BOOK TWO
CRIMES AND PENALTIES NOTES
TITLE ONE
CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE
LAW OF NATIONS
Crimes against national security
The crimes against national security are:
1. Treason. (Art. 114)
2. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason. (Art. 115)
3. Misprision of treason. (Art. 116)
4. Espionage. (Art. 117)
Crimes against the law of nations.
The crimes against the law of nations are:
1. Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals. (Art. 118)
2.Violation of neutrality. (Art. 119)
3.Correspondence with hostile country. (Art. 120)
4.Flight to enemy's country. (Art. 121)
5.Piracy in general and mutiny on the high sea s or in
Philippine waters. (Art. 122)
Article 114
TREASON
Elements of treason
1. That the offender is a Filipino citizen or an alien residing in
the Philippines;
2. That there is a war in which the Philippines is involved;
3. That the offender either —
a. levies war against the Government, or adheres to
the enemies, giving them aid or comfort.
Treason is a breach of allegiance to a government, committed
by a person who owes allegiance to it.
Treason, in its general sense, is the violation by a subject of his
allegiance to his sovereign or to the supreme authority of the
State.
Executive Order No. 44 – amended Article 114. Now, as
amended, the Revised Penal Code punishes a resident alien
who commits treason.
How to prove the offender is a Filipino Citizen? (1st)
1. Prison record
2. Testimony of witnesses who know him to have been
born in the Philippines of Filipino Parents (Review
Citizenship under 1987 Constitution)
The first element of treason is that the offender owes
allegiance to the Government of the Philippines. By the term
"allegiance" is meant the obligation of fidelity and obedience
which the individuals owe to the government under which
they live or to their sovereign, in return for the protection they
receive.
Allegiance as an element of treason seems to be either
permanent or temporary. Permanent allegiance consists in
the obligation of fidelity and obedience which a citizen or
subject owes to his government or sovereign. Temporary
allegiance is the obligation of fidelity and obedience which a
resident alien owes to our government.
Treason cannot be committed in time of peace (2nd)
Treason is a war crime. It is not an all-time offense. It cannot
be committed in peace time. While there is peace, there are no
traitors. Treason may be incubated when peace reigns.
Treasonable acts may actually be perpetrated during peace,
but there are no traitors until war has started.
As treason is basically a war crime, it is punished by the state
as a measure of self-defense and self-preservation. 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.
Two modes of committing treason (3rd)
1. By levying war against the Government.
2. By adhering to the enemies of the Philippines, giving them
aid or comfort.
(1.) Levying war requires the concurrence of two things: (1)
that there be an actual assembling of men, (2) for the
purpose of executing a treasonable design by force.
There must be an actual assembling of men: The actual
enlistment of men to serve against the government does not
amount to levying war, because there is no actual assembling
of men.
Case: US vs. De los Reyes - Upon searching the house
of the accused, the Constabulary officers found a
captain's commission under seal. It was held that the
mere acceptance of the commission from the
secretary of war of the Katipunan Society by the
accused, nothing else having been done, was not an
overt act of treason within the meaning of the law
But if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of
effecting by force a treasonable design, all those who perform
any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene
of action, and who are actually leagued in the general
conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors.
In treason by levying war, it is not necessary that there be
a formal declaration of the existence of a state of war: to
justify the conclusion that those engaged in such attempt are
levying war and therefore guilty of treason. Actual hostilities
may determine the date of the commencement of war.
The war must be directed against the government: The
levying of war must be with the intent to overthrow the
government as such, not merely to resist a particular statute
or to repel a particular officer.
An organized attempt on the part of persons joined together
in a band to overthrow and destroy the established government
is a levying of war against the government and constitutes
treason.
It matters not how vain and futile the attempt was and how
impossible of accomplishment. It is not necessary that those
attempting to overthrow the government by force of arms
should have the apparent power to succeed in their design in
whole or in part. (U.S. vs. Lagnason)
Those who, during war, rise publicly to inflict an act of hate or
revenge upon the persons of public officers do not commit
treason by levying war because the public uprising is not
directed against the government.
Is it necessary that the purpose of levying war is to deliver
the country in whole or in part to the enemy?
Giving information to, or commandeering foodstuffs for,
the enemy is evidence of both adherence and aid or
comfort.
Yes. Levying war as an act of treason must be for the purpose
of executing a treasonable design by force. Although in stating
the acts constituting treason, Art. 114 uses the phrases (1)
"levies war against" the Government of the Philippines or (2)
"adheres to" the enemies of the Philippines, "giving them aid
or comfort," it does not mean that adhering to the enemies is
required only in the second mode of committing treason.
Since levying war against the Government is also punished as
rebellion, there must be a difference between treason
committed by levying war and rebellion.
Extent of aid or comfort: It must be a deed or physical
activity, not merely a mental operation. It must be an act that
has passed from the realm of thought into the realm of action.
If the levying of war is merely a civil uprising, without any
intention of helping an external enemy, the crime is not
treason. The offenders may be held liable for rebellion under
Art. 135 in relation to Art. 134 of this Code.
(2.) Requirements of the second way or mode of
committing treason: In the second way or mode of
committing treason, (1) adherence and (2) giving aid or
comfort to the enemy must concur together. Adherence
alone, without giving aid or comfort to the enemy, is not
sufficient to constitute treason. And conversely, aid or comfort
alone, without adherence, is not treason.
