Criminal Law IICriminal Law branch of public law which defines crimes, treats of their nature and provides for their punishment.

Crime is the commission or omission by a person having capacity, of any act, which is either prohibited or compelled by law and the commission and omission

of which is punishable by a proceeding brought in the name of the government whose law has been violated.

Book II Group by titlesTitle I Crimes Against National Security & Laws of the Nations.Title II Crimes Against the Fundamental

Laws of the State.Title III Crimes Against Public OrderTitle IV-Crimes Against Public InterestTitle V- Crimes Relative To Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs (under Special laws)Title VI Crimes Against Public Morals

Title VII Crimes Committed by Public OfficersTitle VIII Crimes Against PersonsTitle IX Crimes Against Personal Liberty and SecurityTitle X- Crimes Against PropertyTitle XI Crimes Against Chastity

Title XII Crimes Against The Civil Status of PersonsTitle XIII Crimes Against HonorTitle XIV Quasi OffensesTitle XV- Final Provisions

ARTICLE 114-TREASON

TREASON is a breach of allegiance, which is an obligation of fidelity and obedience one owes to the government or sovereign under which he lives, in return for the protection he receives (Laurel vs. Misa- 77 Phil. 856).

Persons liable: 1) Filipino citizens owe permanent allegiance. 2) Resident aliens owe temporary allegiance. Modes of committing Treason: 1) Levying war- means an actual assemblage of persons for purposes of

executing a treasonable act. A formal declaration of war is not necessary. Actual hostilities determine the date of the commencement of war (US vs. Lagnason 3 Phil. 495).2) Adhering to the enemy giving them aid or comfort. Adherence to the enemies means that

a citizen intellectually or emotionally favors the enemy and harbors sympathies or convictions disloyal to his countrys policy or interest (Cramer vs. US - 65 SCRA 918). Adherence alone without aid and comfort does not constitute treason, altho it may be inferred from the overt acts of treason committed

(Pp. vs. Icaro- 89 Phil. 12; Pp. vs. Bernardino- 93 Phil. 640). Aid and comfort - means an act which strengthens or tends to strengthen the enemy of the government in the conduct of war against the govt. or an act which weakens or tends to weaken the power of the govt. or the country to resist or attack

the enemies of the govt. or of the country. An act of giving aid and comfort partakes of a deed of physical activity as opposed to mental operation and must be intentional. The amount or degree of said act or comfort given to the enemy as well as the gravity of the separate and distinct acts of treason committed rather than the

circumstances, aggravating or mitigating, attending its commission, determine the degree of the penalty to be imposed (Pp. vs. Cana- 87 Phil. 577). Mere expression of opinion does not constitute treason.

Evidence required for the conviction in Treason: a) testimony of at least two

witnesses of the same overt act; and b) confession of guilt in open court.

As to adherence to enemy does not need at least two witnesses. Such may be proved by the testimony of one witness or from the nature of the act itself, or from the circumstances surrounding the act.

Overt acts of giving aid and comfort must be proved by the testimony of at least two witnesses (Pp. vs. Adriano 44 O.G. 4300). As to confession it must be done in open court. This excludes extra- judicial admission. (U.S. vs. Magtibay 2 Phil. 705).

Furnishing women to the enemy does not constitute treason because such does not directly and materially tend to improve the war efforts of the enemy (Pp. vs. Perez- 64 O.G 4886) . But joining the Japanese soldiers in arresting and torturing suspected guerrillas (Pp. vs. Santos- 87 Phil. 731); being an informer (Pp. vs. Fernando 79 Phil 719);

or service in the Japanese Army (Pp. vs. Munoz, et al.- 79 Phil. 102) constitute the crime of Treason. There is no such defense as suspended allegiance. Is there a complex crime of Treason with Murder No, because such is the overt act of aid and comfort and is therefore

inseparable from treason itself, nor can it be considered a separate crime (Pp. vs. Hernandez 52 O.G. 5506). Is Treason a continuous crime? Yes it may be committed by executing either singly or several intentional overt acts. All overt acts he had done or might have been done for that purpose constitute a single offense (Guinto vs. Veluz -

- 44 O.G. 909). Treason is a war crime . It cannot be committed in time of peace. Treasonable acts may actually be committed during peace time, but there are no traitors until war has started ( Laurel vs. Misa- supra). Treason may be committed in the Philippines or elsewhere.

Penalty - Filipino offenders Reclusion Perpetua to Death or a fine not to exceed P100,000 pesos. - Resident Aliens Reclusion Temporal to Death and a fine not to exceed P100,000 pesos. (As amended by RA 7659).

ARTICLE 115- Conspiracy & Proposal to Commit Treason Article 8 Conspiracy to commit felony when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decided to commit it. Proposal to commit a felony when the person who has decided to commit a

felony proposes its execution to some other persons.

Conspiracy to commit a crime is not a crime exceptions: a) Conspiracy to commit Treason; b) Conspiracy to commit Rebellion, insu., or coup detat and c) Conspiracy to commit

Sedition. Proposal to commit a felony is not also a crime except:1) Proposal to commit Treason 2) Proposal to commit Rebellion, Coup detat or insu. Conspiracy must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.

Penalty: Conspiracy to commit Treason Prision Mayor and a fine not exceeding P10,000;

Proposal to commit Treason Prision Correccional and a fine not exceeding P5,000.

ARTICLE 116- MISPRISION OF TREASON

- It is the failure of the citizen to report as soon as possible a conspiracy, which comes to his knowledge, against the govt. But there must be a war in which the Phil. Govt. is a party. Possible offender is a Filipino ( not a foreigner).

Elements: 1) Offender owes allegiance to the Phil. Govt.; 2) Filipino 3) Has knowledge of a conspiracy to commit Treason against said govt.; & 4) Conceals or fails to disclose the same to the authorities in which he resides.

The offender is a principal of the crime of Misprision of Treason, but he is punished as an Accessory to the crime of Treason. Under Art. 20 relatives who are accessories are exempt from criminal liability. Under this article, this exemption does not apply because of three ( 3 ) reasons:

. 1) this Article is of special application, while Art.20 is of a gen. application. 2) security of the state is more paramount than mere relationship; and 3) the offender commits the distinct crime of Misprision of Treason w/c is a separate and distinct crime.

Article 117-ESPIONAGE This crime is not conditioned by the citizenship of the offender and is anoffense against national security ( Santos vs. Misa 70 Phil. 415).

Elements of act no.1: 1) The offender without any authority enters a warship, fort, naval or military establishment or reservation; and 2) He obtains information, plans, photographs, or other data of a confidential nature relative to the defense

of the Philippines.Elements of act no. 2: 1) The offender is a public officer ; 2) He has in his possession article, data, or information which are confidential relative to the defense of the Phil. Govt.; 3) He discloses their contents to a representative of a foreign nation.

In the first act, it is not necessary that the offender succeeds in obtaining the data.This provision is amended under CA 616 (seven acts ). Distinguish Treason from Espionage: 1) Treason is a war crime; Espionage can be committed in time of peace or war; 2) Treason is committed by person

who owes allegiance to a country; while Espionage can be committed by a foreigner or Filipino.3) Ways of committing the crime are distinct. Penalty - First act Prision Correccional - Second act higher by next degree bec. the offender is a pub.officer.

Article 118 Inciting To War or Giving Motives for Reprisals

Offenders: any person (private individual or public officer)Elements: 1) The offender commits unlawful or unauthorized acts; and

2) Said acts provoke or give occasion for a war involving or liable to involve the Phils. or expose Filipinos to reprisals on their persons or property. This is committed in time of peace. Penalty Prision Mayor if the offender is a private individual; Reclusion Temporal, if the offender is a public officer.

ARTICLE 119 Violation of NeutralityThis is committed in time of war.Offenders: any personElements: 1) There is a war in which the Philippines is not involved; 2) Competent authorities have issued regulations to enforce neutrality; and

3) The offender violates any of said regulations. Penalty Prision CorreccionalArticle 120 CORRESPONDENCE WITH HOSTILE COUNTRY Offenders: any personElements: 1) That there is a war in which the Philippines is involved;

2) That the offender shall have correspondence with an enemy country or territory occupies by enemy troops; and3) That said correspondence is: a) prohibited by the govt. ( Prision Correccional); b) carried on ciphers or conventional signs (Prision Mayor); and c) notice or information be given thereby

which might be useful to the enemy (Reclusion Temporal) or intended by the offender to aid the enemy (Reclusion Temporal to Death). If the act is intended to aid the enemy, this is treasonable in nature, hence the penalty is severe as in Treason, but in proving it, the two-witness rule does not apply.

Article 121-Flight To Enemys Country Offenders: any person Elements: 1) Existence of war in which the Philippines is involved; 2) Offender owes allegiance to the Philippines.; 3) He attempts to flee to enemy country which is prohibited.

