Title Three occasion of disorders, conflagrations, earthquakes
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
Chapter One. REBELLION, COUP D’ ETAT, SEDITION AND
DISLOYALTY
Article 134. Rebellion or insurrection – how committed
Article 134-A. Coup d’ etat – how committed
Article 135. Penalty for rebellion, insurrection or coup
d’ etat
Article 136. Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d’
etat, rebellion or insurrection
Article 137. Disloyalty of public officers or employees
Article 138. Inciting to rebellion or sedition
Article 139. Sedition – how committed
Article 140. Penalty for sedition
Article 141. Conspiracy to commit sedition
Article 142. Inciting to sedition
Chapter Two. CRIMES AGAINST POPULAR
REPRESENTATION
Section One – Crimes against legislative bodies and
similar bodies
Article 143. Acts tending to prevent the meeting of the
Assembly and similar bodies
Article 144. Disturbance of proceedings
Section Two – Violation of parliamentary immunity
Article 145. Violation of parliamentary immunity
Chapter Three. ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES AND ASSOCIATIONS
Article 146. Illegal assemblies
Article 147. Illegal associations
Chapter Four. ASSAULT UPON, AND RESISTANCE AND
DISOBEDIENCE TO, PERSONS IN AUTHORITY AND THEIR
AGENTS
Article 148. Direct assaults
Article 149. Indirect assaults
Article 150. Disobedience to summons issued by the
National Assembly, its committees or
subcommittees, by the Constitutional
Commissions, its committees, subcommittees or
divisions
Article 151. Resistance and disobedience to a person
in authority or he agents of such person
Article 152. Persons in authority and agents of persons
in authority – who shall be deemed as such
Chapter Five. PUBLIC DISORDERS
Article 153. Tumults and other disturbances of public
order – tumultuous disturbance or interruption
liable to cause disturbance
Article 154. Unlawful use of means of publication and
unlawful utterances
Article 155. Alarms and scandals
Article 156. Delivering prisoners from jail
Chapter Six. EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE
Article 157. Evasion of service of sentence
Article 158. Evasion of service of sentence on the
or other calamities
Article 159. Other cases of evasion of service of
Sentence
Chapter Seven. COMMISSION OF ANOTHER CRIME
DURING SERVICE OF PENALTY IMPOSED FOR ANOTHER
PREVIOUS OFFENSE
Article 160. Quasi- recidivism
Article 134. Rebellion or insurrection – how
committed
Elements:
1. There is a public uprising and taking arms
against the government;
2. The purpose of the uprising or movement is
-
a. to remove from the allegiance to
the government or its laws Philippine
territory or any part thereof, or any body of
land, naval, or other armed forces;
OR
b. to deprive the Chief Executive or
Congress, wholly or partially, of any of their
powers or prerogatives.
 Rebellion is more
frequently used where the object of the
movement is completely to overthrow and
supersede the existing government.
 Insurrection is more
commonly employed in reference to a 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 subjects.
 The crime of rebellion or
of inciting is by nature a crime of masses, of a
multitude.
 Actual clash of arms
with the government, not necessary to convict
the accused who is in conspiracy with others
actually taking arms with the government.
 It is not necessary that
the purpose of the rebellion be accomplished.
 Giving aid and comfort
is not criminal in rebellion.
Republic Act. No. 6968
An Act Punishing the Crime of Coup d’état by Amending
Articles 134, 135, and 136 of Chapter One, Title Three of Act
Numbered Thirty-Eight Hundred and Fifteen, Otherwise
Known as the Revised Penal Code, and For Other Purposes
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
14

