warriors in treason is to deliver the country to a foreign enemy
State, while the purpose of the rebels in rebellion is to change the government of their
own.

Problem: CHA State sent military ships in the Philippine Sea and using powerful
weapons fired at the Maharlika ship, a Philippine Navy ship. The Philippines Congress
declared the existence of a war against CHA State. A group of 100 Filipinos took up
arms and engaged the Philippine Navy stationed near that island in a war. Their purpose
is to pave the way for the coming of the military forces of CHA State to establish its own
government there. What is the crime committed by this group of 100 Filipinos?

Answer. This group of 100 people committed treason. These people owe allegiance to
the Philippines. They waged war against the Philippines for the purpose of delivering the
country to CHA State, a State in which the Philippines is at war. Their acts constitute
“levying war” against the Philippines, which is the first mode of committing treason.

Q. What is meant by “adherence”?

A. Adherence means that Filipinos intellectually and emotionally favor the enemy or
harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to our country’s policy or interest.

Q. Is adherence alone enough to be liable for treason?

A. No, adherence alone is not enough. Adherence must be coupled with giving aid or
comfort to the enemies. Giving aid or comfort partakes of a deed or physical activity as
opposed to mental operation. It consist of an act which strengths or tends to strengthen
the enemies of the State.

1
Assisting the enemy in the arrest and investigation of suspected guerillas is
adherence to the enemies giving them aid and comfort.

Problem: Francisco de los Santos is a Filipino citizen. On 23 January 1945, delos Santos
together with Eligio Torres and twenty Japanese soldiers, all armed, raided the house of
Cresencio Timpangco and there, found several persons thereon. They searched the house
and asked the people about the guerrillas. As the people denied tohave any knowledge
about the guerillas, the men were tied and maltreated. The following day, the five persons
who had been tied were taken to Presa Mayor, City of Zamboanga. On their way, Eligio
Torres continued to investigate Castro and, because of his refusal to admit his connection
with the guerrillas, Eligio Torres, with a saber, cut Castro's neck causing his death. At
Presa Mayor, Domingo, Cresencio and Ponciano were killed. What is the crime
committed by de los Santos?

Answer. De los Santos committed treason. De los Santos who is a Filipino citizen owing
allegiance and loyalty to the Commonwealth of the Philippines, joined the enemies,
giving them aid and comfort by actually helping the enemies in the arrest, investigation
and torture of his countrymen engaged in the resistance movement. He is, therefore,
guilty of treason. (People vs. De los Santos, December 21, 1950; 87 Phil. 721 )

Being a member of Makapili is adherence to the enemies, giving them aid and
comfort

Problem. During the Japanese occupation, Almazan became a member of the

“Makabayang Kalipunan Ng Mga Pilipino" or "Makapili" for short. The membership of
Almazan in the Makapili association has been proven by the testimony of several
witnesses who were his barrio mates and knew the latter well. They saw Almazan fully
armed when he was with the Japanese patrol on several occasions. Was Almazan guilty
of treason?

Answer. Yes, he committed treason by adherence to the enemies, giving them aid or
comfort. Makapili was an association founded under the auspices of the Japanese
Imperial Army, its purpose having been to help the Japanese forces in their campaign
against the United States and the Commonwealth of the Philippine Islands and to combat
the guerilla underground movement. The members of this society received military
training from the Japanese and actually took part in the campaign against the resistance
movement of the Fil-American forces. The evidence is sufficient to establish the fact that
he was an active member of the Makapili. (People vs. Almazan, January 9, 1951, 88 Phil.
25 )

2
Membership in the Kempei-tai was also adherence and giving aid or comfort to the
enemies.

Problem; Fernando was an informer and a member of the Kempei-tai, and, as such, he
had a group of ten renegade Filipinos whose mission was to make arrest of guerrilla
suspects, subjecting them to investigation and torture in order to ferret out whatever
information they possessed regarding the activities of the underground forces; he held a
ranking officer of the guerrilla forces and subjected him to investigation and torture.
What is the crime committed by Fernando?

Answer. Fernando committed treason. Fernando, being a Filipino citizen, had adhered to
the cause of the Imperial Government of Japan, by giving aid and comfort to their
military forces stationed in the Philippines during the enemy occupation, having served
as informer and active member of the Kempei-tai, the Japanese military police
organization, having arrested Ponciano, Gregorio, Abraham and Gabriel as guerrilla
suspects. (People vs. Fernando, December 17, 1947, 79 Phil.719)

Commandeering Women for Japanese Soldiers was not adherence and giving aid
and comfort.

