Art. 117. Espionage
Two ways of committing espionage under the RPC
Read: Commonwealth Act No. 616 (other ways of committing espionage)
Espionage- Unlawfully obtaining or permitting to be obtained information affecting national defense.
2 modes:
a. Entering a warship, fort, or naval or military establishment or reservation.
Elements:
1. The offender has no authority to enter a warship, fort, or naval or military establishment or reservation
2. He entered to obtain any information, plans, photographs, or other data of a confidential nature relative to the
defense of the Philippine Archipelago.
b. Disclosing confidential information related to No.1 to a representative of a foreign nation.
Elements:
1. The offender is in possession, by reason of the public office he holds, of the article, data, or information
referred to in the preceding paragraph
2. He discloses their contents to a representative of a foreign nation.
Elements
Who may be liable? (Depends on the manner of committing espionage)
1. First mode:
a. Filipino
b. alien residing
2. Second mode:
a. Offender is a public officer.
Espionage v. Treason (when, manner of commission)





Espionage- Purpose: to gather data
Espionage: the offense of gathering, transmitting, or losing information respecting the national defense with the
intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the Philippines or the advantage of
any foreign nation. It is not conditioned on citizenship.
Treason: Conditioned on citizenship. Committed during wars where Philippines is involved.
Not necessary that Philippines is at war with the country to which the information was revealed. What is
important is that the information related is connected with the defense system of the Philippines.
Wiretapping is NOT espionage if the purpose is not something connected with the defense
Read: Santos v Misa, GR No. L-319
The petitioner avers he is a Chinese citizen apprehended in February, 1945, by the Counter Intelligence Corps of the
United States Army, turned over last September, to the Commonwealth Government, and since then detained by the
respondent as a political prisoner. Such detention, he claims, is illegal, because he has not been charged before, nor
convicted by, the judge of a competent court, and because he may not be confined under Act No. 682, as he owes
allegiance neither to the United States nor to the Commonwealth of the Philippines.
Petitioner’s foreign status does not exclude him ipso facto (by the very fact) from the scope of Commonwealth Act No.
682. As stated by the Solicitor-General, he might be prosecuted for espionage, a crime not conditioned by the citizenship
of the offender, and considered as an offense against national security.
II.CRIME AGAINST LAWS OF NATIONS
Art. 118. Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals
Elements: (1) performance of unlawful or unauthorized acts; and (2) such acts provoke or give occasion for a war
involving or liable to involve the Philippines or expose Filipino citizens to reprisals on their persons or property.
When committed: in times of peace
Reprisal - resorted to for the purpose of settling a dispute or redressing a grievance without going to war.



Crime is committed in time of peace, intent is immaterial
Inciting to war – offender is any person
Reprisals is not limited to military action, it could be economic reprisals, or denial of entry into their
country. Example. X burns Chinese flag. If China bans the entry of Filipinos into China, that is already reprisal
Art. 119. Violation of Neutrality
Elements: (1) There is a war in which the Philippines is not involved; (2) there is a regulation issued by competent
authority for the purpose of enforcing neutrality; and (3) the offender violates such regulation.
“Neutral” - A nation or power which takes no part in a contest of arms going on between others.
Presence of regulation



Gov’t must have declared the neutrality of the Phil in a war between 2 other countries
It is neutrality of the Phil that is violated
Congress has the right to declare neutrality
Art. 120. Correspondence with hostile country
“Correspondence” - communication by means of letters; or it may refer to the letters which pass between those who have
friendly or business relation.
Elements: (1) There is a war in which the Philippines is involved; (2) the offender makes correspondence with an enemy
country or territory occupied by enemy troops; and (3) correspondence is either: prohibited by the government, carried on
in ciphers or conventional signs, or containing notice or information which might be useful to the enemy.
Innocent matters or contents - immaterial, if prohibited by the government
Qualifying circumstances - crime could become Treason
Art. 121. Flight to enemy’s country
Elements: (1) War in which the Philippines is involved; (2) offender must be owing allegiance to the Government; (3)
offender attempts to flee or go to enemy country; and (4) going to enemy country is prohibited by competent authority
Who may commit?- offender must be owing allegiance to the Government
Consummated stage - mere attempt to flee
Prohibition