Definition of Terms
Rebellion or insurrection - the crime of rebellion or
insurrection is committed by rising and taking arms against
the Government for the purpose of removing from the
allegiance to said Government or its laws, the territory of the
Republic of the Philippines or any part thereof, of any body
of land, naval or other armed forces, or depriving the Chief
Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of
their powers or prerogatives.
Coup D′ÉTAT – The crime of coup D′ÉTAT is a swift attack
accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or
stealth, directed against duly constituted authorities of the
Republic of the Philippines, or any military camp or
installation, communications networks, public utilities or
other facilities needed for the exercise and continued
possession of power, singly or simultaneously carried out
anywhere in the Philippines by any person or persons,
belonging to the military or police or holding any public
office or employment, with or without civilian support or
participation, for the purpose of seizing or diminishing state
power."
Rebellion Treason
Levying of war against the Levying of war against the
government during peace government, when
time for any of the purposes performed to aid the enemy;
in Article 134 adherence to enemy
Always involves taking up May be committed by mere
arms vs. the government adherence to the enemy,
giving him aid or comfort
Enrile vs. Salazar
A warrant was issued on an information filed by a panel of
prosecutors, charging Senator Enrile, the spouses Rebecco
and Erlinda Panlilio and Gregorio Honasan with the crime of
rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder
allegedly committed during the failed coup attempt which
took place from Nov. 29 to Dec. 10.
HELD: The written and oral pleas for the defendants
(Enrile et al.) presented the SC with three options: First,
abandon Hernandez and adopt the minority view expressed
in the dissent that rebellion cannot absorb more serious
crimes, and that under Article 48, rebellion may be
complexed with common offenses. Second, hold
Hernandez applicable only to offenses committed in
furtherance or as a necessary means for the commission of
rebellion, but not to acts committed in the course of a
rebellion which also constitute common crimes of grave or
less grave character. Third, maintain Hernandez as
applying to make rebellion absorb all other offenses
committed in its course, whether or not necessary to its
commission or furtherance thereof.
11 members of the SC voted against abandoning
Hernandez, while 2 felt the doctrine should be re-
examined. Because of this, the ruling remains good law, as
no new challenges are presented in this case persuasive
enough to warrant a complete reversal.
This view is reinforced by the fact that President Aquino,
exercising her powers under the 1986 Freedom
Constitution, repealed P.D. No. 942 of the former regime
which sought to nullify Hernandez by enacting a new
provision in the RPC to the effect that “when by reason, or
on the occasion, of any of the crimes penalized in this
Chapter, acts which constitute offenses upon which graver
penalties are imposed by the law are committed, the
penalty for the more serious offense in its maximum period
shall be imposed upon the offender.” The president has
then in effect reinstated Hernandez as binding doctrine
with the effect of law by legislative fiat.
The court unanimously voted to reject the second option.
The consensus was that the arguments were not sufficient
to overcome the thrust of Hernandez to rule out the
complexing of rebellion with any other offense committed
in its course under either of the aforecited clauses of
Article 48.
If Art. 48 were applied, and murder were not complexed
with rebellion and the 2 crimes were punished separately,
the extreme penalty could be imposed upon him, even in
the absence of a single aggravating circumstance. Thus,
said provision, if construed this way, would be unfavorable
to the accused.
Thus, Hernandez remains binding doctrine operating to
prohibit the complexing of rebellion with any other crime.
The SC ruled by a vote of 11 to 3 that the information filed
against the petitioner does in fact charge an offense. That
indictment is to be read as charging simple rebellion.
Ponce Enrile vs. Amin
Together with the information charging Enrile with
rebellion complexed with murder in the RTC of QC,
prosecutors filed another information charging him for
violation of P.D. No. 1829 in the RTC of Makati. It is
alleged that on Dec. 1, 1989 at Dasma Village, Enrile,
having reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Ex-
Col. Gringo Honasan has committed a crime, obstructed,
impeded, frustrated or delayed the apprehension of
Honasan by harboring or concealing him in his house.
Enrile apparently gave Gringo food and comfort in the
Dasma house, despite knowing that Gringo is a fugitive
from justice.
Is the alleged harboring or concealing by Enrile of Honasan
absorbed in the complexed rebellion charge against Enrile
(in Enrile vs. Salazar)?
HELD: YES
The rebellion charges filed against Enrile in Q.C. were
based on affidavits executed by 2 employees of a hotel who
stated that Gringo and some 100 rebel soldiers attended
the mass and birthday party held at the Enrile residence in
Dec 1, 1989. Based on this testimony, the prosecution
concluded that Enrile’s talking with the rebel leader Gringo
in his house in the presence of 100 armed soldiers, it can
be inferred that they were co-conspirators in the December
coup attempt. Thus, the factual allegations supporting the
rebellion charge include the very incident which gave rise
to the charge of the violation under P.D. 1829.
Necessarily, being in conspiracy with Gringo, Enrile’s
alleged act of harboring or concealing was for no other
purpose but in furtherance of the crime of rebellion thus
constituting a part thereof. It was motivated by the single
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
15
intent or resolution to commit the crime of rebellion. The
decisive factor in political crimes is the intent or motive.
If Enrile is not charged with rebellion and he harbored or
concealed Gringo simply because the latter is a friend and
former associate, the motive for the act is completely
different. But if the act is committed with political
motives, then it should be deemed to form part of the
crime of rebellion instead of being punished separately.
Inthis case, the act or harboring or concealing Gringo is
clearly a mere component of rebellion or an act done in
furtherance of rebellion. It cannot therefore be made
basis of a separate charge. All crimes, whether punishable
under 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
themselves.
People vs. Dasig
One afternoon, Pfc. Manatad, Pfc. Tizon and Pfc. Catamora
were tasked by their commanding officer to man the traffic
at 2 streets of Mandaue City. While on duty, Catamora saw
8 persons, including accused Nunez, acting suspiciously.
He noticed one of them giving instructions to two of the
men to approach Manatad. Catamora followed the two
men, but sensing that they were being followed, the men
went to the middle of the road and engage Catamora to a
gun battle. Catamora then heard a series of shots from the
other group and afterwards, he saw Manatad sprawled on
the ground. Catamora sought refuge at a nearby building
from where he saw 2 persons take Manatad’s gun and fired
at him to make sure he was dead. The group then fled the
scene.
Later on, 2 teams of police officers were tasked to conduct
surveillance on a suspected safehouse of members of the
NPA sparrow unit in Cebu City. When they reached the
place, the group saw Rodrigo Dasig and Nunez trying to
escape. The two men were apprehended, and their
firearms were confiscated. Dasig confessed in the hospital
that he and the group of Nunez killed Manatad and that he
and Nunez were members of the Sparrow unit. He was
found guilty of murder with direct assault.
HELD: Dasig should be prosecuted for rebellion. Appellant
not only confessed voluntarily his membership with the
Sparrow unit, but also his participation and that of his
group in the killing of Manatad. The Sparrow unit is the
liquidation squad of the NPA with the objective of
overthrowing the duly constituted government. It is
therefore not hard to comprehend that the killing of
Manatad was committed as a means to or in furtherance of
the subversive ends of the NPA. As such, appellant is liable
for rebellion and not murder with direct assault upon a
person in authority.
Acts committed in furtherance of rebellion though crimes
in themselves are deemed absorbed in one single crime of
rebellion. The act of killing a police officer, knowing too
well that the victim is a person in authority, is a mere
component of rebellion or an act done in furtherance of
rebellion. It cannot be made the basis of a separate
charge.
People vs. Lovedioro
Off-duty policeman SPO3 Jesus Lucilo was walking along a
street when a man suddenly walked beside him, pulled a
gun from his waist, aimed the gun at the policeman’s right
ear and fired. The man who shot Lucilo had 3 other
companions with him, one of whom shot the fallen
policeman four times as he lay on the ground. After taking
the Lucilo’s gun, the man and his companions boarded a
tricycle and fled. The accused-appellant was charged and
was convicted of the crime of murder.
HELD: In deciding if the crime committed is rebellion, not
murder, it becomes imperative for our courts to ascertain
whether or not the act was done in furtherance of a
political end. The political motive of the act should be
conclusively demonstrated. If no political motive is
established and proved, the accused should be convicted of
the common crime and not of rebellion. In cases of
rebellion, motive relates to the act, and mere membership
in an organization dedicated to the furtherance of rebellion
would not, by and of itself, suffice.
Appellant’s contentions regarding the reason for the killing
of Lucilo are couched in terms so general and non-specific
that they offer no explanation as to what contribution the
killing would have made towards the achievement of the
NPA’s subversive aims. Thus, in the absence of clear and
satisfactory evidence pointing to a political motive for the
killing of SPO3 Lucilo, the trial court correctly convicted
appellant of the crime of murder.
Article 134-A. Coup d’ etat – how committed
Elements:
1. Offender is a person or persons belonging to
the military or police or holding any public office
or employment;
2. It is committed by means of a swift attack
accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat,
strategy or stealth;
3. The attack is directed against the duly
constituted authorities of the Republic of the
Philippines, or any military camp or installation,
communication networks, public utilities or other
facilities needed for the exercise and continued
possession of power;
4. The purpose of the attack is to seize or
diminish state power.
 The crime of coup d’ etat may be
committed with or without civilian participation.
Article 135. Penalty for rebellion, insurrection
or coup d’ etat
Persons liable for rebellion, insurrection or coup d'
etat:
1. The leaders –
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
16
 a. Any person who promotes,
maintains or heads a rebellion or
insurrection; or
b. Any person who leads, directs or
commands others to undertake a coup d'
etat;
2. The participants -
a. Any person who participates or
executes the commands of others in
rebellion or insurrection;
b. Any person in the government
service who participates, or executes
directions or commands of others in
undertaking a coup d’ etat;
c. Any person not in the government
service who participates, supports, finances,
abets or aids in undertaking a coup d' etat.
 Public officer must take
active part, to be liable; mere silence or omission
is not punishable in rebellion.
 When the rebellion,
insurrection or coup d’ etat shall be 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 of such
rebellion, insurrection or couo d’ etat.
 It is not a defense in
rebellion that the accused never took the oath of
allegiance to, or that they never recognized the
government.
 Those who killed
persons in pursuance of the movement to
overthrow the government are liable for rebellion
only.
 Is there a complex crime
of rebellion with murder and other common
crimes? NO. Engaging in war against the
government necessarily imply everything that
war connotes: resort to arms, requisition of
property, collection of taxes, restraint of liberty,
damage to property, physical injuries and loss of
life.
 When any of the acts
above are committed as means to or in
furtherance of subversive ends, they become
absorbed in the crime of rebellion and cannot be
regarded or penalized as distinct crimes in
themselves. (This is the Hernandez ruling, later
reiterated in Enrile vs. Salazar)
 Killing, robbing etc. for
private purposes or profit, without any political
motivation, would be separately punished and
would not be absorbed in rebellion
 Political crimes are those
directly aimed against the political order, as well
as such common crimes as may be committed to
achieve a political purpose. The decisive factor is
intent or motive. A crime usually regarded as
common (e.g. homicide) may be stripped of its
common character if perpetrated for any of the
purposes of rebellion.
Article 136. Conspiracy and proposal to
commit coup d’ etat
 There is conspiracy to commit
rebellion when two or more persons come to an
agreement to rise publicly and take arms against
government for any of the purposes of rebellion
and decide to commit it.
 There is proposal to commit
rebellion when the person who has decided to
rise publicly and take arms against the
government for any of the purposes of rebellion
proposes its execution to some other person or
persons.
Bar Questions
Art 134; Rebellion; Politically Motivated; Committed
by
NPA Members (1998)
On May 5, 1992, at about 6:00 a.m., while Governor Alegre
of Laguna was on board his car traveling along the National
Highway of Laguna, Joselito and Vicente shot him on the
head resulting in his instant death. At that time, Joselito and
Vicente were members of the liquidation squad of the New
People's Army and they killed the governor upon orders of
their senior officer. Commander Tiago. According to Joselito
and Vicente,
they were ordered to kill Governor Alegre because of his
corrupt practices. If you were the prosecutor, what crime will
you charge Joselito and Vicente? [5%J
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If I were the prosecutor, I would charge Joselito and
Vicente with the crime of rebellion, considering that the
killers were members of the liquidation squad of the New
People's Army and the killing was upon orders of their
commander; hence, politically-motivated. This was the ruling
in People vs. Avila, 207 SCRA 1568 involving identical facts
which is a movement taken judicial notice of as engaged in
rebellion against the Government.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
If I were the prosecutor, I would charge Joselito and
Vicente for the crime of murder as the purpose of the killing
was because of his "corrupt practices ", which does not
appear to be politically motivated. There is no indication as
to how the killing would promote or further the objective of
the New Peoples Army. The killing is murder because it was
committed with treachery.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The crime should be rebellion with murder considering that
Art. 135 of the Revised Penal Code has already been
amended by Rep. Act No. 6968, deleting from said Article,
common crimes which used to be punished as part and
parcel of the crime of rebellion. The ruling in People vs.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
17
Hernandez, 99 Phil. 515 (1994), that rebellion may not be
completed with common crimes committed in furtherance
thereof, was because the common crimes were then
penalized in Art. 135 together with the rebellion, with one
penalty and Art. 48 of the Rev. Penal Code cannot be
applied. Art. 135 of said Code remained exactly the same
when the case of Enrile vs, Salazar, 186 SCRA 217 (1990)
was resolved. Precisely for the reason that Art. 48 cannot
apply because the common crimes were punished as part of
rebellion in Art. 135, that this Article was amended, deleting
the common crimes therefrom. That the common crimes
were deleted from said Article, demonstrates a clear
legislative intention to treat the common crimes as distinct
from rebellion and remove the legal impediment to the
application of Art.
48. It is noteworthy that in Enrile vs. Salazar (supra) the
Supreme Court said these:
"There is an apparent need to restructure the law on
rebellion, either to raise the penalty therefor or to clearly
define and delimit the other offenses to be considered as
absorbed thereby, so that if it cannot be conveniently utilized
as the umbrella for every sort of illegal activity undertaken in
its name. The Court has no power to effect such change, for
it can only interpret the law as it stands at any given time,
and what is needed lies beyond interpretation. Hopefully,
Congress will perceive the need for promptly seizing
the initiative in this matter, which is purely with in its
province,"
And significantly the said amendment to Art. 135 of
the Rev. Penal Code was made at around the time the
ruling in Salazar was handled down, obviously to neutralize
the Hernandez and the Salazar rulings. The
amendment was sort of a rider to the coup d'etat law,
Rep. Act No 6968.
Art 134-A: Coup d’ etat & Rape; Frustrated (2005)
Taking into account the nature and elements of the felonies
of coup d’ etat and rape, may one be criminally liable for
frustrated coup d’ etat or frustrated rape? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, one cannot be criminally liable for frustrated coup d’etat
or frustrated rape because in coup d’ etat the mere attack
directed against the duly constituted authorities of the
Republic of the Philippines, or any military camp or
installation, communication networks, public utilities or other
facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of
power would consummate the crime. The objective may not
be to overthrow the government but only to destabilize or
paralyze the government through the seizure of facilities and
utilities essential to the continued possession and exercise of
governmental powers.
On the other hand, in the crime of rape there is no
frustrated rape it is either attempted or consummated rape.
If the accused who placed himself on top of a woman,
raising her skirt and unbuttoning his pants, the endeavor to
have sex with her very apparent, is guilty of Attempted rape.
On the other hand, entry on the labia or lips of the female
organ by the penis, even without rupture of the hymen or
laceration of the vagina, consummates the crime of rape.
More so, it has long abandoned its ―stray‖ decision in
People vs. Erina 50 Phil 998 where the accused was found
guilty of Frustrated rape.
Art 134-A; Coup d’etat (2002)
If a group of persons belonging to the armed forces makes a
swift attack, accompanied by violence, intimidation and
threat against a vital military installation for the purpose of
seizing power and taking over such installation, what crime
or crimes are they guilty of? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The perpetrators, being persons belonging to the Armed
Forces, would be guilty of the crime of coup d'etat, under
Article 134-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
because their attack was against vital military installations
which are essential to the continued possession and exercise
of governmental powers, and their purpose is to seize power
by taking over such installations.
B. If the attack is quelled but the leader is unknown,
who shall be deemed the leader thereof? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The leader being unknown, any person who in fact directed
the others, spoke for them, signed receipts and other
documents issued in their name, or performed similar acts,
on behalf of the group shall be deemed the leader of said
coup d'etat (Art 135, R.P.C.)
Art 134-A; Coup d’etat; New Firearms Law (1998)
1. How is the crime of coup d'etat committed? [3%]
2. Supposing a public school teacher participated in a coup
d'etat using an unlicensed firearm. What crime or crimes did
he commit? [2%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. The crime of coup d'etat is committed by a swift attack,
accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or
stealth against the duly constituted authorities of the
Republic of the Philippines, military camps and installations,
communication networks, public utilities and facilities needed
for the exercise and continued possession of power, carried
out singly or simultaneously anywhere in the Philippines by
persons belonging to the military or police or holding public
office, with or without civilian support or participation, for
the purpose of seizing or diminishing state power. (Art 134-
A, RPC).
2. The public school teacher committed only coup d'etat for
his participation therein. His use of an unlicensed firearm is
absorbed in the coup d'etat under the new firearms law
(Rep. Act No. 8294).
Art 136; Conspiracy to Commit Rebellion (1994)
VC, JG. GG and JG conspired to overthrow the Philippine
Government. VG was recognized as the titular head of the
conspiracy. Several meetings were held and the plan was
finalized. JJ, bothered by his conscience, confessed to Father
Abraham that he, VG, JG and GG have conspired to
overthrow the government. Father Abraham did not report
this information to the proper authorities. Did Father
Abraham commit a crime? If so, what crime was committed?
What is his criminal liability?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Father Abraham did not commit a crime because the
conspiracy involved is one to commit rebellion, not a
conspiracy to commit treason which makes a person
criminally liable under Art 116, RFC. And even assuming that
it will fall as misprision of treason, Father Abraham is
exempted from criminal liability under Art. 12, par. 7, as his
failure to report can be considered as due to "insuperable
cause", as this involves the sanctity and inviolability of a
confession.
Conspiracy to commit rebellion results in criminal liability to
the co-conspirators, but not to a person who learned of such
and did not report to the proper authorities (US vs. Vergara,
3 Phil. 432; People vs. Atienza. 56 Phil. 353).
Art. 134; Rebellion vs. Coup d'etat
Distinguish clearly but briefly: Between rebellion and
coupd'etat, based on their constitutive elements as criminal
offenses.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
REBELLION is committed when a multitude of persons rise
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
18
publicly in arms for the purpose of overthrowing the duly the proponent of the one inciting becomes a
constituted government, to be replaced by a government of principal by inducement in the crime of rebellion.
the rebels. It is carried out by force and violence, but need
not be participated in by any member of the military, Inciting to rebellion Proposal to commit
national police or any public officer. COUP D'ETAT is rebellion
committed when members of the military, Philippine National
In both crimes, the offender induces another to commit
Police, or public officer, acting as principal offenders,
rebellion
launched a swift attack thru strategy, stealth, threat,
It is not required that the The person who proposes
violence or intimidation against duly constituted authorities
offender has decided to has decided to commit
of the Republic of the Philippines, military camp or
commit the rebellion rebellion
installation, communication networks, public facilities or
The act of inciting is done The person who proposes
utilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of
publicly uses secret means
governmental powers, for the purpose of seizing or
diminishing state powers.
Unlike rebellion which requires a public uprising, coup
d'etat may be carried out singly or simultaneously and the Article 139. Sedition – how committed
principal offenders must be members of the military, national
police or public officer, with or without civilian support. The Elements:
criminal objective need not be to overthrow the existing
government but only to destabilize or paralyze the existing
1. Offenders rise publicly and tumultuously;
government.
2. Offenders employ force, intimidation, or other
means outside of legal methods;
Article 137. Disloyalty of public officers or
3. Purpose is to attain any of the following objects:
employees
a. To prevent the promulgation or execution of
Acts punishable:
any law or the holding of any popular
election;
1. By failing to resist a rebellion by all the
b. To prevent the national government or any
means in their power;
provincial or municipal government, or any
2. By continuing to discharge the duties of their
public officer from exercising its or his
offices under the control of the rebels; or
functions or prevent the execution of an
3. By accepting appointment to office under
administrative order;
them.
c. To inflict any act of hate or revenge upon
the person or property of any public officer
 Offender must be a public officer or
or employee;
employee
d. To commit, for any political or social end,
 The crime of disloyalty of public
any act of hate or revenge against private
officers presupposes the existence of rebellion by
persons or any social classes;
other persons.
e. To despoil for any political or social end, any
 If the public officer who commits
person, municipality or province, or the
any of the acts in this article is in conspiracy with
national government of all its property or
the rebels, he will be guilty of rebellion.
any part thereof.

