TITLE ONE CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS
Title One
CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY
AND THE LAW OF NATIONS
Chapter One
CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY
Section One. Treason and espionage
Article 114: Treason
Any Filipino citizen who levies war
against the Philippines or adheres to her
enemies, giving them aid or comfort within the
Philippines or elsewhere, shall be punished by
reclusion perpetua to death and shall pay a fine
not to exceed Four million pesos (4,000,000).
No person shall be convicted of
treason unless on the testimony of two (2)
witnesses at least to the same overt act or on
confession of the accused in open court.
Likewise, an alien, residing in the
Philippine Islands, who commits acts of
treason as defined in paragraph 1 of this
Article shall be punished by reclusion temporal
to death and shall pay a fine not to exceed Four
Million pesos (P4,000,000).(As amended by
Sec. 3, R.A. 10951)
Treason
Treason is a breach of allegiance to a
government, committed by a person who owes
allegiance to it.
Allegiance
It is meant the obligation of fidelity and
obedience which the individuals owe to the
government under which they live or to their
sovereign, in return for the protection they
receive.
Elements of treason:
1. That the offender is a Filipino citizen
or an alien residing in the Philippines;
2. That there is a war in which the
Philippines is involved;
3. That the offender either:
a. Levies war against the
Government or
b. Adheres to enemies, giving them
aid or comfort.
That the offender is a Filipino citizen or an
alien residing in the Philippines
Permanent and temporary allegiance
Permanent consists in the obligation
of fidelity and obedience which a resident
owes to his government or sovereign
CRIMINAL LAW II REVIEWER
Temporary the obligation of fidelity
and obedience which a resident alien owes to
our government
That there is a war in which the
Philippines is involved
Treason cannot be committed in time
of peace.
As treason is basically a war crime, it
is punished by the State as a measure of self-
defense and self-preservation. The law of
treason is an emergency measure. It remains
dormant until the emergency arises. Bur as
soon as war starts, it is relentlessly put into
effect.
Modes of committing treason
1. By levying war against the
Government;
2. By adhering to the enemies of the
Philippines, giving them aid or
comfort.
TREASON BY LEVYING OF WAR
Elements of levying war
1. That there be an actual assembling of
men; and
2. For the purpose of executing a
treasonable design by force.
The body of men must actually be
assembled for the purpose of effecting by force
a treasonable design, all those who perform
any part, however minute, or however remote
from the scene of action, and who are actually
leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be
considered as traitors.
Important matters to note:
In treason by levying war, it is not
necessary that there be a formal
declaration of the existence of a state
of war.
The war must be directed against the
government. It must be with intent to
overthrow the government.
The levying of war must be in
collaboration with a foreign enemy.
Treason by adherence to the enemy and
giving them aid or comfort
Adherence to the enemy means intent to
betray. A citizen actually or emotionally favors
the enemy and harbors sympathies or
convictions disloyal to his countrys policy or
interest.
 TITLE ONE CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS
Aid or comfort means an act which strengthens
or tends to strengthen the enemy in the
conduct of war against the traitors country
and an act which weakens or tends to weaken
the power of the traitors country to resist or to
attack the enemy.
Important matters to note:
Adherence alone, without giving the
enemy aid or comfort, does not
constitute treason.
When there is no adherence to the
enemy, the act which may do aid or
comfort the enemy does not amount
to treason.
Giving information to, or
commandeering foodstuff for, the
enemy is evidence of both adherence
and giving aid or comfort.
The act committed need not actually
strengthen the enemy.
The aid or comfort given to the
enemies must be after the declaration
of war.
There is no treason through
negligence.
When killings and other common
crimes are charged as overt acts of
treason, they cannot be regarded as:
1. Separate crimes; or
2. Complex with treason.
Extent of aid or comfort
The aid and comfort must be given to
the enemy by some kind of action. It must be a
deed or physical activity, not merely a mental
operation.
To be treasonous, the extent of aid and
comfort given to the enemies must be to
render assistance to them as enemies and not
merely as individuals and, in addition, be
directly in furtherance of the enemies hostile
designs.
Specific acts of aid or comfort constituting
treason
1. Serving as informer and active
member of the Japanese Military
Police, arresting guerilla suspects in
the attempt to suppress the
underground movement.
2. Serving the Japanese army as agent or
spy and participating in the raid of
guerilla hideout.
3. Acting as finger woman when a
barrio was zonified by the Japanese,
pointing put to the Japanese several
men who she accused as guerillas.
4. Taking active part in the mass killing
of civilians by the Japanese soldiers by
personally tying hands of the victims.
CRIMINAL LAW II REVIEWER
Treason cannot be proved by circumstantial
evidence or by the extra-judicial confession of
the accused.
Ways of proving treason:
1. Testimony of two witnesses, at least,
to the same overt act; or
2. Confession of the accused in open
court.
Two-witness Rule
The testimony of 2 witnesses is
required to prove the overt act of giving aid of
comfort. It is not necessary to prove
adherence.
The provision requires that each of
the witnesses must testify to the whole overt
act; or if it is separable, there must be two
witnesses to each part of the overt act.
It is sufficient that the witnesses are
uniform in their testimony on the over act; it is
not necessary that there be corroboration
between them on the point they testified.
Reason for Two-Witness Rule
The special nature of the crime of
treason requires that the accused be afforded a
special protection not required in other cases
so as to avoid a miscarriage of justice. It is
based on the extreme seriousness of the crime
and the fact that the crime is committed on
abnormal times, when small differences may in
mortal enmity wipe out all scruples in
sacrificing the truth. (Concurring Opinion of
Justice Perfecto, People vs. Marcaida, 79 Phil.
295)
Commandeering of woman to satisfy the
lust of the enemy is not treason
"Commandeering" of women to satisfy the lust
of Japanese officers of men or to enliven the
entertainments held in their honor was not
treason even though the women and the
entertainments helped to make life more
pleasant for the enemies and boost their spirit;
he was not guilty any more than the women
themselves would have been if they voluntarily
and willingly had surrender their bodies or
organized the entertainments. Sexual and
social relations with the Japanese did not
directly and materially tend to improve their
was efforts or to weaken the power of the
United States. The acts herein charged were
not, by fair implication, calculated to
strengthen the Japanese Empire or its army or
to cripple the defense and resistance of the
other side. Whatever favorable effect the
defendant's collaboration with the Japanese
 TITLE ONE CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS

