Republic Act No.

6968

October 24, 1990

AN ACT PUNISHING THE CRIME OF COUP DTAT 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 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:: Section 1. The heading of Chapter One, Title Three of the Revised Penal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "REBELLION, COUP DTAT, SEDITION AND DISLOYALTY". Section 2. Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "Article 134. Rebellion or insurrection How committed. "he 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." Section 3. Chapter One, Title Three of the Revised Penal Code is hereby further amended by adding a new article as follows: "Art. 134-A. Coup DTAT. How committed. The crime of coup DTAT 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." Section 4. Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "Art. 135. Penalty for rebellion, insurrection or coup DTAT. Any person who promotes, maintains or heads a rebellion or insurrection shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. "Any person merely participating or executing the commands of others in a rebellion or insurrection shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal. "Any person who leads or in any manner directs or commands others to undertake a coup DTAT shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. "Any person in the government service who participates, or executes directions or commands of others in undertaking a coup DTAT shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period. "Any person not in the government service who participates, or in any manner supports, finances, abets or aids in undertaking a coup DTAT shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period.

"When the rebellion, insurrection, or coup DTAT 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 coup DTAT." Section 5. Article 136 of the Revised Penal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "Art. 136. Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup DTAT, rebellion or insurrection. The conspiracy and proposal to commit coup DTAT shall be punished by prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine which shall not exceed eight thousand pesos (P8,000.00). "The conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection shall be punished, respectively, by prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine which shall not exceed five thousand pesos (P5,000.00), and by prision correccional in its medium period and a fine not exceeding two thousand pesos (P2,000.00)."

People vs. Silongan (G.R. No. 137182) Facts: The appellants in this case, who are a Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) rebel surrenderees, were convicted in the Regional Trial Court for the crime of kidnapping with Serious Illegal Detention of Alexander Saldaa and his three companions. The four victims were taken to a mountain hideout and the appellants demanded ransom money for their release. Alexander was detained for six months until he was finally released. Issue: Whether or not the crime of kidnapping committed by the accused should be absorbed in rebellion? Decision: As regards the argument that the crime was politically motivated and that consequently, the charge should have been rebellion and not kidnapping, we find the same likewise to be without merit. As held in Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Zamboanga Del Norte vs. CA, the political motivation for the crime must be shown in order to justify finding the crime committed to be rebellion. Merely because it is alleged that appellants were members of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front or of the Moro National Liberation Front does not necessarily mean that the crime of kidnapping was committed in furtherance of a rebellion. Here, the evidence adduced is insufficient for a finding that the crime committed was politically motivated. Neither have the appellants sufficiently proven their allegation that the present case was filed against them because they are rebel surrenderees. This court has invariably viewed the defense of frame-up with disfavor. Like the defense of alibi, it can be just as easily concocted.

Enrile vs Salazar G.R. No. 92163 (1990) Facts: In the afternoon of February 27, 1990, Senate Minority Floor Leader Juan Ponce Enrile was arrested by law enforcement officers led by Director Alfredo Lim of the National Bureau of Investigation on the strength of a warrant issued by Hon. Jaime Salazar of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City Branch 103, in Criminal Case No. 9010941.The warrant had issued on an information signed and earlier that day filed by a panel of prosecutors composed of Senior State Prosecutor Aurelio C. Trampe, State Prosecutor FerdinandR. Abesamis and Assistant City Prosecutor Eulogio Mananquil, Jr., charging Senator Enrile, thespouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio, and Gregorio Honasan with the crime of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder allegedly committed during the period of the failed coup attempt from November 29 to December 10, 1990. Senator Enrile was taken to and held overnight at the NBI headquarters on Taft Avenue, Manila, without bail, none having been recommended in the information and none fixed in the arrest warrant. The following morning, February 28, 1990, he was brought to Camp Tomas Karingal in Quezon City where he was given over to the custody of the Superintendent of the Northern Police District, Brig. Gen. Edgardo Dula Torres. On the same date of February 28, 1990, Senator Enrile, through counsel, filed the petition for habeas corpus herein (which was followed by a supplemental petition filed on March 2, 1990),alleging that he was deprived of his constitutional rights. Issue: Whether the petitioner has committed complex crimes (delito compleio) arising from an offense being a necessary means for committing another, which is referred to in the second clause of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code? Held: There is one other reason and a fundamental one at that why Article 48 of the Penal Code cannot be applied in the case at bar. If murder were not complexed with rebellion, and the two crimes were punished separately (assuming that this could be done), the following penalties would be imposable upon the movant, namely: (1) for the crime of rebellion, a fine not exceeding P20,000and prision mayor, in the corresponding period, depending upon the modifying circumstances present, but never exceeding 12 years of prision mayor, and (2) for the crime of murder, reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, depending upon the modifying circumstances present. In other words, in the absence of aggravating circumstances, the extreme penalty could not be imposed upon him. However, under Article 48 said penalty would have to be meted out to him, even in the absence of a single aggravating circumstance. Thus, said provision, if construed in conformity with the theory of the prosecution, would be unfavorable to the movant. The plaint of petitioner's counsel that he is charged with a crime that does not exist in the statute books, while technically correct so far as the Court has ruled that rebellion may not be complexed with other offenses committed on the occasion thereof, must therefore be