Problem. Perez commandeered several women on several dates, brought them to the
residence of Colonel Mini, Commander of the Japanese Armed Forces in Bohol and by
means of violence threat and intimidation, said Japanese Colonel abused and had sexual
intercourse with these women. Did Perez commit treason?

Answer. No, Perez did not commit treason. Commandeering of women to satisfy the lust
of Japanese officers was not treason even though the women and the entertainment
helped to make life more pleasant for the enemies and boost their spirit. Sexual and social
relations with the Japanese did not directly and materially tend to improve their war
efforts or to weaken the power of the United State. The acts herein charged were not, by
fair implication, calculated to strengthen the Japanese Empire or its army or to cripple the
defense and resistance of the other side. Whatever favorable effect the defendant's
collaboration with the Japanese might have in their prosecution of the war was trivial,
imperceptible, and unintentional. Intent of disloyalty is a vital ingredient in the crime of
treason, which, in the absence of admission, may be gathered from the nature and
circumstances of each particular case. (People vs. Perez, April 18, 1949, 83 Phil. 314)

Q. What kind of assistance to the enemies that qualifies as a treasonous act?

A. The law of treason does not proscribe all kinds of social, business and political
intercourse between the belligerent occupants of the invaded country and its inhabitants.
In the nature of things, the occupation of a country by the enemy is bound to create
3
relations of all sorts between the invaders and the natives. To be treasonous, the extent of
the aid and comfort given to the enemies must be to render assistance to them as enemies
and not merely as individuals and in addition, be directly in furtherance of the enemies'
hostile designs. To make a simple distinction: To lend or give money to an enemy as a
friend or out of charity to the beneficiary so that he may buy personal necessities is to
assist him as individual and is not technically traitorous. On the other hand, to lend or
give him money to enable him to buy arms or ammunition to use in waging war against
the giver's country enhance his strength and by same count injures the interest of the
government of the giver. That is treason. ((People vs. Perez, April 18, 1949 citing United
States vs. Fricke, 259 F., 673; 63 C.J., 816, 817.)

Q. The law on treason requires at least two witnesses to convict, what must be testified
by these two witnesses?

A. The two witnesses should testify on the overt act of giving aid or comfort, not on the
adherence. They must testify to the same act, moment, deed and word of the accused.
For example, if the treasonous act was the act of the accused in going upstairs to pinpoint
a suspected guerilla and one witness testified on this act, the other witness should testify
also on this same act. In case the other witness testified that he saw the accused merely
in the company of the Japanese Army in the house on the same date and time and no
more, then the two witness rule is not satisfied.

Espionage (Article 117)

Q. What is the essence of the crime of espionage?

A. Espionage is the offense of gathering, transmitting or losing information respecting

the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to
the injury of the Philippines or to the advantage of any foreign nation.

Problem. Agoncillo, an intelligence officer of the Armed Forces of the Philippines,

accessed the AFP’s computer database, and downloaded pertinent top-secret documents,
including among others a report and analysis on the Scarborough stand-off situation
written by a Navy Officer. Thereafter, Agoncillo sent these top-secret files to a US High
Government Official. Did Agoncillo commit a crime?

Answer. Yes, Agoncillo committed the crime of espionage. The document certainly
pertains to national security. One of the acts punished as espionage is by unlawfully
obtaining information relating to national defense. In fact, even if the information was
lawfully obtained, if the person disclosed the information to a foreign representative
without authority, it is still espionage. (Please see USA vs. Aragoncillo and Aquino, D.C.
Crim. No. 05-cr-00719, Aragoncillo was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment after
pleading guilty to 4 charges of espionage for sending top-secret, confidential papers
related to national security and defense, as well as papers on US analysis on Philippine
political situation, to certain officials in the Philippines)

4
Q. What are the acts punished as espionage?

A. The following are acts of espionage: (1) Unlawfully obtaining information affecting
national defense (2) Unlawful disclosure 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 any of these acts and (6) Harboring or concealing violators of the
law on espionage.

Q. Are citizenship and war required in espionage?

A. No, espionage is a crime not conditioned by the citizenship of the offender. It may be
committed in time of peace and in time of war.

