CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II

Crimes Against National Security And The Law Of Nations - Title I

Treason
ART 114

ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a Filipino citizen or an alien resident
2. There’s a war in and Philippines is involved; and
3. Offender either –
a. Levies war against the government; or
b. Adheres to enemies, giving aid or comfort

PERSONS LIABLE:
1. Filipino – permanent allegiance; can commit treason anywhere
2. Alien Residing – temporary allegiance; commit treason only while residing in Philippines

Notes:

Treason committed in a foreign country may be prosecuted in the Philippines. (Art.2, RPC)

Treason by an alien must be committed in the Philippines. (EO 44).

Treason – breach of allegiance to the government by a person who owes allegiance to it.

Allegiance – obligation of fidelity and obedience which individuals owe to the government
under which they live or to their sovereign, in return for protection they receive.

Treason is a war crime - punished by state as a measure of self-protection.

Committed in times of war (not peace) when

- there is actual hostilities
- no need for a declaration of war.

Mere acceptance of public office and discharge of official duties under the enemy do not
constitute per se the felony of treason. But when the position is policy-determining, the
acceptance of public office and the discharge of official duties constitute treason.
WAYS TO COMMIT TREASON:
1. Levying war against government - requires:
a. Actual assembling of men
b. Purpose of executing a treasonable design, by force
2. Adheres to enemies – following must concur together:
a. Actual adherence
b. Give aid or comfort

NOTES:

Levying war - must be with intent to overthrow the government as such, not merely to repeal
a particular statute or to resist a particular officer.

Requirements of levying war

1. Actual assembling of men;
2. To execute a treasonable design by force;
3. Intent is to deliver the country in whole or in part to the enemy; and
4. Collaboration with foreign enemy or some foreign sovereign

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.

Adherence – intellectually or emotionally favors the enemy and harbors sympathies or

convictions disloyal to his country’s policy or interest.

Aid or Comfort – act w/c strengthens or tends to strengthen the enemy of the government in
the conduct of war against the government, or an act w/c weakens or tends to weaken the
power of the government or the country to resist or to attack the enemies of the gov’t or
country

WAYS TO PROVE:
1. Treason
a. Testimony of at least 2 witnesses to the same overt act
b. Judicial confession of accused
2. Adherence
a. One witness
b. Nature of act itself
c. Circumstances surrounding act

Notes:
To convict: testimonies must relate to the same overt act – not two similar acts.

If act is separable – each witness can testify to parts of it; but the act, as a whole, must be
identifiable as an overt act.

Confession must be in open court.

Reason for 2-witness rule

special nature of the crime requires that the accused be afforded a special protection not
required in other cases so as to avoid a miscarriage of justice. Extreme seriousness of the
crime, for which death is one of the penalties provided by law, and the fact that the crime is
committed in abnormal times, when small differences may in mortal enmity wipe out all
scruples in sacrificing the truth.

General Notes:

Inherent circumstances - they do not aggravate the crime.

- Evident premeditation are needed to see this picture.
- superior strength
- treachery

Treason is a continuing crime. Even after the war, offender can still be prosecuted.

No treason through negligence since it must be intentional.

No complex crime of treason with murder – murder is the overt act of aid or comfort and is
therefore inseparable from treason itself.

DEFENSE:
- Duress or uncontrollable fear
- Obedience to de facto government

NOT DEFENSE:
- Suspended allegiance
- Joining the enemy army thus becoming a citizen of the enemy
Conspiracy and Proposal To Commit
Treason
ART. 115.

ELEMENTS – CONSPIRACY:
1. In time of war;
2. Two or more persons come to an agreement to -
    a. levy war against the government, or
    b. adhere to the enemies and to give them aid or comfort
3. They decide to commit it.

ELEMENTS – PROPOSAL:
1. In time of war
2. A person who has decided to levy war against the government,
   or to adhere to the enemies and to give them aid or comfort
3. Proposes its execution to some other person/s.

Notes:

As a general rule, conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony is

not punishable (ART.8). Art 115 is an exception as it specifically
penalizes conspiracy and proposal to commit treason.

Mere agreement and decision to commit treason is punishable.

Two-witness rule – not applicable since this is a crime separate

from treason.

Mere proposal even without acceptance is punishable, too. If the

other accepts, it is already conspiracy.

If actual acts of treason are committed after the conspiracy or

proposal, the crime committed will be treason, and the conspiracy
or proposal is considered as a means in the commission thereof.
Misprision of Treason
ART. 116.

ELEMENTS:
1. Offender owes allegiance to the government
2. Not a foreigner
3. Has knowledge of any conspiracy (to commit treason) against the government
4. He conceals or does not disclose the same to the authorities in w/c he resides.

NOTES:

Offender is punished as an accessory to the crime of treason.

But is actually principal to this crime.

Crime doesn't apply if crime of treason is already committed and it is not reported.

It is a crime of omission.

RPC mentions 4 individuals (i.e. governor, provincial fiscal, mayor or city fiscal), but what if
you report to some other high-ranking government. official?
Ex: PNP Director? Judge Pimentel says any government. official of the DILG is OK..

Misprision of treason is a crime that may be committed only by citizens of the Philippines.

The essence of the crime is that there are persons who conspire to commit treason and the
offender knew this and failed to make the necessary report to the government within the
earliest possible time.

What is required is to report it as soon as possible.

The criminal liability arises if the treasonous activity was still at the conspiratorial stage.

Any person in authority having the equivalent jurisdiction (of a mayor, fiscal or governor),
like a provincial commander, will already negate criminal liability.

Blood relationship is always subservient to national security. Article 20 does not apply here.

Under the Revised Penal Code, there is no crime of misprision of rebellion.

Espionage
ART. 117

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 the advantage of a foreign nation.

MODES of COMMITTING ESPIONAGE:

1. By entering, without authority, a warship, fort, or military or naval establishment or
reservation to obtain any information, plan or other data of confidential nature relative to the
defense of the Philippines.

ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender enters a warship, fort, naval or military establishment or reservation;
2. That he has no authority therefor; and
3. That his purpose is to obtain information, plans, photographs or other data of a
confidential nature relative to the defense of the Philippines.

2. By disclosing to the representative of a foreign nation the contents of the articles, data or
information referred to in the preceding paragraph, which he had in his possession by
reason of the public office he holds.

ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer;
2. That he has in his possession the articles, data or information referred to in the first mode
of committing espionage, by reason of the public office he holds; and
3. That he discloses their contents to a representative of a foreign nation.

 PERSONS LIABLE:
1. First mode:
a. Filipino
b. alien residing
2. Second mode:
a. Offender is a public officer.

NOTES:

Being a public officer is a requirement in the second paragraph

It is aggravating in the first.

Espionage is 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.

Wiretapping is not espionage if the purpose is not connected with the defense.

In the first mode of committing the felony, it is not necessary that the offender succeeds in
obtaining the information.

Inciting To War Or Giving Motives For

Reprisal
ART. 118.

ELEMENTS:
1. Offender performs unlawful or unauthorized acts;
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;

NOTES:

Crime committed in time of  peace.

Intent of the offender is immaterial.

In inciting to war, the offender is any person. If the offender is a

public officer, the penalty is higher.

Reprisals are 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 reprisal.
Violation of neutrality
ART. 119.

Violation of neutrality. - The penalty of prision correccional shall be inflicted upon anyone
who, on the occasion of a war in which the Government is not involved, violates any
regulation issued by competent authority for the purpose of enforcing neutrality.

ELEMENTS:
1. That there is war in which the Philippines is not involved;
2. That there is a regulation issued by competent authority for the purpose of enforcing
neutrality; and
3. That the offender violates such regulation.

NOTES:

This crime is committed only in time of war.

Neutrality of the Philippines that was violated.

There has to be a regulation issued by competent authority for enforcement of neutrality –

offender violated it.

Being a public officer or employee has higher penalty.

Correspondence With Hostile

Country
ART. 120.

ELEMENTS:
1. There’s a war in and 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.
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES:
1. Notice or information might be useful to the enemy.
2. Offender intended to aid the enemy.

NOTES:

 Circumstances qualifying the offense:

     1. notice or information might be useful to the enemy
     2. offender intended to aid the enemy

A hostile country exists only during hostilities or after the declaration of war.

Correspondence to enemy country is correspondence to officials of enemy

country even if said official is related to the offender.

It is not correspondence with private individual in enemy country.

If ciphers were used, no need for prohibition of the government.

If ciphers were not used, there is a need for prohibition of the government.

It is immaterial if correspondence contains innocent matters. If prohibited,

correspondence is punishable.

Flight To Enemy's Country

ART. 121.

ELEMENTS:
1. There’s a war and Philippines is involved;
2. Offender owes 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.

PERSONS LIABLE:
1. Filipino citizen
2. Alien residing in the Philippines
NOTES:

Mere attempt consummates the crime.

There must be a prohibition. If there is none, even if one went to enemy country,
there is no crime.

An alien resident may be held guilty for this crime because an alien owes
allegiance to the Philippine government albeit temporary.

Piracy In General and Mutiny on

the High Seas
ART. 122

Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas. - The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be
inflicted upon any person who, on the high seas, shall attack or seize a vessel or, not being
a member of its complement nor a passenger, shall seize the whole or part of the cargo of
said vessel, its equipment, or personal belongings of its complement or passengers.

PIRACY – MODES TO COMMIT:

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 vessels, its equipment, or personal
belongings of its complement or passengers, the offenders being strangers to the vessels.

PIRACY – it is robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas, without lawful authority and
done with animo furandi and in the spirit and intention of universal hostility.