dismissed as a mere flight of rhetoric. Read in the context of Hernandez, the information does indeed charge the petitioner with a crime defined and punished by the Revised Penal Code: simple rebellion. Petitioner finally claims that he was denied the right to bail. In the light of the Court's reaffirmation of Hernandez as applicable to petitioner's case, and of the logical and necessary corollary that the information against him should be considered as charging only the crime of simple rebellion, which is bailable before conviction, that must now be accepted as a correct proposition. But the question remains: Given the facts from which this case arose, was a petition for habeas corpus in this Court the appropriate vehicle for asserting a right to bail or vindicating its denial? The criminal case before the respondent Judge was the normal venue for invoking the petitioner's right to have provisional liberty pending trial and judgment. The original jurisdiction to grant or deny bail rested with said respondent. The correct course was for petitioner to invoke that jurisdiction by filing a petition to be admitted to bail, claiming a right to bail per se by reason of the weakness of the evidence against him. Only after that remedy was denied by the trial court should the review jurisdiction of this Court have been invoked, and even then, not without first applying to the Court of Appeals if appropriate relief was also available there. The Court reiterates that based on the doctrine enunciated in People vs. Hernandez, the questioned information filed against petitioners Juan Ponce Enrile and the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio must be read as charging simple rebellion only, hence said petitioners are entitled to bail, before final conviction, as a matter of right. The Court's earlier grant of bail to petitioners being merely provisional in character, the proceedings in both cases are ordered remanded to the respondent Judge to fix the amount of bail to be posted by the petitioners. Once bail is fixed by said respondent for any of the petitioners, the corresponding bail bond flied with this Court shall become functus oficio. No pronouncement as to costs.

People vs Dasig G.R. No. 100231 (1993) Facts: Appellants Rodrigo Dasig, Edwin Nuez and 6 others were charged together of shooting Redempto Manatad, a police officer, as he died while performing duties. Upon arraignment, appellant and Edwin Nues entered a plea of "not guilty." However, after the prosecution had presented its first witness, accused Nues changed his plea of "not guilty" to "guilty." Hence, the lower court held in abeyance the promulgation of a judgment against said accused until the prosecution had finished presenting its evidence. While trial was still ongoing, Nuez died on March 10, 1989, thereby extinguishing his criminal liability. At about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon, Pfc. Catamora noticed eight (8) persons, one of whom he identified as Edwin Nuez, acting suspiciously. He noticed one of them giving instructions to two of the men to approach Pfc. Manatad. On August 16, 1987, two teams of police officers were tasked to conduct surveillance on a suspected safehouse of members of the sparrow unit located in Peace Valley, Cebu City. Upon reaching the place, the group saw Rodrigo Dasig and Edwin Nues trying to escape. The team of Capt. Antonio Gorre captured Nues and confiscated a .45 caliber revolver with 3 magazines