might have in their prosecution of the war was
trivial, imperceptible, and unintentional.
Intent of disloyalty is a vital ingredient in the
crime of treason, which, in the absence of
admission, may be gathered from the nature
and circumstance of each particular
case. (People v. Perez, G.R. No. L-856, [April 18,
1949], 83 PHIL 314-325)
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs. APOLINARIO ADRIANO
(G.R. No. L-477, June 30, 1947)
The information charged:
of treason was committed if he placed himself
at the enemy's call to fight side by side with
him when the opportune time came even
though an opportunity never presented itself.
Such membership by its very nature gave the
enemy aid and comfort. The enemy derived
psychological comfort in the knowledge that
he had on his side nationals of the country with
which his was at war. It furnished the enemy
aid in that his cause was advanced, his forces
augmented, and his courage was enhanced by
the knowledge that he could count on men
such as the accused and his kind who were
ready to strike at their own people. The
principal effect of it was no difference from
that of enlisting in the invader's army.

Adherence may be proved

That between January and April, 1945 or
1. By one witness
thereabout, during the occupation of the
2. From the nature of the act itself; or
Philippines by the Japanese Imperial Forces, in
3. From the circumstances surrounding
the Province of Nueva Ecija and in the
the act.
mountains in the Island of Luzon, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Court, the
One witness; Reason
above-named accused, Apolinario Adriano,
who is not a foreigner, but a Filipino citizen
Adherence to enemy, in the sense of a
owing allegiance to the United States and the
disloyal state of mind, cannot be, and is not
Commonwealth of the Philippines, in violation
required to be, proved by depositions if 2
of said allegiance, did then and there willfully,
witnesses, because what is designed in the
criminally and treasonably adhere to the
mind of an accused never is susceptible of
Military Forces of Japan in the Philippines,
proof by direct testimony.
against which the Philippines and the United
States were then at war, giving the said enemy
Confession must be made in open court
aid and comfort in the manner as follows:
That as a member of the Makapili, a
Confession means a confession of
military organization established and designed
guilt. It is not only an admission of facts made
to assist and aid militarily the Japanese
by the accused in giving his testimony after a
Imperial forces in the Philippines in the said
plea of not guilty, from which admissions of
enemy's war efforts and operations against the
guilt can be inferred. It means pleading guilty
United States and the Philippines, the herein
in open court, before the judge while actually
accused bore arm and joined and assisted the
hearing the case.
Japanese Military Forces and the Makapili
Army in armed conflicts and engagements
Circumstances affecting criminal liability in
against the United States armed forces and the
treason
Guerrillas of the Philippine Commonwealth in
the Municipalities of San Leonardo and Gapan,
Cruelty and ignominy are aggravating
Province of Nueva Ecija, and in the mountains
circumstances in treason. Evident
of Luzon, Philippines, sometime between
premeditation is not aggravating in treason,
January and April, 1945. Contrary to Law.
because in treason, adherence and giving aid
and comfort to the enemy is usually a long
HELD:
continued process requiring reflective and
We take it that the mere fact of having
persistent determination and planning.
joined a Makapili organization is evidence of
Superior strength and treachery are
both adherence to the enemy and giving him
circumstances inherent in treason.
aid and comfort. Unless forced upon one
against his will, membership in the Makapili
Tortures and murders are merged in and
organization imports treasonable intent,
considering the purposes for which the formed part of treason. They were the overt
organization was created. acts which, besides traitorous intention,
At the same time, being a Makapili is in supplied a vital ingredient in the crime.
itself constitutive of an overt act. It is not Emotional or intellectual attachment and
necessary, except for the purpose of increasing sympathy with the foe unaccompanied by the
the punishment, that the defendant actually
giving of aid and comfort is not treason. The
went to battle or committed nefarious acts
against his country or countrymen. The crime defendant would not be guilty of treason if he