Mere attempt consummates the crime
There must be a prohibition. If none, even if went to enemy country – no violation
Alien resident may be guilty here.
Piracy, Mutiny, and Acts inimical to civil aviation
Art. 122. Piracy and Mutiny
Read: PD No. 532
Modes of committing Piracy
1. By attacking or seizing a vessel on the high seas or in the Philippine waters (PD 532)
2. By seizing the whole or part of the cargo of said vehicles, its equipment or personal belongings of its complement
or passengers
Elements of Piracy:
1. That a vessel is on the high seas/Philippine waters
2. That the offenders are not members of its complement or passengers of the vessel
3. That the offenders –
1. attack or seize that vessel or (hence, if committed by crew or passengers, the crime is not piracy but
robbery in the high seas)
2. seize the whole or part of the cargo of said vessel, its equipment or personal belongings of its complement
or passengers





High seas: any waters on the sea coast which are without the boundaries of the low water mark although such
waters may be in the jurisdictional limits of a foreign gov’t
PD 532 has been already repealed
Piracy in high seas – jurisdiction is with any court where offenders are found or arrested
Piracy in internal waters – jurisdiction is only with Philippine courts
For purpose of Anti-Fencing Law, piracy is part of robbery and theft
“High seas” - seas that are not included in the EEZ, in the territorial seas, or in the internal waters of a state, or in the
archipelagic waters of an archipelagic state (UNCLOS)
Note: Universal crime. Read: People v Lol-Lo, GR No. L-17958
FACTS:
• 2 boats of Dutch possession left matuta. In 1 of the boats was 1 individual, a Dutch subject, and in the other boat 11
men, women, and children, subjects of Holland. The 2nd boat arrived between the Islands of Buang and Bukid in the
Dutch East Indies. There the boat was surrounded by 6 vintas manned by 24 Moros all armed. The Moros first asked for
food, but once on the Dutch boat, too for themselves all of the cargo, attacked some of the men, and brutally violated 2 of
the women. All of the persons on the Dutch boat, except the 2 young women, were again placed on it and holes were
made in it, the idea that it would submerge. The Moros finally arrived at Maruro, a Dutch possession. 2 of the Moro
marauder were Lol-lo, who also raped one of the women, and Saraw. At Maruro the 2 women were able to escape.
• Lol-lo and Saraw later returned to their home in South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi, Sulu, Philippine Islands. There they were
arrested and were charged in the Court of First Instance of Sulu with the crime of piracy
• All of the elements of the crime of piracy are present. Piracy is robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas,
without lawful authority and done animo furandi, and in the spirit and intention of universal hostility.
• Pirates are in law hostes humani generis.
• Piracy is a crime not against any particular state but against all mankind. It may be punished in the competent tribunal
of any country where the offender may be found or into which he may be carried. The jurisdiction of piracy unlike all
other crimes has no territorial limits.
• As it is against all so may it be punished by all. Nor does it matter that the crime was committed within the
jurisdictional 3-mile limit of a foreign state, "for those limits, though neutral to war, are not neutral to crimes."
ISSUE: W/N the provisions of the Penal Code dealing with the crime of piracy are still in force.
HELD: In accordance with provisions of Act No. 2726, the defendant and appellant Lol-lo, who is found guilty of the
crime of piracy and is sentenced therefor to be hung until dead.
Penal code dealing with the crime of piracy, notably articles 153 and 154, to be still in force in the Philippines.The crime
of piracy was accompanied by (1) an offense against chastity and (2) the abandonment of persons without apparent means
of saving themselves. It is, therefore, only necessary for us to determine as to whether the penalty of cadena perpetua or
death should be imposed.
At least 3 aggravating circumstances, that the wrong done in the commission of the crime was deliberately augmented
by causing other wrongs not necessary for its commission, that advantage was taken of superior strength, and that means
were employed which added ignominy to the natural effects of the act, must also be taken into consideration in fixing the
penalty.
Seizure of vessel. Read: People v Catantan, GR No. 118075
On morning of June 27, 1993, Pilapil brothers Eugene and Juan, Jr were fishing in the sea 3km away from shores when
