ARTICLE 114-TREASON P100,000 pesos.
- Resident Aliens – RT to Death and a fine not to exceed
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.
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 country’s 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.
As to confession – it must be done in open court. This excludes extra-
judicial admission.
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 – RP to Death or a fine not to exceed
Clarz Ry Criminal Law II
P100,000 pesos. 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: 1) Conspiracy to
commit Treason; b) Conspiracy to commit Rebellion, insu., or coup d’etat
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 d’etat 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.
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 an
offense against national security.
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;
1
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 of 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 Neutrality
This is committed in time of war.
Offenders: any person
Elements:
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 Correccional
Article 120 – CORRESPONDENCE WITH HOSTILE COUNTRY
Offenders: any person
Elements:
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; and
3) 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 Enemy’s 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 depredation in the high seas, without lawful
authority and done 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
Clarz Ry
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; or
3) 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.
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.
Criminal Law II 2
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.
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 (EO 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.
Clarz Ry
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.
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
I) Offenders:
1) Public officer
2) Employee- who are not authorized by any judicial order.
II) 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; and
c) 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
Criminal Law II 3
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) Employee
2) 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 seizure
The 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
Clarz Ry
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
3) consented search
4) search of evidence in plain view - 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 indiv’s. 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
supporting 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) – 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.
The requiring of a permit shall only be regulatory – not to prevent
peaceful assemblies. The Mayors possess reasonable discretion to
Criminal Law II 4
 determine public place – Navarro vs. Villegas – 31 SCRA 371. - Crime of the masses/ multitude
- vast movement of men and a complex net of intrigue and plots
(Ortega – does not agree to the opinion that if the mayor dictates the
place – it is a violation of the law. This is a crime against Public Order – Pp. vs. Asuncion – April l992.