CRIMINAL LAW II REVIEWER

 TITLE ONE CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS
had not committed the aforesaid atrocities.
(People v. Roble, G.R. No. L-433, [March 2, 1949],
83 PHIL 1-4)
Confession; Overt act
Testimony by an officer as to a confession
made to him by the accused will not support a
conviction of treason, as a confession of this
crime, to be effective, must be made in open
court.
The defendant accepted from the self-styled
"secretary of war" of the Katipunan Society a
commission as a captain in the "Filipino army,"
but never made any attempt to act as such. The
Supreme Court held that the mere acceptance
of the commission by the defendant, nothing
else being done, was not an overt act of treason
within the meaning of the law. (U.S. v. De los
Reyes, G.R. No. 1434, [February 23, 1904], 3
PHIL 349-354)
Penalty for treason
In determining the proper penalty, for treason,
the amount and degree of aid or comfort given
the enemy as well as the gravity of separate
and distinct acts of treason committed by the
accused, rather than the circumstances
aggravating or mitigating the offense,
determine the period of the penalty to be
imposed.
Defenses in treason
I. Suspended allegiance and change
of sovereignty are not accepted as
defenses.
Reason:
1. A citizen owes an absolute and
permanent allegiance to his
government;
2. The sovereignty of the
government is not transferred
to the enemy by mere
occupation.
3. The subsistence of sovereignty
of the legitimate government in
a territory occupied by the
military forces of the enemy
during the war is one of the
Rules of international law; and
4. What is suspended is the
exercise of the rights of
sovereignty.
II. Defense of obedience to a de facto
Government
In addition to the defense of
duress, lawful obedience to a de facto
government is a good defense in treason.
CRIMINAL LAW II REVIEWER
III. Defense of loss of citizenship by
joining the army of enemy
Commonwealth Act No. 63
provides that: A Filipino may lose his
citizenship x x x by accepting commission
in the military, naval or air service of a
foreign country.
The accused cannot divest himself
of his Philippine Citizenship by his simple
expedient of accepting a commission in is
the military, naval or air service of a
foreign country. If the contention of the
accused would be sustained, gis very crime
would be the shield that would protect him
from punishment.
IV. Defense of Duress or
uncontrollable fear
In the eyes of the law, nothing will
excuse that act of joining an enemy, but the
fear or immediate death; not the fear of
any inferior personal injury, nor the
apprehension of any outrage upon
property.
Article 115: Conspiracy and Proposal to
Commit Treason
The conspiracy or proposal to commit the
crime of treason shall be punished
respectively, by prision mayor and a fine not
exceeding Two million pesos (P2,000,000),
and prision correccional and a fine not
exceeding One million pesos (P1,000,000). (As
amended by Sec. 4, R.A. 10591)
How committed
Conspiracy to commit treason is committed
when in time of war, two or more persons
came to an agreement to levy war against the
government or to adhere to the enemies and to
give them aid or comfort, and decide to commit
it.
Proposal to commit treason is committed
when in time of war a person who has decided
to levy war against the Government or to
adhere to the enemies and to give them aid or
comfort, proposes its execution to some other
persons.
Important matters to note:
Generally, conspiracy and proposal to
commit a felony is not punishable.
Under Article 115, the mere
conspiracy and proposal to commit
treason is a felony.
The two-witness Rule does not apply
in this provision since Article 115 is a
separate and distinct offense from
treason.
 TITLE ONE CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS
Article 116: Misprision of Treason
Elements:
1. That the offender must be owing
allegiance to the Government, and not
a foreigner.
2. That he has knowledge of any
conspiracy (to commit treason)
against the Government;
3. That he conceals or does not disclose
and make known the same as soon as
possible to the governor or fiscal of
the province of the mayor of fiscal of
the city which he resides.
Penalty for misprision of treason
The offender in misprision of treason
is punished as an accessory to treason. Hence,
the penalty therefor is two degrees lower than
that provided for treason. But the offended is a
principal in the crime of misprision of treason
being a separate and distinct offense from
treason.
Article 117. Espionage
Espionage
It is the offense of gathering, transmitting, or