MUTINY – the unlawful resistance to a superior, or the raising of commotion and

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

ELEMENTS of PIRACY:
1. A vessel is on the high seas or Philippine waters;
2. Offenders – not members of its complement nor passengers of the vessel; and
3. That the offenders –
a. attack or seize vessel (if committed by crew or passengers, the crime is not piracy but
robbery in the high seas), or
b. seize whole or part of vessel’s cargo, equipment, or personal belongings of its
complement or passengers.
NOTES:

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 government; parts
of the sea 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 (United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea).

Philippine waters – 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 waters belonging to the Philippines by historic
or legal title, including the territorial sea, the sea- bed, the insular shelves, and other
submarine areas over which the Philippines has sovereignty and jurisdiction. (Sec. 2, P.D.
No. 532)

Now, Art. 122, as amended by R.A. 7659 Piracy and Mutiny in Philippine waters is
punishable.

Before R. A. 7659 amended Art 122, piracy and mutiny only on the high seas was
punishable. However, the commission of the acts described in Arts. 122 and 123 in
Philippine waters were under P.D. No. 532.

Piracy in high seas – jurisdiction of any court where offenders are found or arrested.

Piracy in internal waters – jurisdiction of Philippine courts.

For purposes of the Anti-Fencing Law, piracy is part of robbery and theft.
Qualified Piracy
ART. 123.

Qualified piracy. - The penalty of reclusion temporal to death shall be imposed upon those
who commit any of the crimes referred to in the preceding article, under any of the following
circumstances:

1. Whenever they have seized a vessel by boarding or firing upon the same;

2. Whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims without means of saving themselves;
or

3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries, or rape.

QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES:
1. Seizure of the vessel by boarding or firing upon the same;
2. Abandonment of victims without means of saving themselves; or
3. Piracy was accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries, or rape.

NOTES: 

If any of the circumstances in Article 123 is present, piracy is qualified.

Parricide/infanticide should be included (according to Judge Pimentel).

There is a conflict between this provision and the provision on rape.

Ex: If rape is committed on someone below 7 yrs. old – penalty is death under the new rape
law. But if rape committed on someone below 7 during the time of piracy – reclusion
perpetua to death.

The murder/rape/homicide/physical injuries must have been committed on the passengers

or on the complement of the vessel.

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.

QUALIFIED PIRACY –  a SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME punishable by reclusión perpetua to

death, regardless of the number of victims.
Murder, rape, homicide, physical injuries are mere circumstances qualifying piracy and
cannot be punished as separate crimes, nor can they be complexed with piracy.

Although Article 123 merely refers to qualified piracy, there is also the crime of qualified
mutiny. Mutiny is qualified under the following circumstances:
(1)When the offenders abandoned the victims without means of saving themselves; or
(2)When the mutiny is accompanied by rape, murder, homicide, or physical injuries.

Note that the first circumstance which qualifies piracy does not apply to mutiny.

Example of Qualified Piracy (2006 Bar Exam)

While the S.S. Nagoya Maru was negotiating the sea route from Hongkong towards Manila,
and while still 300 miles from Aparri, Cagayan, its engines malfunctioned. The Captain
ordered the ship to stop for emergency repairs lasting for almost 15 hours. Due to
exhaustion, the officers and crew fell asleep. While the ship was anchored, a motorboat
manned by renegade Ybanags from Claveria, Cagayan, passed by and took advantage of
the situation. They cut the ship's engines and took away several heavy crates of electrical
equipment and loaded them in their motorboat. Then they left hurriedly towards Aparri. At
daybreak, the crew found that a robbery took place. They radioed the Appari Port
Authorities resulting in the apprehension of the culprits.

What crime was committed? Explain.

Piracy in the high seas was committed by the renegade Ybanags. The culprits who are
neither members of the complement not passengers of the ship, seized part of the
equipment of the vessel while it was three hundred miles away from Aparri, Cagayan.
(Art.122, RPC)

Supposing that while the robbery was taking place, the culprits stabbed a member of the
crew while sleeping. What crime was committed? Explain.

The crime committed is qualified piracy, because it was accompanied by physical

injuries/homicide. The culprits stabbed a member of the crew while sleeping. (Art.123, RPC)
 Crimes Against The Fundamental Laws Of The State - Title II

Arbitrary Detention
ART. 124

Any public officer or employee who, without legal grounds, detains a person, shall suffer;

1. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum
period, if the detention has not exceeded three days;

2. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the detention
has continued more than three but not more than fifteen days;

3. The penalty of prision mayor, if the detention has continued for more than fifteen days but
not more than six months; and

4. That of reclusion temporal, if the detention shall have exceeded six months.

ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee (whose official duties include the
authority to make an arrest and detain persons);
2. That he detains a person; and
3. That it was without legal grounds.

NOTES:

Arbitrary detention is the deprivation by a public officer of the liberty of a person w/o any
legal ground.

Though the elements specify that the offender be a public officer or employee, private
individuals who conspire with public officers can be liable as principals.

Legal grounds for the detention of any person:

a. commission of a crime
b. violent insanity or other ailment requiring compulsory confinement of the patient in a
hospital

Grounds for warrant-less arrest:

a. Crime is about to be, is being, or has been committed;
b. Arresting officer must have personal knowledge that the person probably committed the
crime; or
c. Person to be arrested is an escaped prisoner.
CLASSES OF ARBITRARY DETENTION:
1. By detaining a person without legal ground
2. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities
3. Delaying release

A public officer is deemed such when he is acting within the bounds of his official authority
or function.
   
A police officer who employs force in excess of what is necessary is acting outside the
bounds of his duties and is considered acting in his private capacity.

In a case decided by the Supreme Court a Barangay Chairman who unlawfully detains
another was held to be guilty of the crime of arbitrary detention.
- This is because he is a person in authority vested with jurisdiction to maintain peace and
order within his barangay (Milo v. Salanga,1987).

There must be an actual restraint of liberty of the offended party.

- The crime committed is only grave or light threat if the offended party may still go to the
place where he wants to go, even though there have been warnings.

If the offender falsely imputes a crime against a person to be able to arrest him and appear
not determined to file a charge against him, the crime is arbitrary detention through unlawful
arrest (Boado, Comprehensive Reviewer in Criminal Law).

Rolito Go v. CA is an example of arbitrary detention (Judge Pimentel)

Ramos v. Enrile:
Rebels later on retire. Once you have committed rebellion and have not been punished or
amnestied, the rebels continue to engage in rebellion, unless the rebels renounce their
affiliation. Arrest can be made without a warrant because rebellion is a continuing crime.

                     Arbitrary Detention          Illegal Detention               Unlawful Arrest

1. Offender  Public officer who has      Private person or              Any person.
                    authority to make arrest    Public officer who is
                    detain persons.                  acting in a private
                                                              capacity or beyond the
                                                              cope of his official
                                                              duty.

2. Criminal  Deny the offended           Deny the offended party    Accuse the offended
   Intent       party of his liberty            of his liberty                       party of a crime he
                                                                                                       did not commit, deliver
                                                                                                       him to the proper
                                                                                                       authority and file the
                                                                                                       necessary charges to
                                                                                                      incriminate him.
Bar Exam Question (2003)
Arbitrary Detention; Elements; Grounds (2006)

What are the 3 ways of committing arbitrary detention? Explain each. 

Suggested Answer:

The 3 ways of arbitrary detention are:

1) Arbitrary detention by detaining a person without legal ground committed by any public
officer or employee who, without legal grounds, detains a person (Art. 124, Revised Penal
Code).

2) Delay in the delivery of detained persons tothe proper judicial authorities which is
committed by a public officer or employee who shall detain any person for some legal
ground and shall fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within the
period of: twelve (12) hours, for crimes or offense punishable by light penalties, or their
equivalent;
eighteen hours (18), for crimes or offenses punishable by correctional facilities, or their
equivalent; and thirty-six (36) hours for crimes or offenses punishable by afflictive or capital
penalties, or their equivalent (Art. 125, Revised Penal Code).

3) Delaying release is committed by any public officer or employee who delays the release
for the period of time specified therein the performance of any judicial or executive order for
the release of the prisoner, or unduly delays the service of the notice of such order to said
prisoner or the proceedings upon any petition for the liberation of such person (Art. 126,
Revised Penal Code).

Article 124. Arbitrary detention. - Any public officer or employee who, without legal grounds,
detains a person, shall suffer;

1. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum
period, if the detention has not exceeded three days;

2. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the detention
has continued more than three but not more than fifteen days;

3. The penalty of prision mayor, if the detention has continued for more than fifteen days but
not more than six months; and

4. That of reclusion temporal, if the detention shall have exceeded six months.

Bar Exam Question (2006)

What are the legal grounds for detention? 

Suggested Answer:
The commission of a crime, or violent insanity or any other ailment requiring the compulsory
confinement of the patient in a hospital shall be considered legal grounds for the detention
of any person (Art. 124[2], Revised Penal Code).

Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus

The Writ of Habeas Corpus

The Writ of Habeas Corpus is a writ directed to the person detaining
another, commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner at a
designated time and place, with the day and cause of his caption and detention, to do, to
submit to, and receive whatever the court
or judge awarding the writ shall consider in his behalf.

Purpose
The great object of which is the liberation of those who
may be in prison without sufficient cause.

To What Habeas Corpus Extends

Except as otherwise provided by law, the writ of habeas corpus shall
extend to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any
person is deprived of his liberty, or by which the rightful custody
of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto.

Privilege
It is the right to have an immediate determination of the
legality of the deprivation of physical liberty.

Suspension of the Privilege

In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires
it, the President, may for a period not exceeding 60 days, suspend
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

General Limitations on the power to suspend the privilege

1. Time limit of 60 days
2. Review and possible revocation by congress
3. Review and possible nullification by the Supreme Court.
To Whom Applicable
The Suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to
persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent
in or directly connected with invasion.