Misprision of Treason (Article 116)

Problem: Juan, a Filipino and a waiter of 3MJ Hotel and Restaurant, was serving food to
twenty (20) people engaged in a meeting in one of the functions room of the hotel. He
heard them planned and agreed to help CHA Republic against which the Philippines is at
war. Juan kept this information to himself alone. Did Juan commit any crime?

Answer. Yes, Juan committed the crime of misprision of treason. Misprision of treason
is a crime of silence. It is committed by every person owing allegiance to the Philippines,
without being a foreigner, and having knowledge of any conspiracy (to commit treason)
against the Philippines, conceals or does not disclose the same as soon as possible to the
governor/mayor or prosecutor of the province or city in which he resides.

Violation of Neutrality (Article 119)

Problem. CHA Republic and VET Republic are engaged in a war. The President and
Congress of the Philippines declared that the Philippines is not siding with any of the
protagonists. Hernando and his group of 10 Filipinos, however, wrote a manifesto of
support in favor of VET Republic. Did Hernando and his group commit the crime of
violation of neutrality?

Answer. No, Hernando and his group did not commit the crime of violation of neutrality.
For a person to be liable for this crime, it is not enough that the Philippines is neutral in a
war between or among countries, but there must be a regulation issued by competent
authority for the purpose of enforcing such neutrality and the offender violates such
regulation. There is none in this problem.

5
Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals (Article 118)

Problem. Tension exists between the Philippines and Cha Republic over an island
occupied by the Philippines but which Cha Republic says its part of its territory. Cha
Republic is bullying the Philippines by sending modern warships in the area. Governor
Makabayan went on television urging the Filipinos to boycott the products of Cha
Republic found in the Philippines. Is this act of Gov. Makabayan incites war or gives
motives for reprisals and if so, is the Governor liable for the crime punished under Article
118?

Answer. While the act of advocating boycott of the products of Cha Republic may incite
war or gives motives for reprisals, yet Gov. Makabayan is not liable for the crime of
inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals. To be liable under this article, the act
performed must be unlawful or unauthorized. The advocacy of Gov. Makabayan is
certainly neither unlawful nor unauthorized.

Q. Suppose in the above problem, Gov. Makabayan also burned the flag of Cha Republic
in front of the camera, would Gov. Makabayan still escape criminal liability?

A. No, more. This time Gov. Makabayan would be liable for the crime of inciting to war
or giving motives for reprisals. Public destruction of the flag or seal of a foreign
government is unlawful and unauthorized.

Q. Are intention of the offender and war material in this crime?.

A. No, the intention of the offender is immaterial, the acts are punished even if they
constitute mere imprudence. This crime can be committed also in time of peace.

Correspondence with hostile country (Article 120)

Q. Suppose the Philippines is at war with Mai Republic. Congress passed a law
prohibiting any communication with any person residing in Mai Republic. Arlene wrote
his boyfriend who happens to be a citizen of Mai Republic. The letter merely contains
expression of love. Is Arlene liable for correspondence with hostile country?

A. Yes, Arlene is liable for correspondence with hostile country. Although the letter
contains innocent matters, yet there is a law prohibiting correspondence to the enemy
country. When there is a prohibition, it is not necessary that the correspondence is carried
on ciphers or conventional signs or contains notice or information which might be useful
to the enemy. Note, however, prohibition of the government is not required on these last
two kinds of communications.

6
Flight to enemy’s country (Article 121)

Q. Suppose the Philippines is at war with Mai Republic. Congress passed a law
prohibiting any citizen to go to Mai Republic. Arlene was arrested at the airport when
she chartered a flight to go to Mai Republic to visit his boyfriend who happens to be a
citizen of Mai Republic. Is Arlene liable for flight to enemy country when she was
arrested while still in the airport?

A. Yes, Arlene is liable. Mere attempt to flee is punishable. This crime is committed by
any person who, owing allegiance to the Philippines, attempts to flee or go to an enemy
country when prohibited by competent authority. But take note, if there is no prohibition,
Arlene would not be liable.