losing information respecting the national
defense with intent or reason to believe that
the information is to be used to the injury of
the Republic of the Philippines or to the
advantage of any foreign nation.
Espionage distinguished from treason
Treason is committed only in times of
war, while espionage may be committed both
in time of peace and in time of war. Treason is
only limited in two ways of committing the
crime: levying war and adhering to the enemy
by giving him aid or comfort; while espionage
may be committed in many ways.
Ways of committing Espionage
1. By entering, without authority
therefor, a warship, fort, or naval or
military establishment or reservation
to obtain any information, plans,
photographs, or other data of a
confidential nature relative to the
defense of the Philippines.
Elements:
a. That the offender enters any place
mentioned therein;
b. That he has no authority therefor;
c. That his purpose is to obtain
information, plans, photographs,
or other data of a confidential
nature relative to the defense of
the Philippines
NOTE:
CRIMINAL LAW II REVIEWER
It is necessary that there be
intent to obtain the
information relative to the
defense of the Philippines.
However, it is not necessary
that information is obtained.
2. By disclosing to the representative of
a foreign nation the contents of the
articles, data or information referred
to in paragraph 1 of Article 117, which
he has in his possession by reason of
the public office he holds.
Elements:
a. That the offender is a public
officer;
b. That he has in his possession the
articles, data or information
referred to in Paragraph 1 of
Article 117 by reason of the public
office he holds.
c. That he discloses their contents
to a representative of a foreign
nation.
NOTE: The penalty next higher in
degree shall be imposed if the
offender be a public officer or
employee.
Persons liable
1. Under the first way of committing
espionage, the offender is any person,
where citizen or a foreigner, a private
individual or a public officer.
2. Under the second way of committing
espionage, the offender must be a
public officer who has in his
possession the articles, date, or
information by reason of the public
office he holds.
Other acts of espionage punished under
Commonwealth Act No. 616, An Act to
Punish Espionage and other Offenses
against the National Security:
1. Unlawfully obtaining or permitting to
be obtained information affecting
national defense;
2. Unlawful disclosing of information
affecting national defense;
3. Disloyal acts or words in time of
peace;
4. Disloyal acts or words in time of war;
5. Conspiracy to violate the preceding
acts;
6. Harboring or concealing violators of
Commonwealth Act No. 616.
 TITLE ONE CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS
Section Two. Provoking war and
disloyalty in case of war
Art. 118. Inciting to war or giving motives
for reprisals
The penalty of reclusion temporal shall
be imposed upon any public officer or
employee, and that of prison mayor upon any
private individual, who by unlawful or
unauthorized acts, provokes or gives occasion
for a war involving or liable to involve the
Philippine Islands or exposes Filipino citizens
to reprisals on their persons or property.
Elements:
1. That the offender performs
unlawful or unauthorized acts.
2. That such acts provoke or give
occasion for a war involving or liable to
involve the Philippines or expose
Filipino citizens to reprisals on their
persons or property.
*This can be committed even if the Philippines
is not a participant in a war. Exposing the
Filipinos or their property because the
offender performed an unauthorized act, like
those who recruit Filipinos to participate in the
gulf war. If they involve themselves to the war,
this crime is committed.
*The public destruction of the flag or seal of a
foreign state or the public manifestations of
hostility to the hand or ambassador of another
state.
*The intention of the offense is immaterial.
*Committed in time of peace.
*Penalty is higher when the offender is a public
officer or employee.
Art. 119 Violation of Neutrality
The penalty of prison correcional shall
be inflicted upon anyone who, on the occasion
of a war in which the Government is not
involved, violates any regulation issued by
competent authority for the purpose of
enforcing neutrality.
Definition of Neutrality:
Neutrality is defined as a nation or power
which takes no part in a contest of arms going
on between others. (Burril, L.D.)
Neutrality is the legal status arising from the
abstention of a state from all participation in a
war between other states, the maintenance of