 Sedition, in its general sense, is

Article 138. Inciting to rebellion or
the raising of commotions or disturbances in the
insurrection.
State. The ultimate object is violation of public
peace.
Elements:
 Sedition may not be committed
by one person only, because the word
1. Offender does not take arms or is not in
‘tumultuous’ means that it is caused by more
open hostility against the government;
than three persons who are armed or provided
2. He incites others to the execution of any of
with means of violence.
the acts of rebellion;
 Are common crimes absorbed
3. The inciting is done by means of speeches,
in sedition? NO, according to jurisprudence.
proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or
other representations tending to the same end.
Sedition Rebellion
The purpose may be political The purpose is always
 In proposal and inciting to rebellion, or social political
the crime of rebellion should not actually be It is sufficient that the public There must be taking up of
committed by the persons to whom it is proposed uprising must be tumultuous arms against the
or who are incited. If they commit the rebellion, government

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

19

People vs. Cabrera
A constabulary soldier died as a result of an encounter with
a policeman. His death engendered a desire for revenge
against the police force on the part of the constabulary
soldiers. The next day, constabulary soldiers escaped from
their barracks with rifles and ammunitions and divided into
groups for an attack upon the city police force. They fired
indiscriminately along the streets of Calle Real, killing a
policeman and wounding civilians, including several
passengers of a passing streetcar. They attacked the
Luneta Police Station and the office of the secret service.
HELD: The crime committed was sedition. Sedition, in its
more general sense, is the raising of commotions or
disturbances in the State. The Philippine law on the subject
makes all persons guilty of sedition who rise publicly and
tumultuously in order to obtain by force or outside of legal
methods any one of five objects, including that of inflicting
any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property or
any official or agent of the Insular Government or of a
Provincial or Municipal Government. It is not necessary that
the offender be a private citizen and the offended party a
public functionary. The law makes no distinction between
the persons to which it applies.
Article 140. Penalty for sedition
Persons liable for sedition:
1. The leader of the sedition; and
2. Other person participating in the
sedition.
Article 141. Conspiracy to commit sedition
 There must be an agreement and a
decision to rise publicly and tumultuously to
attain any of the objects of sedition.
 There is no crime of proposal to
commit sedition.
Article 142. Inciting to sedition
Acts punishable:
1. Inciting others to the accomplishment of any
of the acts which constitute sedition by means of
speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems,
etc.;
Elements:
a. Offender does not take direct part in the
crime of sedition;
b. He incites others to the accomplishment of
any of the acts which constitute sedition;
and
c. Inciting is done by means of speeches,
proclamations, writings, emblems, cartoons,
banners, or other representations tending
towards the same end.
2. Uttering seditious words or speeches which
tend to disturb the public peace;
3. Writing, publishing, or circulating scurrilous
libels against the government or any of the duly
constituted authorities thereof, which tend to
disturb the public peace.
Uttering seditious words, publishing and circulation
scurrilous libels are punishable (second and third type
of inciting to sedition), when:
1. They tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful
officer in executing the functions of his office; or
2. They tend to instigate others to cabal and
meet together for unlawful purposes; or
3. They suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies
or riots; or
4. They lead or tend to stir up the people
against the lawful authorities or disturb the peace
of the community, the safety and order of the
government.
 “knowingly concealing such evil
practices’ is another way of violating this article.
This is ordinarily an act of an accessory after the
fact, but under this article, the act is treated and
punished as that of a principal.
 It is not necessary that the words
used should in fact result in a rising of the people
against the constituted authorities.
 Rules relative to seditious words:
o Clear and present danger – words
must be of such a nature that by uttering
them there is a danger of a public uprising
and that such danger should be both clear
and imminent
o Dangerous tendency – if the words
used tend to create a danger of public
uprising
 Seditious utterances are prohibited
because the State should not be compelled to
wait until the apprehended danger became
certain, before it can protect itself.
Unlawful rumor mongering: Committed by any
person who shall offer, publish, distribute, circulate
and spread rumors, false news and information and
gossip, or cause the publication, distribution,
circulation or spreading of the same, which cause or
tend to cause panic, divisive effects among the
people, discredit or distrust for the duly constituted
authorities, undermine the stability of the
Government and the objectives of the New Society,
endanger the public order, or cause damage to the
interest or credit of the state. (P.D. No. 90)
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
20