If in the beginning the assembly is peaceful, then later the If the acts of killing are not shown to be with political end or political order-
participants became unruly – commit the crimes- Inciting to Sedition not Rebellion:- Off. Of the Prov. Pros. vs. CA- Dec. 2000; Pp. vs. Ompad-
– meeting now can be dissolved . Permit is not a license to commit a 233 SCRA – l994
crime.
Baylosis vs. Chavez- 202 SCRA l99- pub. Prosecutor has the choice/
Two criteria: discretion to choose what crime to file.
1) Dangerous Tendency Rule – applicable during time of national
unrest- e.g. prevent coups; No complex crime of Rebellion with Murder, Arson, Robbery or other
2) Clear & Present Danger Rule – applicable in time of peace; serious crimes, committed as a means to or a furtherance of the rebellion –
stricter rule. Enrile vs. Salazar- 186 SCRA – l990.
2) Shall hinder any person from joining any lawful association or from
attending any of its meetings; ARTICLE 134-A- COUP D’TAT-
3) Shall prohibit or hinder any person from addressing any petition to the I) Elements:
authorities for correction of abuses or redress of grievance. (no subservion a) swift attack accompanied w/ violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or
law – RA 7736 – repealed RA 1700 – l992) stealth;
b) directed against military camp/installations, communications, public
ARTICLE 132 – INTERRUPTION OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP utilities/ facilities;
I) Offenders: 1) Public officers
2) employees II) Offenders: Any person or persons belonging to the military, police or
II) Acts: public officer w/ or w/o civilian support.
1) Prevent religious ceremonies III) Purpose – seize or diminish state powers.
2) Disturbing the ceremonies or manifestation of any religion
III) Penalty – PC- min period, w/ threats /violence – PC max Distinction between R & C:
1) Essence of the crime
Pp. vs. Mojica – Dec. 29, l955 – Priest was prevented from saying the R- rising publicly & taking up arms against the govt.
mass C- swift attack against govt./ mil. institutions, communication facilities, pub.
Utilities essential in the exercise of govt. powers;
Included in the religious services – activities in the house w/ 20 to 30
people ( prayer meetings – Couples for Christ). This refers to exercise of 2) No. of offenders:
religious manifestation – not quasi-religious ceremonies- house blessings. R- involves multitude of people
C- committed singly or collectively
ARTICLE 133- OFFENDING RELIGIOUS FEELING
I) Offenders: 3) Offenders:
1) Public officer/employee; R- perpetrated by any person (doesn’t require to be mil., police AFP or
2) private individuals – this is the only crime against the Fundamental public officer;
Laws of the State that can be committed by a private individual. C- principal offenders are members of AFP, PNP or public officers w/ or
II) Acts: w/o civilian support;
1) Notoriously offensive to feelings of the faithful- Pp. vs. Baes – 68
Phil. 203- (ridicule rel. dogma) 4) Purpose:
2) performed in a place devoted to religious worship or during the of a R- overthrow the govt.
religious ceremony. – Baes cs. – causing a funeral held in accordance with C- destabilizing or immobilizing or paralyze the existing govt. & taking over
the rites of a rel. sect to pass through the catholic church. I.e. stoning a some facilities which are needed for the exercise of govt. powers;
minister while in the act of preaching.
5) How committed:
Whether the act is offensive notoriously – is to be judged by the feelings of R- through force & violence
the followers and not by the offenders. C- not only through force or violence but also threats, intimidation, strategy
or stealth;
Other acts may only consist: Unjust Vexation
Utility workers cannot commit coup d’tat.
– accused played dance music when the Catholics were about to pray the
rosary. Article 135- Penalty for Reb., Ins. or Coup d’tat-
– drunk person entered w/ uplifted hands while the congregation of the Article 136: Conspiracy and Proposal to commit coup d’tat, rebellion
Assembly of God was having its afternoon session and then grabbed the or insurrection
song leader- Unjust Vexation. Art. 137: Disloyalty of Public Officers or Employees (By failing to
resist a rebellion or continuing to discharge the functions of their
ARTICLE 134- REBELLION OR INSURRECTION office)
I) Offenders: Any person:
a) Leader – who promotes, maintains or leads the rebellion. If unknown, ARTICLE 137:INCITING TO REBELLION OR INSURRECTION-
spokesman, signatories of docs.- can be punished as leaders. Pen. – Offender: Any person
Reclusion Perpetua Elements:
b) followers - Reclusion Temporal 1) Offender must not take up arms or is not in open hostility against the
II) Acts: govt.;
1) Remove from the allegiance of the government or its laws, or Phil. 2) Incite other to commit rebellion or insurrection;
Territory or any part thereof; 3) means employed are speeches, writings, emblems, or any similar
2) Deprive the chief executive or legislative, wholly or partially of any of means.
their powers.
III) Elements: The purpose of the meeting is always illegal as it is held to incite persons
1)public uprising (rising publicly) to commit rebellion.
2) taking up arms
ARTICLE 138: SEDITION:
Purpose: to overthrow the duly constituted authority in order to establish Offender:
another form of government. 1)Any person

Clarz Ry Criminal Law II 5

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)
Clarz Ry
Dangerous Tendency Rule rather than the clear and present danger rule is
being adopted here.
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
subcommittees, constitutional commissions, or committees or divisions
thereof, or of any provincial board, city council or municipal council of
board 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 firearm in 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
Criminal Law II 6
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; and
e) 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.
Clarz Ry
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 offender’s 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
Criminal Law II 7
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:
1) Any person who commits any of the above acts;
2) any person who:
a) restrains another from attending as a witness;
b) induces him to disobey a summon;
c) 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;
2) the offender resists or seriously disobeys a person in authority or his
agent; and
3) 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 & APA
ARTICLE 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 disturbance 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 spontaneous and the meeting at the outset was legal and became a
public disorder only because of such outcry; while in the latter, the meeting
Clarz Ry
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 printer’s 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) Illegal 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 P200
ARTICLE 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; and
3) 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.
Criminal Law II 8