an attitude of impartiality toward the
belligerents and the recognition by the
belligerents of this abstention and impartiality.
CRIMINAL LAW II REVIEWER
Elements:
1) That there is a war in which the
Philippines is not involved;
2) That there is a regulation by
competent authority for the purpose of
enforcing neutrality;
3) That the offender violates such
regulation.
* When war breaks out between certain
powers, each nation wishing to remain
impartial should normally issue either a
special or general declaration of neutrality.
Such a declaration, however is not required by
International law. A neutral state may, during
the course of the hostilities, repeal change or
modify its position of neutrality, provided that
such alteration are applied without bias to all
belligerents.
* Government must have declared the
neutrality of the Philippines in a war between
two other countries.
* It is neutrality of the Philippines that is
violated.
* Congress has the right to declare neutrality.
Art. 120 Correspondence with hostile
country
Any person who in time of war, shall
have correspondence with an enemy country
or territory occupied by enemy troops shall be
punished:
1. By prison correccional, if the
correspondence has been prohibited by the
Government;
2. By prison mayor, if the
correspondence be carried on in ciphers or
conventional signs; and
3. By reclusion temporal, if notice or
information be given thereby which might be
useful to the enemy. If the offender intended to
aid the enemy by giving such notice or
information, he shall suffer the penalty of
reclusion temporal to death.
Definition:
Correspondence is communication by means
of letters; or it may refer to the letters which
pass between those who have friendly or
business relations.
Elements:
1. That it is in time of war in which the
Philippines is involved;
2. That the offender makes
correspondence with an enemy country or
territory occupied by
enemy troops;
3. That the correspondence is either
 TITLE ONE CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS
a) prohibited by the
Government, or
b) carried on in ciphers or
conventional signs, or
c) containing notice or
information which might be useful to the
enemy.
* Hostile country exist only during hostilities
or after the declaration of war
* Correspondence to enemy country
correspondence to officials of enemy country,
even if related to you.
* It is not correspondence with private
individual in enemy country.
* If ciphers were used, no need for prohibition;
but if ciphers were not used, there is a need for
prohibition.
* In any case, it must be correspondence with
the enemy country regardless of whether the
correspondence contains innocent matters, if
the correspondence has been prohibited by the
Government, it is punishable.
* Prohibition by the Government is not
essential in instances 2 and 3.
Qualifying circumstances under instance 3
The following circumstances must concur:
1) That the notice or information might be
useful to the enemy, and
2) That the offender intended to aid the enemy.
If the offender intended to aid the enemy by
giving such notice or information, the crime
amounts to treason; hence, the penalty is the
same as that for treason.
Art. 121. Flight to enemys country
The penalty of arresto mayor shall be
inflicted upon any person who, owing
allegiance to the Government, attempts to flee
or go to an enemy country when prohibited by
competent authority.
Elements:
1) That there is a war in which the
Philippines is involved;
2) That the offender must be owing
allegiance to the Government;
3) That the offender attempts to flee
or go to an enemy country;
4) That going to an enemy country is
prohibited by competent authority;
An alien resident may be guilty of flight to
enemy country. The law does not say not
being a foreigner. Hence, the allegiance
CRIMINAL LAW II REVIEWER
contemplated in this article is either natural or
temporary allegiance.
Mere attempt to flee or go to enemy country
consummates the crime when prohibited by
competent authority.
Exception or a matter of defense:
1) If fleeing or going to an enemy
country is not prohibited by competent
authority.
Section Three. Piracy and mutiny on the
high seas
or in Philippine Waters
Art. 122. Piracy in general and mutiny on
the high seas or in Philippine Waters
The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall
be inflicted upon any person who, on the high
seas or in Philippine waters, shall attack or
seize a vessel or, not being a member of its
complement nor a passenger, shall seize the
whole or part of the cargo of said vessel, its
equipment, or personal belongings of its
complement or passengers.