Effect on Applicable Persons

During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus
arrested or detained shall be judicially charge within 3 days,
otherwise he shall be released.

What happens if the person arrested or detained is not 

judicially charge nor released after 3 days ?
The Public officer will be liable under Art.125 of the
Revised Penal Code for delay in the delivery of detained person.

Persons suspected of the above crimes can be arrested and detained

without warrant of arrest.

The suspension of the privilege does not make the arrest without
warrant legal. But the military is in effect, enabled to make the
arrest anyway since, with the suspension of the privilege, there
is no remedy available against such unlawful arrest. (arbitrary
detention).

The Crime for which he is arrested must be one related to

rebellion or invasion. As to other crimes, the suspension of the
privilege does not apply.

The Suspension of the privilege of the writ does not impair

the right to bail.

Grounds For Suspending The Privilege Of the Writ Of Habeas Corpus

1. In Case of Invasion or Rebellion
2. When the public safety requires it

Duration
Not to exceed 60 days, following which it shall be lifted,
unless extended by congress.

Ways To Lift The Suspension

1. Lifting by the President himself
2. Revocation by congress
3. Nullification by the Supreme Court
4. By operation of law after 60 days

Duty of the President

Within 48 hours from the proclamation of Martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the
President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the
congress.

Role of Congress
1. Congress convenes
2. Congress may either revoke or extend

The Congress if not in session shall, within 24 hours following

the proclamation or suspension , convene according to its rule
without need of a call.

The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority

of all its members in regular or special session, may revoke
the proclamation or suspension, which the President may not set
aside.

Upon the initiative of the President, the congress may, in the same
manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be
determined by the congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall
persist and public safety requires it.

Role of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court may review in appropriate proceeding filed by
any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of
the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate  its
decision thereof within 30 days from its filing.

1997 Bar Exam Question

Facts:
Claiming they were illegally arrested without any warrant of arrest,
Petitioners sued several officers of the AFP for damages. The
officers of the AFP argued that the action was barred since the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas of corpus
precluded judicial inquiry into the legality of their detention.

Held:
The contention of the AFP officers has no merits.
The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus does
not render valid an otherwise illegal arrest or detention.
What is suspended is merely the right of individual to seek
release from detention through the writ of habeas corpus.

Delay In The Delivery Of Detained

Persons To The Proper Judicial
Authorities
ART. 125.

ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee;
2. That he has detained a person for some legal ground; and
3. That he fails to deliver such person to the proper judicial authority within:
     a. 12 hours, detained for crimes punishable by light penalties, or equivalent;

 b. 18 hours, for crimes punishable by correctional penalties, or their equivalent; or

     c. 36 hours, for crimes/offenses punishable by capital punishment or afflictive penalties,
or their equivalent.

NOTES:

The felony means delay in filing the necessary information or charging of person detained in
court which may be waived if a preliminary investigation is asked for. This does not
contemplate actual physical delivery.

The filing of the information in court beyond the specified periods does not cure illegality of
detention. Neither does it affect the legality of the confinement under process issued by the
court.

To prevent committing this felony, officers usually ask accused to execute a waiver of Art.
125 which should be under oath and with assistance of counsel. Such waiver is not violative
of the constitutional right of the accused.

Contemplates arrest by virtue of some legal ground or valid warrantless arrest.

If arrested by virtue of arrest warrant, person may be detained until case is decided.

LENGTH OF WAIVER:
   - Light offense – 5 days.
   - Serious and less serious offenses – 7 to 10 days.
   - If offender is a private person, the crime is illegal detention.

This is applicable ONLY WHEN the arrest is without a warrant.

At the beginning, the detention is legal since it is in the pursuance of a lawful arrest.
Detention becomes arbitrary when the - applicable period lapses without the arresting
officer filing a formal charge with the proper court.

The periods stated are counted only when the prosecutor’s office is ready to receive the
complaint or information. - Nighttime is NOT included in the period.

CASES:

Sayo v. Chief of Police (1948)

“Deliver” means the filing of correct information with the proper court (or constructive
delivery --- turning over the person arrested to the jurisdiction of the court).
- Purpose is to determine whether the offense is bailable or not.

People v. Tan (1998)

The elements of custodial investigation are:
- The suspect is deprived of liberty in any significant manner;
- The interrogation is initiated by law enforcement authorities;
- The interrogation is inculpatory in character.

Sanchez v. Demetriou (1993)

Where the invitation comes from a powerful group composed predominantly of ranking
military officers and the designated interrogation site is a military camp, the same can be
easily taken, NOT as a strictly voluntary invitation.
- It is an authoritative command that one can only defy at his peril.
Delaying Release
ART. 126: DELAYING RELEASE

ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee;
2. That there is a judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner
   or detention prisoner, or that there is a proceeding upon a petition for
   the liberation of such person; and
3. That the offender without good reason delays:
     a. the service of the notice of such order to the prisoner, or
     b. the performance of such judicial or executive order for the release
        of the prisoner, or
     c. the proceedings upon a petition for the release of such person.

NOTE:

Wardens and jailers are the persons most likely to violate this provision.

Expulsion
ART. 127.

ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee;
2. That he expels any person from the Philippines, or compels a person to change
   his residence; and
3. That the offender is not authorized to do so by law.

ACTS PUNISHABLE:
1. by expelling a person from the Philippines; or
2. by compelling a person to change his residence

NOTES:

Acts punishable:

The crime of expulsion absorbs that of grave coercion. If done by a private

person, act will amount to grave coercion.

Crime does not include expulsion of undesirable aliens, destierro, or when

sent to prison.

If a Filipino who, after voluntarily leaving the country, is illegally refused

re-entry is considered a victim of being forced to change his address.

Threat to national security is not a valid ground to expel or to compel one to

change his address.

The Chief Executive has the power to deport undesirable aliens.

CASES:

Villavicencio v. Lukban (1919)

  The city mayor of Manila committed the crime of expulsion when he ordered
  certain prostitutes to be transferred to Davao WITHOUT observing due processes
  since they have not been charged with any crime.

Marcos v. Manglapus (1989)

  The request or demand of the Marcoses to be allowed to return to the Philippines
  cannot be considered in light solely of the constitutional provisions
  guaranteeing liberty of abode and the right to travel which are neither
  absolute nor inflexible.
    - Considering the unusual circumstances and the attendant national security
      issues, the matter can be appropriately addressed by the residual powers
      of the president which are implicit in and correlative to the paramount duty
      residing in that office to safeguard and protect general welfare.

Violation Of Domicile
ART. 128.

Violation of domicile. - The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be
imposed upon any public officer or employee who, not being authorized by judicial order,
shall enter any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof, search papers or other effects
found therein without the previous consent of such owner, or having surreptitiously entered
said dwelling, and being required to leave the premises, shall refuse to do so.

If the offense be committed in the night-time, or if any papers or effects not constituting
evidence of a crime be not returned immediately after the search made by the offender, the
penalty shall be prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.

ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee;
2. That he is not authorized by judicial order to enter the dwelling and/or to make a search
therein for papers or other effects; and
3. That he commits any of the following acts:
a. entering any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof;
b. searching papers or other effects found therein without the previous consent of such
owner;
c. refusing to leave the premises, after having surreptitiously entered said dwelling and after
having been required to leave the same.

SPECIAL AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:

1. nighttime
2. papers or effects not constituting evidence of a crime are not returned immediately

NOTES:

The judicial order is the search warrant.

If the offender who enters the dwelling against the will of the owner thereof is a private
individual, the crime committed is trespass to dwelling (Art 280).

When a public officer searched a person “outside his dwelling” without a search warrant and
such person is not legally arrested for an offense, the crime committed by the public officer
is either:
- grave coercion if violence or intimidation is used (Art 286), or
- unjust vexation if there is no violence or intimidation (Art. 287)

Public officer without a search warrant cannot lawfully enter the dwelling against the will of
the owner, even if he knew that someone in that dwelling is in unlawful possession of
opium.

Under RULE 113 OF THE REVISED RULES OF COURT a public officer, who breaks into
the premise, incurs no liability WHEN a person to be arrested enters said premise and
closes it thereafter.
- The public officer should have first given notice of an arrest.

According to People vs. Doria (1999) and People vs. Elamparo (2000), the following are the
accepted exceptions to the warrant requirement:
- Search incidental to an arrest;
-   Search of moving vehicles;
-  Evidence in plain view;
-  Customs searches; AND
-  Consented warrantless search.

Stop and frisk is no longer included.

“Against the will” means that the offender ignored the prohibition of the owner which may be
express or implied as when the door is closed even though not locked (Boado,
Comprehensive Reviewer in Criminal Law)

Bar Exam Question (2002)

Violation of Domicile vs Trespass to Dwelling (2002)

What is the difference between violation of domicile and trespass to dwelling? 

Suggested Answer:

The differences between violation of domicile and trespass to dwelling are;

1. The offender in violation of domicile is a public officer acting under color of authority; in
trespass to dwelling, the offender is a private person or public officer acting in a private
capacity.
2. Violation of domicile is committed in 3 different ways:

(1) by entering the dwelling of another against the will of the latter;
(2) searching papers and other effects inside the dwelling without the previous consent of
the owner; or
(3) refusing to leave the premises which he entered surreptitiously, after being required to
leave the premises.

3. Trespass to dwelling is committed only in one way; that is, by entering the dwelling of
another against the express or implied will of the latter.

Search Warrants Maliciously

Obtained
ART. 129.

Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those legally obtained. -
In addition to the liability attaching to the offender for the commission of any other offense,
the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum
period and a fine not exceeding P1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer or
employee who shall procure a search warrant without just cause, or, having legally procured
the same, shall exceed his authority or use unnecessary severity in executing the same.