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 offender’s 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 establishment
because leaving the penal institution is encouraged in cases of disorders.
This is shown by the fact that there is premium for those who leave 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
Clarz Ry
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; and
2) 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 commission 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 Interest
Article 161- Counterfeiting the great seal of the Govt. of the PI, forging
the signature of the Chief Executive (not Falsification).
Article 162- Using forged signature or counterfeit seal or stamps.
Article 163- Making and Importing and uttering false coins (pen.
depends upon whether the coin is gold or silver or ten-centavo
denomination, or of minor coinage or that 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
Criminal Law II 9
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 Possesison 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 DOCUMENTS
Document- 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
Clarz Ry
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 DOCUMENTS
1) 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.
Criminal Law II 10
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;
Elements:
1) Offender is a public official, employee, notary public or ecclesiastical
minister;
2) He takes advantage of his official position; and
3) 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; OR
8) 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 for
P 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.
Clarz Ry
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- B(IR 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 patrolman’s 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
Criminal Law II 11

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 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, 4
Crime- 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, 4
Crime -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
Clarz Ry
P5,000.
Article 173-Falsification of wireless cable telegraph, & telephone
messages, & use of said falsified messages
Offenders: Any officer or employee of the govt. or of any private corp.
Element: 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 Certificates
1) Offender- any person
2) Acts –
a) Uses the medical certificates, cert. of service, etc.
b) knowing it to be false.
Penalty – Arresto Menor
False 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.
.
Article 177- Usurpation of Authority or Official Functions
1) Offender: Any person –
a) public officer ( ex. Pp. vs. Hilvano- 52 O.G. 5491 – a Mun. Councilor
continued exercising the functions/duties of a Mayor despite the opinion
given by the Exec. Sec. & Provl. Pros. that the Vice-Mayor has the right to
exercise said duties).
Another ex. A DA official who signed the Deed of Donation of a parcel of
land for the use by the Dept. of Agriculture and later on also signed the
Deed of Revocation, is also liable under this prov. Because only the
Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to do so or the Regional
Director, if given such authority by the Sec.
b) private person (person who pretended to be a BIR Examiner).
2) Acts:
a) Knowingly & falsely representing himself to be an officer, agent or rep.
Criminal Law II 12
 of any dept. or agency of the Phil. Govt. or any foreign govt.;
b) Performing any act pertaining to any person in authority or public
officer of the Phil. Govt. or foreign govt. under pretense of official position
and without being lawfully entitled to do so.
There must be false pretense as without it there is no such offense –
Gargantoni vs. Pp- June 16, l988- motorist who directed the traffic to
unwind the same.
3) Penalty – Prision Correccional in its minimum to medium periods.
If the functions usurped is that of a diplomatic, consular or other official of a
foreign govt. – Republic Act 75, which carries a penalty of imprisonment of
not more than 5 years or a fine not exceeding P5,000.
Republic Act no. 10 – punishes any person, who with or without pretense
of official position, shall perform any act pertaining to the govt. or any
person in authority or public officer, without being lawfully entitled to do so.
This carries the penalty of imprisonment of not less than 2 years nor more
than 10 years.
This law however, refers only to seditious organization.
Article 178- Using Fictitious Names & Concealing True Names
There are two acts punished in this article:
A) USING FICTITIOUS NAMES:
1) Offender: any person
2) Acts:
a) using a name other than his real name;
b) fictitious name was used publicly;
c) the purpose is to:
i) conceal a crime
ii) evade judgment
iii) cause damage to public interest.
Exs. Gen. Tumulak cs.
Pp. vs. Ho Tee Piu- signing fictitious name in his passport.
True name – one which appears in the Birth Certificate.
Pen- AMayor & a fine not exceeding P500
B) CONCEALING TRUE NAME-
Elements:
i) offender conceals his true name & other personal circumstances; and
ii) the purpose is to conceal his identity.
In our jurisdiction, concealment is not only for his true name but also the
other personal circumstances.
Pen- AMenor or a fine not exceeding P200
Commonwealth Act No. 142- Regulate the use of Aliases: except as
pseudonym for literary, cinema, television, radio or other entertainment
purposes and in athletic events where the use of a pseudonym is a
normally accepted practice, no person shall use any name different from
the one which was registered in the office of the local civil registrar.
Rivera vs. Intermediate Appellate Court- 132 SCRA 478- a common-law
wife does not incur criminal liability under CA 142 if she uses the family
name of the man she has been living with for almost 20 years, introduced
by him to the public as his wife and she assumed that role and his name
without any sinister motive or personal material gain in mind. She applied