and ammunitions, while the group of Sgt. Ronald Arnejo pursued Dasig, who threw a grenade at his pursuers, but was shot on his left upper arm and subsequently apprehended while a .38 caliber revolver with 17 live ammunitions were confiscated from him. Thereafter, Dasig was brought to the hospital for treatment, while Nues was turned over to the Metrodiscom for investigation. Dasig confessed that he and the group of Edwin Nues killed Pfc. Manatad. He likewise admitted that he and Nues were members of the sparrow unit and the their aliases were "Armand" and "Mabi," respectively. The extra-judicial confession of appellant was signed by him on every page thereof with the first page containing a certification likewise signed by him. However, Dasig contends that the procedure by which his extra-judicial confession was taken was legally defective, and contrary to his Constitutional rights. He further contends that assuming he conspired in the killing of Pfc. Manatad, he should be convicted at most of simple rebellion and not murder with direct assault. Appellant also claims that the custodial interrogation was done while he was still very sick and consequently, he could not have fully appreciated the wisdom of admitting such a serious offense. Issue: Whether or not the accused-appellant is liable for extra-judicial killing of the deceased and participated in the act of rebellion? Held: Yes. Accused Rogelio Dasig is found guilty of participating in an act of rebellion beyond reasonable doubt and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of eight (8) years of prision mayor, and to pay the heirs of Pfc. Redempto Manatad, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. As to the proper imposable penalty, the Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable to persons convicted of rebellion (Sec. 2, R.A. 4203), contrary to the insinuation of the Solicitor General. Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code imposes the penalty of prision mayor and a fine not exceeding P20,000.00 to any person who promotes, maintains, or heads a rebellion. However, in the case at bar, there is no evidence to prove that appellant Dasig headed the crime committed. As a matter of fact he was not specifically pinpointed by Pfc. Catamora as the person giving instructions to the group which attacked Pfc. Manatad. Appellant merely participated in committing the act, or just executed the command of an unknown leader. Hence, he should be made to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of eight (8) years of prision mayor. For the resulting death, appellant is likewise ordered to pay the heirs of Pfc. Manatad FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. OSCAR OLIVA May 26, 1986: Jacinto Magbojos, Jr. went out of their house early morning to count the coconuts in his dads coconut land uphill. At around 8 a.m.,Cinco & Ibaya went to Magbojos house, however,

they left after learning that he was not home. A few minutes after Magbojos got home, 4 persons entered their house, hogtied him and took him away walking towards the western direction. Arturo Inopia, a farmer, testified that Ka Ambot (Oliva) & company visitedhim at about 8:30 or 9 a.m. They informed him that they were out to get Magbojos. Before leaving his house, Oliva warned him not to report to the police authorities otherwise Inopia will be killed. Edgardo Labajata, a farmer, testified that he saw Magbojos (then hogtied) in the company of 5 persons. Magbojos appeared weak & w/abrasions on both sides of his face & can hardly talk. Oliva questioned Labajata & when the former learned that the latter knew Magbojos, he was also hogtied but was subsequently released on the condition that he will leave their brgy. Magbojos brother, Renato, a policeman was informed by one LevelitoTuberion that he knew where Magbojos was buried since he was the oneasked by Olivas group to accompany them to the burial site. Graveyard was dug & they found human bones, a shirt, short pants, coralon rope, a brief & black rubber band. Magbojos wife testified that these were personal belongings of her husband. Original charge: murder amended to kidnapping w/murder against Oliva, Salcedo & Cinco. All of them pleaded not guilty. Olivas defense: he was an NPA commanding officer in the Masbate area. Thus, he should be charged w/rebellion. Tuberion is in the list of shoot-to-kill order while Inopia was a member of a group called Walang Patawad, pretending to be an NPA member for business extortion. Salcedos defense: at the date of the incident, he was staying w/his cousin in another barangay w/c was about 5 km away from Magbojos brgy or it would take approximately 5 hours to get there by walking. Lower Court: Oliva & Salcedo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and not kidnapping w/murder. Cinco acquitted.

