Q1: Enumerate the crimes against national security and the law of

nations.
A1: The crimes against national security are:
(1) Treason (Art. 114)
(2) Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason (Art. 115)
(3) Misprision of treason (Art. 116)
(4) Espionage (Art. 117)
The crimes against the law of nations are:
(1) Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals. (Art. 118)
(2) Violation of neutrality. (Art. 119)
(3) Correspondence with hostile country. (Art. 120)
(4) Flight to enemys country. (Art. 121)
(5) Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine
waters. (Art. 122)
MY ANS:
The book two of the revised penal code enumerates the crimes against national
security and the law of the nations:
Section one treason and espionage
Article 114: Treason
Article 115: Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason
Article 116: Misprision of treason
Article 117: Espionage
Section two Provoking war and disloyalty in case of war
Article 118: Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals
Article 119: Violation of neutrality
Article 120: Correspondence with hostile country
Article 121: Flight to enemys country
Section three Piracy and mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine
waters
Article 122: Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine waters
Article 123: Qualified Piracy
Q2: X, a Filipino, was prosecuted for treason allegedly committed during
the Japanese occupation. The evidence for the prosecution disclosed that
X wanted to aid the Japanese army, by supplying them with trucks
and other means of transportation, as he wanted them to win the
war. Several witnesses testified to the foregoing facts. On the basis of those
facts, the Peoples Court convicted X for treason. Would you sustain
the judgment of the Peoples Court?

A2: Yes. Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code states that one of the ways by
which a Filipino citizen commits treason is when he or she adheres
to the enemies, giving them aid or comfort. In U.S. v. Cramer, the
Court held that there is adherence to the enemy when a citizen
intellectually or emotionally favors the enemy and harbors
sympathies or convictions disloyal to his countrys policy or
interest. The same case defines aid or comfort as an act which
strengthens or tends to strengthen the enemy in the conduct of
war against the traitors country. X adhered to the enemy as he wanted
them to win the war. X also gave aid and comfort by supplying the Japanese
army trucks and other means of transportation, which is a form of rendering
assistance to them as enemies that could be beneficial in the furtherance of
the enemies hostile designs. Article 114 also states that no person
shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two
witnesses at least to the same overt act. In the case of X, several
witnesses testified as to the facts of the case. Hence, the judgment
of the Peoples Court should be sustained.
MY ANS: No, because it lacks one of the elements of treason which is the
offended adheres to the enemies, giving them air or comfort. It was said in
the case of People v. Roble that mere emotional or intellectual attachment
or sympathy to the enemy without giving the enemy aid or comfort is not
treason.
Article 14 states that:
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 100,000 pesos.
No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of 2
witnesses at least to the same overt act or on confession of the accused in open
court.
Likewise, an alien, residing in the Philippines, 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 100,000 pesos.
The elements of article 114 are the following:
1. That the offender is a Filipino citizen
2. There is a war wherein the Philippines is involved
3. That the offender either

Levies war against the government, or

Adheres to the enemies, giving them aid or comfort (within

the Philippines or elsewhere)

In the situation, it was said that X is a Filipino (1st element) and such act of
treason was done during the Japanese occupation (2nd element). However, X
merely wanted to aid the Japanese army, the action or the giving aid was never
manifested or done. Thus, there was only adherence to the enemy but there was
no aid or comfort that was done.
In order to commit treason, using the second mode, adherence and giving aid or
comfort to the enemy must concur together. Adherence alone, without giving
aid or comfort to the enemy, is not sufficient to constitute treason.
(Reyes, p.6)
The aid or 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. It
must be an act that has passed from the realm of though into the realm
of action. (Reyes, p.7)
Notes/Definition:
Adherence to the enemy means intent to betray.
Aid or comfort means an act, which strengthens or tends to strengthen the enemy
in the conduct of war.
Q3: How may treason be committed, and state the elements of each
mode of commission.
A3: There are two (2) ways or modes of committing treason:
(1) By levying war against the Government
a. That the offender is a Filipino citizen or an alien residing in
the Philippines.
b. That the offender owes allegiance to the Government.
c. That there is war in which the Philippines is involved.
d. That there be an actual assembling of men
e. Such assembling is for the purpose of executing a
treasonable design by force.
(2) By adhering to the enemies of the Philippines, giving them aid or
comfort.
a. That the offender is a Filipino citizen or an alien residing in
the Philippines
b. That the offender owes allegiance to the Government.
c. That there is war in which the Philippines is involved.
d. Adherence to the enemy
e. Giving them comfort and aid
MY ANS:
The elements of article 114 are the following:

1. That the offender is a Filipino citizen

2. There is a war wherein the Philippines is involved
3. That the offender either

Levies war against the government, or

Adheres to the enemies, giving them aid or comfort (within the

Philippines or elsewhere)
There are two ways or 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.
Levying war requires the concurrence of two things:
(1) That there be an actual assembling of men
(2) For the purpose of executing a treasonable design by force
Notes:
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. Thus, there must be
intent to overthrow the government.
Levying was as an act of treason must be for the purpose of executing a
treasonable design by force.
The levying of war must be in collaboration with a foreign enemy.
In the second way of committing treason, there must be:
(1) Adherence and
(2) Giving aid or comfort to the enemy must concur together.
Notes:
The two elements must concur in order for the 2nd element of treason to be
present.
Adherence alone, without giving the enemy aid or comfort does not
constitute treason.
Also, when there is no adherence to the enemy, the act, which may do aid
or comfort to the enemy does not amount to treason.
The aid or 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. It
must be an act that has passed from the realm of though into the realm
of action.
To be treasonous, the extent of the aid or 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 design.
It is said there is aid or comfort no matter how vain or futile the attempt

may be, as long as the act committed tends to strengthen the enemy.
Acceptance of public office and discharge of official duties under the
enemy do not constitute per se the felony of treason
Q4: Foreign country X is planning to invade the Philippines one year from now. A
group of Filipinos, in sympathy with that country, has been sending financial
support to Foreign Country X. Could such Filipinos be prosecuted for
treason?
A4: No. The second element of treason is that there is a was in which the
Philippines is involved. Treason is a war crime. It is not an all-time offense.
At the time the group of Filipinos sent financial support to Foreign Country X,
the latter was merely planning to invade the Philippines and was not yet
considered to be an enemy by the Philippines. While there is peace, there
are no traitors. Hence, such Filipinos cannot be prosecuted for treason.
MY ANS:
No, X cannot be prosecuted for treason. Treason is a war crime and is not an alltime offense. The law of treason is an emergency measure and it remains
dormant until the emergency arises. In the situation, X is planning to invade the
Philippines one year from now. Thus, the second element of treason is not
present, which is, that there is a war in which the Philippines is involved.
Treason can only be committed if there is war in which the Philippines is
involved. Thus, treason cannot be committed in time of peace.
Q5: Foreign country X is planning to invade the Philippines one year from now. A
group of Filipinos, in sympathy with that country, has been sending financial
support to Foreign Country X. In addition, those Filipinos, together with
others, actually assembled and gathered together for the purpose of
overthrowing the Philippine Government, thereby to pave the way for
Foreign Country X in the event of the planned invasion. Could such
Filipinos be prosecuted for treason?
A5: Yes. Treason in the mode of levying war requires the concurrence of two
things: (1) that there be an actual assembling of men, (2) for the purpose of
executing a treasonable design by force. The two requisites are present in
the case, hence, such Filipinos may be prosecuted for treason.
MY ANS: No, X cannot be prosecuted for treason. Treason is a war crime and is
not an all-time offense. The law of treason is an emergency measure and it
remains dormant until the emergency arises. In the situation, X is planning to
invade the Philippines one year from now. Thus, the second element of treason is
not present, which is, that there is a war in which the Philippines is involved.
Even though there is an actual assembly of men, the act of treason is not yet
present for not the element of existing was is absent.

It was said that id a body of men be actually 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
(Reyes, 5)
Q6: Treason is a breach of allegiance to ones country. What kind of allegiance
is contemplated in treason?
A6: Article 114 states that either a Filipino citizen or an alien residing in the
Philippines may commit treason. Thus, the allegiance contemplated in
treason is either permanent or temporary. Permanent allegiance consists in
the obligation of fidelity and obedience which a citizen or subject owes to
his government or sovereign. Temporary allegiance, on the other hand, is
the obligation of fidelity and obedience, which a resident alien owes to our
government.
MY ANS: Allegiance that is contemplated in article 114 is the obligation of
fidelity and obedience which the individual owes to the government under
which he lives or to his sovereign, in return for the prosecution he receives.
Hence an alien residing in the Philippines may be prosecuted for acts of
treason due to the temporary allegiance he owes to the Philippine
government.
Allegiance is either permanent or temporary. Permanent allegiance consists in the
obligation of fidelity and obedience which a citizen or subject owes to his
government or sovereign. Temporary allegiance is the obligation of fidelity
and obedience which a resident alien owes to out government.
Q7: A group of Filipinos and some South Koreans have been residing in Japan for
some time. Suppose that war breaks out between the Philippines and North
Korea and during the existence of that war, those Filipino citizens and South
Koreans send financial contributions to North Korea from Japan. Can all of
them be punished for treason in the Philippines if, after the war
and with the cooperation of the Japanese Government and the
INTERPOL, working with our NBI agents, said Filipinos and South
Koreans were arrested and later brought here for trial?
A7: No, not all of them can be punished for treason. Article 114 states that any
Filipino citizen may commit treason within the Philippines or elsewhere.
Thus, the Filipino citizens can be punished for treason. In the case of the
South Koreans, Article 114 states that an alien residing in the Philippines can
be prosecuted for treason. Therefore, an alien who is not residing in the
Philippines cannot commit treason. At the time the South Koreans rendered
financial contributions to North Korea, they were residing in Japan. Thus,