Mere attempt to flee is punishable. This can be committed by a foreigner who owes temporary allegiance to the government. Penalty Arresto Mayor

Article 122 PIRACY & MUTINY Piracy is robbery or forcible depre-

dation in the high seas, without lawful authority and done w/ animo furandi and in the spirit & intention of universal hostility (People vs. Lol-lo- 43 Phil. 19). With the amendatory provisions of PD 532 & RA 7659 Piracy & Mutiny now can be committed in Philippine waters. Offenders: Any person who is not a passenger or crew of the vessel.

The offenders are strangers to the vessel. The attack against the vessel comes from the outside but the seizure of the cargo takes place inside the vessel. Seizure may be committed by persons who smuggled themselves into the vessel for that purpose. Since they are not members of the crew nor passengers, they are

therefor strangers .Pirates are in law hostis humani generis. Piracy is a crime not against any particular state but against all mankind. Piracy knows no territorial limits, hence the offender can be tried in the place where he may be found or into which he may be carried. (Pp. vs. Lol-lo supra).

Modes/manner of committing Piracy 1) By attacking or seizing a vessel on the high seas or Philippine waters; and 2) By seizing the whole or part of the cargo or equipment of the vessel while on the high seas or Philippine waters or the personal belongings of its complement or passengers.

High seas waters on the sea coast which are without low water mark, beyond the 12 nautical miles (Archipelagic Doctrine on the Laws of the Conference of the Sea). Meaning of vessels Sec. 2 (b) of PD 532- any watercraft, such as banca or raft or fishing boats.

In PD 532- piracy can be committed by a passenger or member of the complement of said vessel in Phil. waters. However, under the amendatory provision of RA 7659, it is specifically provided that the offender is a person who is not a member of its complement nor a passenger of said vessel Being the latest amendment

the latter should prevail. Piracy is committed whether the vessel is anchored or moving as long as it is committed aboard the vessel, because it can now be committed in Philippine waters. MUTINY is an unlawful resistance to a superior officer as the raising of commotions and disturbance on board

a ship against the authority of its commander.Distinction between Piracy & Mutiny: 1) P- attack from the vessel comes from the outside; M- attack are from the inside; 2) P- there is intent to gain; M intent to gain is immaterial

Similarity both are crimes under the Laws of the Nations.

ARTICLE 123- QUALIFIED PIRACY Modes of committing it: 1) Whenever the offenders have seized a vessel by boarding or firing upon the same;

2) Whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims without means of saving themselves; or3) Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape. Is there a Qualified Mutiny? Art. 123 provides any of the crimes referred to in

the preceding article. Hence, it embraces not only piracy but also mutiny. So, there is such crime as Qualified Mutiny. However, as far as Qualified Mutiny is concerned, only pars. 2 & 3 will apply, because the offenders in par. 1 are outsiders. The Murder, Homicide, Physical Injuries or Rape are special aggravating

& as these accompanied the crime of Qualified Piracy/Mutiny- hence such cannot make the crime complex.

ARTICLE 124- ARBITRARY DETENTION It is the deprivation by a public officer of the liberty of a person without any legal ground.

Public OfficersAny person, who by direct provision of the law, popular election or appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the performance of public functions in the Government of the Phil. Islands, or shall perform in said Govt. or in any of its branches public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate officials of any rank of class (Article 203- RPC).

Offenders: Public Officer or employee. He must be vested with the authority to detain or order the detention of persons accused of a crime. Exs. Policemen & other agents of the law, judges or mayors. (if committed by a private individual Illegal Detention). But if a private individual conspired with

public officers then they can be held liable for Arbitrary Detention. (Pp. vs. Camerino). Acts: 1) He detains a person 2) Without legal grounds. Legal grounds to detain a person: 1) commission of a crime 2) violent insanity or other ailment requiring confinement at the hospital.

In Arbitrary Detention, the detention at the very inception is unlawful because there is no warrant of arrest and there is no lawful cause as provided under the Rules of Court. Rule 113, Sec. 5: Valid Warrantless Arrest: 1)When in his presence, the person

has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; 2) when an offense has just been committed that he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and 3) when the person to be arrested is a

prisoner who has escaped from penal establishment.Pp. vs. Burgos l44 SCRA 1Pp. vs. Aminnudin- l63 SCRA 402Pp.vs. Saycon 236 SCRA 325Pp. vs. Mengote 210 SCRA 174Pp vs. Tangliben 184 SCRA 220Pp. vs. Malmstedt 198 SCRA 401

Pp.vs. Tonog- 205 SCRA -772 Rolito Go vs. CA Feb. l992 Pp. vs. Gerente- 219 SCRA 756

Warrant of Arrest is an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Phils., signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to take

into custody a person who may be bound to answer for the commission of a crime. Either: 1) actual restraint 2) by his submission No violence or unnecessary force shall be used. Detention means deprivation or restraint of liberty.

Article 125-Delay In The Delivery of Detained Persons To The Proper Judicial Authorities-

Offenders: Public Officer or employee

In this felony, the detention is legal but the public officer failed to deliver the detained persons to the proper judicial authorities

within the prescribed no. of hours: 12 hours for crimes punishable with light penalties; 18 hours for crimes punishable with correctional penalties and 36 hours for crimes punishable with afflictive or capital penalties (Executive Order 272).

This is a felony by omission.

If a private individual conspires with the public official, then he can be held liable under this law (applying the Camerino doctrine by analogy).Judicial Authority: - means the courts of justice, or judges of the courts vested with judicial power to order the temporary detention or confinement of a person

charged with having committed an offense. Delivery of a detained person consists in making a charge or filing a complaint against the prisoner with the proper court. It does not mean the physical delivery of the prisoner.

A detained person upon arrest should be informed of his rights under the Miranda Doctrine ( RA 7438). Procedure: Sec. 7: Rule 112- Rules of Court: When a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant involving an offense which requires a preliminary investigation

the complaint or information may be filed by a prosecutor without need of such investigation provided an inquest has been conducted in accordance with existing rules. X x x x Before the complaint or information is filed, the person arrested may ask for a preliminary investigation, but he must

sign a waiver of the provisions of Art. 125 of the RPC, as amended, in the presence of his counsel. Notwithstanding the waiver, he may apply for bail and the investigation must be terminated within 15 days from its inception. If the filing of the complaint or information is done without preliminary

investigation, the accused may, within 5 days from the time he learns of the filing of the information or complaint, may ask for a preliminary investigation with the same right to adduce evidence in his defense. Preliminary Investigation- is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there

is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held liable for trial. Purposes: 1) to determine if a crime has been committed:

2) to protect the accused from the inconvenience, expense and burden of defending himself; 3) to secure the innocent against a hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution; 4) to protect the state from having to conduct useless and expensive trials.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7438-- custodial investigation involves questioning initiated by law enforcement after a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action. When the suspect is taken into custody and the police carries out a process of interrogations that tends to elicit incriminating statements, the rule begins to operate ( Pp. vs. Tan 91 SCAD).

Sanchez vs. Demetriou- 46 SCAD en banc application of actual force, manual touching of the body, physical restraint or formal declaration of arrest is not required. It is enough that there is intent. Custodial investigation includes invitation. Rationale of Article 125- is intended to prevent any abuse resulting from confining

a person without informing him of his offense and without permitting him to go on bail. Furthermore, it penalizes a public officer who shall detain a person for some legal grounds and shall fail to deliver the said person to the proper court within the period prescribed by law. In Art. 125, the detention becomes arbitrary only when the time required for

the delivery of prisoner to the judicial authority lapses. The 12-18-36 hours do not run when the courts are not open to receive the complaint or information being filed. ARTICLE 126- DELAYING RELEASE This article contemplates petitions for the release of a detained person, e.g. habeas

corpus proceeding. The same penalties provided for in Article 124 shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who delays for the period of time specified therein: 1) The performance of any judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner or detention prisoner;

2) Unduly delays the service of the notice of such order to said prisoner; or 3) Delays the proceedings upon the petition for the liberation of such person. (Possible offenders Warden, process server or judge). ARTICLE 127- EXPULSION 1) Offenders Public officer/employee

- not authorized by law; 2) Act: a) expel any person from the Phil. Island; or b) compel such person to change his address. This is a crime against constitutional rights of abode and changing the same under the Bill of Rights (Villavicencio vs.

Lukban- 39 Phil). 3) Penalty Prision Correccional Only the President of the Philippines in the exercise of his power of deportation and the courts after final judgment sentencing the accused to destierro or as a condition in his probation are authorized by law to expel or compel persons to change their abode. A Filipino citizen is not subject to expulsion.