Issues & Ratio: 1.WON Oliva should be charged w/rebellion. NO. Claim lacks factual & legal basis. No rebellion in this case since the killing was not committed in furtherance eof rebellion but for personal reasons/other motives. Thus, killing must be punished separately even if committed simultaneously w/the rebellious acts there being no proof that the killing was in connection w/or in furtherance of the rebellious acts. It was not indubitably proven that Oliva was indeed a member of the NPA.2.Circumstancial evidence prove that Ka Ambot & Oliva are one & the same and that he took part in the commission of the crime.3. Alibi cant stand since it was not impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime and they were positively identified by witnesses.4.No treachery, evident premeditation & use of superior strength since theres no proof at all on how the killing was done.

Holding: RTC decision modified. Oliva & Salcedo guilty of homicide

Umil Vs. Ramos (1991) Facts: On 1 February 1988, military agents were dispatched to the St. Agnes Hospital, Roosevelt Avenue, Quezon City, to verify a confidential information which was received by their office, about a "sparrow man" (NPA member) who had been admitted to the said hospital with a gunshot wound. That the wounded man in the said hospital was among the five (5) male "sparrows" who murdered two (2) Capcom mobile patrols the day before, or on 31 January 1988 at about 12:00 o'clock noon, before a road hump along Macanining St., Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. The wounded man's name was listed by the hospital management as "Ronnie Javellon," twenty-two (22) years old of Block 10, Lot 4, South City Homes, Bian, Laguna however it was disclosed later that the true name of the wounded man was Rolando Dural. In view of this verification, Rolando Dural was transferred to the Regional Medical Servicesof the CAPCOM, for security reasons. While confined thereat, he was positively identified by the eyewitnesses as the one who murdered the 2 CAPCOM mobile patrols. Issue: Whether or Not Rolando was lawfully arrested. Held: Rolando Dural was arrested for being a member of the NPA, an outlawed subversive organization. Subversion being a continuing offense, the arrest without warrant is justified as it can be said that he was committing as offense when arrested. The crimes rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and crimes or offenses committed in furtherance therefore in connection therewith constitute direct assaults against the state and are in the nature of continuing crimes.

People vs Lovedioro (1995) Facts: Off-duty policeman SPO3 Jesus Lucilo was walking along Burgos St., away from the Daraga, Albay Public Market when a man suddenly walked beside him, pulled a .45 caliber gun from his waist, aimed the gun at the policeman's right ear and fired. The man who shot Lucilo had three other companions with him, one of whom shot the fallen policeman four times as he lay on the ground. After taking the latter's gun, the man and his companions boarded a tricycle and fled. The incident was witnessed from a distance of about nine meters by Nestor Armenta, a 25 year old welder from Pilar, Sorsogon, who claimed that he knew both the victim and the man who fired the fatal shot. Armenta identified the man who fired at the deceased as Elias Lovedioro y Castro, his nephew (appellant's father was his first cousin) and alleged that he knew the victim from the fact that the latter was a resident of Bagumbayan. Lucilo died on the same day of massive blood loss from multiple gunshot wounds on the face, the chest, and other parts of the body. On autopsy, the municipal health officer established the cause of death as hypovolemic shock. Issue:

Whether or not accused-appellant committed Rebellion under Art. 134 and 135 or Murder under Article 248 of the RPC? Held: The court finds the accused ELIAS LOVEDIORO guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal, acting in conspiracy with his co-accused who are still at large, of the crime of murder, defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua with all the accessories provided by law; to pay the heirs of the deceased SPO3 Jesus Lucilo through the widow, Mrs. Remeline Lucilo, the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos representing the civil indemnity for death; to pay the said widow the sum of Thirty Thousand (P30,000.00) Pesos representing reasonable moral damages; and to pay the said widow the sum of Eighteen Thousand Five Hundred Eighty-Eight (P18,588.00) Pesos, representing actual damages, without subsidiary imprisonment however, in case of insolvency on the part of the said accused. In his appeal, appellant cites the testimony of the prosecution's principal witness, Nestor Armenta, as supporting his claim that he should have been charged with the crime of rebellion, not murder. In his Brief, he asseverates that Armenta, a police informer, identified him as a member of the New People's Army. However, the appellant's claim regarding the political color attending the commission of the crime being a matter of defense, its viability depends on his sole and unsupported testimony. Finally, treachery was adequately proved in the court below. The attack delivered by appellant was sudden, and without warning of any kind. 41 The killing having been qualified by treachery, the crime committed is murder under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code. In the absence of any mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the trial court was correct in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua together with all the accessories provided by law. The trial court's decision dated September 14, 1993, sentencing the accused of Murder is hereby AFFIRMED.