Piracy on the High Seas (Article 122)

Problem: While SS Nagoya was negotiating in the sea route from Hongkong towards
Manila, and while still 300 miles from Aparri, Cagayan, its engine malfunctioned. The
ship stopped for emergency repairs lasting for almost 15 hours. While the ship was
anchored, a motorboat manned by renegade Gregorio from Cagayan, passed by. Gregorio
and his men, cut the ship’s engines and took away heavy crates of electrical equipment
and loaded them in their motorboat. What crime was committed by Gregorio and his
men? (2006 Bar Problem)

Answer. Gregorio and his men committed piracy on the high seas. First, the place where
the taking took place is certainly a high sea because it is beyond the low watermark or
beyond the territorial limits of the Philippines. One of the two ways by which piracy on
the high seas may be committed is seizing the whole or part of the cargo or its equipment
or the personal belonging of its complement or passengers, the offender not being a
passenger. Here, Gregorio and his men, who are not passengers of the vessel, took the
ship’s engine and electrical equipment. The other mode of committing the crime is by
attacking or seizing the vessel itself.

Problem. Supposing that while the robbery was taking place, the culprits stabbed a
member of the crew while sleeping, what crime was then committed? (2006 Bar
Problem)

Answer. Qualified piracy under Article 123, as amended, was committed. Piracy is
qualified whenever it is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape. The
other two qualifying circumstances are: Whenever the pirates have seized the vessel by
boarding or firing upon the same and whenever the pirates have abandoned their victim
without means of saving themselves.

Problem: The inter-island vessel, MV Viva Lines, while cruising off Batanes was forced
to seek shelter at the harbor of Tasong, Taiwan because of strong typhoon. While

7
anchored in said harbor, Max, Baldo and Bogart arrived in a speedboat, fired a bazooka at
the vessel, boarded it and divested the passengers of their money and jewelry. What
crime did the three commit? (2008 Bar Problem)

Answer. The three committed qualified piracy under Article 123. One of the qualifying
circumstances of piracy is whenever the pirates have seized the vessel by boarding or
firing upon the same. Although the piracy is committed at the harbor of Tasong, Taiwan,
high seas within the contemplation of Article 122 means any waters on the sea coast
which are without the boundaries of low water mark, although such water may be in the
jurisdictional limits of foreign government. It does not mean that the crime be committed
beyond the 3 mile limit of any state. ( Peo vs. Lol lo, et al, 43 Phil, 19). Besides, this
crime may be committed outside of the Philippines and yet can be tried in our jurisdiction
pursuant to Article 2, RPC, number 5 exception to the territoriality principle.

Problem: Suppose in the same problem, Dodong, passenger of M/V Viva Lines, took
advantage of the confusion to settle an old grudge with another passenger, and killed him.
Is it correct to charge Dodong with qualified piracy? (2008 Bar Problem)

Answer. No, it is not correct to charge Dodong with qualified piracy. First, Dodong is a
passenger of the vessel. Piracy on the high seas can be committed only by strangers to
the vessel. Second, murder, not piracy, is the clear intent of Dodong.

Q. What is mutiny?

A. Mutiny is the unlawful resistance to a superior officer, or the raising of commotions or

disturbances on board a ship against the authority of its commander.

Piracy in Philippine waters: RA 7659

Q. What is the effect of RA 7659 (Heinous Crime Law) on PD 532?

A. RA 7659 amended PD 532. RA 7659 punishes piracy and mutiny, whether

committed on the high seas or in Philippine waters and the penalty has been increased
from reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua. Under RA 7659, piracy, whether on the
high seas or in Philippine waters, can only be committed by a person who is not a
passenger nor member of the complement of the vessel.. So if a passenger or
complement of the vessel commits acts of robbery, the crime is robbery and not piracy.
This is not what obtained under PD 532 for under the PD, piracy in Philippine waters
could be committed by any person including a passenger or complement of a vessel.

Problem. Catantan and Ursal, who were in another boat, boarded the pump boat of
Eugene and Juan. Catantan leveled his gun at Eugene and struck him with his gun. Ursal

8
hogtied Eugene and forced him to lie down. Catantan ordered Juan to ferry them to Daan
Tabogon. Charged with piracy in Philippine waters, Catantan and Ursal contended that if
at all, they should be liable only for grave coercion since they merely compelled Eugene
and Juan to do something against their will. Is this contention correct?

Answer. No, the contention of Catantan and Ursal is not correct. Under the definition of
piracy in PD No. 532 (now RA 7659) as well as grave coercion as penalized in Article
286 of the Revised Penal Code, this case falls squarely within the purview of piracy.
While it may be true that Eugene and Juan Jr. were compelled to go elsewhere other than
their place of destination, such compulsion was obviously part of the act of seizing
their boat. There is no doubt that Catantan and Ursal seized the vessel through force and
intimidation. To sustain Catantan and Ursual and convert this case of piracy into one of
grave coercion would be to ignore the fact that a fishing vessel cruising in Philippine
waters was seized by the accused by means of violence against or intimidation of
persons. (People vs. Catantan, September 5, 1997)

Anti Hijacking Law :Act No. 6235.