ARTICLE 128-VIOLATION OF DOMICILE 1) Offenders: 1) Public officer 2) Employee- who are not authorized by any judicial order. 2) Acts: a) enters any dwelling against the will of the owner;

b) searches papers or other effects found therein without the previous consent of the owner; andc) having surreptitiously entered such dwelling, and being required to leave the premises, he refuses to do so. The judicial order referred to is a Search Warrant- which is an order

in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal property described therein and bring it before the court. Against the will presupposes opposition or prohibition, by the owner, whether

express or implied( when the door is locked).If the entry is committed by a private person Qualified Trespass To Dwelling. Special aggravating circumstances: a) nighttime ; and b) if any papers or effects not constituting a crime be not returned immediately after the search.

When a person who admitted the public officer is one with sufficient discretion, the right to privacy is waived, hence, prohibition thereafter made can no longer constitute violation of domicile. Permission once given cannot be recalled anymore. When he is admitted and he starts to search, the owner must stop him,otherwise permission is given.

Reason behind the law: Section 2, Art. III- Constitution The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature for any purpose shall be inviolable.

Article 129- Search Warrant Maliciously Obtained & Abuse In THE SERVICE OF THOSE LEGALLY OBTAINED 1) Offenders: 1) Public officer 2) Employee2) Acts: a) procuring a search warrant without just cause; and

b) exceeding the authority or using unnecessary severity in executing a search warrant legally obtained. Requisites for a Valid SW: 1) Application under oath; 2) Probable cause which must be determined by the Judge himself, by conducting searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath;

3) the probable cause must be in connection with one specific offense; 4) must particularly described the place to be searched and the persons and things to be seized; 5) the sworn statements and affidavits of the witnesses must be attached t the records (Prudente vs. Dayrit- l989)

The commission of any of these acts is independent of the liability for the commission of any other offenses: 1) Abuse in the service of SW; 2) Serious Physical Injuries (not complex crime- 2 crimes 2 sep. penalties)Penalty AM max to PC min. + a fine not exceeding P1,000

Application will be filed : 1) any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime is committed; 2) for compelling reasons, any court within the judicial region where the crime was committed if the place of the

commission of the crime is known, or any court within the judicial region where the warrant shall be enforced; (But if a criminal action has already been filed, then the application shall be filed only in the court where the criminal action is pending)- Sec. 2 Rule 126 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended under

Adm. Circular no. 13, Oct. 1, l985 and Adm. Circular no. 19, August 4, l987. Sec. 5- Ibid- The judge must personally examine the applicant in the form of searching questions and answer, in writing and under oath. Under oath can be liable of Perjury. Probable cause - such reasons supported by facts and circs. w/c will warrant a cautious man to believe that his actions and the means used are just and proper (Manalili vs. CA- 280 SCRA)

Personal property to be seized: 1) subject of the offense 2) stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the offense; 3) used or intended to be used in the commission of the crime. Specific place no discretion for the searching officers, to avoid unreasonable.

search and seizureThe true test of sufficiency of an affidavit to warrant issuance of a search warrant is whether it has been drawn in such manner that perjury could be charged thereon and affiant be held for damages (Alvarez vs. CA 64 Phil. 33).An exception to the necessity of a search

warrant Warrantless search and seizure: 1) search incident to a lawful arrest; 2) search of a moving vehicle (Bagista -214 SCRA 63) 3) consented search (Pp. vs.Kagui Malasugui- 63 Phil. 221) 4) search of evidence in plain view

(Manipon,Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan 143 SCRA 267)- come upon the object inadvertently & open to the eye; 5) viol. of Tariff and Customs Code, except in dwelling place ( Pp. vs. Lacerna- 86 SCAD 608) 6) search based on probable cause under extraordinary/exigent circumstances-

Exigent circumstance- added by Justice Puno- catch all category-Valmonte vs. Villa 178 SCRA 211;Malmsted case; Tangliben.Search in check point- between the inherent right of the State to protect its existence & promote public welfare & on indivs. right against warrantless search former shall prevail.

7) Stop and frisk Posadas vs. CA- l88 SCRA 288 & Valmonte vs. Villa -178 SCRA 211- flagrante delicto.

ARTICLE 130- SEARCHING DOMICILE WITHOUT WITNESSES 1)Offender : Public officer/employee armed with search warrant

2) Act: Search a domicile in the absence of : a) person to be searched b) member of his family c) in their default, in the presence of two witnesses residing in the same locality(sufficient age and discretion)- Sec. 8, Rule 126 Rev. Rules on Crim. Proc.

Distinction between Warrant of Arrest and Search Warrant: 1) WA a case is already filed SW not necessarily 2) WA served anytime of the day or night SW only during daytime (if served during nighttime- there must be a suppor-

ting affidavit of urgency; 3) WA persons SW usually for things/items 4) WA no lifetime (exc. when already served) SW valid only for 10 days

ARTICLE 131 PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION & DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL MEETINGS (PID) l) Offenders:1) Public officers 2) employees ll) Acts: 1) without legal grounds, shall prohibit or interrupt the holding of a

peaceful meeting or dissolve the same; Elems: 1) meeting is peaceful- if not- official is duty bound to dissolve the same; 2) for legal purpose otherwise Art. 146 is committed- (Illegal Assembly) 3) officer is not a member thereof (stranger) Pp. vs. Calera- 45 O.G. 2573- If not stranger Art. 287- Unjust Vexation

If the meeting is legislative - - Art. 144- Pp. vs. Alipit 44 Phil. 910 4) disturbs the same.

The right of the govt. to require permit for regulatory purposes has been upheld by the Supreme Court. The regulatory purpose covers the time and place where

the assembly is to be held to safeguard the right of the public & protect them from inconvenience- Reyes vs. Bagatsing 125 SCRA & Tanada vs. Bagatsing Aug. 1984. Meetings held by religious sect not religious ceremonies if dissolved Art. 131 is violated and not Art. 132- Pp. vs. Reyes July 2, l955 & Pp. vs. Mandoriao-

51 OG 4619. The requiring of a permit shall only be regulatory not to prevent peaceful assemblies. The Mayors possess reasonable discretion to determine public place Navarro vs. Villegas 31 SCRA 371. (Ortega does not agree to the opinion

that if the mayor dictates the place it is a violation of the law.If in the beginning the assembly is peaceful, then later the participants became unruly commit the crimes- Inciting to Sedition meeting now can be dissolved . Permit is not a license to commit a crime.

Two criteria: 1) Dangerous Tendency Rule applicable during time of national unrest- e.g. prevent coups; 2) Clear & Present Danger Rule applicable in time of peace; stricter rule. 2) Shall hinder any person from joining any lawful association or from attending

any of its meetings; 3) Shall prohibit or hinder any person from addressing any petition to the authorities for correction of abuses or redress of grievance. (no subversion law RA 7736 repealed RA 1700 l992)

ARTICLE 132 INTERRUPTION OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP I) Offenders: 1) Public officers 2) employees II) Acts: 1) Prevent religious ceremonies 2) Disturbing the ceremonies

or manifestation of any religion III) Penalty PC- min period - w/ threats /violence PC max. Pp. vs. Mojica Dec. 29, l955 Priest was prevented from saying the mass Included in the religious services activities in the house w/ 20 to 30 people

( prayer meetings Couples for Christ). This refers to exercise of religious manifestation not quasi-religious ceremonies- house blessings.

ARTICLE 133- OFFENDING RELIGIOUS FEELING 1) Offenders: 1) Public officer/employee;

2) private individuals this is the only crime against the Funda- mental Laws of the State that can be committed by a private indi- vidual. II) Acts: 1) Notoriously offensive to

feelings of the faithful- Pp. vs. Baes 68 Phil. 203- (ridicule rel. dogma) 2) performed in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of a religious cere- mony. Baes cs. causing a funeral held in accordance with the rites of a rel. sect to pass through the catholic church.

Pp. vs. Migallos Aug. 5, l955- stoning a minister while in the act of preaching. Whether the act is offensive notoriously is to be judged by the feelings of the followers and not by the offenders. Other acts may only consist: Unjust Vexation Pp. vs. Tamarra July 1, l963- accused played dance music when the

Catholics were about to pray the rosary. Pp.vs. Nanoy- 69 OG. 8043 drunk person entered w/ uplifted hands while the congregation of the Assembly of God was having its afternoon session and then grabbed the song leader- Unjust Vexation.