Adherence defined: The phrase "adherence to the enemy"
means intent to betray. There is "adherence to the enemy"
when a citizen intellectually or emotionally favors the enemy
and harbors sympathies or convictions disloyal to his country's
policy or interest.
Aid or comfort defined: The phrase "aid or comfort" means
an act which strengthens or tends to strengthen the enemy in
the conduct of war against the traitor's country and an act
which weakens or tends to weaken the power of the traitor's
country to resist or to attack the enemy.
Adherence alone, without giving the enemy aid or comfort,
does not constitute treason: The fact that the accused had
friendly relations with the Japanese during the war, openly
revealing himself sympathetic to the cause of the enemy and
also believing in the invincibility of the Japanese Armed Forces
does not constitute in itself treasonable act as denned by law.
The crime of treason consists of two elements: (1) adherence
to the enemy; and (2) rendering him aid and comfort.
Emotional or intellectual attachment or sympathy to the
enemy, without giving the enemy aid or comfort, is not
treason. (People vs Roble 83 Phil. 1)
Conversely, when there is no adherence to the enemy, the act
which may do aid or comfort to the enemy does not amount
to treason
The sale to the enemy of alum crystals and water pipes does
not per se constitute treason, because said articles or
materials are not exclusively for war purposes and their sale
does not necessarily carry an intention on the part of the
vendor to adhere to the enemy. (People vs. Agoncillo, 80 Phil
33) While the sale to the enemy of alum crystals and water
pipes may do aid or comfort to the enemy, if there is no
evidence of intent to betray, the person making the sale is not
guilty of treason.
The expression includes such acts as furnishing the enemy
with arms, troops, supplies, information, or means of
transportation
As a general rule, 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 an 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 enhances his
strength and by the same count injures the interest of the
government of the giver. That is treason. (People vs. Perez)
The act committed need not actually strengthen the
enemy: It is not essential that the effort to aid be successful,
provided overt acts are done which if successful would
advance the interest of the enemy.
It is said there is aid and comfort no matter how vain or futile
(useless) the attempt may be, as long as the act committed
tends to strengthen the enemy. It is not the degree of success,
but rather the aim for which the act was perpetrated, that
determines the commission of treason.
Commandeering of women to satisfy the lust of the enemy
is not treason: "Commandeering" of women to satisfy the lust
of Japanese officers or men or to enliven the entertainments
held in their honor was not treason even though the women
and the entertainments helped to make life more pleasant for
the enemies and boost their spirit; he was not guilty any more
than the women themselves would have been if they
voluntarily and willingly had surrendered their bodies or
organized the entertainments. 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. (People vs. Perez, supra)
Specific acts of aid or comfort constituting treason.
The following are specific acts of aid or comfort:
1. Serving as informer and active member of the Japanese
Military Police, arresting guerilla suspects in an attempt to
suppress the underground movement. (People vs. Fernando,
79 Phil. 719)
2. Serving in the Japanese Army as agent or spy and
participating in the raid of guerrilla hideout. (People vs.
Munoz, et al., 79 Phil. 702)
3. Acting as "finger woman" when a barrio was "zonified" by
the Japanese, pointing out to the Japanese several men whom
she accused as guerillas. (People vs. Nunez, 85 Phil. 448)
4. Taking active part in the mass killing of civilians by the
Japanese soldiers by personally tying the hands of the victims.
(People vs Canibas, 85 Phil. 469)
When the arrest of persons alleged to have been guerrillas was
caused by the accused due to their committing a common
crime, like arson, he is not liable for treason.
Being a Makapili constitutes an overt act of psychological
comfort: Being a Makapili is in itself constitutive of an overt
act. The crime of treason was committed if he placed himself
at the enemy's call to fight side by side with him when the
opportune time came even though an opportunity never
presented itself. Such membership by its very nature gave the
enemy aid and comfort. The enemy derived psychological
comfort in the knowledge that he had on his side nationals
of the country with which he was at war. It furnished the
enemy aid in that his cause was advanced, his forces
augmented, and his courage was enhanced by the knowledge
that he could count on men such as the accused and his kind
who were ready to strike at their own people. The practical
effect of it was no different from that of enlisting in the
invader's army. (People vs. Adriano, 78 Phil. 563; People vs.
Villanueva, 92 Phil. 637)
The Makabayang Katipunan ng mga Pilipino (Patriotic
Association of Filipinos), better known as the Makapili, was a
militant group formed in the Philippines in 1944 during World
War II to give military aid to the Imperial Japanese Army
The mere acceptance of a public office and the discharge of
the functions and duties connected therewith, during the
Japanese military occupation in the Philippines, do not
constitute per se the felony of treason. But admitting that
such acts were really of aid and comfort to the enemy, they
can not be punishable in this particular case, because there is
no satisfactory proof of the adherence of the accused to the
cause of the enemy.
But when the positions to which the accused was appointed
were not only highly responsible positions but also policydetermining, because they defied the norm of conduct that all
the offices and officials under the departments he headed had
to adopt and enforce, and helped in the propagation of the
creed of the invader, and the acts and utterances of the
accused while holding such position were an earnest
implement to such policy, the acceptance of public office and
discharge of official duties constitute treason.