ACTS PUNISHABLE:
1. procuring a search warrant without just cause
    
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee;
2. That he procures a search warrant; and
3. That there is no just cause.

2. exceeding his authority by using unnecessary severity in executing a search warrant

legally procured
    
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee;
2. That he has legally procured a search warrant; and
3. That he exceeds his authority or uses unnecessary severity in executing the same.
NOTES:

Search warrant is valid for 10 days from its date of issue.

If there is no just cause, the warrant is unjustified.

The search is limited to what is described in the warrant, all details must be with set forth
with particularity.

Example of a warrant maliciously obtained:

X was a respondent of a search warrant for illegal possession of firearms. A return was
made. The gun did not belong to X and the witness had no personal knowledge that there is
a gun in that place.

Examples of abuse in service of warrant:

1. X owner was handcuffed while search was going-on.
2. Tank was used to ram gate prior to announcement that a search will be made.
3. Persons who were not respondents were searched.

An exception to the necessity of a search warrant is the right of search and seizure as an
incident to a lawful arrest.

Searching Domicile Without

Witnesses
ART. 130.

ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee;
2. That he is armed with a search warrant legally procured;
3. That he searches the domicile, papers or other belongings of any person; and
4. That the owner, or any member of his family, or two witnesses residing in the same
locality are not present.

NOTES:

Order of those who must witness the search:

   - Homeowner
   - Members of the family of sufficient age and discretion
   - Responsible members of the community
Validity of the search warrant can be questioned only in 2 courts: where issued or where the
case is pending. The latter is preferred for objective determination.

RULE 116: SEARCH AND SEIZURE

A search warrant is an order in writing

   - Signed by a judge
   - Directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal property described
therein and bring it before the court.

Requisites for issuing and search warrant:

   - Probable cause, in connection with one specific offense, to be determined personally by
the judge
       - AFTER examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witness he
may produce
   - Particular description of
   - Place to be searched; AND
   - Things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines

EVEN IF the search warrant is valid there is violation of domicile in the following situations
where:
- The officer exceeded his authority under the search warrant;
- He employed excessive severity or destruction in the house;
- The search was made when the occupants were absent and the search is conducted
without at least 2 witnesses residing in the locality where the search was made

An officer may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house or any part of a
house or anything therein WHEN these circumstances concur:
- He is refused admittance to the place of directed search;
- His purpose is to execute the warrant to liberate himself or any person lawfully aiding him
when unlawfully detained therein;
- He has given notice of his purpose and authority.

The warrant must direct that it be served in the day time.

- HOWEVER, it can be served at any time of the day or night WHEN the affidavit asserts
that the property is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched.

A search warrant shall be valid for ten (10) days from its date.

The officer seizing the property under the warrant must give a detailed receipt for the same
to the lawful occupant of the premises in whose presence the search and seizure were
made.
- In the absence of such occupant, the officer must leave a receipt in the place in which he
found the seized property in the presence of at least two witnesses of sufficient age and
discretion residing in the same locality.

Prohibition, Interruption, and

Dissolution of Peaceful Meetings
ART. 131.

ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. He performs any of the following acts:
a. prohibiting or interrupting, without legal ground the holding of a peaceful meeting, or
dissolving the same (e.g. denial of permit in arbitrary manner).
b. hindering any person from joining any lawful association or from attending any of its
meetings
c. prohibiting or hindering any person from  addressing, either alone or together with others,
any petition to the authorities for the correction of abuses or redress of grievances.

NOTES:

If the offender is a private individual, the crime is disturbance of public order (Art 153).

Meeting must be peaceful and there is no legal ground for prohibiting, dissolving or
interrupting that meeting.

Offender must be a stranger, not a participant, in the peaceful meeting; otherwise, the
offense is unjust vexation.

Interrupting and dissolving a meeting of the municipal council by a public officer is a crime
against the legislative body and not punishable under this article.

The person talking on a prohibited subject at a public meeting contrary to agreement that no
speaker should touch on politics may be stopped.

But stopping the speaker who was attacking certain churches in public meeting is a violation
of this article.
Those holding peaceful meetings must comply with local ordinances. Example: Ordinance
requires permits for meetings in public places. But if a police stops a meeting in a private
place because there’s no permit, officer is liable for stopping the meeting.

The government has a right to require a permit before any gathering could be made.
HOWEVER, the government only has regulatory, NOT PROHIBITORY, powers with regard
to such requirement.

The permit should state the day, time,and place of the gathering.

If the permit is denied arbitrarily, OR the officer dictates the place where the meeting is to
be held, this article is VIOLATED.

If in the course of the assembly, which started out peacefully, the participants committed
illegal acts like oral defamation or inciting to sedition, a public officer or law enforcer can
stop or dissolve the meeting.

Two criteria to determine whether this article would be violated:

- Dangerous tendency rule applicable in times of national unrest such as to prevent coup
d’etat.
- Clear and present danger rule – applied in times of peace. Stricter rule.

Interruption Of Religious Worship

ART. 132.

ELEMENTS:
1. That the officer is a public officer or employee;
2. That religious ceremonies or manifestations of any religion are about to
   take place or are going on; and
3. That the offender prevents or disturbs the same.

NOTES:

Qualifying circumstances:
1. violence; or
2. threats.
Reading of Bible and then attacking certain churches in a public plaza is not a
ceremony or manifestation of religion, but only a meeting of a religious sect.
But if done in a private home, it’s a religious service.

Religious Worship includes people in the act of performing religious rites for
a religious ceremony or a manifestation of religion.
   Examples: Mass, baptism, marriage

X, a private person, boxed a priest while the priest was giving homily and
maligning a relative of X. Is X liable? X may be liable under Art 133
(Offending religious feelings) because X is a private person.

Qualified if committed by violence or threat.

Offending Religious Feelings

ART. 133.

ELEMENTS:
1. Acts complained of were performed –
    a. in a place devoted to religious feelings, or
    b. during the celebration of any religious ceremony
2. Acts must be notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful;
3. Offender is any person; and
4. There’s a deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the faithful, directed against
   religious tenet.

NOTES:

If in a place devoted to religious purpose, there is no need for an ongoing

religious ceremony.

Example of religious ceremony (acts performed outside the church):Processions

and special prayers for burying dead persons but NOT prayer rallies.

Acts must be directed against religious practice or dogma or ritual for the
purpose of ridicule, as mocking or scoffing or attempting to damage an
object of religious veneration.
There must be deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the faithful, mere arrogance
or rudeness is not enough.

CASES:

1. People v. Baes (1939)

    An act is NOTORIOUSLY OFFENSIVE to the religious feelings when a person:
      - ridicules or makes light of anything constituting a religious dogma
      - works or scoffs at anything devoted to religious ceremonies
      - plays with or damages or destroys any object or veneration by the faithful

    Whether Or Not an act is offensive to the religious feelings, is a question of

    fact which must be adjudged only according to the feelings of the Catholics and
    not those of other faithful ones.
        What happened in this case was that a Catholic priest complained against a group
        that passed by the churchyard as they were holding the funeral rites of a
        Church of Christ member.

    Laurel Dissent: The determination should NOT be made to depend upon more or less
    broad or narrow conception of any given religion. Facts and circumstances should be  
    viewed through an unbiased judicial criterion.
        This later became the majority decision in People v. Tengson.

2.People v. Nanoy
    The crime is only UNJUST VEXATION when the act is NOT directed to the religious
    belief itself and there is no intention of causing so serious a disturbance as
    to interrupt a religious ceremony.

Crimes Against Public Order - Title III

Coup d’ etat
Art. 134-A.

Coup d'etat; How committed. - The crime of coup d'etat is a swift attack accompanied by
violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, directed against duly constituted authorities
of the Republic of the Philippines, or any military camp or installation, communications
network, public utilities or other facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession
of power, singly or simultaneously carried out anywhere in the Philippines by any person or
persons, belonging to the military or police or holding any public office of employment with
or without civilian support or participation for the purpose of seizing or diminishing state
power. (As amended by R.A. 6968).

ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a person or persons belonging to the military, or police or holding any public
office or employment,
2. Committed by means of swift attack, accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat,
strategy or stealth;
3. Directed against:
a. duly constituted authorities of the Philippines
b. any military camp or installation
c. communication networks, public utilities or other facilities needed for the exercise and
continued possession of power
4. For the purpose of seizing or diminishing state power.

PERSONS LIABLE:
1. Any person who leads or in any manner directs or commands others to undertake coup
d’etat (leaders);
2. Any person in the government service who participates or executes directions or
commands of others in undertaking coup d’etat (participants from government);

3. Any person not in the government service who participates, or in any manner, supports,
finances, abets, or aids in undertaking a coup d’etat (participants not from government); and

4. Any person who in fact directed the others, spoke for them, signed receipts and other
documents issued in their name, or performed similar acts, on behalf of the rebels (deemed
leader if leader is unknown)

Notes:

Essence of the crime: Swift attack against the government, its military camps an
installations, etc.

It may be committed singly or collectively.

Requires as a principal offender a member of the AFP, PNP, or a public officer with or
without civilian support.

Objective: To destabilize, immobilize, or paralyze the existing government by taking over

such facilities essential to the continued exercise of governmental powers.

Committed through force, violation, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth.

Mere silence or omission is not punishable.

If under the command of unknown leaders, any person who spoke for, signed receipts and
other documents issued in their name on behalf of the rebels shall be deemed a leader.

Not a defense: The accused did not take the oath of allegiance to, or that they never
recognized the government.

Question: What is a political crime?