for the benefits upon his death not for herself but for their son of tender age
who was under her guardianship.
Pen- Imprisonment from 1 to 5 yrs. & a fine from P5,000 to P10,000
Article 179- Illegal Use of Uniforms or Insignia
1) Offender- any person
2) Elements:
i) offender publicly makes use of insignia, uniform or dress; and
ii) the insignia, uniform or dress pertains to an office not held by the
offender or pertains to a class of persons of which the offender is not a
member.
Clarz Ry Criminal Law II
Exact imitation is not necessary. Colorable resemblance is enough-
calculated to deceive, especially those who are not familiar.
Use publicly or improperly- has no right to use it.
Insignia- badge.
FALSE TESTIMONY
FALSE TESTIMONY- is a declaration under oath of a witness in a judicial
proceeding which is contrary to what is true, or to deny the same, or to
alter essentially the truth.
False Testimony requires a criminal intent and cannot be committed
through negligence. So, if it is due to error or good faith, it is not felonious.
It could not be frustrated or attempted.
Reasons why false testimony is punished- Falsehood is ever
reprehensible; but it is particularly odious when committed in a judicial
proceeding, as it constitutes an imposition upon the court and seriously
exposes it to miscarriage of justice.
Forms of False Testimony:
1) False Testimony in criminal cases (Arts. 180 181);
2) False Testimony in civil cases (Article 182); and
3) False Testimony in other cases (Article 183).
FALSE TESTIMONY AGAINST THE DEFENDANT IN CRIMINAL CASES:
ARTICLE 180- FALSE TESTIMONY AGAINST A DEFENDANT:
“Against the defendant”- means a false testimony that tends to establish or
aggravate the guilt of the accused and not the result that the testimony
may result.
Under this article, false testimony may still be committed even if the same
is not considered or is not given any weight or even if the accused is
acquitted.
The penalty depends upon the sentence imposed upon the accused in the
criminal case where the false testimony was given except in
The case of a judgment of acquittal.
Penalties:
1) Reclusion Temporal – if the defendant in said case shall have been
sentenced to Death;
2) Prision Mayor - if the defendant shall have been sentenced to Reclusion
Temporal or Reclusion Perpetua;
3) Prision Correccional plus a fine not exceeding P1,000 - if the defendant
shall have been sentenced to any other afflictive pen.
4) Arresto Mayor plus a Fine not exceeding P1,000 - if the defendant shall
have been sentenced to a correctional penalty or a fine, or shall have been
acquitted.
Art. 180 does not prescribe a penalty where the defendant in a criminal
case is sentenced to a light penalty. False Testimony in this instance
cannot be punished considering that a penal law is to be strictly construed.
Article 181- False Testimony Favorable To The Defendant
Intent to favor the accused is essential in this kind of false testimony. It is
not also necessary that the false testimony given should directly influence
the decision of acquittal.
The penalty provided under this article is less than that which is provided
under Art. 180 because there is no danger to the life or liberty of the
defendant. Independent evidence of falsity is not required for conviction.
Penalty- Arresto Mayor in its maximum period to Prision Correccional in its
minimum period and a Fine not to exceed P1,000 if the prosecution is for a
felony punishable by an afflictive penalty, and the penalty of Arresto Mayor
in any other case.
Article 182- False Testimony in Civil Cases
Elements:
1) the testimony must be given in a civil case;
2) the testimony must relate to the issues presented in said case;
3) the testimony must be false;
4) the false testimony must be given by the defendant knowing the
13
same to be false;
5) such testimony must be malicious and given with an intent to affect
the issues presented in said case.
Pen- depends upon the amount involved.
Article 183- False Testimony in Other Cases & Perjury under Solemn
Affirmation
This is committed by any person who, knowingly makes untruthful
statements and not being included in the preceding articles, shall testify
under oath, or make an affidavit, upon any material matter before a
competent person authorized to administer an oath in cases in which the
law so requires.
Any person who, in case of a solemn affirmation made in lieu of an oath,
shall commit any of the falsehoods mentioned in this and the three
preceding articles of this section.
Pen- Arresto Mayor in its max. period to Prision Correccional in its min.
period.
Perjury
Perjury is the willful and corrupt assertion of falsehood under oath or
affirmation administered by an authority of law on a material matter.
524166).
Two contradictory sworn statements are not sufficient to convict for Perjury
because the prosecution must prove which of the two statements is false,
and must show that statement to be false by other evidence other than the
contradictory statement (U.S. vs. Capistrano- 40 Phil. 902).
Distinction between False Testimony and Perjury:
1) False Testimony is given in the course of a judicial proceeding; whereas
Perjury is any willful and corrupt assertion of falsehood on a material
matter under oath and not given in judicial proceeding;
2) False Testimony contemplates an actual trial where judgment of
conviction or acquittal is rendered and not merely a preliminary
investigation; whereas Perjury may be committed even during a
preliminary investigation as well as in the making of a false affidavit under
oath on a material matter when required by law.
Distinction between Perjury and Falsification of Documents:
1) Falsification- the documents may or may not be under oath; whereas in
Perjury, the document must be under oath and required by law to be under
oath;
2) Falsification –the contents of the document may be true but the
signature is false; in Perjury, the contents of the document in its material
aspect must be deliberately false.