they cannot be punished for treason. Hence, the Filipinos can be punished
for treason, whereas the South Koreans cannot be punished for the same.
MY ANS:
Only Filipinos can be prosecuted for the act of treason under article 114 of the
RPC. Thus, the south Koreans cannot be prosecuted for they did not commit
the treasonous acts while they were in the Philippines. They didnt have
temporary allegiance to the country.
Furthermore, treason by Filipino citizen can be committed outside of the
Philippines, as article 114 says in the Philippines or elsewhere. Lastly,
even after the war, the said Filipinos who committed treason act can still be
punished under article 114 for it is a continuous crime. It is said that treason
is of such a nature that it may be committed by one single act, by a series
of acts, or by several series thereof, not only in a single time, but in different
times, it being a continuous crime.
Q8: At the time of the Japanese occupation of the Philippines, X, a Filipino,
fascinated by the Japanese culture and customs, was always holding parties
for Japanese officers in his house, whether or not there were special
occasions to celebrate for. X, however, proved in his defense that
throughout all these occasions, he managed to avoid talking with them or
with anyone else about the war and the countries at war, and that the
purpose of such gatherings was merely social. Can X, notwithstanding
his defense, be convicted of treason?
A8: No. The elements of treason are not present in this case. X neither levied war
against the Government nor adhered to the enemy by giving them aid or
comfort. Article 114 does not prescribe kinds of social intercourse between
the belligerent occupant of the invaded country and its inhabitants. What
aid and comfort constitute treason depend upon their nature, degree and
purpose. Assistance rendered should be made to the occupant as enemies.
In the case of X, such gatherings did not contribute to the furtherance of the
enemies hostile designs.
MY ANS: X cannot be convicted of treason under article 114 of the RPC. Such
acts of holding parties for Japanese officers were not any of the two ways or
modes of committing treason. It was said that to commit treason in the
second mode, the following elements must be present including (1)
adherence to the enemy and (2) rendering him aid or comfort. The two were
not present in this case. Also, such acts were not for war purposes and the
intention was not to adhere, give aid or levy war against the government. It
was said that without these, treason cannot be committed.
Q9: X, a Filipino citizen, made, during the war of the Philippines with the Japan,
speeches critical to the Philippine Government, opposed its measures,
engaged in profiteering, at times heading and promoting, at other

times, strikes in the Philippine defense plants, thereby diminishing,

in terms of the effects of his various activities, the strength of the
Philippine Government. Can X be prosecuted for treason?
A9: No. In the second mode of committing treason, (1)adherence and (2) giving
aid or comfort to the enemy must concur together. As defined in U.S. v.
Cramer, X may have given the enemy aid and comfort through his acts
that weakened the power of the traitors country to resist or to attack the
enemy. However, it was not proven that X adhered to the enemy. When
there is no adherence to the enemy, the act, which may do aid or comfort to
the enemy does not amount to treason. Hence, X cannot be prosecuted for
treason.
MY ANS: Yes, because to commit a treasonous act, the act committed need not
actually strengthen the enemy. It was said that such act of X lead to the
diminishing of the strength of the Philippine government, which is a
manifestation of adherence and act of aid and comfort to the Japanese.
In people v. perez, it was said that it is treason when it enhances the strength of
the enemy and at the same time injures the interest of the government.
It is not essential that the effort to aid be successful, provided overt acts done
which is successful would advance the interest of the enemy. Also, it is said
that there is aid and comfort no matter how vain or futile the attempt may
be, as long as the act committed tends to strengthen the enemy. It is not
the degree of success, but rather the aim for which the act was perpetrated,
that determines the commission of treason.
Q10: Give examples of the usual form of aid and comfort that
constitutes treason upon proof of adherence to the enemy.
A10: In People v. Paar, the defendants act of giving information to the enemy
constituted not only giving aid and comfort, but also adherence to the
enemy. In People v. Mangahas, the defendants act of commandeering
foodstuffs for the Japanese soldiers is sufficient proof of adherence to the
enemy.
MY ANS:
Aid or comfort means an act which strengthen 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 and an act which
weakens or tends to weaken the power of the traitors country to resist or to
attack the enemy. (Cramer v. US)
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. It must be an
act that has passed from the realm of thought into the realm of action.