The same penalty shall be inflicted in
case of mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine
water. (As amended by Sec. 3, R.A. 7659)
Definition:
Piracy is robbery or forcible depredation on
the high seas, without lawful authority and
done with animo furandi and in the spirit and
intention of universal hostility. (People v, Lol-
lo, et al., 43 Phil. 19)
High seas is parts of the seas that are not
included in the exclusive economic zone, in the
territorial seas, or in the internal waters of a
state, or in the archipelagic waters of an
archipelagic state. (Convention of the law of
the Sea)
Mutiny is the unlawful resistance to a superior
officer, or the raising of commotions and
disturbances on board a ship against the
authority of its commander. (Bouviers Law
Dictionary, Vol. 2, p. 2283)
Philippine waters shall refer to all bodies of
water, such as but not limited to, seas, gulfs,
bays around, between and connecting each of
the Islands of the Philippine Archipelago,
irrespective of its depth, breadth, length or
dimension, and all other waters belonging to
the Philippines by historic or legal title,
including territorial sea, the sea-bed, the
insular shelves, and other submarine areas
 TITLE ONE CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS
over which the Philippine has sovereignty or
jurisdiction.
Vessel is any vessel or watercraft used for
transport of passengers and cargo from one
place to another through Philippine waters. It
shall include all kinds and types of vessels or
boats used in fishing.
Elements:
1. That a vessel is on the high seas or
in Philippine waters;
2. That the offenders are not members
of its complement or passengers of
the vessel.
3. That the offenders either
a) attack or seize that vessel,
or
b) seize the whole or part of
the cargo of said vessel,
its equipment or personal
belongings of its complement or
passengers.
Acts Punished in Piracy:
1) Attacking or seizing a vessel on the
high seas or in Philippine waters;
2) Seizing the whole or part of its
cargo, its equipment or personal
belongings of its complement or
passenger while the vessel is on the
high seas or in Philippine waters.
Jurisdiction:
The jurisdiction of piracy unlike all
other crimes has no territorial limits. Pirates
are in law hostes humani generis. Piracy is a
crime not against any particular State but
against all mankind, It may be punished in the
competent tribunal of any country where the
offender may be found or into which may be
carried. (People v. Lol-lo and Saraw, 43 Phil.
19)
Piracy distinguished from Mutiny
Aspects / Characteristics Piracy
Offender Strangers to said vessels
Intent to gain Essential
Piracy and Mutiny, when considered as
Terrorism
CRIMINAL LAW II REVIEWER
Under R.A. 9372 (Human Security Act of 2007),
a person who commits an act punishable as
piracy and mutiny under Article 122 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 shall be guilty of
the crime of terrorism.
Abetting Piracy
In Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 532
(Anti-piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery), the
act of aiding pirates or abetting piracy is
penalized as a crime distinct from piracy.
Said section penalizes any person who
knowingly and in any manner aids or protects
pirates, such as giving them information about
the movement of the police or other peace
officers of the government, or acquires or
receives property taken by such pirates or in
any manner derives any benefit therefrom; or
who directly or indirectly abets the
commission of piracy.
Also, the offender shall be considered as an
accomplice of the principal offenders and
punished in accordance with the Revised Penal
Code.
This provision of P.D. 532 with respect to
piracy in Philippine waters has not been
incorporated into the Revised Penal Code.
Neither may it be considered repealed by R.A.
7659 (An Act to impose the Death Penalty on
Certain Heinous Crimes) since there is nothing
in amendatory law which is inconsistent with
said section.
People v. Catantan, G.R. No. 118075,
September 5, 1997
Facts:
Accused-appellant argues that in
order that piracy may be committed it is
Mutiny
essential that there be an attack on or seizure
of a vessel. He claims that he and his
companion did Members
not attack of
or seize the fishing
the crew or
boat of the Pilapil brothers by using force or
passengers
intimidation but merely boarded the boat, and
it was only when Nottheyessential,
were already
mayon only
board
that they used force
intend to ignore the shipsto
to compel the Pilapils
take them to some other or
officers place. Appellant
they may be also