Elements:
1) Statement or affidavit upon material matter made under oath;
2) Before a competent officer authorized to receive and administer such
oath;
3) Willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood by the offender;
4) The sworn statement containing the falsity is required by law (Pp. vs.
Bautista- 40 O.G. 2491).

Material matter- means the main fact which is the subject of the inquiry, or
any circumstance which tends to prove the fact, or any fact or
circumstance which tends to corroborate or strengthen the testimony
relative to the subject of the inquiry, or which legitimately affects the credit
of any witness who testified (U.S. vs. Estrana- 16 Phil. 520).

The word “material” is not limited to testimony bearing directly on the issue
but includes collateral matter.

“Collateral” – testimony which although not direct proof upon the issues,
yet has substantial bearing on the testimony relating to the issues.

The test is not whether the evidence was properly to be admitted but
whether if admitted it could properly influence the result of the trial.

Pp. vs. Banzil- Feb. 12, l960 – in an administrative proceeding for

immorality wherein the accused testified that he was single although he
was married, the falsity is not material because whether he is married or
not, has nothing to do with the charge of immorality. (This is no longer
applicable today. As under the civil service rules, if the parties are both
single- there could be no immorality.

“ When the law so requires” does not mean that the sworn statement or
affidavit must be required by law. The word “requires” is merely permissive,
not mandatory. Reasonably interpreted, it means “ in cases in which the
law so authorizes”. (Pp. vs. Angangco- G.R. No. 47693).

In a verified answer to a complaint filed in an ordinary civil case if false is

not Perjury as the verification of the answer is not required by law.

Moreover, any statement in an appropriate pleading filed in court relevant

to the issues in the case is absolutely privileged and may not be made the
subject of a criminal prosecution.

Where the defendant executed an affidavit stating that he lost his driver’s
license by virtue of which he was able to secure a new one, when in truth
and in fact his driver’s license was confiscated by the authorities, it was
held that

Perjury was committed (Pp. vs. Bautista- supra).

Unjustified statements in the Personal Data Sheet (PDS), a requirement

under Civil Service Rules and Regulations in connection with employment
in the government constitutes Perjury ( Inting vs. Sandiganbayan – L-

Clarz Ry Criminal Law II 14