Mere governmental work during the Japanese regime is not
an act of treason: It is now undisputed that mere
governmental work under the Japanese regime — and
pilotage service may be considered in the same light — does
not constitute per se indictable disloyalty
Appellant's membership in the Bureau of Constabulary under
the government of occupation is not treason. That institution
was intended for the promotion and preservation of law and
order which were essential, during war, to the life of the
civilian population.
Membership in the police force during occupation is not
treason; but active participation with the enemies in the
apprehension of guerrillas and infliction of ill-treatments
make such member liable for treason.
Guerilla warfare may be unlawful, but it should not be
suppressed: … while guerrilla warfare may be unlawful from
the standpoint of the conqueror, it cannot be so regarded by
those who, by natural right, are trying to drive him out of their
invaded territory
The aid or comfort given to the enemies must be after the
declaration of war. The enemies must be the subject of a
foreign power: The aid or comfort given to the enemies must
be after the declaration of war between the countries, and the
term "enemies" applies only to the subjects of a foreign power
in a state of hostility with the traitor's country. It does not
embrace rebels in insurrection against their own country (63
C.J. 816), because they are still citizens and not enemies.
No treason thru negligence: The overt act of aid and comfort
to the enemy must be intentional, as distinguished from
merely negligent or undesigned ones.
Is there a complex crime of treason with murder, physical
injuries, etc.?
In the case of People vs. Prieto, 80 Phil. 138, where the accused,
besides being a Japanese spy, took part in the execution of
some of the guerrilla suspects and in the infliction of physical
injuries on the others, the Supreme Court held that murder
and physical injuries were inherent in the crime of treason
characterized by the giving of aid and comfort to the enemy.
When killings and other common crimes are charged as
overt acts of treason, they cannot be regarded: (1) as
separate crimes, or (2) as complexed with treason.
In treason, the giving of aid and comfort can be accomplished
only by some kind of action — a deed or physical activity. This
deed or physical activity may be and often is in itself a criminal
offense under another penal statute or provision.
Thus, where the accused rendered service to the Japanese
army as a secret agent, informer and spy and, in the
performance of such service, he participated in the Japanese
expeditions against guerrillas and committed mass murders,
arson and robberies (People vs. Villanueva, 104 Phil. 450), and
those deeds or physical activities (committing mass murders,
arson and robberies) were charged an element of treason
(giving the enemy aid or comfort), they become identified
with the crime of treason and cannot be the subject of a
separate punishment or used in conjunction with treason to
increase the penalty as provided in Art. 48.
When the raping mentioned in the information is therein
alleged not as a specific offense but as mere element of the
crime of treason and the illegal detention is another overt act
of treason, they are merged in the crime of treason.
But this rule would not preclude the punishment of murder or
other common crimes as such, if the prosecution should elect
to prosecute the culprit specifically for these crimes, instead
of relying on them as an element of treason.
Treason can be committed by a Filipino who is outside of the
Philippines, as Art. 114 says "in the Philippines or elsewhere."
An alien residing in the Philippines can be prosecuted for
treason. (Executive Order No. 44, May 31, 1945) Therefore, an
alien who is not residing in the Philippines cannot commit
treason
Treason is of such a nature that it may be committed by one
single act, by a series of acts, or by several series thereof, not
only in a single time, but in different times, it being a
continuous crime. All overt acts the accused has done
constitute but a single offense. Proof of one count is sufficient
for conviction.
“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. (Art. 114, par.
2)”
Treason cannot be proved by circumstantial evidence or by the
extrajudicial confession of the accused. The Revised Penal
Code as well as the Rules of Court not authorize the conviction
of a person accused of treason if the evidence against him is
circumstantial, however strong or convincing it may be, or is
only an extrajudicial confession.
The two-witness rule
The testimony of two witnesses is required to prove the overt
act of giving aid or comfort. It is not necessary to prove
adherence. An overt act is defined as that physical activity,
that deed that constitutes the rendering of aid and comfort.
The two-witness rule must be adhered to as to each and every
one of all the external manifestations of the overt act in issue.
The treasonous overt act of doing guard duty in the Japanese
garrison on one specific date cannot be identified with the
doing of guard duty in the same garrison on a different date.
Both overt acts, although of the same nature and character,
are two distinct acts. Either one, to serve as a ground for
conviction, must be proved by two witnesses. That one
witness should testify as to one, and another as to the other,
was held not to be enough.
But it is not required that their testimony be identical, as long
as the testimony of both would certainly be to the same overt
act.
The defendant should be acquitted if only one of the two
witnesses is believed by the court. Should be corroborated
by another witness
It is sufficient that the witnesses are uniform in their
testimony on the overt act; it is not necessary that there be
corroboration between them on the point they testified.
The two-witness rule is not affected by discrepancies in
minor details of the testimony.
Reason for requiring the two witnesses to testify to the
same overt act: The special nature of the crime of treason
requires that the accused be afforded a special protection not
required in other cases so as to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
he extreme seriousness of the crime, for which death is one of
the penalties provided by law, and the fact that the crime is
committed on abnormal times, require that, at least, two
witnesses must testify as to overt acts of treason.
Adherence may be proved:
1. by one witness,
2. from the nature of the act itself, or
3. from the circumstances surrounding the act.
Adherence to the enemy may be inferred from his act of
arresting persons suspected of being guerrillas, his being
armed, and his being in company with armed Japanese
soldiers.