US vs. Tolentino
A theatrical work entitled ‘Kahapon Ngayon at Bukas’,
written by Aurelio Tolentino, was presented by him and
others on May 14, 1903 at the Teatro Libertad in Manila.
HELD: The crime committed is inciting to sedition. The
publication and presentation of the drama directly and
necessarily tended to instigate others to cabal and meet
together for unlawful purposes, and to suggest and incite
rebellious conspiracies and riots and to stir up the people
against the lawful authorities and to disturb the peace of
the community and the safety and order of the
Government. The manifest, unmistakable tendency of the
play, in view of the time, place, and manner of its
presentation, was to inculcate a spirit of hatred and
enmity against the American people and the Government of
the United States in the Philippines.
Espuelas vs. People
Petitioner Oscar Espuelas had his picture taken, making it
appear as if he were hanging lifeless at the end of a piece
of rope suspended from the limb of a tree, when in truth
and in fact, he was merely standing on a barrel. After
securing copies of his photograph, Espuelas sent copies of
same to several newspapers and weeklies of general
circulation for their publication with a suicide not, wherein
he made to appear that it was written by a fictitious
suicidal, Alberto Reveniera and addressed to the latter’s
supposed wife and children. The letter narrated that the
reason why he committed suicide was because he was not
pleased with the administration of Pres. Roxas. It also
contained a request to his wife to write to President
Truman and Churchill, and to tell them that the Philippine
government is “infested with many Hitlers and Mussolinis.”
As if out of desperation, he ended the letter by saying that
he sacrificed his life because he has no power “to put
under Juez de Cuchillo all the Roxas people who are in
power.”
HELD: The essence of seditious libel is its immediate
tendency to stir up general discontent to the pitch of
illegal courses or to induce people to resort to illegal
methods in order to redress the evils which press upon
their minds. A published writing which calls our
government one of crooks and dishonest persons infested
with Nazis and Fascists, and which reveals a tendency to
produce dissatisfaction or a feeling incompatible with the
disposition to remain loyal to the government, is a
scurrilous libel against the Government.
Umil vs. Ramos
FACTS: CAPCOM got a tip that a member of the NPA
Sparrow Unit (liquidation squad) was being treated for a
gunshot wound at the St. Agnes Hospital, Roosevelt
Avenue, Q.C. Upon verification, it was found that the
wounded person was Rolando Dural, a member of the NPA
liquidation squad, responsible for the killing of 2 CAPCOM
soldiers. Dural was positively identified by eyewitnesses as
the gunman who went on top of the hood of the CAPCOM
mobile patrol car, and fired at the CAPCOM soldiers seated
inside. Dural was then transferred to another facility,
under CAPCOM supervision (basically, he was arrested).
Dural questions the legality of his arrest, having been made
without a warrant.
HELD: Dural was arrested for being a member of the NPA,
an outlawed subversive organization. Subversion being a
continuing offense, his arrest 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. As stated by the SC
in an earlier case:
“The crimes of insurrection or rebellion, subversion,
conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and other
crimes and offenses committed in the furtherance, on the
occasion thereof, or incident thereto, are all in the nature
of continuing offenses which set them apart from the
common offenses, aside from their essentially involving a
massive conspiracy of nationwide magnitude.
The arrest of persons involved in the rebellion whether as
its fighting armed elements, or for committing non-violent
acts but in furtherance of the rebellion, is more an act of
capturing them in the course of an armed conflict, to quell
the rebellion, than for the purpose of immediately
prosecuting them in court for a statutory offense. The
arrest, therefore, need not follow the usual procedure in
the prosecution of offenses which requires the
determination by a judge of the existence of probable
cause before the issuance of a judicial warrant of arrest
and the granting of bail if the offense is bailable.
Obviously, the absence of a judicial warrant is no legal
impediment to arresting or capturing persons committing
overt acts of violence against government forces, or any
other milder acts but equally in pursuance of the rebellious
movement. If killing and other acts of violence against the
rebels find justification in the exigencies of armed
hostilities which is of the essence of waging a rebellion or
insurrection, most assuredly so in case of invasion, merely
seizing their persons and detaining them while any of these
contingencies continues cannot be less justified”
Republic Act 8294
Decree Codifying the Laws on Illegal / Unlawful
Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or
Disposition of Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives
(P.D. 1866, as amended by R.A. 8294) as an element
of the crimes of rebellion, insurrection, sedition, or
attempted coup d’etat
Punishable acts
1. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition,
Disposition or Possession of Firearms or
Ammunition or Instruments Used or Intended to
be Used in the Manufacture of Firearms or
Ammunition – any person who shall unlawfully
manufacture, deal in, acquire, dispose, or possess any
low powered firearm, such as rimfire handgun, .380
or .32 and other firearm of similar firepower, part of
firearm, ammunition, or machinery, tool or instrument
used or intended to be used in the manufacture of any
firearm or ammunition. Provided that no other crime
was committed.
Higher penalty shall be imposed if the firearm is
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
21
 classified as high powered firearm which includes 3. Carrying licensed firearm outside one’s residence
those with bores bigger in diameter than .38 caliber without legal authority therefor (§1)
and 9 millimeter such as caliber .40, .41, .44, .45 and
also lesser calibered firearms but considered powerful 4. Tampering of Firearm's Serial Number — any
such as caliber .357 and caliber .22 center-fire magnum person who shall unlawfully tamper, change, deface or
and other firearms with firing capability of full erase the serial number of any firearm. (§5)
automatic and by burst of two or three. Provided,
however, that no other crime was committed by the 5. Repacking or Altering the Composition of
person arrested. Lawfully Manufactured Explosives —any person
who shall unlawfully repack, alter or modify the
If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an composition of any lawfully manufactured explosives.
unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm (§6)
shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
Coverage of Unlicensed Firearm
If the violation of this Section is in furtherance of or
incident to, or in connection with the crime of rebellion The term unlicensed firearm shall include:
or insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup d'état, such 1) firearms with expired license; or
violation shall be absorbed as an element of the crime 2) unauthorized use of licensed firearm in the commission
of rebellion, or insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup of the crime
d'état.
Bar Questions
The same penalty shall be imposed upon the owner,
Illegal Possession of Firearms – RA 8294 (1998)
president, manager, director or other responsible officer
Supposing a public school teacher participated in a coup
of any public or private firm, company, corporation or
d'etat using an unlicensed firearm. What crime or crimes did
entity, who shall willfully or knowingly allow any of the
he commit? [2%]
firearms owned by such firm, company, corporation or
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
entity to be used by any person or persons found guilty
The public school teacher committed only coup d'etat for his
of violating the provisions of the preceding paragraphs
participation therein. His use of an unlicensed firearm is
or willfully or knowingly allow any of them to use
absorbed in the coup d'etat under the new firearms law
unlicensed firearms or firearms without any legal
(Rep. Act No. 8294). A prosecution for illegal possession of
authority to be carried outside of their residence in the
firearm under the new law is allowed only if the unlicensed
course of their employment. (§1)
firearm was not used in the commission of another crime.
Illegal Possession of Firearms & Ammunitions (2000)
2. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition,
A has long been wanted by the police authorities for various
Disposition or Possession of Explosives — any
crimes committed by him. Acting on an information by a
person who shall unlawfully manufacture, assemble,
tipster, the police proceeded to an apartment where A was
deal in, acquire, dispose or possess hand grenade(s),
often seen. The tipster also warned the policemen that A
rifle grenade(s), and other explosives, including but not
was always armed. At the given address, a lady who
limited to 'pillbox,' 'molotov cocktail bombs,' 'fire
introduced herself as the elder sister of A, opened the door
bombs,' or other incendiary devices capable of
and let the policemen in inside, the team found A sleeping
producing destructive effect on contiguous objects or
on the floor. Immediately beside him was a clutch bag
causing injury or death to any person.
which, when opened, contained a .38 caliber paltik revolver
and a hand grenade. After verification, the authorities
When a person commits any of the crimes defined in
discovered that A was not a licensed holder of the .38 caliber
the RPC or special laws with the use of the
paltik revolver. As for the hand grenade, it was established
aforementioned explosives, detonation agents or
that only military personnel are authorized to carry hand
incendiary devices, which results in the death of any
grenades. Subsequently, A was charged with the crime of
person or persons, the use of such explosives,
Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition. During trial,
detonation agents or incendiary devices shall be
A maintained that the bag containing the unlicensed firearm
considered as an aggravating circumstance.
and hand grenade belonged to A, his friend, and that he was
not in actual possession thereof at the time he was arrested.
If the violation of this Section is in furtherance of, or
Are the allegations meritorious? Explain. (3%)
incident to, or in connection with the crime of rebellion,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
insurrection, sedition or attempted coup d'état, such
A's allegations are not meritorious. Ownership is not an
violation shall be absorbed as an element of the crimes
essential element of the crime of illegal possession of
of rebellion, insurrection, sedition or attempted coup
firearms and ammunition. What the law requires is merely
d'état.
possession, which includes not only actual physical
possession but also constructive possession where the
The same penalty shall be imposed upon the owner,
firearm and explosive are subject to one's control and
president, manager, director or other responsible officer
management. (People us. De Grecia, 233 SCRA)
of any public or private firm, company, corporation or
entity, who shall willfully or knowingly allow any of the
explosives owned by such firm, company, corporation RA 9372
or entity, to be used by any person or persons found Human Security Act of 2007
guilty of violating the provisions of the preceding Defines the crime of terrorism to be the commission of “any
paragraphs. (§3) of the crimes of :