ARTICLE 134- REBELLION OR INSURRECTION I) Offenders: Any person: a) Leader who promotes, maintains or leads the rebellion. If unknown, spokesman, signatories of docs.- can be punished as leaders. Pen. Reclusion Perpetua

b) followers- Pen.- Reclusion Temporal II) Acts: 1) Remove from the allegiance of the government or its laws, or Phil. Territory or any part thereof; 2) Deprive the chief executive or

legislative, wholly or partially of any of their powers. III) Elements: 1)public uprising (rising publicly) 2) taking up armsPurpose: to overthrow the duly constituted authority in order to establish another form

of government. - Crime of the masses/ multitude - vast movement of men and a complex net of intrigue and plotsThis is a crime against Public Order Pp. vs. Asuncion April l992. If the acts of killing are not shown to be with political end or political order- not

Rebellion:- Off. Of the Prov. Pros. vs. CA- Dec. 2000; Pp. vs. Ompad- 233 SCRA l994Baylosis vs. Chavez- 202 SCRA l99- pub. Prosecutor has the choice/ discretion to choose what crime to file. No complex crime of Rebellion with Murder, Arson, Robbery or other serious

Crimes, committed as a means to or a furtherance of the rebellion Enrile vs. Salazar- 186 SCRA l990. ARTICLE 134-A- COUP DTAT- I) Elements: a) swift attack accompanied w/ violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth;

b) directed against military camp/installations, communications, public utilities/ facilities; II) Offenders: Any person or persons belonging to the military, police or public officer w/ or w/o civilian support. III) Purpose seize or diminish state powers.

Distinction between R & C: 1) Essence of the crime R- rising publicly & taking up arms against the govt. C- swift attack against govt./ mil. institutions, communication facilities, pub. utilities essential

in the exercise of govt. powers; 2) No. of offenders: R- involves multitude of people C- committed singly or collectively3) Offenders: R- perpetrated by any person (doesnt require to be mil., police, AFP or

public officer; C- principal offenders are members of AFP, PNP or public officers w/ or w/o civilian support; 4) Purpose: R- overthrow the govt. C- destabilizing or immobilizing or

paralyze the existing govt. & taking over some facilities which are needed for the exercise of govt. powers; 5) How committed: R- through force & violence C- not only through force or violence but also threats, intimidation,

Strategy or stealth;Utility workers cannot commit coup dtat.

Article 135- Penalty for Reb., Ins. or Coup dtat-Article 136: Conspiracy and Proposal to commit coup dtat, rebellion or insurrectionArt. 137: Disloyalty of Public Officers or Employees (By failing to resist a rebellion or continuing to discharge the functions of their office)

ARTICLE 138:INCITING TO REBELLION OR INSURRECTION- Offender: Any person Elements: 1) Offender must not take up arms or is not in open hostility against the govt.; 2) Incite other to commit rebellion or insurrection;

3) means employed are speeches, writings, emblems, or any similar means. The purpose of the meeting is always illegal as it is held to incite persons to commit rebellion.ARTICLE 139: SEDITION: Offender: 1)Any person 2) Public Officers (Pp.vs. Cabrera- 43 Phil. 64).

In this crime, there is public and tumultuous uprising in order to attain by force, intimidation, or any other means outside of legal methods, the following objectives: 1) To prevent the promulgation or execution of any law or the holding of any popular election; 2) To prevent the National Govt., or

any provincial or municipal govt., or any public officer thereof from freely exercising its or his functions, or prevent the execution of any administrative order; 3) To inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of any public officer or employee; 4) To commit, for any political or social end, any act of hate or revenge against

private persons or any social class; 5) 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. SEDITION- involves disturbance of public order resulting from a tumultuous uprising. The ultimate object of sedition is a violation of the public peace or at least

such a course of a measure as evidently engenders it (Pp. vs. Perez 45 Phil. 599). Sedition is a crime of dissent or protest by means outside of legal methods. It is done in excess of the legal means authorized under the freedom of expression and of assembly under the Constitution.

Murder is not an object of Sedition. So, if the accused fired upon a truck killing several persons, including two policemen, it not being shown that the purpose was to prevent the policemen from performing their functions or to inflict an act of hate or revenge upon their persons, Sedition is

not committed, but Multiple Murder (Pp. vs. Mendoza L-1271-May 5, l950). When disorderly conduct occurs during a rally, will it bring about the crime of Sedition? Such instances of disorderly conduct by individual members of the crowd should not be seized as an excuse to characterize the assembly as a seditious and tumultuous uprising against

the authorities and render illusory the right to peaceably assembly. It is rather to be expected that more or less disorder will mark the public assembly of the people to protest against grievances whether real or imaginary, because on such occasion, feeling is always wrought to a high pitch of excitement, and the greater the grievance and the more intense the feeling, the less

perfect, as a rule, will the disciplinary control of the leaders over the irresponsible followers. But if the prosecution be permitted to seize upon every instance of disorderly conduct by individual members of a crowd as an excuse to characterize the assembly as a seditious and tumultuous uprising , then the right to assembly and to petition for

redress of grievances would become a delusion and snare the attempt to exercise it on the most righteous occasion and in the most peaceful manner would expose all those who took part therein to the severest and most unmerited punishment, if the purposes which they have sought to attain did not happen to be pleasing to the prosecuting authorities (Dissenting Opinion of Justice Teehankee, citing

U.S. vs. Apurado in Reyes vs. Bagatsing, Nov. l983). There is no complex crime of Sedition w/ Murder nor is Murder absorbed in Sedition. Sedition & Murder are two separate crimes (Pp. vs. Kamlon- 9 SCRA 252).

Distinctions between Rebellion & Sedition: 1) Purpose: R- overthrow the duly constituted govt.; S- maybe political or social for carrying out protest or disobedience from a govt. action and not for the purpose of overthrowing the govt. 2) R-use of firearm is essential. It is an ingredient.;

S- Use of firearm is not an essential ingredient. (However in RA 8294, Sedition is included among the crimes which absorb the use of unlicensed firearm as an element thereof); 3) The offender cannot be prosecuted for Illegal Possession of Firearms because this is absorbed in the crime of Rebellion;

S- Now offenders can no longer be prosecuted for Illegal Possession of Firearms bec. of RA 8294. Exs.1) Shouting that the head of the governor be cut off (Pp. vs. Perez-supra) 2) Inciting the constabulary to use their weapons against their commanders (Pp vs. Feleo 59 Phil. 451)Dangerous Tendency Rule rather than the clear and present danger rule is being adopted here.

ARTICLE 140- Pen. For Sedition a) Leader Prision Mayor in its min. per. & a Fine not exceeding P10,000. b) Other participants Prision Correccional in its max. per. & a Fine not exceeding P5,000.ARTICLE 141- Conspiracy To Commit Sedition- Pen. Prision Correccional in its medium per. & a Fine not exc. P2,000.

ARTICLE 142- Inciting To SeditionOffender: - Any person Acts: 1) Inciting others to commit sedition by means of speeches, writings, cartoons, banners or similar representations; and 2) by uttering seditious speeches or writings or publishing scurrilous libels against the govt. or any duly constituted authorities, a) which tend to obstruct or disturb any public officer in the performance of public functions;

b) which tend to instigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes; c) which incite rebellious conspiracies or riots; d) which tend to stir public disturbances; and)3) knowingly concealing such evil practices.

.ART.143- ACTS TENDING TO PREVENT THE MEETING OF THE ASSEMBLY AND SIMILAR BODIES.Elements:1) Scheduled meeting of the Nat. Assembly, or any of its committees or sub-

committees, constitutional commissions, or committees or divisions thereof, or of any provincial board, city council or municipal council or board of sim. bodies; 2) the offenders prevent such meeting by force or fraud;Penalty- Prision Correccional or a fine ranging from 200 to 2,000 pesos or both;

ART. 144. DISTURBANCE OF PROCEEDINGS Elements: 1) An actual meeting of the National Assembly or congress of the Phils., or any of its committees, or sub-committees, etc,provincial board, city or municipal council & sim. bodies;

2) the offender commits any of the following acts: a) disturbing said meeting; b) behaving in the presence of said board in such a manner as to disrupt its proceedings or to impair the respect due it. The accused may also be punished for contempt (Lopez vs. De Los Reyes-55

Phil. 170). ARTICLE 145: VIOLATION OF PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY: Acts punished: 1) Using force, intimidation, threats or fraud to prevent any member of Congress from: a) attending any of its committees; b) expressing his opinions; or c) casting his votes;

2) Arresting or searching any member thereof while Congress is in regular or special session except in case such member has committed a crime punishable under this Code by a penalty higher than Prision Mayor. Offender: Any person or public officer. 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 a regular or special session. ARTICLE 146- ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES- Meeting- a gathering or group, whether in a fixed place or moving.

Kinds of Illegal Assemblies: 1) A meeting attended by armed person for the purpose of committing any of the crimes punishable under this Code; 2) A meeting in which 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.

Persons liable: 1) Organizers or leaders; and 2) Those merely attending. Penalties: Organizers or Leaders PC in its max. per. to PM in its med. per. Those merely attending- Arresto Mayor, except if they are armed - PC

When a person carries unlicensed firearmin said meeting, it shall be presumed that: a) he is the leader; b) purpose is to commit acts punishable under this Code.ARTICLE 147- ILLEGAL ASSOCIATIONS: Kinds of Illegal Associations: 1) Those totally or partially organized for the purpose of committing any crimes

punishable under the Code; 2) Those totally or partially organized for some purpose contrary to public morals. Persons liable: a) Founders, Directors or President; b) Members. Public Morals refer to acts that affect the interest of society and public convenience. It is not confined to limited

concept of good customs and covers a system of judicial precepts founded on human nature that regulate public convenience. It refers to acts that are in accordance with natural and positive laws. The gravamen of the offense is the forming of an asso. for the purpose of criminal activities prohibited by the Code or special laws against public morals or any act prejudicial to public welfare.