Reason why adherence to the enemy need not be proved
by two witnesses: It seems obvious that adherence to the
enemy, in the sense of a disloyal state of mind, cannot be, and
is not required to be, proved by deposition of two witnesses,
because what is designed in the mind of an accused never is
susceptible of proof by direct testimony.
Confession must be made in open court: The confession
means a confession of guilt. It is not only an admission of facts
made by the accused in giving his testimony after a plea of not
guilty, from which admissions of his guilt can be inferred.
Thus, if the accused testified in his behalf after he had pleaded
not guilty that he had been carried off by force by the
insurgent soldiers; that he was forced to join them; that they
made him a lieutenant and gave him a revolver; and that he
stayed with them two weeks, although it was against his will;
there was only an admission, but not a confession of guilt. It
means pleading guilty in open court; that is, before the judge
while actually hearing the case.
Aggravating Circumstances in treason: Cruelty (e.g.
barbaric torture) and ignominy (abusing wife in front of
husband guerilla). Evident premeditation is not aggravating in
treason, because in treason, adherence and the giving of aid
and comfort to the enemy is usually a long continued process
requiring reflective and persistent determination and
planning. Superior strength and treachery are circumstances
inherent in treason. Treachery is merged in superior strength.
They are, therefore, not aggravating in treason.
The penalty for treason committed by Philippine citizens is
reclusion perpetua to death and a fine not to exceed P100,000.
In determining the proper penalty for treason, the amount or
degree of aid or comfort given the enemy as well as the gravity
of the separate and distinct acts of treason committed by the
accused, rather than the circumstances aggravating or
mitigating the offense, determine the period of the penalty to
be imposed. (Art. 64 is not applicable)
Defense of suspended allegiance and change of
sovereignty, not accepted.
Reasons:
(a) A citizen owes an absolute and permanent allegiance to his
Government;
(b) The sovereignty of the Government is not transferred to
the enemy by mere occupation;
(c) The subsistence of the sovereignty of the legitimate
Government in a territory occupied by the military forces of
the enemy during the war is one of the rules of International
Law; and
(d) What is suspended is the exercise of the rights of
sovereignty.
In addition to the defense of duress, lawful obedience to a de
facto Government is a good defense in treason
Defense of duress or uncontrollable fear: In the eyes of the
law, nothing will excuse that act of joining an enemy, but the
fear of immediate death; not the fear of any inferior personal
injury, nor the apprehension of any outrage upon property.
People vs. Manayao (Defense of loss of citizenship by joining
the army of the enemy)
Facts: The accused, being a Makapili, considered himself a
member of the Japanese armed forces. He contended that he
thereby lost his Filipino citizenship under paragraphs 3, 4 and
6 of Sec. 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 63 providing: "... a
Filipino may lose his citizenship x x x by accepting commission
in the military, naval or air service of a foreign country x x x.
Held: The accused cannot divest himself of his Philippine
citizenship by the simple expedient of accepting a commission
in the military, naval or air service of such country. If the
contention of the accused would be sustained, his very crime
would be the shield that would protect him from punishment.
Art. 115
CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT TREASON
How are the crimes of conspiracy and proposal to commit
treason committed?
Conspiracy to commit treason is committed when in time of
war, two or more persons come to an agreement to levy war
against the Government or to adhere to the enemies and to
give them aid or comfort, and decide to commit it. (Arts. 8
and 114)
Proposal to commit treason is committed when in time of war
a person who has decided to levy war against the Government
or to adhere to the enemies and to give them aid or comfort,
proposes its execution to some other person or persons.
Although the general rule is that conspiracy and proposal to
commit a felony is not punishable (Art. 8), under Art. 115 the
mere conspiracy to commit treason is a felony. The mere
proposal to commit treason is also a felony. Both are
punishable under Art. 115
The reason is that in treason the very existence of the state
is endangered.
The two-witness rule does not apply to this crime, because
this is a separate and distinct offense from that of treason.
Art. 116
The offender under Art. 116 is "punished as an accessory to
the crime of treason." Note that Art. 116 does not provide for
a penalty. Hence, the penalty for misprision of treason is two
decrees lower than that provided for treason. But the offender
in Art. 116 is a principal in the crime of misprision of treason.
Misprision of treason is a separate and distinct offense from
the crime of treason.
Since the offender in misprision of treason is a principal in that
crime, Art. 20 does not apply, even if the offender is related
to the persons in conspiracy against the government, because
Art. 20 applies only to accessory.
The provision of Art. 116 is an exception (the rule that mere
silence does not make a person criminally liable) to the
general rule laid down in connection with Art. 19 that a person
who keeps silent as to what he knows about the perpetration
of an offense is not criminally liable, either as a principal, or as
an accomplice, or as an accessory.
Art. 117
ESPIONAGE
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 Republic of the Philippines or to the advantage of any
foreign nation.
Two ways of committing espionage under Art. 117
1. By entering, without authority therefor, 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 Philippines.
Elements
(a) That the offender enters any of the places
mentioned therein;
(b) That he has no authority therefor;
(c) That his purpose is to obtain information, plans,
photographs or other data of a confidential nature
relative to the defense of the Philippines.
MISPRISION OF TREASON
Elements:
1. That the offender must be owing allegiance to the
Government, and not a foreigner.
2. That he has knowledge of any conspiracy (to commit
treason) against the Government.
3. That he 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.
Misprision of treason cannot be committed by a resident
alien: The offender must be owing allegiance to the
Government, without being a foreigner.