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

22
 A. Under the Revised Penal Code.
i. Piracy in general and Mutiny in the High Seas or in
the Philippine Waters
ii. rebellion
iii. Coup d’etat
iv. Murder
v. Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention
B. Under Special Laws
i. Arson under P.D. 1613
ii. Violation of R.A. 6969 ( Toxic Substance ad
Nuclear Waste Control)
iii. R.A. 5207 ( Atomic Energy Regulatory and
Liability Act of 1968)
iv. Hijacking
v. Piracy in Phil. Waters and Highway Robbery
vi. P.D. 1866 ( Possession and Manufacture of
Firearms/explosives)
thereby sowing and creating a condition of
widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among
the populace, in order to coerce the government to
give in to an unlawful demand”
Requirements for Terrorism
A. The accused ( maybe a single individual or a group)
must commit any of the enumerated crimes
B. There results a condition of widespread and
extraordinary fear and panic among the populace
i. The extent and degree of fear and panic,
including the number of people affected in order
to meet the term “populace”, are questions of
facts to be determined by the courts and on a
case to case basis.
ii. Is the term “populace’ to be interpreted as
referring to the local inhabitants where the acts
were committed, or does it refer to the national
population?
C. The purpose of the accused must be to coerce the
government to give into an unlawful demand
i. The word “demand” is too broad as to cover
not only political, criminal or monetarial
demands but also those which maybe
categorized as social or economic. This however
is qualified by the word “ unlawful”.
Other Acts/Persons Liable
A. Conspiracy to commit terrorism. The penalty is the
same as terrorism itself ( i.e. 40 years of imprisonment)
B. Accomplices- he cooperates in the execution of either
terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism by previous
or simultaneous acts (Penalty is 17 yrs. 4 months and
one day to 20 years)
C. Accessory-The acts punished are the same as that
under Article 19 of the RPC. The penalty is 10 yrs. And
one day to 12 years
1. The law however adopts the absolutory cause of
exemption of accessories from liability with respect
to their relatives
People vs. Quijada
 Case where a dance was held in a basketball court
and Quijada kept on pestering Iroy’s sister and
Quijada killed the brother.
 He was convicted of two separate offenses of
murder and illegal use of firearm aggravated with
illegal use of firearm.
 The unequivocal intent of the second par of
section 1. of PD 1866 is to respect and preserve
homicide or murder as a distinct offense penalized
under the RPC and to increasae the penalty for
illegal possession of firearm where such a firearm
is used in killing a person.
 Its clear language yields no intention of the
lawmaker to repeal or modify, pro tanto, Articles
248 and 249 of the RPC in such a way that if an
unlicensed fiream is used in the commission of
homicide or murder, either of these crimes, as the
case may be, would only serve to aggravate the
offense of illegal possession of firearm and would
not anymore be separately punished.
 The words of the subject provision are palpably
clear to exclude any suggestion that either of the
crimes of homicide and murder, as crimes mala in
se under the RPC is obliterated as such and
reduced as a mere aggravating circumstance in
illegal possession of firearm whenever the
unlicensed firearm is used in killing a person.
 The only purpose of the provision is to increase
the penalty prescribed in 1st par of sec 1—
reclusion temporal in its max to reclusion perpetua
to death.
People v Feloteo
Facts: Wilfredo Feloteo was found guilty by the trial court of
murder under Article 248 of the RPC and Illegal Possession
of Firearm, a violation of Section 1 of PD 1866 and
sentenced to reclusion perpetua and 20 years respectively.
In the evening of May 6, 1993, the victim, Sonny
Sotto, and his two friends were walking along the highway
after a few drinks earlier that day and were on their way
home, having a lively mood. At one point, the accused
appeared at the opposite side of the road and walked past
the victim’s two friends. The two recognized accused under
the bright moon as he was a barriomate.
The three friends did not pay much attention to
accused as they were playing “habulan” and without a
uttering a word, the accused aimed the armalite at Sotto
and pulled the trigger. Sotto, was hit above the chest and
fell to the ground, face down. The two friends scampered
away to find help while the accused fled. Sotto was later
found dead.
The armalite belong to SPO2 Roman Adion said
accused stole the gun from him. Accused obviously denied,
saying his purpose for carrying the gun was to bring it to
SPO2 Adion as the latter went somewhere (to check his
borrowed tricycle whose engine broke down) after leaving
the gun at the house where accused was.
Accused then walked past the victim’s group at
around 7PM. The group zigzagged as they walked. In jest,
accused said to victim, “Boots, don’t get near me, I’ll shoot
you”. He pointed the gun and pulled the trigger, allegedly
unaware that it was loaded. It fired and hit Sotto. The
accused was apprehended the next day by SPO2 Adion.
On appeal, accused denies that the qualifying
circumstance of treachery for murder was present.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
23
Ratio: Illegal possession of firearms should only be an
aggravating circumstance in light of the amendments to PD
1866 by RA 8294:
a. In the old Section 1 of PD 1866, if homicide
or murder is committed with an unlicensed
firearm, the penalty of death shall be
imposed;
b. RA 8294 amended this, deleting the penalty
of death and considered the carrying of
unlicensed firearm only as an aggravating
circumstance;
c. It was approved in 1997 but is retroactively
applied since it favours the accused; court
cites People v Molina;
d. Intent of Congress: two cases from Supreme
Court were presented in a senate session –
People v Barros (1996) and People v
Evangelista (1996);
i. Former case ruled that illegal possession of
firearm (when killing of another person is
committed) should only be an aggravating
circumstance; while in the latter case, it is
possible to file two separate informations –
one for murder and one for illegal
possession of firearms;
ii. So the senate chose between integrating
the crimes (taking illegal possession in its
aggravated form) and treating the two as
separate crimes; Senate chose the former;
e. However, the penalty of reclusion perpetua
of appellant is not affected since RA 7659 or
the Death Penalty Law was enacted only on
December 31, 1993, after the crime was
committed in May 1993;
Advincula vs. CA (2000)
The Court of Appeals ruled that no charges for Illegal
Possession of Firearms could be filed against Amando and
Isagani Ocampo for two (2) reasons: First, as to Amando
Ocampo, he had the requisite license to possess the firearm
(from the Chief of the Firearms and Explosives Office,
which was established by sufficient evidence on record.
Second, as to Isagani Ocampo, there was no convincing
evidence that he was in possession of a gun during the
incident involving him, his father and petitioner, except for
the eyewitness account of petitioner and one Federico San
Miguel.
HELD: The rule is well settled that in cases of Illegal
Possession of Firearms, two (2) things must be shown to
exist: (a) the existence of the firearm, and (b) the fact that
it is not licensed. However, it should be noted that in
People v. Ramos, citing People v. Gy Gesiong, this Court
ruled: " . . . Even if he has the license, he cannot carry the
firearm outside his residence without legal authority
therefor."
The Secretary of Justice, in his contested Resolution, thus
made the following findings: Even if Amando had the
requisite license, there was no proof that he had the
necessary permit to carry it outside his residence; and
Isagani's plain denial could not overcome his positive
identification by petitioner that he carried a firearm in
assaulting him. These are findings of fact supported by
evidence, which cannot be disturbed by this Court.
People vs. Tac-an (1990)
Tac-an and the deceased Escaño were high school
classmates [and gang mates in Bronx gang]. The
relationship between Tac-an and Escaño turned sour as the
quarrel between them escalated from September up to
December 1984. While the class was still going on, Tac-an
slipped out of the classroom and went home to get a gun.
Tac-an suddenly burst into the room, and upon sighting
Escaño Tac-an fired at scampering Escaño, hitting Escaño.
Escaño remained sprawled on the floor bleeding profusely.
Tac-an was charged with qualified illegal possession of a
firearm and ammunition and of murder. After trial the RTC
imposed upon him the penalty of death in both cases.
HELD: P.D. 1866 is applicable. There is nothing in P.D.
No. 1866 (which was promulgated on 29 June 1983) which
suggests that it was intended to remain in effect only for
the duration of the martial law imposed upon the country
by former President Marcos. Neither does the statute
contain any provision that so prescribes its lapsing into non-
enforceability upon the termination of the state or period
of martial law. On the contrary, P.D. No. 1866 by its own
terms purported to "consolidate, codify and integrate" all
prior laws and decrees penalizing illegal possession and
manufacture of firearms, ammunition and explosives in
order "to harmonize their provisions," as well as to update
and revise certain provisions and prior statutes "in order to
more effectively deter violators of the law on firearms,
ammunitions and explosives."
Misolas vs. Panga (1990)
Philippine Constabulary (PC) raided a suspected NPA
"underground house" in Foster Village, Del Carmen, Pili the
early morning. The house was searched and in a red bag
under a pillow allegedly used by Misolas a .20 gauge
Remington shotgun and four live rounds of ammunition
were found. Misolas was charged with the crime of illegal
possession of firearms and ammunition under PD 1866 with
allegation that it was in furtherance of subversion so as to
qualify the offense.
HELD: Illegal possession of firearms is not absorbed in
rebellion or subversion. Hernandez ruling cannot find
application in this case because Misolas is being charged
specifically for the qualified offense of illegal possession of
firearms and ammunition under PD 1866.
He is not being charged with the complex crime of
subversion with illegal possession of firearms. Neither is he
being separately charged for subversion and for illegal
possession of firearms.
SC considered the fact that the Legislature had deemed it
fit to provide for two distinct offenses:
(1) illegal possession of firearms qualified by
subversion (P.D. No. 1866) and
(2) subversion qualified by the taking up of arms
against the Government (R.A. No. 1700).
Baylosis vs. Chavez (1991)
Baylosis, de Vera and Marco Palo, all known high ranking
officers of the CPP-NPA, were charged with a illegal
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
24
possession of firearms in furtherance of, or incident to, or
in connection with the crimes of rebellion or subversion.
HELD: Charging the qualified offense of Illegal possession
of firearms under PD 1866 does not charge the complex
crime of subversion with illegal possession of firearms, and
hence does not run counter to Hernandez, et al., is good
and correct rule and is applicable in CAB.
People vs. Tiozon (1991)
 Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866 imposes the penalty of
reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion
perpetua "upon any person who shall unlawfully
manufacture, deal in, acquire, dispose or possess any
firearm, part of firearm, ammunition or machinery,
tool or instrument used or intended to be used in the
manufacture of any firearm or ammunition." It goes
further by providing that "if homicide or murder is
committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, the
penalty of death shall be imposed."
 It may be loosely said that homicide or murder
qualifies the offense penalized in said Section 1
because it is a circumstance which increases the
penalty. It does not, however, follow that the
homicide or murder is absorbed in the offense;
otherwise, an anomalous absurdity results whereby a
more serious crime defined and penalized in the
Revised Penal Code is absorbed by a statutory offense,
which is just a malum prohibitum. The rationale for
the qualification, as implied from the exordium of the
decree, is to effectively deter violations of the laws
on firearms and to stop the "upsurge of crimes vitally
affecting public order and safety due to the
proliferation of illegally possessed and manufactured
firearms, . . . " In fine then, the killing of a person
with the use of an unlicensed firearm may give rise to
separate prosecutions for (a) violation of Section 1 of
P.D. No. 1866 and (b) violation of either Article 248
(Murder) or Article 249 (Homicide) of the Revised
Penal Code. The accused cannot plead one as a bar
to the other; or, stated otherwise, the rule against
double jeopardy cannot be invoked because the
first is punished by a special law while the second,
homicide or murder, is punished by the Revised
Penal Code.
 However, to justify the imposition of the
increased penalty under Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866
because of the resulting crime of homicide or murder,
the prosecution must allege in the information and
prove by the quantum of evidence required for
conviction violation of said section and, more
specifically, the use of an unlicensed firearm and the
commission of homicide or murder.
 Undoubtedly, there is unlawful possession under
the foregoing section if one does not have the license
to possess the firearm. Even if he has the license, he
cannot carry the firearm outside his residence without
legal authority therefor. It follows then that the lack
or absence of a license is an essential ingredient of
the offense which the prosecution must allege and
prove. Every element of the crime must be alleged
and proved.
 There being no proof that accused-appellant
had no license to possess the firearm in question,
he could not be convicted for illegal possession of a
firearm. Therefore, the trial court then committed an
error in holding the accused-appellant guilty thereof.
People vs. De Gracia (1994)
 The rule is that ownership is not an essential
element of illegal possession of firearms and
ammunition. What the law requires is merely
possession which includes not only actual physical
possession but also constructive possession or the
subjection of the thing to one's control and
management. This has to be so if the manifest intent
of the law is to be effective. The same evils, the same
perils to public security, which the law penalizes exist
whether the unlicensed holder of a prohibited weapon
be its owner or a borrower. To accomplish the object
of this law the proprietary concept of the possession
can have no bearing whatsoever.
 But is the mere fact of physical or constructive
possession sufficient to convict a person for unlawful
possession of firearms or must there be an intent to
possess to constitute a violation of the law? This
query assumes significance since the offense of illegal
possession of firearms is a malum prohibitum punished
by a special law, in which case good faith and absence
of criminal intent are not valid defenses.
 When the crime is punished by a special law, as a
rule, intent to commit the crime is not necessary. It is
sufficient that the offender has the intent to
perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law.
Intent to commit the crime and intent to perpetrate
the act must be distinguished. A person may not have
consciously intended to commit a crime; but he did
intend to commit an act, and that act is, by the very
nature of things, the crime itself. In the first (intent
to commit the crime), there must be criminal intent;
in the second (intent to perpetrate the act) it is
enough that the prohibited act is done freely and
consciously.
 A distinction should be made between criminal
intent and intent to possess. While mere possession,
without criminal intent, is sufficient to convict a
person for illegal possession of a firearm, it must still
be shown that there was animus possidendi or an
intent to possess on the part of the accused. Such
intent to possess is, however, without regard to any
other criminal or felonious intent which the accused
may have harbored in possessing the firearm. Criminal
intent here refers to the intention of the accused to
commit an offense with the use of an unlicensed
firearm. This is not important in convicting a person
under Presidential Decree No. 1866. Hence, in order
that one may be found guilty of a violation of the
decree, it is sufficient that the accused had no
authority or license to possess a firearm, and that
he intended to possess the same, even if such
possession was made in good faith and without
criminal intent.
 Concomitantly, a temporary, incidental, casual,
or harmless possession or control of a firearm
cannot be considered a violation of a statute
prohibiting the possession of this kind of weapon,
such as Presidential Decree No. 1866. Thus, although
there is physical or constructive possession, for as
long as the animus possidendi is absent, there is no
offense committed.
People vs. Garcia (2002)
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
25
Tioleco was kidnapped while he was jogging alone in the
morning. His abductors took him to a house in Fairview,
where the accused Rogel and Lariba were assigned to
watch over him. When the police discovered the hideout,
Rogel and Lariba immediately ran to a room in the house
where several unlicensed firearms were stored. Both were
convicted of Kidnapping for Ransom AND Illegal Possession
of Firearms.
HELD: Rogel and Lariba cannot be held liable for illegal
possession of firearms and ammunitions there being
another crime - kidnapping for ransom - which they were
perpetrating at the same time.
Under R.A. 8294, if an unlicensed firearm is used in the
commission of any crime, there can be no separate offense
of simple illegal possession of firearms. The language of the
new law demonstrates the legislative intent to favor the
accused. The law is clear: the accused can be convicted of
simple illegal possession of firearms, provided that "no
other crime was committed by the person arrested." If the
intention of the law in the second paragraph were to refer
only to homicide and murder, it should have expressly said
so, as it did in the third paragraph. Where the law does not
distinguish, neither should we.
People vs. Castillo (2000)
Wilhelmina was kidnapped by persons pretending to be
interested buyers of real estate. She was brought to a
safehouse in Quezon City, where the accused Gonzales was
assigned to watch over her at all times. Gonzales carried
an unlicensed firearm while watching over Wilhelmina.
When the police discovered the safehouse, Gonzales
immediately threw his firearm away from him. The police
found more unlicensed firearms in another room in the
house. Gonzales was convicted of Illegal Possession of
Firearms, with penalty derived from P.D. 1866.
HELD: The penalty imposed on him by the trial court
exceeded that prescribed by law. Under Republic Act No.
8294, amending P. D. No. 1866, the penalty for illegal
possession of firearm classified as high powered is prision
mayor minimum or six (6) years and one (1) day to eight (8)
years and a fine of thirty thousand (P30,000.00) pesos.
Here, the offense was committed on November 27, 1992.
Since the amendatory law is favorable to the accused, it
shall be given retroactive application.
People vs. Nepomuceno (1999)
Accused here was charged with parricide that was
committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm. The 2
charges were separately charged and tried.
RA8294 was passed which said that if a homicide or murder
is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, the
latter cannot be tried separately but will just be treated as
an aggravating circumstance.
HELD: Accused can no longer be separately charged with
parricide and illegal possession of firearms. The
amendment says that the latter is only to be treated as an
aggravating circumstance. Being clearly favorable to the
accused, the amendatory law RA8294 can be applied
retroactively to this case.
People vs. Evangelista (1996)
Accused here was charged with murder and simple illegal
possession of firearms. Accused here killed someone with a
homemade gun. However the court found the accused
guilty of murder and aggravated illegal possession of
firearms (weapon used for murder) and sentenced him to
death.
Held:
1) Accused cannot be found guilty of aggravated illegal
possession as the information simply charged simple
illegal possession. That an unlicensed firearm was
used in the commission of murder or homicide is a
qualifying circumstance. Consequently, it must be
specifically alleged in the information, otherwise the
accused cannot be sentenced to death without
violating his right to be informed of the charge against
him.
2) He cannot even be convicted of simple illegal
possession as there was no proof that the gun was
unlicensed. The fact that the gun used was homemade
does not mean that it cannot be licensed and
therefore it is right for the court to automatically
assume that it is unlicensed. Even if a homemade gun
is used, it does not dispense with the required proof
that the gun was indeed unlicensed.
Note: In this case, the amendatory law AR8294 had not yet
been passed, therefore it was still allowed to separately
charge murder and illegal possession of firearms.
Article 143. Acts tending to prevent the
meeting of the Assembly and similar bodies
Elements:
1. There is a projected or actual meeting of
Congress or any of its committees or
subcommittees, constitutional commissions or
committees or divisions thereof, or of any
provincial board or city or municipal council or
board;
2. Offender, who may be any person, prevents
such meetings by force or fraud.
Article 144. Disturbance of proceedings
Elements:
1. There is a meeting of Congress or any of its
committees or subcommittees, constitutional
commissions or committees or divisions thereof,
or of any provincial board or city or municipal
council or board;
2. Offender does any of the following acts:
a. He disturbs any of such meetings;
b. He behaves while in the presence
of any such bodies in such a manner as to
interrupt its proceedings or to impair the
respect due it.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
26