Answer: Those directly aimed against the political order; includes common crimes
committed to achieve a political purpose. Decisive factor: Intent.

coup d' etat

Bar Exam Question (2005)

Art 134-A: Coup d’ etat & Rape; Frustrated (2005)

Taking into account the nature and elements of the felonies of coup d’ etat and rape, may
one be criminally liable for frustrated coup d’ etat or frustrated rape? Explain. (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, one cannot be criminally liable for frustrated coup d’ etat or frustrated rape because in
coup d’ etat the mere attack directed against the duly constituted authorities of the Republic
of the Philippines, or any military camp or installation, communication networks, public
utilities or other facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of power would
consummate the crime. The objective may not be to overthrow the government but only to
destabilize or paralyze the government through the seizure of facilities and utilities essential
to the continued possession and exercise of governmental powers.

On the other hand, in the crime of rape there is no frustrated rape it is either attempted or
consummated rape. If the accused who placed himself on top of a woman, raising her skirt
and unbuttoning his pants, the endeavor to have sex with her very apparent, is guilty of
Attempted rape. On the other hand, entry on the labia or lips of the female organ by the
penis, even without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina, consummates the
crime of rape. More so, it has long abandoned its "stray" decision in People vs. Erina 50
Phil 998 where the accused was found guilty of Frustrated rape.

Article 134-A. Coup d'etat; How committed. - The crime of coup d'etat is a swift attack
accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, directed against duly
constituted authorities of the Republic of the Philippines, or any military camp or installation,
communications network, public utilities or other facilities needed for the exercise and
continued possession of power, singly or simultaneously carried out anywhere in the
Philippines by any person or persons, belonging to the military or police or holding any
public office of employment with or without civilian support or participation for the purpose of
seizing or diminishing state power. (As amended by R.A. 6968).

Bar Exam Question (2002)

If a group of persons belonging to the armed forces makes a swift attack, accompanied by
violence, intimidation, and threat against a vital military installation for the purpose of seizing
power and taking over such installation, what crime or crimes are they guilty of?

Suggested Answer:

The perpetrators, being persons belonging to the Armed Forces, would be guilty of the
crime of coup d'etat, under Article 134-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, because
their attack was against vital military installations which are essential to the continued
possession and exercise of governmental powers, and their purpose is to seize power by
taking over such installations.

B. If the attack is quelled but the leader is unknown, who shall be deemed the leader
thereof?

Suggested Answer:

The leader being unknown, any person who in fact directed the others, spoke for them,
signed receipts and other documents issued in their name, or performed similar acts, on
behalf of the group shall be deemed the leader of said coup d'etat (Art 135, R.P.C.)

Bar Exam Question (1998)

Art 134-A; Coup d’etat; New Firearms Law (1998)

1. How is the crime of coup d'etat committed?

2. Supposing a public school teacher participated in a coup d'etat using an unlicensed
firearm. What crime or crimes did he commit?

Suggested Answer:

1. The crime of coup d'etat is committed by a swift attack, accompanied by violence,

intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth against the duly constituted authorities of the
Republic of the Philippines, military camps and installations, communication networks,
public utilities and facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of power,
carried out singly or simultaneously anywhere in the Philippines by persons belonging to the
military or police or holding public office, with or without civilian support or participation, for
the purpose of seizing or diminishing state power. (Art 134-A, RPC).

2. The public school teacher committed only coup d'etat for his participation therein. His use
of an unlicensed firearm is absorbed in the coup d'etat under the new firearms law (Rep.
Act No. 8294).

Penalty For Rebellion, Insurrection Or

Coup D' Etat
ART. 135.

WHO ARE LIABLE AND PENALTIES:

REBELLION:
1. Leaders – reclusion perpetua
2. Participants – reclusion temporal
3. Deemed leader – reclusion perpetua

COUP D’ETAT:
1. Leaders – reclusion perpetua
2. Participants (gov’t) – reclusion temporal
3. Participants (not gov’t) – prision mayor
4. Deemed leader – reclusion perpetua

Question: What is a political crime?

Answer: Those directly aimed against the political order; includes common crimes
committed to achieve a political purpose. Decisive factor: Intent.

Not a defense: The accused did not take the oath of allegiance to, or that they
never recognized the government.

If under the command of unknown  leaders, any person who spoke for,
signed receipts and other documents issued in their name on behalf of the
rebels shall be deemed a leader.

Mere silence or omission is not punishable.

Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit

Rebellion, Coup d'etat or Insurrection
ART. 136.

Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d'etat, rebellion or insurrection. - The conspiracy

and proposal to commit coup d'etat shall be punished by prision mayor in minimum period
and a fine which shall not exceed eight thousand pesos (P8,000.00).

The conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection shall be punished

respectively, by prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine which shall not
exceed five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) and by prision correccional in its medium period
and a fine not exceeding two thousand pesos (P2,000.00). (As amended by R.A. 6968,
approved October 24, 1990).

ELEMENTS OF CONSPIRACY:
1. Two or more persons come to an agreement to rise publicly and take arms against the
government;
2. For any of the purposes of rebellion; and
3. They decide to commit it.

ELEMENTS OF PROPOSAL:
1. A person who has decided to rise publicly and take arms against the government;
2. For any of the purposes of rebellion; and
3. Proposes its execution to some other person/s.

NOTES:

Conspiracy - when two or more persons come to an agreement to rise publicly and take
arms against government for any of the purposes of rebellion and decide to commit it.
Proposal - when the person who has decided to rise publicly and take arms against the
government for any of the purposes of rebellion proposes its execution to some other
person or persons.

Organizing a group of soldiers, soliciting membership in, and soliciting funds for the
organization show conspiracy to overthrow the government.

The mere fact of giving and rendering speeches favoring Communism would not make the
accused guilty of conspiracy if there is no evidence that the hearers then and there agreed
to rise up in arms against the government.

The advocacy of Communism or Communistic theory is not a criminal act of conspiracy

unless converted into advocacy of action.

People vs. Hernandez

Only when the Communist advocates action and actual uprising, war or otherwise, does he
become guilty of conspiracy to commit rebellion.

Bar Exam Question (1994)

Art 136; Conspiracy to Commit Rebellion (1994)

VC, JG. GG and JG conspired to overthrow the Philippine Government. VG was recognized
as the titular head of the conspiracy. Several meetings were held and the plan was
finalized. JJ, bothered by his conscience, confessed to Father Abraham that he, VG, JG
and GG have conspired to overthrow the government. Father Abraham did not report this
information to the proper authorities. Did Father Abraham commit a crime? If so, what crime
was committed? What is his criminal liability?

Suggested Answer:

No, Father Abraham did not commit a crime because the conspiracy involved is one to
commit rebellion, not a conspiracy to commit treason which makes a person criminally liable
under Art 116, RPC. And even assuming that it will fall as misprision of treason, Father
Abraham is exempted from criminal liability under Art. 12, par. 7, as his failure to report can
be considered as due to "insuperable cause", as this involves the sanctity and inviolability of
a confession. Conspiracy to commit rebellion results in criminal liability to the co-
conspirators, but not to a person who learned of such and did not report to the proper
authorities (US vs. Vergara, 3 Phil. 432; People vs. Atienza. 56 Phil. 353).

Disloyalty Of Public Officers Or Employees

ACTS PUNISHABLE:
1. Failing to resist rebellion by all the means in their power; or
2. Continuing to discharge the duties of their offices under the control of rebels; or
3. Accepting appointment to office under rebels.

NOTES:

There must be actual rebellion for this crime to be committed.

It must not be committed in conspiracy with rebels or coup plotters for this crime
to be committed.

If position is accepted in order to protect the people, not covered by this article.

The crime presupposes rebellion committed by other persons.

Offender must not be in conspiracy with the rebels.

Effect of conspiracy: Public officer is himself guilty of rebellion.

Inciting To Rebellion Or Insurrection

ART. 138.

ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender does not take arms or is not in open hostility against the government;
2. That he incites others to the execution of any of the acts of rebellion; and
3. That the inciting is done by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems,
   banners or other representations tending to the same end.

NOTES:

Inciting must have been intentionally calculated to seduce others to rebellion.

In both proposal to commit rebellion and in inciting to rebellion, rebellion should

not actually be committed by the persons to whom it was proposed, or who
were incited. If they commit rebellion because of the proposal or incitement, the
proponent, or the one inciting may become a principal by inducement in
the crime of rebellion.

Can only be committed by civilians who do not take part therein.

NOTE: In both, the crime of rebellion should not be actually committed by the
persons to whom it is proposed or who are incited; otherwise, they become
principals by inducement in the crime of rebellion.

Sedition
ART. 139.

ELEMENTS:
1. That the offenders rise –
   a. Publicly; and
   b. Tumultuously;
2. That they employ force, intimidation, or other means outside of legal methods; and
3. That the offenders employ any of those means to attain any of the following objects:
a. to prevent the promulgation or execution of any law or the holding of any popular
election;
b. to prevent the national government, or any provincial or municipal government, or any
public officer thereof from freely exercising its or his functions, or prevent the execution of
any administrative order;
c. to inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of any public officer or
employee;
d. to commit for any political or social end, any act of hate or revenge against private
persons or any social class; or
e. to despoil, for any political or social end, any person, municipality or province, or the
national government of all its property or any part thereof.

NOTES:

People vs.Perez
Sedition is the raising of commotions or disturbances in the State. Its ultimate object is a
violation of the public peace or at least such a course of measures as evidently engenders
it.

People v. Umali
Common crimes are not absorbed in sedition.

People v Cabrera
   - Definition of Sedition: The raising of commotions or disturbance in the State
   - No distinction! It is not necessary that the offender be a private citizen and the offended
party a public functionary.

Tumultuous uprising means that it is caused by more than 3 persons who are armed or
provided w/ means of violence.

In sedition, offender may be a private or public person.

Preventing election through legal means is NOT sedition.

If the purpose of the offenders is to attain the objects of rebellion or sedition by force or
violence, but there is no public uprising, the crime committed is direct assault.