ARTICLE 148: DIRECT ASSAULT- There are two kinds of DA: 1) Without public uprising, by employing force or intimidation to attain any of the purposes enumerated in the crimes of Rebellion or Sedition; and 2) By attacking, employing force, seriously intimidating or seriously resisting any person in authority or any of his agents, while engaged

in the performance of official duties or on the occasion of said performance. Elems. of the first kind of DA: a) That there be no public uprising; b) Force or intimidation is employed; & c) To attain any of the purposes of Rebellion or Sedition (Pp. vs. Jingco- Dec. 31, l965). This kind of DA is in reality Rebellion or Sedition short of public

uprising, and is therefore, very rare.Elems. of the 2nd kind of DA: a) No public uprising; b) Offender attacks or employs force or seriously intimidates or seriously resists another; c) Offended party is a person in authority or his agents;

d) Offended party was assaulted while in the performance of official duties or on the occasion of such performance; ande) Offender knows that the person assaulted is a person in authority or his agent. The second kind of DA is committed in four ways: a) by attacking; b) by employing force; c) by seriously intimidating; or

d) by seriously resisting a person in authority or his agent. The felony becomes qualified if the offender: a) uses a weapon; b) is a public officer or employee; and c) he lays hand upon the person in authority.

Attack is any offensive or antagonistic movement or action of any kind. Ex. Drawing of a pistol from the holster at the hip and the aiming of that pistol at a person (Pp. vs. Ladena- G.R. No. 6008-R). Intimidate to frighten or instill fear. Resist to exert force in opposition, or manifest intention to defy.

Person in Authority- ( Art. 152-par. 1-RPC) any person directly vested with jurisdiction( which means the power or authority to govern and execute the laws). Ex. The authority vested upon the judges to administer justice and render judgment. (Pp. vs.Mendoza- 559 Phil. 163). Agent of person in authority- (Art. 152-par. 2) 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. Ex. Police Officers Other exs. of persons in authority: Barangay Captains, Lupon Members & Brgy. Councilors (Local Govt. Code)-(Pp. vs. Sion- August l997); Teachers (Magna Carta for Teachers). In the performance of official duties refers to the legitimate exercise of the functions of the person in authority. The duties must be

performed according to law. On the occasion of such performance means the impelling motive of the attack is the performance of official duty. The words on occasion signify because or by reason of the past performance of official duties even if at the very time of the assault no official duty was being discharged (Justo vs. CA).

To lay hands upon a person in authority is to inflict upon him physical injury. Ex. Strike him with the hands; choke or suffocate him. DA is a crime brought about by the spirit of lawlessness displayed in the commission of the act. It will arise when the act committed is indicative that the offender is utterly lawless or against the rule of law. When an attack is made to a person in authority while in the performance

of his duty, the crime is DA, whatever his reason may be for attacking . If made when the officer is off-duty, the offenders reason for the attack should be examined. If the attack is related to the past performance of duty, then there is DA; otherwise, none. Hence, motive becomes material in the proper determination of the offense committed.

Generally, the offender must be aware that the offended party is possessed of authority. Hence, if he does not know that the offended party is a public officer, DA is not committed. This is subject, however, to the rule of ignorance of the law excuses no one : whether the public officer is a person in authority (PA) or an agent of a person in authority (APA), within the

meaning of Art. 152 is a question of law, ignorance of which is not excused. That means, that the offender does not have to know that he is included in Art. 152 as long as he knows that he is a public officer. By virtue of Art. 152, any person (civilian) who comes to the aid of a PA becomes an APA. If the victim of the DA

is a PA and a civilian aids him, the latter becomes an APA. Pp. vs. Salvador Jingco- G.R. No. 05271-CR- Ricardo Gonzalodo, public school teacher in the Matabang Elementary School of Talisay, Negros Occidental, sustained injuries in the hands of Jingco and his wife in the afternoon of Oct. 31, l963, just outside the classroom

where Gonzalodo was holding his class as a result of the attempt of the appellant and his wife to collect the debt of Gonzalodo. The SC ruled that there was no DA. Gonzalodo came out of the classroom voluntarily; he went where, as a teacher during class hour, he had no business to be, although he was within the school premises, and so he was not in the

performance of his duty. Thus Jingco cannot be convicted of the crime of DA upon a PA under Art. 148. Force must be employed to defy the authorities. The force must be serious and must be of such a character as to show contempt for authority. Casual force which usually accompanies resistance or

disobedience to authorities is not sufficient. It has reference to something more dangerous to civil society. DA may be complexed with common crimes. So there can be DA w/ Murder, DA w/ Frustrated Murder, DA w/ Att. Murder, DA w/ Serious Physical Injuries, DA w/ Less Serious Physical Injuries. But if the injury is only slight, then this is absorbed

in the crime of DA. Penalty: PC in its minimum period & a fine not exceeding P500 ordinary DA. If qualified: PC in its medium & max. periods and a fine not exceeding P1,000.ARTICLE 149- INDIRECT ASSAULTS- Elems: 1) DA is committed against an agent of a person in authority;

2) the offended party comes to the aid of said agent of a person in authority; and 3) offender uses force or intimidation upon said offended party. Under RA 1978, a private person who comes to the aid of a person in authority becomes an agent of a person in authority. If such private person is himself assaulted,

while coming to the aid of a person in authority, DA is committed. However, if a private person who comes to the aid of an agent of a person in authority on the occasion of a direct assault being committed against the latter, is assaulted, Indirect Assault is committed.Pen. PC in its min. & med. periods & a fine not exceeding P500.

ARTICLE 150 DISOBEDIENCE TO SUMMONS ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, ITS COMMITTEES OR SUBCOMMITTEES, BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION, ITS COMMITTEES, SUBCOMMITTEES OR DIVISIONS- Acts punished: 1) Disobedience w/o legal excuse to summons issued by the

National Assembly (now Congress) or any of its committees or subcommittees; 2) refusal of any person present before a legislative or constitutional or official to: a) be sworn or placed under affirmation; b) to answer any legal inquiry; c) to produce any books, papers,

documents, or records in his possession when required to do so by said bodies in the exercise of their functions. Persons liable: a) Any person who commits any of the above acts; b) any person who: i) restrains another from attending as a witness; ii) induces

him to disobey a summon; iii) who induces him to refuse to be sworn in by such body. Any of these acts may also constitute contempt of Congress and could be punished as such independent of the criminal prosecution (Lopez vs. de Los Reyes- 55 Phil. 170). Such power must be considered implied or incidental to the exercise of legislative power or necessary

to effectuate said power ( Arnault vs. Balagtas 31 O.G. 4017).ARTICLE 151- RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE TO A PERSON IN AUTHORITY OR AGENTS OF SUCH PERSON- Elems: 1) There is no direct assault, indirect assault, or disobedience to summons issued by Congress;

b) the offender resists or seriously disobeys a person in authority or his agent; andC) at the time of said resistance or disobedience, the person in authority or his agent is in the performance of his duties.Simple disobedience- if the resistance to the person in authority or agent is not

of a serious nature. Ex. Where the accused during a strike laid down on the road as human roadblocks and thereafter disobeyed and resisted an order of an agent of a person in authority to clear the road, this crime is committed ( Pp. vs. Macapuno- 58 O.G. 4985). Striking a policeman in the breast who

was arresting the offender constitutes simple resistance ( U.S. vs. Tabiana- 37 Phil. 515). Distinction bt. DA & Resistance: 1) DA- offended party is assaulted while in the performance of his duties or by reason thereof; R or D- the officer must be in the discharge of his duties;

2) DA- resistance must be serious; R or D resistance is not serious, i.e. w/o manifest intention to defy authority of the law. ARTICLE 152 PA & APAARTICLE 153- TUMULTS & OTHER DISTURBANCES OF PUBLIC ORDERS: Kinds: 1) Causing serious disturbance in a public place, office or establishment;

2) interrupting or disturbing public performances, functions, gatherings or peaceful meetings, provided the act is not included in Arts. 131 & 132;3) making any outcry tending to incite rebellion or sedition in any meeting, association or place; 4) displaying placards or emblems which provoke a disturbance of public order;

5) burying w/ pomp the body of a person who has been legally executed. Qualifying circumstance in nos. 1 & 2 when committed by more then 3 armed persons (at least 4 or provided w/ means of violence such as stones, sticks, etc. in which case, the crime is denominated tumultuous disturbance.Public Disturbance- is a serious distur-

bance in a place where performance of public function is being held, if the disturbance is not covered by Arts. 131 & 132 (if the disturbance is not serious- Alarms and Scandals under Art. 155).Art. 153 is distinguished from Inciting to Rebellion or Sedition in the former, the outburst which by nature may tend to incite rebellion or sedition are sponta-

neous and the meeting at the outset was legal and became a public disorder only because of such outcry; while in the latter, the meeting from the beginning was unlawful and what was uttered was deliberately calculated with malice aforethought to incite others to rebellion or sedition.

