Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 51

Crimes Against Public Order

(Part I)
Title III
• A. Rebellion, coup d’etat, sedition, disloyalty
• B. Crimes against popular representation
• C. Illegal assemblies and associations
Art. 134. Rebellion or insurrection
• Rebellion – object of the movement is completely to overthrow and
supersede the existing government
• Insurrection – movement which seeks merely to effect some change
of minor importance, or to prevent the exercise of governmental
authority with respect to particular matters or objects
Art. 134. Rebellion or insurrection
• Elements
• 1. (a) public uprising, and (b) taking up arms against the government,
AND
• 2. Purpose of the uprising or movement is either
• To deprive the Chief Executive or Congress, wholly or partially, of any of their
powers or prerogatives, OR
• To remove from the allegiance to said government or its laws
• The territory of the PH or any part thereof, OR
• Any body of land, naval or other armed forces
Art. 134. Rebellion or insurrection
• Crime of rebellion is by nature a crime of masses or multitudes
involving crowd action, which cannot be confined a priori within
predetermined bounds. It is a vast movement of men and a complex
net of intrigues and plots.
Rebellion Treason
levying of war may be during peace time levying of war is to aid the enemy
for any of the purposes in Art. 134

Always involves taking up arms against May be committed by mere adherence to


Govt the enemy, giving him aid and comfort
• Rebellion is a predicate crime of terrorism
Doctrine of absorption in Rebellion
• All crimes, whether punishable under a special law or general law,
which are mere components or ingredients, or committed in
furtherance thereof, become absorbed in the crime of rebellion and
cannot be isolated and charged as separate crimes in themselves
(Ponce-Enrile v. Amin, as cited in Lagman v. Medialdea)
• But see Gonzales v Abaya – doctrine of absorption generally applies
to crimes punished by the same statute, and applies only if the TC has
jurisdiction over both offenses.
• Political crimes are those directly aimed against the political order, as
well as common crimes as may be committed to achieve a political
purpose.
Doctrine of absorption in Rebellion
• No complex crime of rebellion with murder and other common crimes
• Reason: Under Art. 135 (repealed), the means by which rebellion may be
committed is by engaging in war against the forces of government, and
committing serious violence in the prosecution of said war. These
expressions imply everything that connotes:
• Resort to arms
• Requisition of property and services
• Collection of taxes and contributions
• Restraint of liberty
• Damage to property
• Physical injuries
• Loss of life
Doctrine of absorption in Rebellion
• In deciding if the crime committed is rebellion, ascertain WON the act was
done in furtherance of political end  political motive should be
conclusively demonstrated
• Burden of demonstrating political motive falls on the defense, because it
lies with the accused’s knowledge, and it’s an affirmative defense
• Reason: political motive should be established before a person charged with a
common crime – alleging rebellion in order to lessen the possible imposable penalty
– could benefit from the law’s relatively benign attitude towards political crimes.
• Political motive must be alleged in the Information and must be
established by clear and satisfactory evidence (on the part of the
prosecution)
Doctrine of absorption in Rebellion
• BUT not every act of violence is to be deemed absorbed in the crime
of rebellion solely because it happens to be committed
simultaneously with or in the course of rebellion. If the killing,
robbing, etc. were done for private purposes or profit, without any
political motivation, the crime would be separately punishable and
would not be absorbed by the rebellion
• If no political motive is established and proved, the accused should be
convicted of common crime and not of rebellion
Jurisprudence on rebellion
• People v Lovedioro – nowhere in his EJ confession did he mention that
he was a member of NPA; nothing in it suggests that the killing was
motivated by a political purpose. Info did not contain any mention as
to involvement of NPA in the death of SPO3 Lucilo. No explanation as
to what contribution the killing would have made towards
achievement of NPA’s subversive aims. SPO3 Lucilo was never alleged
to be an informer. No acts of his were specifically shown to have
offended the NPA. Appellant’s bare allegations of membership in NPA
was conveniently infused to mitigate the penalty imposable upon him
(since rebellion carries a lighter penalty than murder, the crime
charged)
Jurisprudence on rebellion
• People v. Dasig – appellant not only confessed voluntarily his
membership with the sparrow unit but also his participation and that
of his group in the killing of Pfc. Manatad. It is of judicial notice that
the sparrow unit us the liquidation squad of the NPA with the
objective of overthrowing the government. Therefore it is not hard to
comprehend that the killing of Pfc. Manatad was committed as a
means to or in furtherance of NPA’s subversive ends. Consequently,
appellant is liable for rebellion, not murder with direct assault.