Also, as a general rule, to be treasonous, the extent of the 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.
Some examples are the following: the defendants act of giving information to the
enemy constituted not only giving aid and comfort, but also adherence to
the enemy. (People v. Paar). Also, the defendants act of commandeering
foodstuffs for the Japanese soldiers is sufficient proof of adherence to the
enemy (People v. Mangahas) (Reyes, 7)
Q11: During the invasion of the Philippines by Japan, a group of Filipino
citizens, armed with bolos and home-made paltiks, gathered
together in a town plaza for the purpose of attacking the officials
and policemen in the municipal building and if, successful, to turn
the territory over to the advancing Japanese troops. As their weapons
were insufficient and no match for those of the police, they were surrounded
by the police and were arrested before they could carry out their purpose.
However, they were released when the Japanese forces occupied and took
control of the place. When prosecuted of treason after the liberation, they
contended that they could not have levied war against the Philippine
Government at that time as to be liable for treason, because their weapons
were inadequate and it was impossible for them to succeed. They further
contend that, if they had committed any crime against national security, it
would at most be conspiracy to commit treason. Rule on their
contentions.
A11: Their contentions are untenable. The levying of war must be with intent
to overthrow the government. The accused intended to turn the territory
over to the advancing Japanese troops. An organized attempt on the part of
persons who joined together in a band to overthrow and destroy the
established government is a levying of war against the government and
constitutes treason. In U.S. v. Lagnason, the Court held that it does not
matter how vain or futile the attempt was and how impossible the
accomplishment would have to be. It is not necessary that those attempting
to overthrow the government by force of arms should have the apparent
power to succeed in their design in whole or in part. Hence, the group of
Filipino citizens can be held liable for treason.
My Ans: Such contentions of the accused can not be sustained for all the
elements of article 114 are evident and manifest. The offender is a Filipino
citizen and such act was committed was levying war against the
government.

Also, the elements of levying war were also present, since there was an actual
assembly of men and such purpose was for executing a treasonable design
by force. It has been said that an organized attempt on the part of persons
joined together in a band to overthrow and destroy the established
government is a levying of war against the government and constitutes
treason.
Furthermore, it matters not how vain and futile the attempt was and how
impossible of accomplishment. It is not necessary that those attempting to
overthrow the government by force or arms should have the apparent power
to succeed in their design in whole or in part.
Lastly, treason is a continuous offense, even though the war is over, the can still
be prosecuted for such offense.
Q12: Why should resident aliens be punished for treason against the
Philippines?
A12: Resident aliens owe temporary allegiance to the Philippines. This temporary
allegiance, as defined in Laurel v. Misa, is the obligation of fidelity and
obedience, which a resident alien owes to our government.
My Ans: An alien is said to owe temporary allegiance to the country where he
resides. Allegiance as an element of reason seems to be either permanent
or temporary. Temporary allegiance is the obligation of fidelity and
obedience which a resident alien owes to our government.
Q13: X is charged with treason for giving aid and comfort to the enemy,
by assisting the Japanese soldiers, during the war with Japan, in the
capture of the guerilla leader, named Y. A and B were presented by the
prosecution as witnesses against X. A testified that he saw X with a number
of Japanese soldiers on the way to the house of Y, on August 14, 1942, the
day when X was arrested by the Japanese soldiers. B testified that, on the
same day, he saw X in the house of Y, while X was tying the hands of Y. Can
X be convicted of treason on the basis of the testimony of these
two witnesses (A and B)?
A13: Yes. The two-witness rule does not require that the testimonies of the
witnesses should be identical. In People v. Abad, the Court held that the twowitness rule must be adhered to as each and every one of all the external
manifestations of the overt act in issue. The testimony of A and B disclose
that they were referring to the same act, place, and moment of time, thus it
can be said that one corroborated the other. Hence, X can be convicted to
treason on the basis of the two witnesses of the prosecution.
My Ans: X can be convicted with treason under article 114 of the RPC. All the
elements were present. In addition, one of the ways a person may be