The phrase "having knowledge of any conspiracy against
them" has reference to conspiracy to commit treason defined
in Art. 115
Art. 116 does not apply when the crime of treason is already
committed by someone and the accused does not report its
commission to the proper authority. This is so because Art.
116 speaks of "knowledge of any conspiracy against" the
Government of the Philippines, not knowledge of treason
actually committed by another.
2. By disclosing to the representative of a foreign nation the
contents of the articles, data or information referred to in
paragraph No. 1 of Art. 117, which he had in his possession by
reason of the public office he holds.
Elements:
(a)That the offender is a public officer;
(b)That he has in his possession the articles, data or
information referred to in paragraph No. 1 of Art. 117,
by reason of the public office he holds;
(c)That he discloses their contents to a
representative of a foreign nation.
To be liable under par. 1, the offender must have the
intention to obtain information relative to the national
defense of the Philippines. If the accused has no such
intention, even if he takes possession of plans or photographs
referred to in paragraph No. 1 of Art. 117, he is not liable under
that provision.
Further, under the first way of committing espionage, it is not
necessary that the offender should have obtained any
information, plans, etc. mentioned in paragraph No. 1 of Art.
117. It is sufficient that he has the purpose to obtain any of
them when he entered a warship, fort, or naval or military
establishment.
Under paragraph No. 1 of Art. 117, the offender is any person,
whether a citizen or a foreigner, a private individual or a public
officer. When the offender is a public officer or employee, the
penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed.
Under paragraph No. 2, the offender must be a public officer
who has in his possession the article, data, or information by
reason of the public office he holds.
Philippines, or with respect to the plans or conduct of any military,
naval or air operations or with respect to any works or measures
undertaken for the fortification or defense of any place, or any other
information relating to the public defense, which might be useful to
the enemy.
The penalty is death or imprisonment for not more than 30 years.
SEC. 3. Disloyal acts or words in time of peace.
a. By advising, counselling, urging or in any other manner by causing
insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny or refusal of duty of any
member of the military, naval or air forces of the Philippines.
b. By distributing any written or printed matter which advises,
counsels, or urges such insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal
of duty.
Other acts of espionage are punished by Com. Act No. 616
(An act to punish espionage and other offenses against
national security)
--SEC. 1. Unlawfully obtaining or permitting to be obtained
information affecting national defense.
a. By going upon, entering, flying over or otherwise by obtaining
information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense or other
place connected with the national defense, or any other place where
any vessels, aircraft, arms, munitions or other materials for the use in
time of war are being made, or stored, for the purpose of obtaining
information respecting national defense, with intent to use it to the
injury of the Philippines or to the advantage of any foreign nation.
b. By copying, taking, making or attempting or inducing or aiding
another to copy, take, make or obtain any sketch, photograph,
photographic negative, blue print, plan, map instrument, appliance,
document, writing or note of anything connected with the national
defense, for the same purpose and with like intent as in paragraph a.
c. By receiving or obtaining or agreeing or attempting or inducing or
aiding another to receive or obtain from any sources any of those data
mentioned in paragraph b, code book or signal book, knowing that it
will be obtained or disposed of by any person contrary to the
provisions of this Act.
d. By communicating or transmitting, or attempting to
communicate or transmit to any person not entitled to receive it, by
willfully retaining and failing to deliver it on demand to any officer or
employee entitled to receive it, the offender being in possession of,
having access to, control over, or being entrusted with any of the
data mentioned in paragraph b, or code book or signal book.
e. By permitting, through gross negligence, to be removed from its
proper place or custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his
trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted or destroyed any of the data
mentioned in paragraph b, code book or signal book, the offender
being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of the
same.
Sec. 2. Unlawful disclosing of information affecting
national defense.
a. By communicating, delivering or transmitting or attempting or
aiding or inducing another to do it, to any foreign government or any
faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country,
whether recognized or unrecognized by the Philippines, or to any
representative, officer, employee, subject or citizen thereof, any of
the data mentioned in paragraph b of Section 1 hereof, code book or
signal book.
If committed in time of war, the penalty is death or imprisonment for
not more than 30 years.
b. In time of war, by collecting, recording, publishing or
communicating or attempting to elicit any information with respect
to the movement, number, description, condition, or disposition of
any of the armed forces, ships, aircraft, or war materials of the
SEC. 4. Disloyal acts or words in time of war.
a. By willfully making or conveying false reports or false statements
with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines; or
b. To promote the success of its enemies, by willfully causing or
attempting to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny or refusal of
duty in the Armed Forces of the Philippines; or
c. By willfully obstructing the recruiting or enlistment service.
SEC. 5. Conspiracy to violate preceding sections.
Requisites:
a. Two or more persons conspire to violate the provisions of sections
one, two, three or four of this Act;
b. One or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the
conspiracy.
Each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as in said
sections provided in the case of the doing of the act the
accomplishment of which is the object of such conspiracy.
SEC. 6. Harboring or concealing violators of the law.
Requisites:
a. The offender knows that a person has committed or is about to
commit an offense under this Act;
b. The offender harbors or conceals such person, x x x.