There is conspiracy to commit sedition (Art. 141) but no proposal to commit sedition.

Definition of Tumultuous: If caused by more than three persons who are armed or provided
with the mans of violence.

The purpose of this crime is not the overthrow of the government but the violation of public
peace.

Under R.A. 8294, sedition absorbs the use of unlicensed firearm as an element thereof;

hence, not aggravating, and the offender can no longer be prosecuted for illegal possession
of firearm. (Boado, Comprehensive Reviewer in Criminal Law).
Penalty For Sedition Person Liable
ART. 140.

1. leader of the sedition, and

2. other persons participating in the sedition.

Can there be a complex crime of coup d’etat with sedition?

   - YES, coup d’etat can be complexed with sedition because the two crimes are
     essentially different and distinctly punished under the Revised Penal Code.
     Sedition may not be directed against the Government or non-political in objective,
     whereas coup d’etat is always political in objective as it is directed against the
     Government and led by persons or public officer holding public office belonging
     to the military or national police. Art. 48 of the Code may apply under the
     conditions therein provided. (2003 Bar Examinations)

   - ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
     The crime of coup d'etat cannot be complexed with the crime of rebellion
     because both crimes are directed against the Government or for political
     purposes, although the principal offenders are different. The essence may be the
     same and thus constitute only one crime. In this situation, the two crimes are
     not distinct and therefore, may not be proper to apply Article 48 of the Code

Conspiracy To Commit Sedition

ART. 141.

NOTE: 

There must be an agreement and a decision to rise publicly and tumultuously to

attain any of the objects of sedition in order to constitute crime of
conspiracy to commit sedition.

In this crime, there must be an agreement and a decision to rise

publicly and tumultuously to attain any of the objects of sedition.

There is no proposal to commit sedition.

Persons conspiring to commit the crime of sedition shall be punished by prision

correccional in its medium period.
Inciting to Sedition
Art. 142.

Inciting to sedition. - The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine
not exceeding 2,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, without taking any
direct part in the crime of sedition, should incite others to the accomplishment of any of the
acts which constitute sedition, by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems,
cartoons, banners, or other representations tending to the same end, or upon any person or
persons who shall utter seditious words or speeches, write, publish, or circulate scurrilous
libels against the (Government of the United States or the Government of the
Commonwealth of the Philippines) or any of the duly constituted authorities thereof, or
which tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing the functions of his office, or
which tend to instigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes, or which
suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots, or which lead or tend to stir up the people
against the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of the community, the safety and order
of the Government, or who shall knowingly conceal such evil practices. (Reinstated by E.O.
No. 187).

ACTS PUNISHABLE:
1. Inciting others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute sedition by
means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems etc.
2. Uttering seditious words or speeches which tend to disturb the public peace;
3. Writing, publishing, or circulating scurrilous [vulgar, mean, libelous] libels against the
government or any of the duly constituted authorities thereof, which tend to disturb the
public peace; or
4. Knowingly concealing such evil practices.

ELEMENTS of ACT 1:
1. That the offender does not take a direct part in the crime of sedition;
2. That he incites others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute sedition;
and
3. That the inciting is done by means of speeches, proclamations, writing, emblems,
cartoons, banners, or other representations tending to the same end.

Acts No. 2 and No.3 Punishable when:

1. They tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing the functions of his office
2. They tend to instigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes
3. They suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots
4. They lead or tend to stir up the people against the lawful authorities or disturb the peace
of the community, and the safety and order of the government.

UTTERING AND WRITING PUNISHABLE:

1. when they tend to disturb or obstruct any public officer in executing the functions of his
office; or
2. when they tend to instigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes; or
3. when they suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots; or
4. when they lead or tend to stir up the people against the lawful authorities or to disturb the
peace of the community, the safety and order of the government.

3 RULES RELATIVE TO SEDITIOUS WORDS:

1. Dangerous Tendency rule
2. Clear and Present Danger rule
3. Balance of Interests rule

Only non-participant in sedition may be liable.

Considering that the objective of sedition is to express protest against the government and
in the process creating hate against public officers, any act that will generate hatred against
the government or a public officer concerned or a social class may amount to Inciting to
Sedition. Article 142 is, therefore, quite broad.

Tests relative to seditious words:

Clear and Present Danger, and Dangerous Tendency

US v Tolentino
The manifest, unmistakable tendency of the play, in view of the time, place, and manner of
its presentation, was to inculcate a spirit of hatred and enmity against the American people
and the Government of the US in the Philippines.

Acts Tending To Prevent The Meeting Of

The Assembly And Similar Bodies
.

ART. 143.

ELEMENTS:
1. A projected or actual meeting of Congress or any of its committees or subcommittees,
    constitutional commissions or committees or divisions thereof, or of any provincial
    board or city or municipal council or board; and
2. That the offender who may be any person prevents such meeting by force or fraud.

NOTE: 

Chief of Police and mayor who prevented the meeting of the municipal council are
liable under Art. 143, when the defect of the meeting is not manifest
and requires an investigation before its existence can be determined.
Disturbance Of Proceedings
ART. 144.

ELEMENTS:
1. An actual meeting of Congress or any of its committees, constitutional commissions or
   committees or divisions thereof, or of any provincial board or city or municipal
   council or board; and
2. That the offender does any of the following acts
     a. he disturbs any of such meetings
     b. he behaves while in the presence of any such bodies in such a manner as to
        interrupt its proceedings or to impair the respect due it.

NOTE: 

Complaint may be filed by a member of the legislative body.

One who disturbs may also be punished for contempt by Congress.

Violation Of Parliamentary Immunity

ARTICLE 145.

ACTS PUNISHABLE:
1. By using force, intimidation, threats, or fraud to prevent any member of Congress
   from attending the meeting of the assembly or any of its committees, constitutional
   commissions or committees or divisions thereof, or from expressing his opinions or
   casting his vote.

   ELEMENTS:
    1. Offender uses force, intimidation, threat or fraud
    2. Purpose is to prevent any member of Congress from:
        a. Attending the said meetings;
        b. Expressing his opinions; or
        c. Casting his vote.

2. By arresting or searching any member thereof while Congress is in a regular or

   special session, except in case such member has committed a crime punishable
   under the code by a penalty higher than prision mayor.

   ELEMENTS:
    1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
    2. He arrests or searches any member of Congress
    3. Congress, at the time of arrest or search is in regular or special session
    4. member arrested o searched hasn’t committed a crime by a penalty prision mayor or
higher.

NOTES:

Parliamentary immunity does not mean exemption from criminal liability, except
from a crime that may arise from any speech that the member of Congress may deliver on
the floor during regular or special session.

To be consistent with the 1987 Constitution, the phrase “by a penalty higher than prision
mayor” in Art. 145 should be amended to read “by the penalty of prision mayor or higher.”

Parliamentary immunity does not protect members of Congress from responsibility

before Congress itself.

1987 Constitution:
Members of Congress not liable for offenses punishable by a penalty less than
prision mayor (6 yrs and 1 day to 12 yrs), while Congress is in session.

Illegal Assemblies
ART. 146.

2 TYPES OF ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES:

  1. Meeting attended by armed persons for the purpose of committing any of the crimes
     punishable under the Revised Penal Code;
       REQUISITES:
         1. There’s a meeting – gather or group of persons whether fixed or moving;
         2. Meeting is attended by armed persons
         3. The Purpose of meeting is to commit any of the crimes punishable under the RPC.

  2. A meeting in w/c the audience is incited to the commission of the crimes of treason,
     rebellion or insurrection, sedition or assault upon a person in authority or his
     agent.
       REQUISITES:
         1. There’s a meeting – gather or group of persons whether fixed or moving;
         2. Audience whether armed or not is incited to the commission of the
            crime of treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition or direct assault.

WHEN A PERSON CARRIES UNLICENSED FIREARM IN THE 1st ASSEMBLY:

1. Presumed that the purpose of meeting is to commit any crime under RPC
2. Presumed that the one in possession of unlicensed firearm is the leader or organizer
   of the meeting
NOTES:

Not all the persons present at the meeting of the first form of illegal assembly need
to be armed.

Persons liable for illegal assembly:

   - the organizers or leaders of the meeting
   - persons merely present at the meeting (except when presence is out of curiosity –
     not liable)

Presumptions if a person carried an unlicensed firearm:

   1. The purpose of the meeting insofar as he is concerned is to commit acts
      punishable under the RPC
   2. He is considered a leader or organizer of the meeting. (Note: Not all persons
      present at the meeting of the first form of illegal assembly must be armed.)

Illegal Associations
ARTICLE 147.

2 KINDS OF ILLEGAL ASSOCIATIONS:

   1. Organizations totally or partially organized for the purpose of committing
      any of the crimes in RPC; or
   2. For some purpose contrary to public morals.

PERSONS LIABLE:
1. founders, directors and president of the association; and
2. mere members of the association

Public Morals - matters which affect the interest of society and public
convenience and is not limited to good customs.
Direct Assault
ART. 148.

Direct assaults. - Any person or persons who, without a public uprising, shall employ force
or intimidation for the attainment of any of the purpose enumerated in defining the crimes of
rebellion and sedition, or shall attack, employ force, or seriously intimidate or resist any
person in authority or any of his agents, while engaged in the performance of official duties,
or on occasion of such performance, shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its
medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding P1,000 pesos, when the assault is
committed with a weapon or when the offender is a public officer or employee, or when the
offender lays hands upon a person in authority. If none of these circumstances be present,
the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding P500
pesos shall be imposed.

2 WAYS TO COMMIT DIRECT ASSAULT:

1. Without public uprising, by employing force or intimidation for attainment of any of the
purposes enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and sedition (first form)

ELEMENTS:
1. Offender employs  force or intimidation;
2. Aim of offender is to attain any of the purposes of the crime of rebellion and sedition; and
3. That there is no public uprising.