convicted of treason is by testimony of two witnesses, at least, to the same

overt act.
It is said that the testimony of two witnesses is required to prove the overt act of
giving aid or comfort. An overt act is defined as that physical activity, that
deed that constitutes the rendering of aid and comfort. In the case, the two
witnesses testified against X on the same overt act that is treasonous.
In addition, it is sufficient that the witnesses are uniform in their testimony on the
overt act; it is not necessary that there be corroboration between them on
the point they testified. Also, the two-witness rule is not affected by
discrepancies in minor details of the testimony.
Q14: Charged with treason before the Peoples Court, X was brought to said court
for arraignment. The Clerk of Court read X the information, which
alleged that X was a Filipino citizen who joined the Makapili
organization, which fought on the side of the Japanese Imperial
Army against the Philippines and the United States and took part in
systematically identifying and executing guerilla suspects. When
asked if he was pleading guilty or not, X admitted all the facts alleged in the
information but reasoned out that he had to do those acts and things
for fear of his life in the hands of the Japanese soldiers. Discuss
with reasons if X can be convicted of treason on the basis of said
admission.
A14: X cannot be convicted of treason on the basis of said admission. Article 114
paragraph 2 provides that a person shall be convicted of treason on
confession of the accused in open court. Following the ruling in U.S. v.
Magtibay, where the accused made an admission as to the facts, what X
merely did was an admission and not a confession. Hence, X cannot be
convicted of treason.
My Ans: It is said that being makapili constitutes an overt act of psychological
comfort. The crime of treason was committed if he placed himself at the
enemys call to fight side by side with him when the opportune time came
even though an opportunity never presented himself. Such membership by
its very nature gave the enemy aid and comfort.
One of the ways of proving treason is by confession of the accused in open court.
However, in the situation, the accused did not confess his guilt but rather
gave a reason for the act or admission. Thus, there must be a plea of guilt in
order for such admission be treasonous.
It has been said that if the accused testified in his behalf after he had pleaded not
guilty that he had been carried off by force by the insurgent soldiers; that he
was forced to join them; although it was against his will; there was only an
admission, but not a confession of guilt. (US v. Magtibay)

Also, it has been said that extrajudicial confession or confession made before the
investigators is not sufficient to convict a person of treason.
Q15: Explain whether there can be such complex crime as treason with
murder or physical injuries, considering that the accused, who
adhered to the enemy, rendered aid and comfort to the enemy by
liquidating some guerilla suspects or otherwise inflicting upon
them physical injuries in the process of torturing them?
A15: No. In People v. Prieto, the Court held that murder and physical injuries
were inherent in the crime of treason characterized by the giving of aid and
comfort to the enemy. Hence, there can be no complex crime as treason
with murder or physical injuries. However, the same case, the Court also
held that this rule would not preclude the punishment of murder or other
common crimes as such, if the prosecution should elect to prosecute the
culprit specifically for these crimes, instead of relying on them as an
element of treason.
My Ans: It has been said that there is no crime of treason complexed with other
felonies because there were not separate offenses from treason as said in
the case of people v. prieto. Such acts in the situation such as murder or
physical injuries are inclusive in the act of treason.
Also, it has been said that murder and physical injuries were inherent in the
crime of treason characterized by the giving of aid and comfort to the
enemy. These crimes cannot be complexed with treason.
Q16: X and Y agreed and decided to commit treason. They, thereafter, proposed
the commission of the same crime to others, who were also determined to
commit treason. Evaluate, with reasons, how many crimes were
committed by them.
A16: X and Y committed two (2) crimes. These are conspiracy to commit treason
and proposal to commit treason. There was a conspiracy to commit treason
when X and Y agreed and decided to commit treason. There was also a
proposal to commit treason when X and Y, having decided to commit
treason, proposed its execution to others. Hence, X and Y committed two (2)
crimes.
My Ans: The crime committed was conspiracy and proposal to commit treason
punishable under article 115.
Conspiracy to commit reason is committed when in time of war, two or more
persons come 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. (Reyes, p.21)

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
person or persons. (Reyes, p.21)
Q17: How is the crime of conspiracy to commit treason committed?
A17: Conspiracy to commit treason is committed when in time of war, two
more persons come to an agreement to levy war against the Government
to adhere to the enemies and to give them aid or comfort, and decide
commit it.
My Ans: Conspiracy to commit reason is committed when in time of war, two
more persons come to an agreement to levy war against the government
to adhere to the enemies and to give them aid or comfort and decide
commit it. (Reyes, p.21)

or
or
to
or
or
to

Q18: How is proposal to commit treason committed?