Q. What are the acts covered and punished by Act No. 6235?

A. The four situations covered by the anti-hijacking law are:

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.

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. (0)

Problem. Christopher is one of the passengers of PH Airlines bound for Cebu. All the
passengers were already in. All the doors were closed. But because of air traffic, the
airplane could not fly. The airplane was at a stationary position for about 20 minutes
when Christopher, who was irritated, approached the Captain and with force, took control
of the airplane. What is the crime committed by Christopher?

9
Answer. Christopher committed hijacking punishable under Act No. 6235 when he
usurped control of the aircraft. This is because the airplane was already considered
flying. When the airplane is of Philippine registry, it is necessary that the airplane is in
flight for hijacking to be committed. In flight means that all the external doors of the
airplane are already closed following embarkation and until any of such doors is open for
disembarkation.

Q. If the airplane is of foreign registry, is it necessary that the airplane is in flight?

A. In flight is not an element if the airplane is of foreign registry. As long as the

offender usurps the control of an airplane of foreign registry or compel it to land to the
Philippines, hijacking is committed.

Problem. The pilots of the Pan Am aircraft were accosted by some armed men and were
told to proceed to the aircraft to fly it to a foreign destination. The armed men walked
with the pilots and went on board to the aircraft. But before they could do anything on the
aircraft, alert marshals arrested them. What crime was committed?

Answer. The criminal intent definitely is to take control of the aircraft, which is hi-
jacking. The requirement that it be in flight does not hold true when in comes to aircraft
of foreign registry. (O)

Problem. A Philippine Air Lines is bound for Davao. While the pilot and co-pilot are
taking their snacks at the airport lounge, some 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
aircraft, they pulled out their firearms and gave instructions where to fly the aircraft.
Does the anti hijacking law apply?

Answer. No. Act No. 6235 does not apply. The passengers have yet to board the aircraft.
The aircraft, which is of Philippine registry, was not yet in flight. (O)

Problem. While the stewardess of the Philippine Air Lines plane bound for Cebu was
waiting for the passenger manifest, two of its passengers seated near the pilot directed the
pilot, at gunpoint, 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. Did the two passengers commit hijacking?

Answer. The aircraft was not yet in flight. Considering that the stewardess was still
waiting for the passengers manifest, the doors were still open. Hence, the anti hijacking
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 violence
was inflicted upon the pilot. (O)

Q. Is carrying or loading flammable, corrosive, explosive or poisonous substance

absolutely prohibited?

10
A. In case the aircraft is a public utility passenger aircraft, the prohibition is absolute.
However, if it is a public cargo aircraft, carrying flammable, corrosive, explosive or
poisonous substance is prohibited only when it is done not in accordance with the rules
and regulations promulgated by the Air Transportation Office. (O)

Terrorism: RA 9372, March 6, 2007

AN ACT TO SECURE THE STATE AND PROTECT OUR PEOPLE FROM

TERRORISM (OR THE HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007)

Q. What are the main crimes punished in the Human Security Act of 2007?

A. There are only two new crimes punished under the law: (1) terrorism and (2)
conspiracy to commit terrorism.

Q. What are the elements of the crime of terrorism?

A. The elements of terrorism are: (1) commission of a predicate crime (2) the
commission of any of the predicate crime sows or creates a condition of widespread and
extraordinary fear and panic among the populace and (3) the offender commits any of the
predicate crimes in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand.

Q. What are the predicate crimes in terrorism?

A. Any one of the following is a predicate crime of terrorism

1. Article 122 (Piracy in General and Mutiny on the High Seas or in the
Philippine Waters);

2. Article 134 (Rebellion or Insurrection);

3. Article 134-a (Coup d' Etat), including acts committed by private persons;

4. Article 248 (Murder);

5. Article 267 (Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention);

6. Article 324 (Crimes Involving Destruction), or under

i. Presidential Decree No. 1613 (The Law on Arson);

11
 ii. Republic Act No. 6969 (Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear
Waste Control Act of 1990);

iii. Republic Act No. 5207, (Atomic Energy Regulatory and Liability Act
of 1968);

iv. Republic Act No. 6235 (Anti-Hijacking Law);

v. Presidential Decree No. 532 (Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery

Law of 1974); and,

vi. Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended (Decree Codifying the Laws
on Illegal and Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or
Disposition of Firearms, Ammunitions or Explosives)

Problem: A Chief of Police, his driver and two policemen were ambushed and killed. Is
this terrorism?