insists that he and Ursal had no intention of
prompted by a desire to
permanently taking possession or depriving
complainants ofcommit plunder.
their boat. As a matter of fact,
when they saw another pumpboat they
ordered the complainants to approach that
boat so they could leave the complainants
 TITLE ONE CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS
behind in their boat. Accordingly, appellant
claims, he simply committed grave coercion
and not piracy.
Ruling:
The Court do[es] not agree. Under the
definition of piracy in P.D. No. 532 as well as
grave coercion as penalized in Art. 286 of the
Revised Penal Code, this case falls squarely
within the purview of piracy. While it may be
true that complainants were compelled to go
elsewhere other than their place of
destination, such compulsion was obviously
part of the act of seizing their boat.
Art. 123. Qualified Piracy
The penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death shall be imposed upon those who
commit any of the crimes referred to in the
preceding article, under any of the following
circumstances:
1. Whenever they have seized a vessel
by boarding or firing upon the same;
2. Whenever the pirates have
abandoned their victims without means of
saving themselves; or
3. Whenever the crime is accompanied
by murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape.
(As amended by R.A. No. 7659)
If any of the circumstances in Art. 123 is
present, piracy is qualified.
Paragraph 2 of Article 123 specifically
mentions pirates thereby excluding
mutineers from said paragraph.
People v. Lol-lo and Saraw, 43 Phil. 19
Facts: A boat, in which there were eleven men,
women and children, arrived between the
islands of Buang and Bukid in the Dutch East
Indies. There the boat was surrounded by six
vintas manned by twenty-four Moros all
armed. The Moros first asked for food, but once
on the boat, took for themselves all of the
cargo, attacked some of the men, and brutally
violated two of the women by methods too
horrible to be described. All of the persons on
the boat, with the exception of the two young
women, were again placed on it and holes were
made on it, with the idea that it would
submerge, but after eleven days of hardship
and privation they were succored. Two of the
Moro marauders were Lol-lo and Saraw who
later returned to their home in Sulu,
Philippines. There they were arrested and
were charged in the Court of First Instance of
Sulu with the crime of piracy.
Ruling:
CRIMINAL LAW II REVIEWER
It cannot be contended with any
degree of force that Court of Instance of Sulu
was without jurisdiction of the case. Piracy is a
crime not against any particular State but
against all mankind. It may be punished in the
competent tribunal of any country where the
offender may be found or into which may be
carried. Nor does it matter that the crime was
committed within the jurisdictional three-mile
limit of a foreign state.
The crime of piracy was accompanied
by (1) rape, and (2) the abandonment of
persons without means of saving themselves.
Lol-lo who raped one of the women
was sentenced to death, there being the
aggravating circumstance of cruelty, abuse of
superior strength and ignominy, without any
mitigating circumstance.
Qualified piracy is a special complex crime
punishable by reclusion perpetua to death,
regardless of the number of victims.
The number of persons killed on the occasion
of piracy is not material. P.D. No. 532 considers
qualified piracy, i.e., rape, murder, or homicide
is committed as a result or on the occasion of
piracy, as a special complex crime punishable
by death, regardless of the number of victims.
(People v. Siyoh, 141 SCRA 356)
Qualified Piracy is now punishable by
reclusion perpetua to death.
Before Article 122 was amended by R.A. 7659,
only piracy and mutiny on high seas was
covered by the Revised Penal Code. The
commission of the acts described in Articles
122 and/or 123 in Philippine waters was
punished as piracy under P.D. No. 532.
P.D. No. 532 covers any person while Art. 122
as amended covers only persons who are not
passengers or members of its complement.
Section 3 of R.A. 9372 (Human Security Act of
2007) provides when piracy under P.D. No.
532 considered as Terrorism.
People v. Roger Tulin, et al., G.R. No.
111709, August 30, 2001
To sreasonummarize, Article 122 of the
Revised Penal Code, before its
amendment, provided that piracy
must be committed on the high seas
by any person not a member of its
complement nor a passenger thereof.
Upon its amendment by Republic Act
No. 7659, the coverage of the
 TITLE ONE CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS

pertinent provision was widened to

include offenses committed "in
Philippine waters." On the other hand,
under Presidential Decree No. 532
(issued in 1974), the coverage of the
law on piracy embraces any
person including "a passenger or
member of the complement of said
vessel in Philippine waters." Hence,
passenger or not, a member of the
complement or not, any person is
covered by the law.

Republic Act No. 7659 neither superseded nor

amended the provisions on piracy under
Presidential Decree No. 532. There is no
contradiction between the two laws. There is
likewise no ambiguity and hence, there is no
need to construe or interpret the law. All the
presidential decree did was to widen the
coverage of the law, in keeping with the intent
to protect the citizenry as well as neighboring
states from crimes against the law of nations.
As expressed in one of the "whereas" clauses of
Presidential Decree No. 532, piracy is "among
the highest forms of lawlessness condemned
by the penal statutes of all countries." For this
reason, piracy under the Article 122, as
amended, and piracy under Presidential
Decree No. 532 exist harmoniously as separate
laws.

Peoplem v. Glenford Samoy, et al., G.R. No.

193672, January 18, 2012

The RTC and the CA were likewise correct in

finding accused Israel guilty only of robbery
with homicide, not of robbery on the highway
as defined in P.D. 532. Conviction for the latter
crime requires proof that several accused
organized themselves for the purpose of
committing robbery indiscriminately, preying
upon innocent and defenseless people on the
highway. Here, the prosecution proved only
one act of robbery.

Rustico Abay, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 165896,

September 19, 2008

Considering the testimonies of witnesses and

the evidence presented by the parties, we are
in agreement that the crime of Highway
Robbery/Brigandage was duly proven in this
case. x x x In fine, the purpose of brigandage
is, inter alia, indiscriminate highway robbery.
If the purpose is only a particular robbery, the
crime is only robbery, or robbery in band if
there are at least four armed participants

CRIMINAL LAW II REVIEWER