2. Without public uprising, by attacking, by employing force or by seriously intimidating or by

seriously resisting any person in authority or any of his agents, while engaged in the
performance of official duties, or on occasion of such performance. (second form)

ELEMENTS:
1. Offender
(a) makes an attack,
(b) employs force,
(c) makes a serious intimidation, or
(d) makes a serious resistance;
2. Person assaulted is a person in authority or his agent;
3. At the time of the assault the person in authority or his agent
a. is engaged in the actual performance of official duties (motive is not essential); or
b. is assaulted by reason of the past performance of official duties (motive is essential);
4. That the offender knows that the one he is assaulting is a person in authority or his agent
(with intention to offend, injure or assault); and
5. No public uprising.

NOTES:

General Rule: Direct assault is always complexed with the material consequence of the act
(Ex. direct assault with murder).
Exception: If resulting in a light felony, the consequent crime is absorbed.

The force employed need not be serious when the offended party is a person in authority
(Ex. Laying of hands).

The intimidation or resistance must be serious whether the offended party is an agent-only

or a person in authority (Ex. Pointing a gun).

A person in authority is any person directly vested with jurisdiction (power or authority to
govern and execute the laws) whether as an individual or as a member of some court or
governmental corporation, board, or commission.

Examples: A barangay captain, a Division Superintendent of Schools, President of Sanitary

Division and a teacher.

An agent is one who, by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by

competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and
security of life and property.

Examples: Barrio councilman and any person who comes to the aid of the person in
authority, policeman, municipal treasurer, postmaster, sheriff, agents of the BIR,
Malacañang confidential agent.

Even when the person in authority or the agent agrees to fight, direct assault is still
committed.

When the person in authority or the agent provoked/attacked first, innocent party is entitled
to defend himself and cannot be held liable for assault or resistance nor for physical injuries,
because he acts in legitimate self-defense.

There can be no assault upon or disobedience to one’s authority by another when they both
contend that they were in the exercise of their respective duties.

When assault is made by reason of the performance of his duty there is no need for actual
performance of his official duty when attacked.

Direct assault cannot be committed during rebellion.

Direct assault may be committed upon a private person who comes to the aid of a person in
authority since he is then considered an agent of a person in authority.

Classifications of direct - simple and qualified.

QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES:
1. when the assault is committed with a weapon;
2. when the offender is a public officer or employee; or
3. when the offender lays hand upon a person in authority

The first form of direct assault is tantamount to rebellion or sedition, except that there is no
pubic uprising.

When the assault results in the killing  of that agent or of a person in  authority, there arises
a complex  crime of direct assault with murder or homicide.

The only time when it is not complexed is when material consequence is a light felony, that
is, slight physical injury. Direct assault absorbs the lighter felony.

Resistance or disobedience to an agent of a person in authority is always serious, but to an

agent of a person in authority, it may or may not be serious.

If the public officer is not a person in authority, the assault on him is an aggravating
circumstance in Art. 14, no. 3 (rank).

Teachers, lawyers and heads of schools recognized by government are persons in authority
only for purposes of Art. 152 in relation to Arts. 148 and 151, and in connection with their
duties.

A person in authority includes a barangay chairman and members of the Lupong

Tagapagkasundo as provided under the Local Government Code.
Example of Direct Assault (1995 Bar Examination Question)

On his way to buy a lotto ticket, a policeman suddenly found himself surrounded by four men.
One of them wrestled the police officer to the ground and disarmed him while the other
companions who were armed with a hunting knife, an ice pick, and a balisong, repeatedly
stabbed him. The policeman died as a result of the multiple stab wounds inflicted by his
assailants.

What crime or crimes were committed? Discuss fully.

All the assailants are liable for the crime of murder, qualified by treachery,(which absorbed
abuse of superior strength) as the attack was sudden and unexpected and the victim was totally
defenseless. Conspiracy is obvious from the concerted acts of the assailants. Direct assault would
not complex the crime, as there is no showing that the assailants knew that the victim was a
policeman; even if there was knowledge, the fact is that he was not in the performance of his
official duties, and therefore there is no direct assault.

Bar Exam Question (2001)

Art 148; Direct Assault vs. Resistance & Disobedience

A, a teacher at Mapa High School, having gotten mad at X, one of his pupils, because of the
latter's throwing paper clips at his classmates, twisted his right ear. X went out of the classroom
crying and proceeded home located at the back of the school. He reported to his parents Y and Z
what A had done to him. Y and Z immediately proceeded to the school building and because
they were running and talking in loud voices, they were seen by the barangay chairman, B, who
followed them as he suspected that an untoward incident might happen. Upon seeing A inside the
classroom, X pointed him out to his father, Y, who administered a fist blow on A, causing him to
fall down. When Y was about to kick A, B rushed towards Y and pinned both of the latter's arms.
Seeing his father being held by B, X went near and punched B on the face, which caused him to
lose his grip on Y. Throughout this incident, Z shouted words of encouragement at Y, her
husband, and also threatened to slap A. Some security guards of the school arrived, intervened
and surrounded X, Y and Z so that they could be investigated in the principal's office. Before
leaving, Z passed near A and threw a small flower pot at him but it was deflected by B. 

a) What, if any, are the respective criminal liability of X Y and Z? 

b) Would your answer be the same if B were a barangay tanod only?

Suggested Answer:

a) X is liable for Direct Assault only, assuming the physcal injuries inflicted on B, the Barangay
Chairman, to be only slight and hence, would be absorbed in the direct assault. A Barangay
Chairman is a person in authority (Art. 152, RPC) and in this case, was performing his duty of
maintaining peace and order when attacked. Y is liable for the complex crimes of Direct Assault
With Less Serious Physical Injuries for the fist blow on A, the teacher, which caused the latter to
fall down. For purposes of the crimes in Arts. 148 and 151 of the Revised Penal Code, a teacher
is considered a person in authority, and having been attacked by Y by reason of his performance
of official duty, direct assault is committed with the resulting less serious physical injuries
completed. Z, the mother of X and wife of Y may only be liable as an accomplice to the complex
crimes of direct assault with less serious physical injuries committed by Y. Her participation
should not be considered as that of a co-principal since her reactions were only incited by her
relationship to X and Y. as the mother of X and the wife of Y.

b) If B were a Barangay Tanod only, the act of X of laying hand on him, being an agent of a
person in authority only, would constitute the crime of Resistance and Disobedience under
Article 151, since X, a high school pupil, could not be considered as having acted out of
contempt for authority but more of helping his father get free from the grip of B. Laying hand on
an agent of a person in authority is not ipso facto direct assault, while it would always be direct
assault if done to a person in authority in defiance to the latter is exercise of authority.

Bar Exam Question (2002)

Art 148; Direct Assault; Teachers and Professors (2002)

A, a lady professor, was giving an examination. She noticed B, one of the students, cheating. She
called the student's attention and confiscated his examination booklet, causing embarrassment to
him. The following day, while the class was going on, the student, B, approached A and, without
any warning, slapped her. B would have inflicted further injuries on A had not C, another
student, come to A's rescue and prevented B from continuing his attack. B turned his ire on C
and punched the latter. What crime or crimes, if any, did B commit? Why? 

Suggested Answer:
B committed two (2) counts of direct assault: one for slapping the professor, A, who was then
conducting classes and thus exercising authority; and another one for the violence on student C,
who came to the aid of the said, professor. By express provision of Article 152, in relation to
Article
148 of the Revised Penal Code, teachers, and professors of public or duly recognized private
schools, colleges and universities in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the
occasion of such performance are deemed persons in authority for purposes of the crimes of
direct assault and of resistance and disobedience in Articles 148 and 151 of said Code. And any
person who comes to the aid of persons in authority shall be deemed an agent of a person in
authority. Accordingly, the attack on C is, in the eyes of the law, an attack on an agent of a
person in authority, not just an attack on a student.

Bar Exam Question (2000)

Complex Crime; Direct Assault with murder (2000)

Because of the approaching town fiesta in San Miguel, Bulacan, a dance was held in Barangay
Camias. A, the Barangay Captain, was invited to deliver a speech to start the dance. While A was
delivering his speech. B, one of the guests, went to the middle of the dance floor making obscene
dance movements, brandishing a knife, and challenging everyone present to a fight. A
approached B and admonished him to keep quiet and not to disturb the dance and peace of the
occasion. B, instead of heeding the advice of A, stabbed the latter at his back twice when A
turned his back to proceed to the microphone to continue his speech. A fell to the ground and
died. At the time of the incident A was not armed. What crime was committed?
Explain. 

Suggested Answer:

The complex crime of direct assault with murder was committed. A, as a Barangay Captain, is a
person in authority and was acting in an official capacity when he tried to maintain peace and
order during the public dance in the Barangay, by admonishing B to keep quiet and not to disturb
the dance and peace of the occasion. When B, instead of heeding A's advice, attacked the latter,
B acted in contempt and lawless defiance of authority constituting the crime of direct assault,
which characterized the stabbing of A. And since A was stabbed at the back when he was not in
a position to defend himself nor retaliate, there was treachery in the stabbing. Hence, the death
caused by such stabbing was murder and having been committed with direct assault, a complex
crime of direct assault with murder was committed by B.

Bar Exam Question (1995)

Pascual operated a rice thresher in Barangay Napnud where he resided. Renato, a resident
of the neighboring Barangay Guihaman, also operated a mobile rice thresher which he often
brought to Barangay Napnud to thresh the palay of the farmers there. This was bitterly
resented by Pascual, one afternoon Pascual, and his two sons confronted Renato and his
men who were operating their
mobile rice thresher along a feeder road in Napnud. A heated argument ensued. A
barangay captain who was fetched by one of Pascual's men tried to appease Pascual and
Renato to prevent a violent confrontation. However, Pascual resented the intervention of the
barangay captain and hacked him to death. What crime was committed by Pascual?
Discuss fully.