Other acts punished by Commonwealth Act No. 616
1. Using or permitting or procuring the use of an aircraft for the
purpose of making photograph, sketch, etc. of vital installations or
equipment of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. (Sec. 9)
2. Reproducing, publishing, selling, etc. uncensored copies of
photograph, sketch, etc. of the vital military, naval or air post, camp
or station, without permission of the commanding officer. (Sec. 10)
3. Injuring or destroying or attempting to injure or destroy war
materials, premises or war utilities when the Philippines is at war.
(Sec. 11)
4. Making or causing war materials to be made in a defective
manner when the Philippines is at war. (Sec. 12)
5. Injuring or destroying national defense material, premises or
utilities. (Sec. 13)
6. Making or causing to be made in a defective manner, or
attempting to make or cause to be made in a defective manner,
national defense material. (Sec. 14)
Espionage distinguished from treason
Espionage is a crime not conditioned by the citizenship of the
offender. (Santos vs. Misa, 76 Phil. 415) This is also true as
regards treason, in view of the amendment to Art. 114
But treason is committed only in time of war, while espionage
may be committed both in time of peace and in time of war.
Treason is limited in two ways of committing the crime: levying
war, and adhering to the enemy giving him aid or comfort; while
espionage may be committed in many ways. (Com. Act No. 616)
Elements:
1. That there is a war in which the Philippines is not involved;
2. That there is a regulation issued by competent authority for
the purpose of enforcing neutrality;
3. That the offender violates such regulation.
A nation or power which takes no part in a contest of arms
going on between others is referred to as neutral.
There must be regulation issued by competent authority
for the enforcement of neutrality
Section Two. — Provoking war and disloyalty in case of war
What are the crimes classified as provoking war and disloyalty
in case of war?
They are:
1. Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals.
2. Violation of neutrality.
3. Correspondence with hostile country.
4. Flight to enemy's country.
Art. 118
INCITING TO WAR OR GIVING MOTIVE FOR REPRISALS
Elements:
1. That the offender performs unlawful or unauthorized acts.
2. That 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.
Examples:
-
-
The raising, without sufficient authorization, of
troops within the Philippines for the service of a
foreign nation against another nation
The public destruction of the flag or seal of a foreign
state or the public manifestations of hostility to the
head or ambassador of another state.
The intention of the offender is immaterial: Viada says that
to be liable for inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals,
the intention of the accused is immaterial.
Art. 120
CORRESPONDENCE WITH HOSTILE COUNTRY
Elements:
1. That it is in time of war in which the Philippines is
involved;
2. That the offender makes correspondence with an enemy
country or territory occupied by enemy troops;
3. That the correspondence is either —
(a) prohibited by the Government, or
(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; or it
may refer to the letters which pass between those who have
friendly or business relations.
Even if correspondence contains innocent matters, if the
correspondence has been prohibited by the Government, it
is punishable because of the possibility that some
information useful to the enemy might be revealed
unwittingly.
The phrases "if such correspondence" or "if notice or
information be given thereby" in paragraphs 2 and 3,
respectively, do not require that there should be prohibition
by the Government to make the correspondence. The word
"such" in paragraph 2 makes reference to the correspondence
mentioned in the opening sentence of Art. 120.
Circumstances qualifying the offense
If the unlawful or unauthorized acts of the accused provoke or
give occasion for a war or expose Filipino citizens to reprisals,
the crime is committed regardless of his intentions. The law
considers the effects produced by the acts of the accused.
Such acts might disturb the friendly relation that we have with
a foreign country, and they are penalized even if they
constitute a mere imprudence.
Further, the crime of inciting to war or giving motives for
reprisals is committed in time of peace.
The following must concur together:
a. That the notice or information might be useful to the
enemy.
b. That the offender intended to aid the enemy.
Note: If the offender intended to aid the enemy by giving such
notice or information, the crime amounts to treason; hence,
the penalty is the same as that for treason.
Art. 121
FLIGHT TO ENEMY’S COUNTRY
If the offender is a private individual, the penalty is prision
mayor. If the offender is a public officer or employee, the
penalty is reclusion temporal.
Art. 119
VIOLATION OF NEUTRALITY
Elements:
1. That there is a war in which the Philippines is involved;
2. That the offender must be owing allegiance to the
Government;
3. That the offender attempts to flee or go to enemy country;
4. That going to enemy country is prohibited by competent
authority.
An alien resident in the country can be held liable under this
article. The law does not say "not being a foreigner." Hence,
the allegiance contemplated in this article is either natural or
temporary allegiance.
It should be noted that mere attempt to flee or go to enemy
country when prohibited by competent authority
consummates the felony.
Art. 121 must be implemented by the Government. If fleeing
or going to an enemy country is not prohibited by competent
authority, the crime defined in Art. 121 can not be committed.
Section Three. — Piracy and mutiny on the high seas in
Philippine waters
Art. 122
PIRACY IN GENERAL AND MUTINY ON THE HIGH SEAS
OR IN PHILIPPINE WATERS
Two ways or modes of committing piracy:
1. By attacking or seizing a vessel on the high seas or in
Philippine waters;
2. By seizing 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.
Elements of piracy:
1. That a vessel is on the high seas or in Philippine waters;
2. That the offenders are not members of its complement or
passengers of the vessel;
3. That the offenders (a) attack or seize that vessel, or (b)
seize the whole or part of the cargo of said vessel, its
equipment or personal belongings of its complement or
passengers.
seizure of a vessel. He claims that he and his companion did
not attack or seize the fishing boat of the Pilapil brothers by
using force or intimidation but merely boarded the boat, and
it was only when they were already on board that they used
force to compel the Pilapils to take them to some other place.