Jurisprudence on Rebellion
• Umil v. Ramos – Dural was arrested for being a member of the NPA,
an outlawed subversive organization. Subversion being a continuing
offense, the arrest of Dural without warrant is justified as it can be
said that he was committing an offense when arrested. The crimes of
rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes,
and crimes or offenses committed in furtherance thereof or in
connection therewith constitute direct assaults against the State and
are in the nature of continuing crimes.
Jurisprudence on Rebellion
• Umil v. Ramos – Given the ideological content of membership in CPP/NPA, Dural
did not cease to be, or became less of a subversive, for purposes of arrest, simply
because he was, at the time of arrest, confined in the hospital. (He was identified
as one of several persons who the day before his arrest without warrant at the
hospital, had shot 2 policemen.) That Dural had shot the 2 policemen as part of
his mission as a sparrow member did not end there and then. He, given another
opportunity, would have shot or would shoot other policemen anywhere as
agents or representatives of organized government. It is in this sense that
subversion like rebellion (or insurrection) is perceived as continuing offense.
• Unlike common offenses which generally end upon their commission, subversion
and rebellion are anchored on an ideological base which compels the repetition
of the same acts of lawlessness and violence until the overriding objective of
overthrowing organized government is attained.
Jurisprudence on Rebellion
• People v. Hernandez (G.R. No. L-6025-26, July 18, 1956) – the
ingredients of a crime form part and parcel thereof, and hence, are
absorbed by the same and cannot be punished either separately
therefrom or by the application of Art. 48.
• There is more reason to apply said rule (absorption) in the crime of
rebellion than in that of treason, for the law punishing rebellion (old
Art. 135) specifically mentions the act of engaging in war and
committing serious violence among its essential elements – thus
clearly indicating that everything done in the prosecution of said
war, as a means necessary therefor, is embraced therein – unlike the
provision on treason which is less explicit thereon.
Jurisprudence on Rebellion
• People v. Geronimo (G.R. No. L-8936, Oct. 23, 1965)– rebellion is
integrated by the coexistence of both armed uprising for the purposes
expressed in Art 134, and the overt acts of violence described in Art
135. That both purpose and overt acts are essential components of
one crime, and that w/o either of them rebellion does not exist, is
shown by the absence of any penalty attached to Art. 134. It follows
therefore that any or all of the acts described in Art 135, when
committed as a means to or in furtherance of the subversive ends
described in Art. 134, become absorbed in the crime of rebellion,
and cannot be regarded or penalized as distinct crimes in
themselves
Jurisprudence on Rebellion
• Enrile v. Salazar – Hernandez remains binding doctrine operating to
prohibit the complexing of rebellion with any other offense
committed on the occasion thereof, either as a means necessary to
its commission or as an unintended effect of an activity that
constitutes rebellion.
Jurisprudence on Rebellion
• Ponce-Enrile v. Amin – All crimes, whether punishable under a special
law or general law, which are mere components or ingredients, or
committed in furtherance thereof, become absorbed in the crime of
rebellion and cannot be isolated and charged as separate crimes in
themselves.
• Petitioner’s alleged act of harboring or concealing which was based
on his acts of conspiring with Honasan was committed in connection
with or in furtherance of rebellion and must now be deemed as
absorbed by, merged in, and identified with the crime of rebellion
Jurisprudence on Rebellion
• Sep. op. of Ynares-Santiago, J. in Sanlakas v. Reyes – rebellion has
been held to be a continuing crime, and the authorities may resort to
warrantless arrests of persons suspected of rebellion (Sec. 5, Rule
113). However, this doctrine should be applied to its proper context,
i.e., relating to subversive armed organizations, such as the NPA, the
avowed purpose of which is the armed overthrow of the organized
and established government. Only in such instance should rebellion
be considered al continuing crime.
• After the peaceful surrender of the soldiers on July 27, 2003, there
was no crime that was being attempted, being committed, or had just
been committed. There should, therefore, be no occasion to effect a
valid warrantless arrest in connection with the Oakwood incident.
Art. 134-A. Coup d’etat
• Elements:
• 1. offender belongs to the military or police or holds any public office or
employment
• 2. committed by means of a swift attack accompanied by violence,
intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth
• 3. attack directed against duly constituted authorities, or any military camp
or installation, communication networks, public utilities or other facilities
needed for the exercise and continued possession of power
• Singly or simultaneously carried out anywhere in PH
• 4. purpose of attack is to seize or diminish state power
Art. 134-A. Coup d’etat