 The complaint for
disturbance of proceedings may be filed by a
member of a legislative body.
 One who disturbs the
proceedings of Congress may also be punished
for contempt by such Congress.
Article 145. Violation of parliamentary
immunity
Acts punishable:
1. Using force, intimidation, threats, or frauds
to prevent any member of Congress from
attending the meetings of Congress or of any of
its committees or subcommittees, constitutional
commissions or committees or divisions thereof,
or from expressing his opinion or casting his
vote;
 Parliamentary immunity
does not protect members of Congress from
responsibility before Congress itself.
 Under the 1987
Constitution, members of Congress are exempted
from arrest, while Congress is in session, for all
offenses punishable by a penalty LESS THAN
PRISION MAYOR.
 Thus, under the
Constitution, a public officer who arrests a
member of Congress who has committed a crime
punishable by prision mayor (six years and one
day, to 12 years) is not liable Article 145.
 To be consistent with
the Constitution, the phrase "by a penalty higher
than prision mayor" in Article 145 should be
amended to read: "by the penalty of prision
mayor or higher."
Article 146. Illegal assemblies

Elements: Acts punishable:

a. Offender uses force, 1. Any meeting attended by armed persons for

intimidation, threats or fraud;
b. The purpose of the offender is
to prevent any member of Congress from -
o attending the meetings
of the Congress or of any of its
committees or constitutional
commissions, etc.;
o expressing his opinion;
or
o casting his vote.
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 the Code by a penalty
higher than prision mayor.
Elements:
the purpose of committing any of the crimes
punishable under the Code;
Elements:
a. There is a meeting, a gathering or
group of persons, whether in fixed place or
moving;
b. The meeting is attended by armed
persons;
c. The purpose of the meeting is to
commit any of the crimes punishable under
the Code.
2. Any meeting in which the audience, whether
armed or not, is incited to the commission of the
crime of treason, rebellion or insurrection,
sedition, or assault upon person in authority or
his agents.

a. Offender is a public officer of a. There is a meeting, a gathering or

employee;
b. He arrests or searches any
member of Congress;
c. Congress, at the time of arrest
or search, is in regular or special session;
d. The member arrested or
searched has not committed a crime
punishable under the Code by a penalty
higher than prision mayor.
 It is not necessary that
the member of Congress is actually prevented
from attending.
group of persons, whether in a fixed place or
moving;
b. The audience, whether armed or
not, is incited to the commission of the crime
of treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition
or direct assault.
Persons liable:
1. The organizer or leaders of the meeting;
3. Persons merely present at the meeting, who
must have a common intent to commit the felony
of illegal assembly.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

27
 Meeting – includes a
gathering or group, whether in a fixed place or
moving.
 Under the first type of
illegal assembly, not all persons present at the
meeting must be armed to be liable under this
article.
 The unarmed person
merely present at the meeting of the first type is
liable, but armed persons are punished more
severely under this article.
 Note however that the
person merely present must have an intent to
commit the felony of illegal assembly. If he was
a curious bystander, he is not liable.
 If any person present at
the meeting carries an unlicensed firearm,
o it is presumed
that the purpose of the meeting insofar as
he is concerned is to commit acts punishable
under the Revised Penal Code,
o He is considered
a leader or organizer of the meeting.
 Under the first type, the
audience must be “actually incited” to the
commission of any of the crimes enumerated. If
the meeting was dispersed before there was
actual inciting, there is no illegal assembly.
Article 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;
2. Associations totally or partially organized for
some purpose contrary to public morals.
Persons liable:
1. Founders, directors and president of
association;
2. Mere members of the association.
Illegal associations Illegal assemblies
It is not necessary that there It is necessary that there is
be an actual meeting an actual meeting or
assembly for the purposes
stated in Article 146
The act of forming or The meeting and attendance
organizing and membership at such meeting is punished
in the association is
punished
Persons liable are the Persons liable are the
founders, directors and organizers or leaders of the
president, and the members meeting and the persons
present at such meeting
Article 148. Direct assaults
Acts punishable:
1. Without public uprising, by employing force
or intimidation for the attainment of any of the
purposes enumerated in defining the crimes of
rebellion and sedition;
Elements:
a. Offender employs force or
intimidation;
b. The aim of the offender is to attain
any of the purposes of the crime of rebellion
or any of the objects of the crime of
sedition;
c. There is no public uprising.
2. Without public uprising, by attacking, by
employing force or by seriously intimidating or by
seriously resisting any person in authority or any
of his agents, while engaged in the performance
of official duties, or on occasion of such
performance.
Elements:
a. Offender makes an attack, employs
force, makes a serious intimidation, or
makes a serious resistance;
b. The person assaulted is a person in
authority or his agent;
c. At the time of the assault, the
person in authority or his agent is engaged
in the actual performance of official duties,
the or that he is assaulted by reason of the past
performance of official duties;
d. Offender knows that the one he is
assaulting is a person in authority or his
agent in the exercise of his duties.
e. There is no public uprising.
 Any person who
assaults, strikes, wounds or in any other manner
offers violence to the person of an ambassador
or a public minister, shall be subject to an
additional penalty under R.A. 75.
 In the first type of direct
assault, it is not necessary that the offended
party is a person in authority or his agent.
 If the offended party is
only an agent of a person in authority, the force
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
28
 must be of a serious character as to indicate a
determination to defy the law and its
representative.
 The force employed
need not be serious when the offended party is a
person in authority (reason: penalty is even
higher when the offender lays hands upon a
person in authority)
 The intimidation or
resistance must be serious whether the offended
party is an agent only or he is a person in
authority.
 To determine whether a
certain public officer is a person in authority, look
at his powers and duties vested by law.
 When persons in
authority or their agents descended to matters of
private nature, an attack made by one against
the other is not direct assault, because they are
not considered in “performance of official duties.”
 If the person in
authority or his agent provokes the offender,
there is no direct assault if accused is acting in
lawful self-defense.
 Direct assault of the
second type may be committed by a public
officer, because the law considers it an
aggravating circumstance when the offender “is a
public officer or employee’.
 Knowledge of the
accused that the victim is a person in authority or
his agent is essential. The information must
allege such knowledge.
 It is not necessary that
the person in authority or his agent be in the
actual performance of official duty when attacked
or seriously intimidated.
 Attack may be done ‘by
reason of the performance of duty’ – means by
reason of the past performance of official duty,
even if at the time of the assault no official duty
was being discharged.
 Evidence of motive is
important when the person in authority or his
agent is not in the actual performance of duty
when attacked.
 Direct assault of the
second form is qualified when:
o The assault is
committed with a weapon, or
o The offender is a public
officer of employee, or
o The offender lays hands
upon a person in authority.
 The crime of slight
physical injuries is absorbed in direct assault,
because it is the necessary consequence of the
force or violence used. Serious physical injuries,
murder or homicide may be complexed with
direct assault.
People vs. Beltran
Mayor Quirolgico and patrolman Tolentino went to the
Puzon compound to talk to Beltran and his companions to
surrender in connection with an incident where Beltran
shouted “vulva of your mother” to Alvarado and Urbi.
Mayor and patrolman suffered gunshot wounds and the
mayor’s son died due to a simultaneous discharge of
gunfire by the accused.
HELD: The accused are guilty of murder and double
attempted murder with direct assault (under the 2 nd form
of direct assault). The accused attacked and employed
force against the mayor and police while the latter were
engaged in the actual performance of duty and the accused
knew that they were assaulting persons in authority.
People vs. Dollantes
Barangay Captain was delivering a speech to start a dance
when Dollantes went to the middle of the dancing floor
making a dance movement, brandishing a knife and
challenging everyone. The Barangay Captain approached
him and told him to stop and keep quiet. Dollantes and his
companions stabbed and eventually killed the Barangay
Captain.
HELD: The accused were guilty of Assault upon a person in
authority, resulting in Murder. The Barangay captain was
in the act of trying to pacify Dollantes who was making
trouble in the dance hall when he was stabbed to death.
Hence, he was killed while in the performance of duties. A
Barangay Captain is a person in authority.
Bar Questions
Art. 148Direct Assault vs. Resistance & Disobedience
(2001)
A, a teacher at Mapa High School, having gotten mad at X,
one of his pupils, because of the latter's throwing paper clips
at his classmates, twisted his right ear. X went out of the
classroom crying and proceeded home located at the back of
the school. He reported to his parents Y and Z what A had
done to him. Y and Z immediately proceeded to the school
building and because they were running and talking in loud
voices, they were seen by the barangay chairman, B, who
followed them as he suspected that an untoward incident
might happen. Upon seeing A inside the classroom, X
pointed him out to his father, Y, who administered a fist
blow on A, causing him to fall down. When Y was about to
kick A, B rushed towards Y and pinned both of the latter's
arms. Seeing his father being held by B, X went near and
punched B on the face, which caused him to lose his grip on
Y. Throughout this incident, Z shouted words of
encouragement at Y, her husband, and also threatened to
slap A. Some security guards of the school arrived,
intervened and surrounded X, Y and Z so that they could be
investigated in the principal's office.
Before leaving, Z passed near A and threw a small flower pot
at him but it was deflected by B. a) What, if any, are the
respective criminal liability of X Y and Z? (6%) b) Would your
answer be the same if B were a barangay tanod only? (4%)
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
29
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) X is liable for Direct Assault only, assuming the physical
injuries inflicted on B, the Barangay Chairman, to be only
slight and hence, would be absorbed in the direct assault. A
Barangay Chairman is a person in authority (Art. 152, RPC)
and in this case, was performing his duty of maintaining
peace and order when attacked.
Y is liable for the complex crimes of Direct Assault With Less
Serious Physical Injuries for the fist blow on A, the teacher,
which caused the latter to fall down. For purposes of the
crimes in Arts. 148 and 151 of the Revised Penal Code, a
teacher is considered a person in authority, and having been
attacked by Y by reason of his performance of official duty,
direct assault is committed with the resulting less serious
physical injuries completed. Z, the mother of X and wife of Y
may only be liable as an accomplice to the complex crimes of
direct assault with less serious physical injuries committed by
Y. Her participation should not be considered as that of a
coprincipal, since her reactions were only incited by her
relationship to X and Y. as the mother of X and the wife of Y.
b) If B were a Barangay Tanod only, the act of X of
laying hand on him, being an agent of a person in authority
only, would constitute the crime of Resistance and
Disobedience under Article 151, since X, a high school pupil,
could not be considered as having acted out of contempt for
authority but more of helping his father get free from the
grip of B. Laying hand on an agent of a person in authority is
not ipso facto direct assault, while it would always be direct
assault if done to a person in authority in defiance to the
latter is exercise of authority.
Art 148; Direct Assault; Teachers & Professors (2002)
A, a lady professor, was giving an examination. She noticed
B, one of the students, cheating. She called the student's
attention and confiscated his examination booklet, causing
embarrassment to him. The following day, while the class
was going on, the student, B, approached A and, without
any warning, slapped her. B
would have inflicted further injuries on A had not C,
another student, come to A's rescue and prevented B from
continuing his attack. B turned his ire on C and punched the
latter. What crime or crimes, if any, did B commit?
Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B committed two (2) counts of direct assault: one for
slapping the professor, A, who was then conducting
classes and thus exercising authority; and another one for
the violence on the student C, who came to the aid of the
said professor.
By express provision of Article 152, in relation to Article 148
of the Revised Penal Code, teachers and professors of public
or duly recognized private schools, colleges and universities
in the actual performance of their professional duties or on
the occasion of such performance are deemed persons in
authority for purposes of the crimes of direct assault and of
resistance and disobedience in Articles 148 and 151 of said
Code. And any person who comes to the aid of persons in
authority shall be deemed an agent of a person in authority.
Accordingly, the attack on C is, in the eyes of the law, an
attack on an agent of a person in authority, not just an
attack on a student.
Art 148; Persons in Authority/Agents of Persons in
Authority (2000)
Who are deemed to be persons in authority and agents of
persons in authority? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Persons in authority are persons directly vested with
jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of
some court or government corporation, board, or
commission. Barrio captains and barangay chairmen are also
deemed persons in authority. (Article 152, RPC)
Agents of persons in authority are persons who by direct
provision of law or by election or by appointment by
competent authority, are charged with maintenance of public
order, the protection and security of life and property, such
as barrio councilman, barrio policeman, barangay leader and
any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority
(Art. 152, RPC), In applying the provisions of Articles 148
and 151 of the Rev. Penal Code, teachers, professors and
persons charged with the supervision of public or duly
recognized private schools, colleges and universities, and
lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties
or on the occasion of such performance, shall be deemed
persons in authority.
(P.D. No. 299, and Batas Pambansa Blg. 873).
Complex Crime; Direct Assault with murder (2000)
Because of the approaching town fiesta in San Miguel,
Bulacan, a dance was held in Barangay Camias. A, the
Barangay Captain, was invited to deliver a speech to start
the dance. While A was delivering his speech. B, one of the
guests, went to the middle of the dance floor making
obscene dance movements, brandishing a knife and
challenging everyone present to a fight. A approached B and
admonished him to keep quiet and not to disturb the dance
and peace of the occasion. B, instead of heeding the advice
of A, stabbed the latter at his back twice when A turned his
back to proceed to the microphone to continue his speech. A
fell to the ground and died. At the time of the incident A was
not armed. What crime was committed? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The complex crime of direct
assault with murder was committed. A, as a Barangay
Captain, is a person in authority and was acting in an official
capacity when he tried to maintain peace and order during
the public dance in the Barangay, by admonishing B to keep
quiet and not to disturb the dance and peace of the
occasion. When B, instead of heeding A's advice, attacked
the latter, B acted in contempt and lawless defiance of
authority constituting the crime of direct assault, which
characterized the stabbing of A. And since A was stabbed at
the back when he was not in a position to defend himself nor
retaliate, there was treachery in the stabbing. Hence, the
death caused by such stabbing was murder and having been
committed with direct assault, a complex crime of direct
assault with murder was committed by B.
Art 148; Direct Assault with murder (1995)
Pascual operated a rice thresher in Barangay Napnud where
he resided. Renato, a resident of the neighboring Barangay
Guihaman, also operated a mobile rice thresher which he
often brought to Barangay Napnud to thresh the palay of the
farmers there. This was bitterly resented by Pascual, one
afternoon Pascual, and his two sons confronted Renato and
his men who were operating their mobile rice thresher along
a feeder road in Napnud. A heated argument ensued. A
barangay captain who was fetched by one of Pascual's men
tried to appease Pascual and Renato to prevent a violent
confrontation. However, Pascual resented the intervention of
the barangay captain and hacked him to death. What crime
was committed by Pascual? Discuss fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Pascual committed the complex crime of homicide with
assault upon a person in authority (Arts. 148 and 249 in
relation to Art, 48, RPC). A barangay chairman, is in law (Art.
152), a person in authority and if he is attacked while in the
performance of his official duties or on the occasion thereof
the felony of direct assault is committed. Art. 48, RPC, on
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
30
the other hand, provides that if a single act produces two or  The testimony of the
more grave or less grave felonies, a complex crime is person summoned must be upon matters into
committed. Here, the single act of the offender in hacking which Congress has jurisdiction to inquire.
the victim to death resulted in two felonies, homicide which
 Acts punished under this
is grave and direct assault which is less grave.
article may also be punished for contempt of the
Congress.
Article 149. Indirect assaults