Pen- Pars. 1 & 2- AMa in its med per. To PC in its min. per. & a fine not exceeding P1,000; Pars. 3 & 4 AMa Par. 5- AMa & fine not exceeding P200. ARTICLE 154- UNLAWFUL USE OF PUBLICATION AND UNLAWFUL UTTERANCES- 1) Publishing or causing to be published by means of writing,

litography, or any other means of publication as news, any false news which may endanger the public order, or cause damage to the interest of credit of the state; 2) encouraging disobedience to the law or the duly constituted authorities, or by praising, justifying, or extolling any act punished by law, by the same means or

by words, utterances or speeches;3) maliciously publishing or causing to be published any official resolution or documents w/o proper authority, or before they have been published officially; or 4) printing, publishing or distributing books, pamphlets, periodicals, w/c do not bear the real printers name/ anonymous.

ARTICLE 155- ALARMS & SCANDALS Acts penalized as Alarms & Scandals: 1) Discharge of firearms, firecrackers, and other explosives in public places; 2) Charivari; 3) Engaging in nocturnal amusement disturbing the public place; or 4) Any disturbance or scandal in public

places not amounting to tumults.Other crimes which can arise from discharge of firearms: 1) Alarms & Scandals- offender discharges a firearm in a public place but the firearm is not pointed to a particular person when discharged; 2) Discharge of Firearm- if the firearm was directed to a particular person

who was not hit if intent to kill is not proved.3). Attempted Murder or Homicide- if the person was hit, automatically, and there was intent to kill.4) Physical Injuries- if the person was hit and injured but there was no intent to kill.5) Threat- if the weapon is not discharged but merely pointed to another.

6). Grave Coercion if the threat was direct, immediate and serious and the person is compelled or prevented to do something against his will.Charivari- is a mock serenade where the offender actually disturbs the peace by using cans, pans, utensil, etc. (breach of peace/tranquility).

Alarms & Scandals- disturbance or noise is done in a public place; Unjust Vexation- if the noise is directed to a particular person or family to cause annoyance.Pen.- AMe or a fine not exceeding P200ARTICLE 156-DELIVERY OF PRISONER FROM JAIL- Elems: 1) Offender is a private individual;

2) He removes a person confined in jail or a penal institution or helps in the escape of such person; and3) The means employed are violence, intimidation, bribery or any other means.Offender- is an outsider to the jail, because if he is a public officer or a private person who has the custody of the prisoner and who helps a prisoner under

his custody to escape, Arts. 223 & 225 will apply, respectively.Prisoner detention prisoner or one sentenced by virtue of a final judgment.If the person who escapes is serving sentence by virtue of final judgment, he commits Evasion of Service of Sentence (Art. 157). A detention prisoner is not liable for

evasion.If the said prisoner cooperates in his removal or escapes by acts without which the removal or escape would not be realized, he is liable as a co-principal under Art. 156.A prisoner confined in the hospital this crime is committed, if he escapes because the hospital may be considered as an

extension of the jail.Removing a prisoner- to take away a person from his place of confinement w/ or w/o the active participation of the person released.To help- is to furnish him w/ material means such as ladder, rope, etc. w/c facilitates his escape.That the accused received bribe is not an

element. What constitutes the qualifying circumstance is the offenders act of employing bribery as a means of removing or delivering the prisoner from jail.This can be committed through negligence or imprudence.Pen- AMa in its max. per. to PC in its min, per.AMa- if other means are used.

If the escape is done by taking the guards by surprise- AMa- min. per.Three (3) kinds of Evasion of Service of Sentence: Arts. 157, 158 and 159.ARTICLE 157- EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE-Elems: 1) Offender is a prisoner serving sentence involving deprivation of liberty by reason of final judgment;

2) He evades the service of his sentence during his term of imprisonment.This is simply known as Jail-breaking.Pen- PC in its med. & max. periods.The felony is qualified: when the evasion takes place by: a) breaking doors, windows, gates, floors, walls or roofs; b) using picklocks, false keys, disguise, deceit, violence, intimidation, or

c) connivance with other convicts or employees of the penal institution.Imprisonment includes destierro- so if the prisoner enters the prohibited place, he commits evasion (Pp. vs. Abilong- 82 Phil. 172).Evasion of Service of Sentence- is a continuing offense which may be prosecuted in any place where the

offender may be found (Parulan vs. Director of Prisons- L- 28519).If an alien is deported after having been found guilty of committing an offense and who returns to the Phils. in violation of the term of sentence, evasion of sentence is not committed because in deportation one is not sentenced to an imprisonment term and breaks jail (Pp. vs. Lo Hee-36 Phil 867).

ARTICLE 158- EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE ON THE OCCASION OF DISORDERS, CONFLAGRATIONS, EARTHQUAKES, OR OTHER CALAMITIES.Elems: 1) Offender is a prisoner serving sentence and is confined in a penal institution; 2) He evades his sentence by leaving the

penal institution;3) He escapes on the occasion of a disorder due to conflagration, earthquake, explosion, or similar catastrophe or mutiny of which he has not participated;4) He fails to give himself up to the authorities w/n 48 hours following the issuance of a proclamation by the chief Executive regarding the passing away of

the calamity. Under the principle of ejusdem generis only circumstance of similar nature will apply. Mutiny/riots are not included. Evasion lies in the failure to return, not in leaving the penal institution. The prisoner therefore must leave the jail

and thereafter return after the disorder ceases. Thus: 1) Leaving without returning within the time period prescribed 1/5 addition to the remaining sentence which should not be more than 6 mos., that is: 1/5 of the balance of the sentence or 6 mos. whichever is lesser; 2) not leaving- no deduction; pen. as is.

3) leaving and thereafter returning within the time period prescribed- 1/5 deduction from his sentence as provided under Art. 98. (original sentence favorable to the accused).ARTICLE 159- OTHER CASES OF EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE- The penalty of PC in its min. per. shall be imposed upon the convict who, having

been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive, shall violate any of the conditions of such pardon. However, if the penalty remitted by the granting of such pardon be higher than 6 yrs., the convict shall then suffer the unexpired portion of his original sentence.Remedies of the state if conditions of pardon are violated: 1) Judicial remedy

by prosecution of offender under Art. 159;2) Administrative remedy by ordering arrest and reincarceration of the offender under 64(i) of the Revised Administrative Code.Violation of conditional pardon is an evasion of service of sentence because when the prisoner accepted the condition,

no matter how onerous, he must respect the condition. Otherwise, he is deemed to have accepted the conditional pardon only to get out of prison or otherwise be relieved of the penalty.Conditional pardon is a contract between the Chief Executive and the convict. It is not perfected unless accepted.

Violation of conditional pardon is not a public offense in the strict sense of the word, for it does not cause harm or injury to the right of other persons nor it disturb the public order. While evasion of service of sentence is a public offense (Alvarez vs. Dir. of Prisons- 80 Phil. 43).Art. 159 defines a distinct and substantive felony. The convict who is regarded as

having violated the provision thereof must be charged, prosecuted and convicted by final judgment before he can be made to suffer the penalty prescribed in said article (Torres vs. Gonzales- July 23, l987).ARTICLE 160- QUASI-RECIDIVISM- Commission of another crime during service of penalty imposed for another offense.

Elems.: 1) Offender is convicted by final judgment of a felony or an offense; and2) He commits another felony before beginning to serve such sentence or while serving the sentence. Art. 160 applies although the next offense is different in character from the first offense for which the defendant is serving sentence (Pp. vs. Yabut-58 Phil. 499), and it makes no difference whether the crime for which an accused is serving the sentence at the time of the com-

mission of the offense charged falls under the RPC or under SPL. The second offense, however, must be a felony punished under the RPC. The severe penalty imposed on quasi-recidivism is justified because of his perversity and incorrigibility (Pp. vs. Peralta, et al.-Oct. 29, l968). If a person is convicted of a crime committed while serving sentence of a previous crime, he shall be sentenced to the maximum

of the penalty prescribed b law without regard to the presence or absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances or the complete absence thereof (Pp. vs. Bautista- July 25, l976). When the quasi-recidivist reaches the age of 70, he may be pardoned unless he is a habitual delinquent. Quasi-recidivism- is a special aggravating circumstance and cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance (Pp. vs. Aling- 96 SCRA 472 & Pp. vs. Tampas- 96 SCRA 624).

CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTERESTArticle 161- Counterfeiting the great seal of the govt. of the Phils., forging the signature or stamp of the Chief Executive (Not Falsification ). Article 162 - Using forged signature or counterfeit seal or stamp.Article 163 Making, importing and uttering false coins( pen. depends upon whether the coin is gold, silver or 10-centavo denomination or minor coinage or of the foreign country).

Art. 163 does not require that the coins counterfeited be of legal tender or even if the coins are withdrawn from circulation. Reason: It is not alone the harm caused to the public by the fact that it may go into circulation but the danger that the counterfeiter produces by his act or if foreigner, by his stay in our country, and the possibility that he may counterfeit coins of legal tender.

Counterfeiting- to imitate a coin that is genuine. The criterion is that the imitation must be such as to deceive an ordinary person in believing it to be genuine. If the imitation is so imperfect that no one may be deceived, the felony cannot be consummated. Importing- to bring into the port even before the coins are entered in the Customs Office. Uttering of coins- to circulate, to pass on.

Article 164- Mutilation of Coins- Mutilation is to diminish by ingenious means the metal in the coins. The coins in this case must be of legal tender. The offender takes advantage of the metal he abstracted. Article 165- Selling of false or mutilated coins, without connivance- This penalizes possession of false coins w/ intent to utter.

RA 427- which punishes possession of silver or nickel coins in excess of P50.00 (Mala Prohibita). It is a measure of national policy to protect the people in general and particularly the poorer class, from the conspiracy of those hoarding silver or nickel coins and to preserve and maintain stability. Article 166- Forging Treasury or Bank Notes, Obligations and Securities; Importing & Uttering False or Forged Notes, Obligations and Securities.

Acts punished- forging treasury notes, bank notes and certificates or other obligations and securities ( certificates of deposits, bills, checks, sweepstakes ticket and lotto).Forging bank check now Falsification of Commercial Document. Article 167- Counterfeiting, Importing, & Uttering Instruments Payable to Bearer.

Article 168- Illegal Possession and Use of False Treasury or Bank Notes and Other Instruments of Credit- Possession of false treasury or bank notes alone without intent to use it is not a criminal offense. Inebriation- circ. which may indicate lack of awareness of the false character of a bill or note, for he is hardly to be expected to have the presence of mind to scrutinize every bill that is passed to him.

ARTICLE 169- How forgery is committed- 1) By giving a treasury or bank note or any instrument payable to bearer or to order mentioned therein, the appearance of a true and genuine document.2) By erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or altering by any means the figures, letters, words, or signs contained therein. The subject of the forgery should be treasury or bank notes. If the subject of a forgery were a

document other than these, the crime would be falsification. ARTICLE 170- FALSIFICATION OF LEGISLATIVE DOCUMENTS- committed by any person who, without proper authority therefor alters any bill, resolution, or ordinance enacted or approved or pending approval by either House of the Legislature or any provincial board or municipal council.

Offender any person. Must not be a public official entrusted with the custody of the documents, otherwise Art. 171 will apply. The alteration must have the effect of changing the meaning of the document. PD 247- punishes any person who willfully defaces, mutilates, tears, burns or destroys, in any manner whatsoever, currency notes or coins. Penalty- Fine of not more than P20T &/or imprisonment of not more than 5 years.

FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTSDocument- any written instrument by which a right is established or an obligation is extinguished (Pp. vs. Moreno 38 O.G. 119), or every deed or instrument executed by a person by which some disposition or agreement is proved, evidenced or set forth (Pp. vs. Nillosquin- 48 O.G. 4453). The writing must be complete, otherwise, there is no falsification ( Pp. vs. Dava-Sept. l991).

KINDS OF DOCUMENTS1) Public document any instrument notarized by a notary public or competent public official with the solemnities required by law ( Cancio vs. Baens- 5 Phil. 742); or one that has become part of public record. Examples: Deed of Sale; Deed of Mortgage; Official Receipt, Cash book, Residence Certificates, Resolutions and Decisions of DOJ, Ombudsman & Judges.

2) Official document any instrument issued by the government or its agents or its officers having the authority to do so and the offices, which in accordance with their creation, they are authorized to issue. The officers must issue the document in the performance of their duties. Examples: Resolutions, decisions of DOJ, Omb. and Judges, Register of Attys.

3) Private document every deed or instrument executed by a private person without the intervention of a notary public or of any other person legally authorized, by which document some disposition or agreement is proved, evidenced or set forth. Exs. Promissory notes.4) Commercial document- any instrument executed in accordance with the Code of Commerce or any mercantile law containing disposition of commercial rights or obligations.

Exs.- Bill of Exchange, Letters of Credit, Checks, Quedans, Airway Bills.Writings which do not constitute documents:1) Draft of a municipal payroll, which is not yet approved Pp. vs. Camacho-44 Phil. 888.2) Mere blank forms of official documents (Pp. vs. Santiago- 48 O.G. 455580).3) Pamphlets or books (Pp. vs. Agnis-47 Phil. 945).4) Invoices or cash disbursement vouchers.

When may a private document become a public or official doc.? When it becomes a part of the public or official records, it partakes of the nature of a public or official document. So, if the falsification is committed on such document, that is, when it is already part of the public record, the crime is Falsification of Public of Official Document. But if the falsification is committed before such document became part of the public or official record, the crime is Falsification

of a Private Document (U.S. vs. Nieto- 6 Phil. 582).However, if such private document is intended to become a part of the public record, even though falsified prior thereto, Falsification of a Public Document is committed. Ex. The civil service examination paper before it becomes a part of the files of the Civil Service is a private document. If falsified then, the crime is Falsification of a Public

Document. Is falsification committed if the document is simulated? Yes, falsification may be committed even if the public document is simulated or is not in the official form.Falsification by Omission The accused, a bookkeeper at an army post exchange, who deliberately falsified the ledger by not recording in his own personal account the chits for articles

Bought by him from the store of Post Exchange commits falsification by omission (Pp. vs. Dizon- 47 Phil. 350).FALSIFICATION THROUGH RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE- The failure of the accused, a notary public, to ascertain the identities of the supposed applicants, in relation to the applications presented to him for ratification, and to verify whether they were really owners of

the Residence Certificates exhibited to him, and relying completely upon the assurances of his co-accused, constitute reckless imprudence, pure and simple (Pp. vs. Compra- G.R. No. L-20683). But there can be no falsification of a private document through reckless imprudence as that will be inconsistent with the element of intent to cause damage in said crime.

What is penalized in Falsification of Public Document? violation of the faith and trust of the public and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed. The revocation of a falsified document is immaterial to the guilt of the one charged with Falsification.

Elements:1) Offender is a public official, employee, notary public or ecclesiastical minister;2) He takes advantage of his official position; and3) He falsifies document by any of the 8 ways enumerated in Article 171. Public Officer (Article 203- RPC)- is any public servant from the highest to the lowest who is performing service to the

government or any of its branches or instrumentality. He is holding his public office by virtue of the provision of law, by election or by appointment by a competent authority and performs public duties as a subordinate official, employee or agent of any rank or class.

Eight acts:1) COUNTERFEITING OR IMITATING HANDWRITING, SIGNATURE OR RUBRIC-Counterfeiting- imitation of the original handwriting or signature. It is not necessary that the imitation be perfect. It is enough that there be an attempt to imitate, and that the two signatures, the genuine and the forged, bear some resemblance to each other. The document need not be an authentic official paper (Castillo vs. Sandiganbayan-151 SCRA 425).

2) CAUSING IT TO APPEAR THAT PERSONS HAVE PARTICIPATED IN ANY ACT OR PROCEEDING WHEN THEY DID NOT IN FACT SO PARTICIPATE.;3) ATTRIBUTING TO PERSONS WHO HAVE PARTICIPATED IN AN ACT OR PROCEEDING STATEMENTS OTHER THAN THOSE IN FACT MADE BY THEM;

4) MAKING UNTRUTHFUL STATEMENTS IN A NARRATION OF FACTS;5) ALTERING TRUE DATES;6) MAKING ANY ALTERATION OR INTERCALATION IN A GENUINE DOCUMENT WHICH CHANGES ITS MEANING;7) ISSUING IN AN AUTHENTICATED FORM A DOCUMENT PURPORTING TO BE A COPY OF AN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT WHEN NO

SUCH ORIGINAL EXISTS, OR INCLUDING IN SUCH COPY A STATEMENT CONTRARY TO, OR DIFFERENT FROM, THAT OF THE GENUINE ORIGINAL; OR8) INTERCALATING ANY INSTRUMENT OR NOTE RELATIVE TO THE ISSUANCE THEREOF IN A PROTOCOL, REGISTRY, OR OFFICIAL BOOK.

Examples:1)Payroll of a Clean and Green-Mayor Maamo cs. Names Amt. Signature Juan Cruz 1,000 - (sgd) Pedro Buta- 1,000- (sgd) Signatures appearing therein are not that of Juan and Pedro as both are already dead. Acts- Counterfeiting/feigning the signatures & causing it appear that these persons participated in an act, when in fact they did not.