• May be committed with or without civilian participation


• Coup d’etat is a predicate crime of terrorism
• Doctrine of absorption in the Hernandez case is applicable to coup
d’etat
• There is no crime of inciting to coup d’etat
Art. 135. Persons liable for rebellion, insurrection
and/or coup d’etat
• A. Leaders
• Any person who promotes, maintains or heads rebellion or insurrection
• Any person who leads, directs or commands others to undertake coup d’etat
• B. Participants
• Any person who participates or executes commands of others in rebellion or
insurrection
• Any person in the govt service who participates or executes directions or
commands of others in undertaking a coup d’etat
• Any person not in the govt service who participates, supports, finances, abets
or aids in undertaking a coup d’etat
Art. 135. Persons liable for rebellion, insurrection
and/or coup d’etat
• When the rebellion, insurrection or coup d’etat is under the
command of unknown leaders, any person who in fact directed the
others, spoke for them, signed receipts and other documents issued
in their name, or performed similar acts, on behalf of the rebels,
shall be deemed a leader
Art. 136. Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup
d’etat, rebellion or insurrection
• Conspiracy to commit rebellion – 2 or more come to an agreement to
rise publicly and take arms against Govt for any of the purposes of
rebellion and decide to commit it
• Proposal to commit rebellion – person who has decided to rise
publicly and take arms against Govt for any of the purposes of
rebellion proposes its execution to some other person/s
• Merely agreeing and deciding to rise publicly and take arms against
Govt for purposes in Art 134, without actually rising publicly and
taking arms, OR those merely proposing commission of said acts to
others without actually performing overt acts under Art 134, are
already subject to punishment (People v Geronimo)
Conspiracy to commit rebellion
• People v Hernandez (G.R. No. L-6025, May 30, 1964) – mere membership
and nothing more merely implies advocacy of abstract theory or principle
w/o any action being induced thereby; such advocacy becomes criminal
only if it is coupled with action or advocacy of action, namely actual
rebellion or conspiracy to commit rebellion, or acts conducive thereto or
evincing the same.
• On the other hand, membership in Hukbalahap implies participation in an
actual uprising or rebellion to secure the liberation of the peasants and
laboring class from thralldom. By membership in HMB, one already
advocates uprising and the use of force, and by such membership, he
agrees or conspires that force be used to secure the ends of the party. Such
membership, therefore, even if there is nothing more, renders the
member guilty of conspiracy to commit rebellion
Conspiracy to commit rebellion
• People v Hernandez (G.R. No. L-6025, May 30, 1964), continued – And
when a Huk member, not content with his membership, does
anything to promote the ends of rebellion like soliciting
contributions, or acting as courier, he thereby becomes guilty of
conspiracy, unless he takes to the field and joins in the rebellion or
uprising, in which latter case he commits rebellion
Art. 137. Disloyalty of public officers or EEs
• Offender must be a public officer or EE
• Offender must not be in conspiracy w/ rebels; if he is, guilty of
rebellion
• Acts of disloyalty punished:
• Failing to resist rebellion by all the means in their power
• Continuing to discharge duties of their offices under the control of rebels
• Accepting appointment to office under them
Art. 138. Inciting to rebellion or insurrection
• Elements
• 1. Offender does not take arms or is not in open hostility against Govt