Elements:
Article 151. Resistance and disobedience to a
person in authority or the agents of such
1. A person in authority or his agent is the victim of
person
any of the forms of direct assault defined in
Article 148;
2. A person comes to the aid of such authority or
Elements of resistance and serious disobedience:
his agent;
3. Offender makes use of force or intimidation upon
such person coming to the aid of the authority or 1. A person in authority or his agent is engaged in
his agent. the performance of official duty or gives a lawful
order to the offender;
 Indirect assault can be 2. Offender resists or seriously disobeys such
committed only when direct assault is committed. person in authority or his agent;
3. The act of the offender is not included in the
provision of Articles 148, 149 and 150.
Article 150. Disobedience to summons issued
by the National Assembly, its committees or Elements of simple disobedience:
subcommittees, by the Constitutional
Commission, its committees, subcommittees or 1. An agent of a person in authority is engaged
divisions in the performance of official duty or gives a
lawful order to the offender;
Acts punishable: 2. Offender disobeys such agent of a person in
authority;
1. By refusing, without legal excuse, to obey 3. Such disobedience is not of a serious nature.
summons of Congress, its special or standing
committees and subcommittees, the  The disobedience
Constitutional Commissions and its committees, contemplated consists in the failure or refusal to
subcommittees or divisions, or by any obey DIRECT ORDER from the person in
commission or committee chairman or member authority or his agent.
authorized to summon witnesses;  Under simple
2. By refusing to be sworn or placed under disobedience, the offended party must be only an
affirmation while being before such legislative or agent of a person in authority.
constitutional body or official;  If no force is employed
3. By refusing to answer any legal inquiry or to by the offender against a person in authority, the
produce any books, papers, documents, or crime is resistance or serious disobedience under
records in his possession, when required by them the first type.
to do so in the exercise of their functions;
4. By restraining another from attending as a Resistance or serious Direct assault
witness in such legislative or constitutional body; disobedience
5. By inducing disobedience to a summons or Person in authority or his Person in authority or his
agent must be in actual agent must be engaged in
refusal to be sworn by any such body or official. performance of his duties the performance of official
duties or that he is assaulted
 Reason for this article: by reason thereof
to give strength to the legislature’s power of Committed only by (2nd type) committed by
inquiry, which is essential to legislative functions. resisting or seriously attacking, employing force,
 This article will not apply disobeying seriously intimidating or
if the papers may be used in evidence against seriously resisting
the owner, because it would be compelling him Force employed is not so Attack or employment of
serious, as there is no force must be serious and
to be a witness against himself. Self-
manifest intention to defy deliberate. But if the one
incrimination is a valid excuse. the law and the officers resisted is a person in
authority, any degree of