PEOPLE V CABRERA Phil Constabulary vs. the Manila police wherethe PC vowed revenge.

Sedition in its more general sense is the raising of commotions or disturbances in the State. The Phil 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 of any official or agent of the Insular Govt or of a provincial or municipal govt. It is not necessary that the offender should be a private citizen and the offended party a public functionary.

 Conspiracies are generally proved by a number of indefinite acts, conditions and circumstances which vary according to the purposes to be accomplished. IF it be proved that the defendants pursued by their acts the same object, one performing one part and another part of the same so as to complete it with a view to the attainment of that same object one will be justified in the conclusion that they were engaged in a conspiracy to effect that object

Espuelas vs People (1951) Facts: On June 9 and June 24, 1947, both dates inclusive, in the town of Tagbilaran, Bohol, Oscar Espuelas y Mendoza had his picture taken, making it to appear as if he were hanging lifeless at the end of a piece of rope suspended form the limb of the 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 Free Press, the Evening News, the Bisayas, Lamdang of general circulation and other local periodicals in the Province of Bohol but also throughout the Philippines and abroad, for their publication with a suicide note or letter, wherein he made to appear that it was written by a fictitious suicide, Alberto Reveniera and addressed to the latter's supposed wife translation of which letter or note, stating his dismay and administration of President Roxas, pointing out the situation in Central Luzon and Leyte, and directing his wife his dear wife to write to President Truman and Churchill of US and tell them that in the Philippines the government is infested with many Hitlers and Mussolinis. Issue: Whether the accused is liable of seditious libel under Art. 142 of the RPC against the Government of the Philippines? Held: Yes. The accused must therefore be found guilty as charged. And there being no question as to the legality of the penalty imposed on him, the decision will be affirmed with costs. Analyzed for meaning and weighed in its consequences, the article written bybthe accused, cannot fail to impress thinking persons that it seeks to sow the seeds of sedition and strife. The infuriating language is not a sincere effort to persuade, what with the writer's simulated suicide and false claim to martyrdom and what with is failure to particularize. When the use irritating language centers not on persuading the readers but on creating disturbances, the rationable of free speech cannot apply and the speaker or writer is removed from the protection of the constitutional guaranty. If it be argued that the article does not discredit the entire governmental structure but only President Roxas and his men, the reply is that article 142 punishes not only all libels against the Government but also "libels against any of the duly constituted authorities thereof." The "Roxas people" in the Government obviously refer of least to the President, his Cabinet and the majority of legislators to

whom the adjectives dirty, Hitlers and Mussolinis were naturally directed. On this score alone the conviction could be upheld. Regarding the publication, it suggests or incites rebellious conspiracies or riots and tends to stir up people against the constituted authorities, or to provoke violence from opposition who may seek to silence the writer. Which is the sum and substance of the offense under consideration. The essence of seditious libel may be said to its immediate tendency to stir up general discontent to the pitch of illegal courses; that is to say to induce people to resort to illegal methods other than those provided by the Constitution, in order to repress the evils which press upon their minds.