• 2. He incites others to rise publicly and take arms against Govt for any
of the purposes of rebellion
• 3. Inciting is done by means of speeches, proclamations, writings,
emblems, banners or other representations tending to the same end
Art. 138. Inciting to rebellion or insurrection
• In proposal, person who proposes has decided to commit rebellion
(cf. in inciting to rebellion, not required)
• In proposal, person who proposes uses secret means (cf. inciting to
rebellion, done publicly)
• In both, the offender induces another to commit rebellion
• In both proposal and inciting to commit rebellion, rebellion should
not be actually committed by the persons to whom it is proposed or
who are incited. If they commit rebellion because of the proposal or
inciting, the proponent or the one inciting becomes principal by
inducement
Art. 139. Sedition
• Elements
• 1. Offenders rise publicly and tumultuously,
• Note: need not be private individuals (People v Cabrera)
• 2. They employ force, intimidation, or other means outside of legal methods,
AND
• 3. Offenders employ any of those means to attain any:
• Prevent promulgation or execution of any law or the holding of any popular election
• Prevent N/P/M Govt, or any public officer from freely exercising functions, OR prevent the
execution of any admin order
• Inflict any act of hate or revenge upon person or property of any public officer or EE
• No distinction between persons to whom which it applies (People v Cabrera)
• Commit, for any political or social end, any act of hate or revenge against private persons or
any social class
• Despoil, for any political or social end, any person, or N/P/M Govt of all or part of its property
Art. 139. Sedition
• Nature: raising of commotions or disturbances in the State (People v
Cabrera)
• Ultimate object: violation of public peace
• cf. Treason, which is the violation by a subject of his allegiance to the
supreme authority of the State
• object – either political or social (cf. Rebellion)
• Sufficient that the public uprising is tumultuous (need not be against
the Govt) (cf. Rebellion)
Art. 139. Sedition
• Doctrine of absorption is not applicable (cf. Rebellion and Coup
d’etat)
• Because sedition can be committed w/o killings, burning of properties and
extortions
• Sedition is NOT a predicate crime of terrorism (cf. Rebellion and Coup
d’etat)
• Persons liable: leader, and other persons participating (Art. 140)
• Sedition cannot be committed by one person
• “persons”
• tumultuous if caused by more than 3
Art. 141. Conspiracy to commit sedition
• There must be an agreement to AND a decision to rise publicly and
tumultuously to attain any of the objects of sedition.
• Punishes only conspiracy to commit sedition. Proposal to commit
sedition is not punishable.
• But one who proposes sedition to another may be held liable for inciting to
sedition by uttering seditious words (Art. 142)
Art. 142. Inciting to sedition
• FIRST FORM
• Inciting others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which
constitute sedition by means of speeches, proclamations, writings,
emblems, etc.
• Note: the offender does not take direct part in the crime of sedition
Art. 142. Inciting to sedition
• SECOND FORM
• Uttering seditious words or speeches, and writing, publishing or circulating
scurrilous libels against the Govt or any of the duly constituted authorities,
which:
• tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing the functions of his office,
OR
• Tend to instigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes, OR
• Suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies, OR
• Lead or tend to stir up people against the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace,
the safety and order of the State.