Appellant also 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 complainants to approach that
boat so they could leave the complainants behind in their
boat. Accordingly, appellant claims, he simply committed
grave coercion and not piracy.
Held: We do not agree. 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 complainants
were compelled to go elsewhere other than their place of
destination, such compulsion was obviously part of the act of
seizing their boat.
Mutiny is punished in Art. 122: The last paragraph of this
article provides that the same penalty provided for piracy shall
be inflicted in the case of mutiny on the high seas or in
Philippine waters.
Mutiny is usually committed by the other members of the
complement and may be committed by the passengers of the
vessel.
Mutiny - It is the unlawful resistance to a superior officer, or
the raising of commotions and disturbances on board a ship
against the authority of its commander.
Piracy distinguished from mutiny: In piracy, the persons who
attack a vessel or seize its cargo are strangers to said vessels;
while in mutiny, they are members of the crew or passengers.
While the intent to gain is essential in the crime of piracy, in
mutiny, the offenders may only intend to ignore the ship's
officers or they may be prompted by a desire to commit
plunder.
When is piracy and mutiny considered as Terrorism?
Meaning of "high seas."
It does not mean that the crime be committed beyond the
three-mile limit of any state. It means any waters on the sea
coast which are without the boundaries of low-water mark,
although such waters may be in the jurisdictional limits of a
foreign government.
The Convention on the Law of the Sea defines "high seas" as
parts of the seas that are not included in the exclusive economic
zone, in the territorial seas, or in the internal waters of a state,
or in the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic state.
Piracy - robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas,
without lawful authority and done with animo furandi
(intention to steal) and in the spirit and intention of universal
hostility. (Lol-lo Case)
Seizure of a Vessel
People vs. Catantan
(G.R. No. 118075, September 5, 1997)
Facts: Accused-appellant argues that in order that piracy may
be committed it is essential that there be an attack on or
Under Republic Act No. 9372, otherwise known as the Human
Security Act of 2007, approved on March 6, 2007, a person
who commits an act punishable as piracy and mutiny under
Art. 122 thereby sowing and creating a condition of
widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the
populace, in order to coerce the government to give in to an
unlawful demand shall be guilty of the crime of terrorism, and
shall suffer the penalty of forty (40) years of imprisonment,
without the benefit of parole.
Art. 123
QUALIFIED PIRACY
"Upon those who commit any of the crimes referred to in
the preceding article."
The word "crimes" in the quoted phrase in the opening
sentence of Art. 123, refers to piracy and mutiny on the high
seas. Piracy or mutiny is, therefore, qualified if any of the
following circumstances is present:
(a) Whenever the offenders have seized the vessel by boarding
or firing upon the same;
(b) Whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims
without means of saving themselves;
(c) Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder,
homicide, physical injuries, or rape.
Paragraph 2 of Art. 123 specifically mentions "pirates" thereby
excluding mutineers from said paragraph. It would seem,
however, that it should be in paragraph 1 where the word
"pirates" should be specifically mentioned and not in
paragraph 2, because in paragraph 1, the mutineers, being
already in the vessel, cannot seize the vessel by boarding or
firing upon the same.
Thus, it is qualified piracy when the crime was accompanied
by rape and the offenders abandoned their victims without
means of saving themselves.
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 by the penalty of reclusion
temporal in its medium and maximum periods.
If physical injuries or other crimes are committed as a result or
on the occasion thereof, the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall
be imposed. If rape, murder, or homicide is committed as a
result or on the occasion of piracy or when the offender
abandoned the victims without means of saving themselves,
or when the seizure is accomplished by firing upon or boarding
a vessel, the mandatory penalty of death shall be imposed.
Note: Republic Act 9346 prohibited the imposition of the
death penalty. Thus, instead of the mandatory penalty of
death under PD 532, reclusion perpetua without eligibility
for parole shall be imposed.
P.D. 532 covers any person while Art. 122 as amended covers
only persons who are not passengers or members of its
complement.
It is qualified piracy when the crime was accompanied by
rape and the offenders abandoned their victims without
means of saving themselves
A boat, in which there were eleven men, women and children,
arrived between the islands of Buang and Bukid in the Dutch
East Indies. There the boat was surrounded by six vintas
manned by twenty-four Moros all armed. The Moros first
asked for food, but once on the boat, took for themselves all
of the cargo, attacked some of the men, and brutally violated
two of the women by methods too horrible to be described.
All of the persons on the boat, with the exception of the two
young women, were again placed on it and holes were made
on it, with the idea that it would submerge, but after eleven
days of hardship and privation they were succored. Two of the
Moro marauders were Lol-lo and Saaraw who later returned
to their home in Sulu, Philippines. There they were arrested
and were charged in the Court of First Instance of Sulu with
the crime of piracy.
Held: It cannot be contended with any degree of force that
the Court of First Instance of Sulu was without jurisdiction
on the case. 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. Nor does it matter that the crime
was committed within the jurisdictional 3-mile limit of a
foreign state. The crime of piracy was accompanied by (1)
rape, and (2) the abandonment of persons without means of
saving themselves.
Lol-lo who raped one of the women was sentenced to death,
there being the aggravating circumstance of cruelty, abuse of
superior strength, and ignominy, without any mitigating
circumstance.