A18: Proposal to commit treason is committed when in time of war a persons 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 or persons.
My Ans: 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 person or persons. (Reyes, p.21)
Q19: Is misprision of felony punishable?
A19: Misprision of felony is not always punishable under the Revised Penal Code.
In U.S. v. Caballeros, the Court held that a person who saw the commission
of a crime by another whom he knew, kept silent with regard to it, and did
not report it to any of the authorities is not liable even as an accessory. The
reason or this ruling is that such an omission is not one of the different acts
enumerated in Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code. Such omission is not
harboring, or concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal. However,
Article 116 is an exception to the rule that mere silence does not make a
person criminally liable. Misprision of treason, which is a felony under the
Code, is punishable by charging the offender as an accessory to the crime of
treason. Hence, misprision of felony is not always punishable under the
Revised Penal Code.
My Ans: Under article 116, misprision of treason is punishable as an accessory to
the crime of treason. Under article 116, no penalty is provided but the
penalty for misprision of treason is two degrees lower than that provided for
treason.

Article 116 is an exception to the rule that mere silence does not make a person
criminally liable.
Q20: State the elements of the crime of misprision of treason.
A20: The elements of the crime of misprision of treason are:
(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 or
the mayor or fiscal of the city in which he resides.
My Ans: (Reyes, p. 21)
The elements of Misprision of treason under article 116:
(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 or
the mayor or fiscal of the city in which he resides.
Q21: Is the failure to report the commission of treason (to the proper
authorities) a crime?
A21: No. Article 116 of the Revised Penal Code refers to knowledge of any
conspiracy against the Government of the Philippines, not knowledge of
treason actually committed by another.
Q22: Is the person who is found guilty of the crime of misprision of
treason related in any way to those committing treason as an
accessory-after-fact?
A22: No. Since the offender in misprision of treason is a principal in that crime,
Article 20 of the Revised Penal Code does not apply, even if the offender is
related to the persons in conspiracy against the government, because
Article 20 applies only to accessory. However, it is important to note that the
offender under Article 116 is punished as an accessory to the crime of
treason. Article 116 does not provide for a penalty. Hence the penalty
imposed to an accessory to the crime of treason is applied to the principal to
the crime of misprision of treason.
Comment The degree of punishment is as an ACCESSORY of treason, but not of
being part of treason.
Q23: May a non-resident Filipino commit the crime of misprision of
treason abroad and be punished in the Philippines for the same,

considering that the crime falls within a Title of the Revised Penal
Code excepted under Article 2 thereof form the territorial scope of
application of the Code?
A23: No. Although the crime of misprision of treason falls within the exception
stated under Article 2, Article 116 contemplates a Filipino residing in the
Philippines. Article 116 punishes the act of not disclosing ones knowledge of
conspiracy against the Government to the governor or fiscal of the province,
or the mayor or fiscal of the city in which he resides, as the case may be. A
non-resident Filipino does not have any governor, mayor, or fiscal to disclose
his knowledge with. Hence, a non-resident Filipino cannot the crime of
misprision of treason.
Comment The offender must not be a foreigner (Reyes).
Q24: X learned that Y committed treason, because the latter gave aid and
comfort to the enemy whom he favored and sympathized with emotionally
and intellectually. X, however, did not report that fact to the governor or
fiscal of the province, nor to the mayor or fiscal of the municipality, where
he resided. Explain with reasons if X could be held criminally liable.
A24: X could not be held criminally liable. Article 116 of the Revised Penal Code
does not apply when the crime of treason has been committed by someone
and the accused does not report its commission to the proper authority.
Article 116 refers to knowledge of any conspiracy against the
Government, not knowledge of treason actually committed by another.
Comment The act punished is the silence as regards conspiracy to commit
treason, which is Art. 115.
Q25: May an alien residing in the Philippines commit treason?
A25: Yes. Paragraph 3 of Article 114 states, Likewise, an alien, residing in the
Philippines, who commits acts of treason as defined in paragraph 1 of this
article shall be punishable by reclusion temporal to death and shall pay a
fine not to exceed 100,000 pesos.
Comment An alien has temporary allegiance, and can therefore commit treason.
Q26: X, a private individual and a Filipino citizen, had learned that Y was in
conspiracy with others to commit treason against the Government of the
Philippines, during its war with Japan. Specify, with reasons, the criminal
liability of X if he harbored, concealed and later assisted in the
escape of Y, (1) prior to the actual commission by Y of treason; and
(2) after actual commission by Y of treason.
A26: (1) Prior to the actual commission by Y of treason