• Note: not necessary that the purpose of offender is to accomplish any of


the objects of sedition under Art. 139
Art. 142. Inciting to Sedition
• THIRD FORM
• Knowingly concealing such evil practices is ordinarily an act of
accessory after the fact, but here the act is treated and punished as
that of the principal

• Note: “such evil practices” refers to the inciting to commit acts of


sedition, utterances of seditious speech, and writing, publishing or
circulating scurrilous libels against the govt. Thus, concealment of the
crime of sedition or the crime of inciting to commit rebellion is NOT
punishable under Art. 142.
Art. 142. Inciting to sedition
• Not necessary, in order to be seditious, that the words used should in
fact result in a rising of people against constituted authorities;
purpose of law is also to punish utterances which may endanger
public order (People v Nabong)
• Two rules relative to seditious words
• Clear and present danger – words are of such nature that by uttering them
there’s a clear and imminent danger of public uprising
• Dangerous tendency test – words used uttered or published could easily
produce disaffection among people
Art. 142. Inciting to Sedition
• US v Tolentino – The manifest tendency of the play, in view of the
time, place and manner of presentation, was to inculcate a spirit of
hatred and enmity against the Government, and the principal object
and intent of its author was to incite the people of PH to open and
armed resistance to the constituted authorities, and to induce them
to conspire together for the secret organization of armed forces, for
the purpose of overthrowing the present Govt and setting up
another in its stead.
• The public presentation of the drama took place in May 1903, less
than 2 years after the establishment of the Civil Govt. The smoldering
embers of a wide-spread and dangerous insurrection were not yet
entirely extinguished
Art. 142. Inciting to Sedition
• Espuelas v People – In the article, the govt is called dirty, dictatorship,
shameful, but no particular omissions or commissions are set forth.
Instead the article drips with male-violence and hate towards
constituted authorities; tries to arouse animosity towards all public
servants; seeks to sow the seeds of sedition and strife.
• The infuriating language is not a sincere effort to persuade, with the
writer’s simulated suicide, false claim to martyrdom, and failure to
particularize. When the use of irritating language centers not on
persuading the readers but on creating disturbances, the rationale of
free speech cannot apply and the speaker/writer is removed from the
protection of the constitutional guaranty.
Art. 142. Inciting to Sedition
• Espuelas v People (continued) – The essence of seditious libel is its
immediate tendency to induce people to resort to illegal methods
other than those provided by the Constitution.
• The mention made in the letter of the situation in Central Luzon, the
Huks, Julio Guillen and banditry in Leyte can be interpreted as an
indirect justification of the open defiance by the Huks against the
govt, the attempt against the life of Pres Roxas, and the ruthless
depredations committed by the bandits of Leyte, thus insinuating that
a state of lawlessness, rebellion and anarchy is better than the
maladministration of Pres Roxas and his men
Art. 142. Inciting to Sedition
• Espuelas v People (continued) – appellant proclaimed to readers that
he committed suicide because he had no power to put under juez de
cuchillo all the Roxas people in power. Knowing that the expression
“juez de cuchillo” means a “summary and arbitrary execution by the
knife”, the idea intended to be conveyed was no other than bloody,
violent and unpeaceful methods to free the govt from the Roxas
administration and his men
Art. 143. Acts tending to prevent the meeting
of Assembly and similay bodies
• Elements
• 1. projected or actual meeting of Congress or any of its sub-
/committees, of const’l comms. or its committees or divisions, or of
any prov’l board or city/municipal council or board
• 2. Any person prevents such meeting by force or fraud
Art. 144. Disturbance of proceedings
• Elements
• 1. meeting of Congress or any of its sub-/committees, of const’l
comms. or its committees or divisions, or of any prov’l board or city
or municipal council or board
• 2. any person does any:
• Disturbs such meetings, or
• Behaves while in the presence of such bodies in such a manner as to interrupt
its proceedings or impair the respect due it
Art. 145. Violation of parliamentary immunity