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

31
 force is direct assault.
Article 152. Persons in authority and Agents
of persons in authority
 A person in authority is one directly
vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual
or as a member of some court or government
corporation, board or commission.
 Vested with jurisdiction – the power
and authority to govern and execute the laws.
 Examples of person in authority:
division superintendent of schools, president of
sanitary division (in a municipality), teachers,
mayor, justice of peace, barangay captain and
barangay chairman
 An agent of a person in authority is
one who, by direct provision of law or by
appointment by competent authority, is charged
with (1) the maintenance of public order and (2)
the protection and security of life and property.
 Examples: barrio councilman, barrio
policeman, barangay leader, any person who
comes to the aid of persons in authority, sheriff,
postmaster, agents of BIR, municipal treasurer,
policemen
 Teachers, professors and persons
charged with the supervision of public or duly
recognized private schools, colleges and
universities, and lawyers in the actual
performance of their professional duties or on the
occasion of such performance, shall be deemed
persons in authority for purposes of Articles 148
(direct assault) and 151 (disobedience). By
implication, Article 149 (indirect assault) is also
included.
Article 153. Tumults and other disturbances of
public order – tumultuous disturbance or
interruption liable to cause disturbance
1. Acts punishable: Causing any serious
disturbance in a public place, office or
establishment;
2. Interrupting or disturbing performances,
functions or gatherings, or peaceful meetings, if
the act is not included in Articles 131 and 132
3. Making any outcry tending to incite rebellion
or sedition in any meeting, association or public
place;
4. Displaying placards or emblems which
provoke a disturbance of public order in such
place;
5. Burying with pomp the body of a person who
has been legally executed.
 If the act of disturbing or
interrupting a meeting or religious ceremony is
not committed by public officers, or if committed
by public officers they are participants therein,
this article should be applied.
 Outcry – to shout subversive or
provocative words tending to stir up the people
to obtain by means of force or violence any of
the objects of rebellion or sedition.
 If the outcry is an unconscious
outburst which is not intentionally calculated to
induce others to commit rebellion or sedition, it
should be punished under this article. If the
offender made the outcry with the thought of
inducing his hearers to commit rebellion or
sedition, then it is punished as inciting to
rebellion/sedition.
 Persons causing disturbance of a
tumultuous character shall be imposed a penalty
next higher in degree
 Tumultuous – If caused by more
than three persons who are armed or provided
with means of violence
Article 154. Unlawful use of means of
publication and unlawful utterances
Acts punishable:
1. Publishing or causing to be published, by
means of printing, lithography or any other
means of publication, as news any false news
which may endanger the public order; or cause
damage to the interest or credit of the State;
2. Encouraging disobedience to the law or to
the constituted authorities or 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 document
without proper authority, or before they have
been published officially
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
32
4. Printing, publishing or distributing (or
causing the same) books, pamphlets, periodicals,
or leaflets which do not bear the real printer’s
name, or which are classified as anonymous.
 ‘may endanger’ – means that actual
public disorder or actual damage to the credit of
the State is not necessary.
 The offender must know that the
news is false, to be liable under this article.
 R.A. 248 prohibits the reprinting,
reproduction or republication of government
publications and official documents without
official authority.
Article 155. Alarms and scandals
Acts punishable:
1. Discharging any firearm, rocket, firecracker,
or other explosive within any town or public
place, calculated to cause (which produces)
alarm of danger;
2. Instigating or taking an active part in any
charivari or other disorderly meeting offensive to
another or prejudicial to public tranquility;
3. Disturbing the public peace while wandering
about at night or while engaged in any other
nocturnal amusements;
4. Causing any disturbance or scandal in public
places while intoxicated or otherwise, provided
Article 153 in not applicable.
 The discharge of firearm should not
be aimed at any person, otherwise the offense is
discharge of firearm under Article 254.
 The act in the first paragraph must
produce alarm or danger as a consequence.
 Discharge of firecrackers or rockets
during fiestas not covered by this article.
 Charivari – a medley of discordant
voices, a mock serenade of discordant noises
made on kettles, tins, horns, etc. designed to
annoy and insult.
 If the disturbance is of serious
nature, the case falls under Article 153.
Article 156. Delivering prisoners from jail
Elements:
1. There is a person confined in a jail or penal
establishment;
2. Offender removes therefrom such person, or
helps the escape of such person.
 Applies to any kind of prisoner,
whether detention prisoner or prisoner by final
judgment.
 Violence, intimidation or bribery
increases the applicable penalty.
 If the escape of the prisoner takes
place outside of said establishments by taking the
guards by surprise, the penalty is the minimum
period of that prescribed.
 What is the liability of the prisoner
who escapes?
o If he is a
detention prisoner, such person is not
criminally liable. A prisoner is criminally
liable for leaving the penal institution only
when there is evasion of service of sentence,
which can be committed only by a convict by
final judgment.
Alberto vs. Dela Cruz
Denaque escaped while working on the governor’s fence.
Petition to include as defendants Governor Cledera and
assistant provincial warden Esmeralda due to the belief
that they had a hand in the escape of Pablo Denaque.
Allegedly, the governor sent a note to Esmeralda asking for
five men to work on his fence.
HELD: The Governor and Esmeralda cannot be prosecuted
for the offense. It is necessary that the public officer
consented to or connived in the escape of the prisoner
under his custody. If the public officer charged with the
duty of guarding him does not connive with the fugitive,
then he has not violated the law and is not guilty of the
crime. Article 156 is usually committed by an outsider. If
the offender is a public officer, then Article 223 applies.
Bar Question
Art 156; Delivery of Prisoners from Jail (2002)
A, a detention prisoner, was taken to a hospital for
emergency medical treatment. His followers, all of whom
were armed, went to the hospital to take him away or help
him escape. The prison guards, seeing that they were
outnumbered and that resistance would endanger the lives
of other patients, deckled to allow the prisoner to be taken
by his followers. What crime, if any, was committed by A's
followers? Why? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A's followers shall be liable as principals in the crime of
delivery of prisoner from Jail (Art. 156, Revised Penal
Code). The felony is committed not only by removing from
any jail or penal establishment any person confined therein
but also by helping in the escape of such person outside of
said establishments by means of violence, intimidation,
bribery, or any other means.
Article 157. Evasion of service of sentence
Elements:
1. Offender is a convict by final judgment;
2. He is serving sentence which consists in the
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
33
 deprivation of liberty;
3. He evades service of his sentence by
escaping during the term of his imprisonment.
Qualifying circumstances as to penalty imposed:
If such evasion or escape takes place -
1. By means of unlawful entry (this should be
“by scaling” if correct Spanish translation is
used);
2. By breaking doors, windows, gates, walls,
roofs or floors;
3. By using picklock, false keys, disguise,
deceit, violence or intimidation; or
4. Through connivance with other convicts or
employees of the penal institution.
 ‘Escape’ – flee from, to avoid, to
get out of the way, as to flee to avoid arrest.
Prisoners seen loitering a few meters away from
the city jail are not considered to have escaped.
 This article is applicable to a
sentence of destierro.
Tanega vs. Masakayan
Tanega was found guilty of slander. He failed to show up
on the day of the execution of the sentence imposed.
HELD: Under Article 157, escape should take place while
serving the sentence. For prescription of penalty of
imprisonment imposed by final judgment to commence to
run, the culprit should escape during the term of such
imprisonment. Never placed in confinement, prescription
of penalty does not run in Tanega’s favor.
People vs. Abilong
Abilong was sentenced to destierro by virtue of final
judgment for attempted robbery. He violated this
judgment by going beyond the limits made against him, and
committed vagrancy.
HELD: Abilong is guilty of evasion of service of sentence
for having violated the judgment of destierro against him.
Destierro is a deprivation of liberty (though partial) and he
may escape from the restrictions of the penalty.
Bar Questions
Art 157; Evasion of Service of Sentence (1998)
Manny killed his wife under exceptional circumstances and
was sentenced by the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City
to suffer the penalty of destierro during which he was not to
enter the city.
While serving sentence, Manny went to Dagupan City to visit
his mother. Later, he was arrested in Manila.
1. Did Manny commit any crime? [3%]
2. If so, where should he be prosecuted? [2%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Yes. Manny committed the crime of evasion of service of
sentence when he went to Dagupan City, which he was
prohibited from entering under his sentence of destierro. A
sentence imposing the penalty of destierro is evaded when
the convict enters any of the place/places he is prohibited
from entering under the sentence or come within the
prohibited radius. Although destierro does not involve
imprisonment, it is nonetheless a deprivation of liberty.
(People vs. Abilong. 82 Phil. 172).
2. Manny may be prosecuted in Dagupan City or in Manila
where he was arrested. This is so because evasion of service
of sentence is a continuing offense, as the convict is a
fugitive from justice in such case. (Parulan vs. Dir. of
Prisons, L-28519, 17 Feb. 1968)
Article 158. Evasion of service of sentence on
the occasion of disorders, conflagrations,
earthquakes, or other calamities
Elements:
1. Offender is a convict by final judgment, who
is confined in a penal institution;
2. There is disorder, resulting from –
a. conflagration;
b. earthquake;
c. explosion; or
d. similar catastrophe; or
e. mutiny in which he has not participated;
3. He evades the service of his sentence by
leaving the penal institution where he is confined,
on the occasion of such disorder or during the
mutiny;
4. He fails to give himself up to the authorities
within 48 hours following the issuance of a
proclamation by the Chief Executive announcing
the passing away of such calamity.
 The offender must be a convict by
final judgment.
 What is punished is not the leaving
of the penal institution, but the failure of the
convict to give himself up to the authorities
within 48 hours after the proclamation
announcing the passing away of the calamity.
 If convict fails to give himself up,
he shall suffer and increase of 1/5 of the time
still remaining to be served under the original
sentence, not to exceed six months.
 If he gives himself up within 48
hours, he shall be entitled to 1/5 deduction of the
period of his sentence.
 Mutiny – organized unlawful
resistance to a superior officer, a sedition, a
revolt
Article 159. Other cases of evasion of service
of sentence (Violation of conditional pardon)
Elements:
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
34
1. Offender was a convict;
2. He was granted pardon by the Chief Executive;
3. He violated any of the conditions of such pardon.
 A conditional pardon is a contract between the
Chief Executive and the convict. Since it is a
contract, the pardoned convict is bound to fulfill
its conditions and accept all its consequences,
not as he chooses, but according to its strict
terms.
 If the penalty remitted does not exceed six years,
penalty for violation of this article is prision
correccional minimum. If the penalty remitted
exceeds six years, the penalty under this article is
the unexpired portion of the original sentence.
 Condition that pardoned convict should not
commit another crime extends to offenses
punishable under special laws.
 If there is a condition that convict shall not
commit another crime, offender must be found
guilty of a subsequent offense before he can be
prosecuted under this article.
 The duration of the conditions in a pardon would
be limited to the remaining period of the
prisoner’s sentence, UNLESS an intention to
extend it beyond that time was manifest from the
nature of the condition or the language in which
it was imposed.
 Violation of conditional pardon does not cause
harm or injury to the right of other person nor
does it disturb public order, it is merely an
infringement of the terms stipulated in the
contact between the Chief Executive and the
convict.
Torres vs. Gonzales
Torres was convicted of estafa. He was granted a
conditional pardon and was released. Subsequent to his
release, he was charged with 20 counts of estafa (cases
pending), was convicted of sedition (appeal pending) and
had a long list of crimes charged against him (grave
threats, grave coercion, swindling etc.)
HELD: Article 159 defines a distinct and substantive felony.
Under this article, the convict must be charged, prosecuted
and convicted by FINAL JUDGMENT before he can be made
to suffer the penalty in said article. In proceeding against
a convict who violated the conditions of his pardon, the
Executive Department may: 1) proceed against him under
Section 64 (1) of the Revised Administrative Code or 2)
proceed against him under this article of the RPC.
Article 160. Commission of another crime
during service of the penalty imposed for
another previous offense
Elements:
1. Offender was already convicted by final
judgment of one offense;
2. He committed a new felony before beginning
to serve such sentence or while serving the
same.
 The second crime must be a felony,
that is, punishable under the Revised Penal Code.
 But the first crime for which the
offender is serving sentence need not be a
felony.
 The new offense need not be of
different character from that of the old offense.
 Quasi-recidivism does not require
that the two offenses are embraced in the same
title in the RPC, unlike in recidivism.
 Reiteracion requires that the
offender has served out his sentences for the
prior offense. In quasi recidivism, the offender is
beginning to serve the sentence or is already
serving the sentence.
 Quasi-recidivism cannot be offset
by ordinary mitigating circumstance, because the
article provides that the offender shall be
punished by the maximum period of the new
felony.
 A quasi-recidivist shall be pardoned
when he has reached 70 and has already served
out his original sentence, or when he shall
complete it after reaching 70, unless by reason of
his conduct or other circumstances, he shall not
be worthy of such clemency.
 A quasi-recidivist may NOT be
pardoned even if he has reached 70 and has
already served out his original sentence, if he is a
habitual criminal.
Take Note: Human Security Act of 2007 (RA
9372);
 Define “Terrorism”;
 Attempt/Conspiracy to Commit
Terrorism;
 How principals, accomplices and
accessories are punished;
 Surveillance and Interception of
suspected terrorist communication/ said
communication considered “classified
information”;
 Amount of damages paid to those
detained wrongfully (P500k/day), taken
from the budget of the government
agency who caused his detention.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
35