suddenly another boat caught up with them. One of them, Catantan boarded the pumpboat and leveled his gun at Eugene,
striking him and ordering Juan to “dapa”. Catantan ordered Ursal to follow him and they hogtied Eugene, forcing him to
lie down at the bottom of the boat, covering him with tarpaulin up to his next, stepped on him and ordered Juan Jr. to ferry
them to Daan Tabogon, leaving the other pumpboat with its passengers one of whom was visibly tied. Appellant insists
that he and Ursal had no intention of permanently taking possession or depriving complainants of their boat. As a matter
of fact, when they saw another pumpboat they ordered the brothers right away to approach that boat so they could leave
the Pilapils behind in their boat. Accordingly, appellant claims, he simply committed grave coercion and not piracy.
Under the definition of piracy in PD No. 532 as well as grave coercion as penalized in Art. 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.The testimony of one of the victims shows that the appellant actually seized the vessel through force and
intimidation.
Sec. 2(d) of PD No. 532 defines Piracy as “Any attack upon or seizure of any vessel, or the taking away of the whole or
part thereof or its cargo, equipment, or the personal belongings of its complement or passengers, irrespective of the value
thereof, by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things, committed by any person, including
a passenger or member of the complement of said vessel, in Philippine waters, shall be considered as piracy. The
offenders shall be considered as pirates and punished as hereinafter provided.”
While appellant insists that he and Ursal had no intention of depriving the Pilapils permanently of their boat, proof of
which they left behind the brothers with their boat, the truth is, Catantan and Ursal abandoned the Pilapils only because
their pumpboat broke down and it was necessary to transfer to another pumpboat that would take them back to their lair.
Unfortunately for the pirates their “new” pumpboat ran out of gas so they were apprehended by the police soon after the
Pilapils reported the matter to the local authorities. Thus, both were guilty of piracy.
Article 122 vs PD No. 532 (People v Tulin, GR No. 111709)
Read: People v Dela Pena, GR No. 219581; People v Tulin, GR No. 111709
People v Dela Pena, GR No. 219581
Appellant was charged, with the crime of piracy defined under Presidential Decree (PD) No. 532 allegedly committed as
follows that on or about the 24th day of September 2005, along the river bank of Barangay San Roque, Province of
Samar, the accused, conspiring and mutually helping one another, with deliberate intent to gain, by means of force and
intimidation, feloniously take and carry away valuable items. Appellant interposed an alibi and claimed that the
Information did not state that the vessel in question was in Philippine waters.
The elements of piracy under PD 532 are all present.Section 2(d) of PD 532 defines piracy as follows: Any attack upon or
seizure of any vessel, or the taking away of the whole or part thereof or its cargo, equipment, or the personal belongings of
its complement or passengers, irrespective of the value thereof, by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or
force upon things, committed by any person, including a passenger or member of the complement of said vessel, in
Philippine waters shall be considered as piracy.
Under Section 2(a) of PD 532, "Philippine waters" is defined as follows: All bodies of water, and all other waters
belonging to the Philippines and other submarine areas over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction.
It is clear that a river is considered part of Philippine waters. The Information also clearly alleged that the vessel's cargo,
equipment, and personal belongings of the passengers were taken by the appellant and his armed companions. The
appellant was able to seize these items when he, along with armed companions, boarded the victims' pump boat and seized
control of the same.
People v Tulin, GR No. 111709
“M/T Tabangao,” a cargo vessel loaded fuel was sailing off the coast of Mindoro near Silonay Island when it was
suddenly boarded, by seven fully armed pirates. The pirates were armed with M-16 rifles, .45 and .38 caliber handguns,
and bolos. They detained the crew and took complete control of the vessel. “M/T Tabangao” then sailed to and anchored
about 10 to 18 nautical miles from Singapore’s shoreline where another vessel called “Navi Pride” received the cargo
under the supervision of accused-appellant Cheong San Hiong.