Suggested Answer:

Pascual committed the complex crime of homicide with assault upon a person in authority
(Arts. 148 and 249 in relation to Art, 48, RPC). A barangay chairman, is in law (Art. 152), a
person in authority and if he is attacked while in the performance of his official duties or on
the occasion thereof the felony of direct assault is committed.

Art. 48, RPC, on the other hand, provides that if a single act produces two or more grave or
less grave felonies, a complex crime is committed. Here, the single act of the offender in
hacking the victim to death resulted in two felonies, homicide which is grave and direct
assault which is less grave.

Indirect Assault
ARTICLE 149.

ELEMENTS:
1. The direct assault is committed against an agent of a person in authority;
2. That the offended party comes to the aid of such agent of a person in authority; and
3. That the offender makes use of force or intimidation upon the said offended party.

NOTES:

Indirect assault can be committed only when a direct assault is also being committed.

To be indirect assault, the person who should be aided is the agent and not the person in
authority. In the latter case, it is already direct assault. According to Art 152: The person
coming to the aid of the person in authority is considered an agent and an attack on the
latter is already direct assault.

Art. 152 clothes any person who comes to the aid of a person in authority with the fiction of
an agent of a person in authority. Any assault on him on the occasion of his aiding a person
in authority or his agent in indirect assault.
Disobedience To Summons Issued
By Congress
ARTICLE 150.

ACTS PUNISHABLE:
1. Disobedience w/o legal excuse to summons issued by the Congress or any of
   its committees or subcommittees;
2. Refusal of any person present before a legislative or constitutional body or official to:
    (a) to be sworn or placed under affirmation;
    (b) to answer any legal inquiry; or
    (c) to produce books, documents, records etc. when required to do so by the said
        bodies in the exercise of their functions;
3. Restraining another from attending as witness in such body; or
4. Inducing disobedience to a summons or refusal to be sworn.

Note:

The testimony of a person summoned must be upon matters into which the
legislature has jurisdiction to inquire.

Resistance And Disobedience To A Person In

Authority Or The Agent Of Such Person

ART.151.

ELEMENTS of RESISTANCE and SERIOUS DISOBEDIENCE (par. 1):

1. That a person in authority or his agent is engaged in the performance of official duty or
gives a lawful order to the offender;
2. That the offender resists or seriously disobeys such person in authority or his agent; and
3. That the act of the offender is not included in the provisions of arts. 148, 149, and 150.

ELEMENTS of SIMPLE DISOBEDIENCE (par. 2)

1. That an agent of a person in authority is engaged in the performance of official duty gives
a lawful order to the offender;
2. That the offender disobeys such agent of a person in authority; and
3. That such disobedience is not of a serious nature.

NOTES:
While being arrested and there’s serious resistance, person resisting must know that the
one arresting him is an officer

Picketing (economic coercion) must be lawful otherwise police can disperse them

Disobedience in 2nd par. must not be serious. Otherwise, it will fall under the 1st par.

Resistance mustn’t be serious otherwise it’s direct assault.

The accused must have knowledge that the person giving the order is a peace officer.

Resistance and Disobedience Penalty

The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon
any person who shall resist or seriously disobey any person in authority, or the agents of
such person, while engaged in the performance of official duties.

When the disobedience to an agent of a person in authority is not of a serious nature, the
penalty of arresto menor or a fine ranging from 10 to P100 pesos shall be imposed upon the
offender.

The duration of the penalty of arresto mayor shall be from one month and one day to six
months.

The duration of the penalty of arresto menor shall be from one day to thirty days.
Persons In Authority and Agents of
Persons in Authority
ART.152.

Persons in authority and agents of persons in authority; Who shall be deemed as such. - In
applying the provisions of the preceding and other articles of this Code, any person directly
vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of some court or
governmental corporation, board, or commission, shall be deemed a person in authority. A
barrio captain and a barangay chairman shall also be deemed a person in authority.

A person who, by direct provision of law or by-election or by appointment by competent

authority, is charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of
life and property, such as a barrio councilman, barrio policeman, and barangay leader and
any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority, shall be deemed an agent of a
person in authority.

In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 of this Code, teachers, professors and
persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges
and universities, and lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the
occasion of such performance, shall be deemed persons in authority. (As amended by PD
No. 299, Sept. 19, 1973, and Batas Pambansa Blg. 873, June 12, 1985).

PERSON IN AUTHORITY – any person directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an

individual or as a member of some court or governmental corporation, board, or
commission.
They include:
a. Barangay captain
b. Barangay chairman

For the purposes of Art. 148 and 151:

a. Teachers
b. Professors
c. Persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools,
colleges, and universities
d. Lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the occasion of such
performance

AGENT OF PERSON IN AUTHORITY – any person who, by direct provision of law or by-
election or by appointment by competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of
public order and the protection and security of life and property. They include:
a. Barrio councilman
b. Barrio policeman
c. Barangay leader
d. Any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority

Notes:

Section 388 of the Local Gov’t. Code provides that for purposes of the RPC, the
punong barangay, sangguniang barangay members and members of the lupong
tagapamayapa
in each barangay shall be deemed as persons in authority in their jurisdictions.

Other barangay officials and members who may be designated by law or ordinance and
charged with the maintenance of public order, protection and the security of life, property, or
the maintenance of a desirable and balanced environment, and any barangay member who
comes to the aid of persons in authority shall be deemed agent of persons in authority.

It seems that teachers, professors, lawyers, etc could be considered as persons in authority
not only for Arts. 148 and 151 but also for Art 149 (L.B. Reyes)

Bar Exam Question (2000)

Who are deemed to be persons in authority and agents of persons in authority?

Suggested Answer:

Persons in authority are persons directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or
as a member of some court or government corporation, board, or commission. Barrio
captains and barangay chairmen are also deemed persons in authority. (Article 152, RPC)

Agents of persons in authority are persons who by direct provision of law or by-election or
by appointment by a competent authority, are charged with the maintenance of public order,
the protection, and security of life and property, such as barrio councilman, barrio
policeman, barangay leader and any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority
(Art. 152, RPC), In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 of the Rev. Penal Code,
teachers, professors, and persons charged
with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges and universities,
and lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the occasion of
such performance, shall be deemed persons in authority. (P.D. No. 299, and Batas
Pambansa Blg. 873).

Tumults And Other Disturbances Of Public Order - Tumultuous Disturbance

Or Interruption Liable To Cause Disturbance
ART.153.

TUMULTS AND OTHER DISTURBANCES:

1. Causing any serious disturbance in a public place, office or establishment;
2. Interrupting or disturbing public performances, functions, gatherings or
    peaceful meetings, if the act is not included in Art 131 and 132 (Public Officers
    interrupting peaceful meetings or religious worship);
3. Making any outcry tending to incite rebellion or sedition in any meeting, association
    or public place;
4. Displaying placards or emblems which provoke a disturbance of public order in
    such place;
5. Burying with pomp the body of a person who has been legally executed.

TUMULTUOUS - caused by more than 3 persons who are armed or provided with means of
violence.

NOTES:

If the act of disturbing or interrupting a meeting or religious ceremony is not

committed by public officers, or if committed by public officers who are
participants therein, this article applies. Art 131 and 132 punishes the same acts if
committed by public officers who are not participants in the meeting.

The outcry is merely a public disorder if it is an unconscious outburst which,

although rebellious or seditious in nature, is not intentionally calculated to induce
others to commit rebellion or sedition, otherwise, it is inciting to rebellion or
sedition.

Qualifying circumstance – if it is TUMULTUOUS

Serious disturbance must be planned or intended.

This article applies if the disturbance is not caused by a public officer; or, if
it is committed by a public officer, he is a participant therein.
Unlawful Use Of Means Of Publication And
Unlawful Utterances
ART.154.

Acts Punished:
1. Publishing or causing to be published as news any false news which may endanger the
    public order, or cause damage to the interest or credit of the State
2. Encouraging disobedience to the law or the constituted authorities or by praising,
    justifying or extolling any act punished law, by the same means or by words, utterances
    or speeches
3. Maliciously publishing or causing to be published any official resolution or document
    without authority, or before they have been published officially
4. Printing,publishing or distributing (or causing the same)books,pamphlets, periodicals,
    or leaflets which do no bear the real printer’s name, or which are classified as
    anonymous.

Alarms And Scandal

ART.155.

ACTS PUNISHABLE:
1. Discharging any firearm, rocket, firecracker, or other explosive within any town or
    public place, calculated to cause alarm or danger.
2. Instigating or taking active part in any charivari or other disorderly meeting
    offensive to another or prejudicial to public tranquility.
3. Disturbing the public peace while wandering about at night or while engaged
    in any other nocturnal amusement.
4. Causing any disturbance or scandal in public places while intoxicated or otherwise,
    provided the act is not covered by Art 153 (tumult).

NOTES:

Charivari is a mock serenade or discordant noises made with kettles, tin horns etc.,
designed to deride, insult or annoy.

Firearm must not be pointed at a person, otherwise, it is illegal discharge of firearm

(Art. 254).

What governs is the result, not the intent of the offender.

The crime alarms and scandal is only one crime.

Scandal here does not refer to moral scandal; that one is grave scandal in Article 200.

The essence of the crime is disturbance of public tranquility and public peace.
Any kind of disturbance of public order where the circumstance at the time renders
the act offensive to the tranquility prevailing, the crime is committed.

Definition of charivari: includes a medley of discordant voices, a mock serenade

of discordant noises made on kettles, tin, horns, etc. designed to annoy or insult.