MARTINEZ V MORFE Martinez and Bautista were members of the Constitutional Convention. They were arrested for falsification of docs-birthday and distribution of free food, drinks and cigs at 2 public meetings Sec 15, Art VI of the Constitution makes itclear that parliamentary immunity fromarrest does not cover any prosecution fortreason, felony, and breach of the peace American law: Bu common parliamentary law, the members of the legislature is privileged from arrest on civil process during the session of that body, and for a reasonable time before and after, to enable them to go to and return from the same. A prosecution for a criminal offense is thus excluded from this grant of community

Republic Act No. 8294

June 6, 1997

AN ACT AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1866, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "CODIFYING THE LAWS ON ILLEGAL/UNLAWFUL POSSESSION, MANUFACTURE, DEALING IN, ACQUISITION OR DISPOSITION OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES OR INSTRUMENTS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES, AND IMPOSING STIFFER PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN VIOLATIONS THEREOF, AND FOR RELEVANT PURPOSES." Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:: Section 1. Sec. 1 Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows: "Sec. 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. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine of not less than Fifteen thousand pesos

(P15,000) shall be imposed upon 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. "The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine of Thirty thousand pesos (P30,000) shall be imposed if the firearm is classified as high powered firearm which includes those with bores bigger in diameter than .38 caliber and 9 millimeter such as caliber .40, .41, .44, .45 and also lesser calibered firearms but considered powerful such as caliber .357 and caliber .22 center-fire magnum and other firearms with firing capability of full automatic and by burst of two or three: Provided, however, That no other crime was committed by the person arrested. "If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. "If the violation of this Sec. is in furtherance of or incident to, or in connection with the crime of rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup d'etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an element of the crime of rebellion, or insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup d'etat. "The same penalty shall be imposed upon the owner, president, manager, director or other responsible officer of any public or private firm, company, corporation or entity, who shall willfully or knowingly allow any of the firearms owned by such firm, company, corporation or entity to be used by any person or persons found guilty of violating the provisions of the preceding paragraphs or willfully or knowingly allow any of them to use unlicensed firearms or firearms without any legal authority to be carried outside of their residence in the course of their employment. "The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall carry any licensed firearm outside his residence without legal authority therefor."

Section 2. Sec. 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows: "Sec. 3. Unlawful manufacture, sale, acquisition, disposition or possession of explosives. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal and a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000) shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully manufacture, assemble, deal in, acquire, dispose or possess hand grenade(s), rifle grenade(s), and other explosives, including but not limited to 'pillbox,' 'molotov cocktail bombs,' 'fire bombs,' or other incendiary devices capable of producing destructive effect on contiguous objects or causing injury or death to any person. "When a person commits any of the crimes defined in the Revised Penal Code or special laws with the use of the aforementioned explosives, detonation agents or incendiary devices, which results in the death of any person or persons, the use of such explosives, detonation agents or incendiary devices shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.

"If the violation of this Sec. is in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with the crime of rebellion, insurrection, sedition or attempted coup d'etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an element of the crimes of rebellion, insurrection, sedition or attempted coup d'etat. "The same penalty shall be imposed upon the owner, president, manager, director or other responsible officer 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 or entity, to be used by any person or persons found guilty of violating the provisions of the preceding paragraphs." Section 3. Sec. 5 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows: "Sec. 5. Tampering of firearm's serial number. The penalty of prision correccional shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully tamper, change, deface or erase the serial number of any firearm." Section 4. Sec. 6 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows: "Sec. 6. Repacking or altering the composition of lawfully manufactured explosives. The penalty of prision correccional shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully repack, alter or modify the composition of any lawfully manufactured explosives." Section 5. Coverage of the Term Unlicensed Firearm. The term unlicensed firearm shall include: 1) firearms with expired license; or 2) unauthorized use of licensed firearm in the commission of the crime. Section 6. Rules and regulations. The Department of Justice and the Department of the Interior and Local Government shall jointly issue, within ninety (90) days after the approval of this Act, the necessary rules and regulations pertaining to the administrative aspect of the provisions hereof, furnishing the Committee on Public Order and Security and the Committee on Justice and Human Rights of both Houses of Congress copies of such rules and regulations within thirty (30) days from the promulgation hereof. Section 7. Separability clause. If, for any reason, any Sec. or provision of this Act is declared to be unconstitutional or invalid, the other Sec.s or provisions thereof which are not affected thereby shall continue to be in full force and effect. Section 8. Repealing clause. All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, amended, or modified accordingly. Section 9. Effectivity. This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following its publication in the Official Gazette or in two (2) newspapers of general circulation.