X is a principal in the crime of misprision of treason because he failed to

make known to the proper authorities Ys conspiracy to commit treason.
(2)After actual commission by Y of treason.
X could not be held criminally liable. Article 116 of the Revised Penal
Code does not apply when the crime of treason has been committed by
someone and the accused does not report its commission to the proper
authority. Article 116 refers to knowledge of any conspiracy against
the Government, not knowledge of treason actually committed by
another.
Q27: How does the Revised Penal Code define the crime of espionage?
A27: The Revised Penal Code defines the crime of espionage as:
1
Without authority therefore, enters 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 Philippine Archipelago; or
2
Being in possession, by reason of the public office he holds, of the
articles, data, or information referred to in the preceding paragraph,
discloses their contents to representative of a foreign nation.
Comment Article 117.
Q28: Based on the definition of espionage under the Revised Penal Code, in how
many ways may it be committed and who may be liable for each of
such modes of commission.
A28: There are two ways of committing espionage under Article 117. Under
Article 117 (1) any person, who without authority, enters any of the places
mentioned and that he or she has the intention to obtain information
relative to the defense of the Philippines is liable. Under Article 117 (2), the
offender must be a public officer who has in his possession the article, data,
or information by reason of the public office he holds.
Q29: How else may espionage be committed, other than as defined by
the Revised Penal Code.
A29: Under Commonwealth Act No. 616, espionage may be committed by:
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 preceding sections.
6
Harboring or concealing violators of the law.

Using or permitting or procuring the use of an aircraft for the purpose of

making photograph, sketch, etc. of vital installations or equipment of
the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
8
Reproducing, publishing, selling, etc. uncensored copies of photographs,
sketch, etc. of the vital military, naval or air post, camp or station,
without permission of the commanding officer.
9
Injuring or destroying or attempting to injure or destroy war materials,
premises or war utilities when the Philippines is at war.
10 Making or causing war materials to be made in a defective manner
when the Philippines is at war.
11 Injuring or destroying national defense material, premises or utilities.
12 Making or causing to be made in a defective manner, or attempting to
make or cause to be made in a defective manner, national defense
material.
Q30: What crimes are classified as provoking war?
A30: (This list is not exclusive) They are:
(1) Burning a flag of another country
(2) Raising without sufficient authorization, of troops within the Philippines
for the service of a foreign nation against another nation.
Comment Acts which might disturb the friendly relation that we have with a
foreign country, even if they are acts of imprudence.

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

Q31: What crimes are classified as disloyalty in case of war?

A31: They are:
Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals.
Violation of neutrality.
Correspondence with hostile country.
Flight to enemys country.
JUSTIFICATION: Correct. See Reyes.
Q32: A group of men (X and Others), who appear to be Vietnamese by
nationality, riding on a speedboat, intercepted a cargo vessel in the seacoast of
Sumatra (and within the territorial limits of the latter) and by means of violence
and intimidation, took valuable personal property from the vessel. They then
proceeded to the Philippines on the same motorboat. The Philippine Coast Guard
apprehended them within Philippine territorial waters, along with several other
groups of Vietnamese boat people, violating Philippine immigration laws. Can X
and Others be prosecuted criminally before the Philippine courts of
piracy if, identified by somebody who happened to be among the victims
of their act or depredations committed on the aforesaid cargo vessel
within the territorial limits of Sumatra?

A32: Yes. In People v. Lol-lo and Saraw, the Court held that 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
he may be carried. Not does it matter that the crime was committed within the
jurisdictional 3-mile limit of a foreign state. Hence, X and Others can be
prosecuted criminally before the Philippine courts of piracy.
JUSTIFICATION: Piracy is a crime against mankind, therefore regardless of the fact
that the crime was committed within the territorial limits of Sumatra, X and
Others can still be criminally prosecuted by the Philippine courts.
Q33: A group of men (X and Others), who appear to be Vietnamese by
nationality, riding on a speedboat, intercepted a cargo vessel in the seacoast of
Sumatra (and within the territorial limits of the latter) and by means of violence
and intimidation, took valuable personal property from the vessel. They were
about to proceed to Sumatra on the same motorboat, when the Philippine Coast
Guard apprehended them beyond the Philippine territorial seas but within a 12mile contiguous zone, along with several other groups of Vietnamese boat people,
some violating Philippine immigration laws, others violating Philippine fisheries
laws, of what crime or crimes may X and Others be prosecuted with and
under what legal provisions?
A33: X and Others may be prosecuted for the crime of piracy. Under Article
105 of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, On the high seas, or in any
other place outside the jurisdiction of any State, every State may seize a pirate
ship or aircraft, or a ship pr aircraft taken by piracy and under the control of
pirates, and arrest the persons and seize the property on board. The courts of the
State which carried out the seizure may decide upon the penalties imposed, and
may also determine the action to be taken with regard to the ships, aircraft or
property, subject to the rights of third parties acting in good faith. Abiding by
Law of the Sea, X and the Others may be prosecuted for piracy as defined under
the Revised Penal Code.
JUSTIFICATION: Additional, Art. 122 can be used. Reyes defined high seas as any
water on the sea which are without the boundaries of law-water mark, although
such waters may be in the jurisdictional limits of a foreign government.
Q34: Discuss what the crime of mutiny is, as defined in the Revised
Penal Code, Title One, Book Two, and state the venue of the criminal
actions in case of prosecution for the crime of mutiny.
A34: Mutiny is the act of any person who, on the high seas or in Philippine
waters, shall attack or seize any 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.