• Two acts punishable
• Elements of the first act
• (a) any person uses force, intimidation, threats or fraud
• (b)Purpose of offender is to prevent any member of Congress from:
• Attending the meetings of Congress, its sub-/committees, or of const’l
comms., its committees or divisions, OR
• Expressing his opinions, OR
• Casting his vote
Art. 145. Violation of parliamentary immunity
• Elements of the second act
• 1. Offender is a public officer or EE
• 2. He arrests any member of the Congress
• 3. Congress, at the time of arrest, is in regular or special session
• 4. Member arrested has not committed a crime punishable under the RPC
by any penalty punishable by prision mayor or higher (Sec. 11, Art. VI, ‘87
CONST)
• Note: CONST exempts a member of Congress from arrest, while Congress is in
session, for all offenses punishable by less than prision mayor. If a public officer
arrests him, the public officer is liable.
• Therefore, a public officer who arrests a member of Congress who has committed a
crime punishable by prision mayor or higher is not liable under Art 145
Art. 145. Violation of parliamentary immunity
• Parliamentary immunity does not protect members of the Congress from
responsibility before the Congress itself
• Under Sec. 11, Art. VI, CONST., there is no parliamentary immunity on
search. RPC cannot enlarge the parliamentary immunity under the CONST.
Hence the portion of Art. 145 RPC on immunity on search is inoperative or
unconstitutional (Martinez v. Morfe)
• Under the same provision, the immunity from arrest is limited to offenses
punishable by not more than 6 years of imprisonment. RPC cannot enlarge
the parliamentary immunity under the CONST. Hence the portion of Art.
145 on immunity on arrest for offenses punishable by a penalty of more
than 6 years of imprisonment is inoperative or unconstitutional (Ibid.)
Art. 146. Illegal assemblies
• What are illegal assemblies
• 1.
• A. Meeting – a gathering of persons, whether in a fixed place or moving
• B. Attended by armed persons
• C. Purpose is to commit any of the crimes punishable under the Code
• 2.
• A. Meeting – a gathering or group of persons, whether in a fixed place or
moving
• B. Audience, whether armed or not, is incited to the commission of treason,
rebellion or insurrection, sedition or direct assault
Art. 146. Illegal assemblies
• First form:
• Law does not state how many of the persons attending the meeting must be
armed. Such a good number must be armed.
• Not needed that the felony which is the agenda of the meeting is treason,
rebellion, sedition or direct assault
• Not required that the audience is incited to commit a crime
• Unarmed person merely present at the meeting of the first form of illegal
assembly is liable; penalty is arresto mayor. If they are merely present but
armed, penalty is prision correccional (same as with the second form)
Art. 146. Illegal assemblies
• Second form:
• If in a meeting the audience is incited to the commission of treason, rebellion,
sedition, or direct assault, the crimes committed are:
1. Illegal assembly, as regards:
A. organizers or leaders, and
B. persons merely present
2. Inciting to rebellion or sedition
A. insofar as the one inciting them is concerned
Art. 146. Illegal assemblies
• Persons merely present must have common intent to commit felony
of illegal assembly. Therefore if a person happens to be present at an
illegal assembly out of curiosity, he is not liable
• If any person present at the meeting carries an unlicensed firearm, it
is presumed that the purpose of meeting insofar as he is concerned
is to commit acts punishable under this code, and he shall be
considered a leader or organizer of the meeting (first form)
Art. 147. Illegal associations
• What are illegal associations
• 1. Associations totally or partially organized for the purpose of committing
any of the crimes punishable under the Code, and
• 2. Associations totally or partially organized for some purpose contrary to
public morals
• Persons liable for illegal association:
• 1. Founders, directors and president of the assoc. – PC min and med, and
P200k fine
• 2. mere members – arresto mayor
Art. 147. Illegal associations
• Illegal association distinguished from illegal assembly
Illegal Assembly Illegal Association
Actual meeting Necessary Not necessary
Act punished Meeting and attendance at Forming or organizing and
such meeting membership in the
association
Persons liable 1. Organizers or leaders, 1. Founders, directors and
and president, and
2. Persons present 2. Members

Вам также может понравиться