Accused-appellants were arrested and charged with qualified piracy for violating Presidential Decree No. 532 (Piracy in
Philippine Waters) and were convicted as principals of the crime charged, except for accused-appellant Hiong who was
convicted as an accomplice. On appeal, Hiong ratiocinates that he cannot be convicted of piracy in Philippine waters as
defined and penalized in Sections 2[d] and 3[a], respectively of PD 532 because Republic Act No. 7659 has impliedly
superseded PD 532. He reasons out that Presidential Decree No. 532 has been rendered “superfluous or duplicitous”
because both Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and Presidential Decree No. 532 punish piracy
committed in Philippine waters. He maintains that in order to reconcile the two laws, the word “any person” mentioned in
Section 1 [d] of Presidential Decree No. 532 must be omitted such that Presidential Decree No. 532 shall only apply to
offenders who are members of the complement or to passengers of the vessel, whereas Republic Act No. 7659 shall apply
to offenders who are neither members of the complement or passengers of the vessel, hence, excluding him from the
coverage of the law.
Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code, before its amendment, provided that piracy must be committed on the high seas by
any person not a member of its complement nor a passenger thereof. Upon its amendment by Republic Act No. 7659, the
coverage of the pertinent provision was widened to include offenses committed “in Philippine waters.” On the other hand,
under Presidential Decree No. 532 (issued in 1974), the coverage of the law on piracy embraces any person including “a
passenger or member of the complement of said vessel in Philippine waters.” Hence, passenger or not, a member of the
complement or not, any person is covered by the law.
Republic Act No. 7659 neither superseded nor amended the provisions on piracy under Presidential Decree No. 532.
There is no contradiction between the two laws. There is likewise no ambiguity and hence, there is no need to construe or
interpret the law. All the presidential decree did was to widen the coverage of the law, in keeping with the intent to protect
the citizenry as well as neighboring states from crimes against the law of nations. As expressed in one of the “whereas”
clauses of Presidential Decree No. 532, piracy is “among the highest forms of lawlessness condemned by the penal
statutes of all countries.” For this reason, piracy under the Article 122, as amended, and piracy under Presidential Decree
No. 532 exist harmoniously as separate laws.
Definition of Mutiny
Unlawful resistance to a superior officer, or the raising of commotion and disturbances on board a ship against the
authority of its commander
Mutiny vs Piracy
Piracy
Mutiny
Robbery or forcible degradation on the
high seas, without lawful authority and
done with animo furandi and in the spirit
and intention of universal hostility.
Unlawful resistance to a superior officer, or the
raising of commotion and disturbances on
board a ship against the authority of its
commander
Intent to gain is an element.
Attack from outside. Offenders are
strangers to the vessel. (this is the standing
rule with the repeal of PD 532 which
made it possible for any person to commit
piracy including a passenger or
complement of the vessel).
Attack from the inside.
Animo furandi- dishonest intention to cause wrongful gain to oneself by causing wrongful loss to the other person.
Additional Distinction of Piracy and mutiny:
1. As to offenders:
Mutiny- committed by members of the complement or passenger of the vessel.
Piracy- committed by persons who are not member of the complement or passengers of the vessel.
2. As to criminal intent:
Mutiny- No criminal intent.
Piracy- Criminal intent to gain.
When considered as terrorism
Thereby sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in order to
coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand shall be guilty of the crime of terrorism
Art. 123. Qualified Piracy
“Crimes” refer to both piracy and mutiny
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
3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries, or rape. (the above may result to
qualified mutiny)

Parricide/infanticide should be included (Judge Pimentel)



Note the new rape law. Death is imposed in certain types of rape
There is a conflict between this provision and the provision on rape. Ex. If rape is committed on someone below 7
– death under the new rape law. But if rape committed on someone below 7 during the time of piracy – RP to
death. Irreconcilable.
Murder/rape/homicide/physical injuries must have been committed on the passengers or complement