Before Art. 122 was amended by R.A. No. 7659, only piracy
and mutiny on high seas was covered by the RPC. The
commission of the acts described in Arts. 122 and/or 123 in
Philippine waters was punished as piracy under P.D. No.
532.
Under P.D. No. 532, 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
To summarize, 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. (People
vs. Tulin, G.R. No. 111709, August 30, 2001)
Piracy under PD 532, when considered as Terrorism: Under
Republic Act No. 9372, otherwise known as the Human
Security Act of 2007, approved on March 6, 2007, a person
who commits an act punishable under Presidential Decree No.
532 (Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974),
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. (Sec. 3)
Qualified piracy is a special complex crime punishable by
reclusion perpetua to death, regardless of the number of
victims: The number of persons killed on the occasion of
piracy is not material. P.D. No. 532 considers qualified piracy,
i.e., rape, murder, or homicide is committed as a result or on
the occasion of piracy, as a special complex crime punishable
by death, regardless of the number of victims. (People vs.
Siyoh, 141 SCRA 356)
Note: Qualified piracy is now punishable by reclusion perpetua
to death.
Philippine waters and vessel, defined.
Philippine Waters. — It shall refer to all bodies of water, such
as but not limited to, seas, gulfs, bays around, between and
connecting each of the Islands of the Philippine Archipelago,
irrespective of its depth, breadth, length or dimension, and all
other waters belonging to the Philippines by historic or legal
title, including territorial sea, the sea-bed, the insular shelves,
and other submarine areas over which the Philippines has
sovereignty or jurisdiction.
Vessel. — Any vessel or watercraft used for transport of
passengers and cargo from one place to another through
Philippine waters. It shall include all kinds and types of vessels
or boats used in fishing.
Any person who knowingly and in any manner aids or protects
pirates, such as giving them information about the movement
of police or other peace officers of the government, or
acquires or receives property taken by such pirates or in any
manner derives any benefit therefrom; or any person who
directly or indirectly abets the commission of piracy, shall be
considered as an accomplice of the principal offenders and
be punished in accordance with the Rules prescribed by the
Revised Penal Code.
It shall be presumed that any person who does any of these
acts has performed them knowingly, unless the contrary is
proven.
Acts inimical to civil aviation is punished by Republic Act No
6235:
EXCERPTS FROM REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6235
An Act Prohibiting Certain Acts Inimical to Civil Aviation
SECTION 1. It shall be unlawful for any person to compel a
change in the course or destination of an aircraft of Philippine
registry, or to seize or usurp the control thereof, while it is in
flight. An aircraft is in flight from the moment all its external
doors are closed following embarkation until any of such
doors is opened for disembarkation.
It shall likewise be unlawful for any person to compel an
aircraft of foreign registry to land in Philippine territory or to
seize or usurp the control thereof while it is within the said
territory.
SEC. 2. Any person violating any provision of the foregoing
section shall be punished by an imprisonment of not less than
twelve years but not more than twenty years, or by a fine of
not less than twenty thousand pesos but not more than forty
thousand pesos.
The penalty of imprisonment of fifteen years to death, or a
fine not less than twenty-five thousand pesos but not more
than fifty thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person
committing such violation under any of the following
circumstances:
1. Whenever he has fired upon the pilot, member of the crew
or passenger of the aircraft;
2. Whenever he has exploded or attempted to explode any
bomb or explosive to destroy the aircraft; or
3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide,
serious physical injuries or rape.
SEC. 3. It shall be unlawful for any person, natural or juridical,
to ship, load or carry in any passenger aircraft operating as a
public utility within the Philippines, any explosive, flammable,
corrosive or poisonous substance or material.
SEC. 4. The shipping, loading or carrying of any substance or
material mentioned in the preceding section in any cargo
aircraft operating as a public utility within the Philippines shall
be in accordance with regulations issued by the Civil
Aeronautics Administration.
SEC. 5. (Meaning of "explosive," "flammable," "corrosive" and
"poisonous")
SEC. 6. Any violation of Section three hereof shall be
punishable by an imprisonment of at least five years but not
more than ten years or by a fine of not less than ten thousand
pesos but not more than twenty thousand pesos: Provided,
That if the violation is committed by a juridical person, the
penalty shall be imposed upon the manager, representative,
director, agent or employee who violated, or caused, directed,
cooperated or participated in the violation thereof: Provided,
further, That in case the violation is committed in the interest
of a foreign corporation legally doing business in the
Philippines, the penalty shall be imposed upon its resident
agent, manager, representative or director responsible for
such violation and in addition thereto, the license of said
corporation to do business in the
Philippines shall be revoked.
Any violation of Section four hereof shall be an offense
punishable with the minimum of the penalty provided in the
next preceding paragraph.
SEC. 7. For any death or injury to persons or damage to
property resulting from a violation of Sections three and four
hereof, the person responsible therefor may be held liable in
accordance with the applicable provisions of the Revised
Penal Code.
The act of the accused in People vs. Ang Cho Kio, 95 Phil.
475, who compelled the pilot to change the course of the
airplane from Laoag to Amoy instead of directing it to Aparri
and, in not complying with such illegal requirement, the
accused discharged various revolver shots, killing him, could
have been punished under Section 2 of Republic Act No. 6235,
had this law been already in effect.