Crimes committed- -If the money was already with the mayor and the act of falsification was used to hide the misappropriation of the public funds two crimes: Malversation of Public of Public Funds and Falsification of Public/Official Document. If the falsification of the payroll was a means to be able to get the money, then this is a complex crime of Malversation Public Funds Thru Falsification of Public/Official Document.

2) Land Bank of the Phils. Check (LBP)-Jacqueline Lim cs.: Original entries of the check is forP 2,000, then changed this to P 22,000. 3,000, to P 33,000 Total loss P6M. Acts-no. 3,4 & 6 Crime: Malversation of Public Funds Thru Falsification of a Commercial Document.

3) Decision in a Special Proceeding- Prosecutor made alterations, by changing the number of the case, title and names of parties and date, and counterfeited the signature of the judge (Antique cs.). Acts- nos. 1,3,4,5 & 6. Crime- Falsification of Public Document.4) Falsification of the duplicate and triplicate copies of an OR (Cebu City Hall cs.): Acts- nos.3,4,6

Crimes- if the falsification was used to hide the act of malversation two crimes of Malversation of Public Funds & Falsification of Public Document. If used as a means to obtain the money- complex crime of Malv. of Public Funds Thru Falsification of Public/Official Doc.4) Falsification of Promissory Note- Falsification of a Private Document.

5) Local Civil Registrar- issued a certified true copy of a birth certificate, marriage certificate or death certificate Act- no. 7.6) Changing the date of arrest by the police officers to avoid possible viol. of Art. 125 RPC. Act no. 5

7) Employee of the LGU was teaching in a Catholic school. His schedule was from 7:30 to 9:00 am. (shown in his school DTR). At the same time, his DTR at the LGU showed that he was at his office at 8:00 to 9:00 am. In the afternoon, his DTR showed that he was at his office at the LGU up to 5:00pm. But his school DTR showed he was at the school at 4:30 to 6:00pm (Antique cs):

Act: No. 1.8) Govt. employee placed in his l999 SAL-N that he had only P30,000 cash on hand/bank. 3 banks issued Certifications that he had P5.8 Million time deposit.Act no. 4.Crime- Falsification of a Public Document.

9) Special Power of Attorney- BIR employee case). The Res. Certificates were not issued by the Cebu City Hall. The notary public was not among those listed at the SC records as a duly commissioned Notary Public. The affiants disowned their signatures. Acts: 1, 2 and 4.Crime: Falsification of a Public Document.

Intent to gain or damage is immaterial in Falsification of Public Document (Alcantara vs. Sandiganbayan- July 3, l992).Pp. vs. Manansala- (105 Phil. 1253)- It is an established rule that when a person has in his possession a falsified document and makes use of it, the presumption or inference is that such person falsified it (Pp. vs. Caubang- June l992).

Falsification by omission- where it appears that the accused in filing an application for patrolmans exam. stated under oath that he was never convicted for any violation of the law, which was false (Pp. vs. Cruz- May 25, l960). Any alteration done to correct a wrong entry is not falsification- changing the age from 24 to 34.

Punzalan vs. COMELEC- 289 SCRA, April l998- handwriting expert not binding upon the cts. While handwriting experts are usually helpful in the examination of forged documents because of the technical procedure, resort to them is not mandatory nor indispensable (Heirs of Severa P.Gregorio vs. CA- 300 SCRA, Dec. l998). The Judge must conduct its own independent examination to determine its authenticity.

Falsification/forgery cannot be presumed. It must be proven by clear, positive and convincing evidence. The burden of proof lies in the party alleging forgery (Joven vs. Carungin- June 2002). There is such thing as Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document if the money involved is privately owned (but no such crime if the document is private). Because there is no complex crime of Estafa Thru Falsification of a

Private Document, because these two crimes ( Falsification and Estafa) have an element in common, which is intent to cause damage or the damage itself.There is no Estafa, through deceit or fiduciary position abused, unless another has been damaged or there has been an intent to damage one. Similarly, there is no Falsification of a Private Document in the

in the Penal Code sense, unless in addition to the forgery, there is damage or intent to cause damage to another through forgery. Just as deceit by itself is not Estafa, so Falsification of a Private Document by itself, is not the crime of Falsification of a Private Document, without damage (Pp. vs. Paguitalan- 38 O.G. 410).

In this situation, it must be duly considered whether the offender can misappropriate the private funds without tampering with the private document. If he can, then the crime is pure and simple Estafa, but if he cannot misappropriate the fund without tampering with the private document, then the crime is Falsification of a Private Document (Art. 172).

Is good faith a defense in the crime of Falsification? Yes. There is no falsification if the acts of the accused are consistent with good faith. Ex. Misstatements or erroneous assertions in a public document. Layug vs. Sandiganbayan- l32 SCAD August 2000- Acc. filled up his DTR despite the fact that he has no work because he was detailed in another office of which he is contesting.

ART. 172-Falsification by Private Individual & Use of Falsified Doc.Acts punished: 1) Falsification of any public or official or commercial document by a private individual; 2) Falsification of a private document; and 3) Use of such falsified document.A) Falsification of a public or official or commercial document by a private individual. Refers only to Acts 1 to 6.

Falsification of a Deed of Sale by a private individual, by inserting in the genuine deed two other parcels of land. What was sold was only one parcel, but the vendee inserted the two other parcels (Riveral case). Article 172- Acts no. 3,4 and 6. Crime- Falsif. of a Public Doc. by a Private Individual.

A lawyer made it appear that the judge issued a Decision, when it is not true. Acts- no. 1, 2, 4Crime- Falsification of an Official Document by a Private Individual.Alta Vista case- Leader of the group of squatters made it appear that the members of his group received the money paid to them by Alta Vista by signing the private payroll, when

in fact this is not true.Acts: no. 1, 2, 4Crime -Falsification of a Private Document by a Private Individual because the leader falsified the payroll by making it appear that the members affixed their signatures therein and then presented this to Alta Vista as his basis to claim the money.

Use of falsified document The crime punished in the last par. of Art. 172 (introducing in evidence in any judicial proceedings or to the damage of another who uses such fake documents (is not necessarily included in the crime of falsification of a public document by a public officer or employee or by a private person (Pp. vs. Mendoza).

Distinction between Falsification of Public Document and Falsification of Private Document: 1) In Falsification of Public Document- mere falsification is enough; whereas in Falsification of a Private Document, aside from falsification, prejudice to a third person or intent to cause damage is essential;

2) Falsification of a Public Document- committed in 8 ways; whereas in Falsification of a Private Document-cannot be committed in any of the ways specified in pars. 7 & 8. (Acts are only from 1 to 6).Use of Falsified Document- if used in any other proceeding, damage or intent to cause damage is material, but if it is a judicial proceedings, then damage is not an element. Penalty Prision Correccional- med & max. per. & a Fine not exceeding P5,000.

Art. 173-Falsif. of wireless cable telegraph, & telephone messages, & use of said falsified messagesOffenders: Any officer or employee of the govt. or of any private corp.Elem.: engaged in the service of sending or receiving wireless cable, telephone messages;utters fictitious wireless, telegraph or telephone message of any system.

-Any person who shall use such falsified dispatch to the prejudice of a third party or with intent to cause such prejudice.Penalty- Prision Correccional in its medium and maximum period.ARTICLE 174- FALSIFICATION OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATES, CERTIFICATES OF MERIT OR SERVICE

1) First group: Offenders: Physicians/surgeons in connection with the practice of his profession Acts: Issue false medical certificate 2) Second group: Offenders: Public Officers Acts: issue false Certificates of Service,

good conduct or similar circumstances (intent of gain is immaterial).Penalty for nos. 1 & 2- Arresto Mayor max. to Prision Correccional in its minimum period and a Fine not to exceed P1,000.3) Third group: Offenders: private persons Acts: issue false certificates. Penalty Arresto Mayor

Article 175-Using False Certificates1) Offender- any person2) Acts a) Uses the medical certificates, cert. of service, etc. b) knowing it to be false.Penalty Arresto MenorFalse certificates must not be confused with falsified documents under Arts. 171 and 172. There are distinctions, to wit:

1) Use of false documents under Arts. 171 & 172- will make the offender liable under par. 3 of Art. 172;2) Use of false certificates in Art. 174, whether in a judicial or any proceeding with knowledge of their falsity, will subject the offender for prosecution under Art. 175.

Art. 176-Manufacturing/Possessing of Instruments for Falsification.1) Offender: a) Maker/ introducer in our country stamps, dies, marks, or other instruments or impl. intended to be used in the commission of the offenses of counterfeiting or falsif. (Arts. 171 to 174); b) Possessor w/ intention to use.2) Pen- Prision Correccional in its min & med periods.