Answer. This is murder but not terrorism because the criminal act does not create a
condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace and second
the crime was not committed in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful
demand.

Problem. Suppose a person bombed a super mall. Many people died. People panicked
and fear swept all over the place. Is this terrorism?

Answer. No, this is not terrorism. Although a predicate crime exists and there was fear
and chaos all over the place, yet there is no showing that the bomber coerced the
Philippine government to give in to his unlawful demand.

Problem. Frustrated by the way his case was being handled by the Ombudsman, Inspector
Jose took control of a bus plying along EDSA and stopped it at the corner of EDSA and
Quezon Avenue. He took the passengers of the bus as hostages. He demanded for his
exoneration. The government refused. Inspector Jose killed all the 100 passengers of the
bus before he was subdued by the responding policemen. Did Jose commit the crime of
terrorism?

Answer. No, Jose did not commit the crime of terrorism. Although serious illegal
detention and mass murders were committed and although Jose coerced the government
to give in to his unlawful demand, the detention and the mass murders did not, however,
sow or create a condition of extraordinary fear and panic among the populace.

12
Multiple Choice Questions:

1. While SS Maria, a Philippine registered vessel, was still 100 miles from
Aparri, Cagayan, its engine malfunctioned. The Captain ordered the ship to stop for
emergency repairs. While the ship was anchored, a motorboat manned by Remus, who is
a resident of Cagayan, passed by. Remus pointed his M16 rifle against the officers and
crew, while Remus’ men (also residents of Cagayan) cut the ship engines and took away
several heavy crates of electrical equipment. Based on these facts, Remus and his men
have likely committed:

A. Piracy in Philippine waters because the vessel was within the economic zone
of the Philippines.
B. Piracy in Philippine waters because the offenders are Filipino citizens.
C. Piracy on the high seas because the robbery took place beyond the 12 mile
territorial limit.
D. Piracy on the high seas because the crime was committed in waters
without boundaries of low water mark.

2. Christopher is one of the passengers of PH Airlines bound for Cebu. All the
passengers were already in. All the doors were closed. But because of air traffic, the
airplane could not fly. The airplane was at a stationary position for about 20 minutes
when Christopher, who was irritated, approached the Captain and with force, took control
of the airplane. Based on these facts, Christopher had likely committed:

A. Grave Coercion because he compelled the captain to do something against his

will.
B. Grave Coercion because the airplane was in still in the ground.
C. Hijacking because the airplane was already flying
D. Hijacking because the airplane was already considered flying.

3. Frustrated by the way his case was handled by the Ombudsman, Inspector
Jose took control of a bus plying along EDSA and stopped at the corner of EDSA and
Quezon Avenue. He took the passengers of the bus as hostages. He demanded for his
exoneration. The government refused. Inspector Jose killed all the 100 passengers of the
bus before he was subdued by the responding policemen. Based on these facts, the
Prosecutor will likely:

A. Find Inspector Jose liable for Terrorism because he coerced the government to
give in to his unlawful demand.
B. Find Inspector Jose liable for Terrorism because the mere commission of mass
murders constitutes the crime of terrorism.
C. Exonerate Inspector Jose for Terrorism because mass murders alone is
not terrorism.

13
 D. Exonerate Inspector Jose for Terrorism because the law penalizing terrorism is
void for being vague.

4. When Honorio was already inside the tourist bus, he tied the hands of the driver
to the driving wheel and closed the door of the bus. He took the 30 passengers as
hostages. He demanded that he be reinstated to his position in the government. The
hostage taking lasted for 8 hours, 15 hostages were killed by him and the rest were
rescued alive. The incident caused tremendous fear to the hostages. The whole incident
was carried by both radio and television. Thousands of people heard and saw the whole
incident. When the government launched a final assault, the hostage taker was captured
alive. What was the crime committed by the hostage taker?

a. Terrorism
b. Special complex crime of Kidnapping with murder
c. Murder (several counts) pure and simple
d. Serious illegal detention pure and simple

~0000000~

14