Article 2 (5) of the Revised Penal Code provides that the Code shall be
enforced even outside the territory of the Philippines against those who should
commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations. Mutiny
is one of the crimes included under such classification. Hence, criminal actions for
the crime of mutiny shall be instituted in the country.
JUSTIFICATION: Incorrect, first part. Mutiny is not defined in the Revised Penal
Code. What is defined is the crime of piracy. Mutiny is the unlawful resistance to a
superior officer or the raising of commotions and disturbances on board a ship or
against the authority of its commander. It must be committed by members of the
complement of a vessel. The second paragraph is correct.
Q35: State what circumstances qualify the crime of piracy and
discuss whether the same circumstances may be invoked to qualify the
crime of mutiny.
A35: The following circumstances qualify the crime of piracy:
(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.
(3)
Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical
injuries, or rape.
Mutiny is qualified by the circumstances stated under paragraphs 1 and 3 of
Article 123. Paragraph 2 of Article 123 specifically mentions pirates thereby
excluding mutineers from said paragraph.
JUSTIFICATION: See Reyes, Aquino discussion of Article 123.
Q36: How is hijacking or piracy of an aircraft committed?
A36: As provided in Republic Act No. 6235, hijacking or piracy of an aircraft
is committed by any person to compel a change in the course or destination of an
Philippine registry, or to seize or usurp the control thereof, while it is in flight. It
shall likewise be unlawful for any persons to compel an aircraft of foreign registry
to land in Philippine territory or to seize or usurp the control thereof while it is
within the said territory.
JUSTIFICATION: Correct, see Section 1 of RA 6235.
Q37: What acts, other than hijacking or piracy of an aircraft, are
considered as acts inimical to civil aviation?
A37: It shall be unlawful for any person, natural or juridical, to ship, load or
carry in any passenger aircraft operating as a public utility within the Philippines,
any explosive, flammable, corrosive or poisonous substance or material.
JUSTIFICATION: Correct, see Section 3 of RA 6235.

Q38: How is the crime of hijacking or piracy of an aircraft punished?

A38: It shall be punished by an imprisonment of not less than twelve (12)
years, but not more then twenty (20) years, or by a fine of not less than twenty
thousand pesos (P 20,000), but not more than forty thousand pesos (P 40,000).
JUSTIFICATION: Correct, see Section 2 of RA 6235.
ADDITIONAL: If the person committing the crime commits any of the following: (1)
fired at the pilot, crew or passenger of the aircraft, (2) exploded or attempted to
explode any bomb or explosive to destroy the aircraft, or (3) murder, homicide,
serious physical injuries or rape; then the penalty will increased to 15 years to
death, or a fine of P25,000 to P50,000.
Q39: X, a supposed anti-terrorism expert, carried a pack of explosives on a
commercial plane en route from Manila to Davao, for the purpose of testing the
systems and procedures established by the authorities to discover and seize
explosives carried on commercial planes by would-be terrorist without, of course,
any intentions of actually exploding the same. Upon arrival at the Davao
International Airport, he immediately called a press conference to announce that
he had been able to prove that the Philippine authorities had not, contrary to their
claims, established fail-safe systems and procedures to discover and seize
explosives, carried on commercial planes by would-be terrorist. Of what crime,
if any, may X be prosecuted?
A39: X committed an act inimical to civil aviation under Section 3 of
Republic Act No. 6235. Section 3 provides that, It shall be unlawful for any
person, natural or juridical, to ship, load or carry in any passenger aircraft
operating as a public utility within the Philippines, any explosive, flammable,
corrosive or poisonous substance or material. X carried a pack of explosives on a
commercial place en route from Manila to Davao, hence, X may be prosecuted for
violating Section 3 of Republic Act No. 6235.
JUSTIFICATION: (I cant find the case saying this. Both Paras and Aquino are silent.
Pero mukha namang tama.)
Q40: X, a supposed anti-terrorism expert, carried a pack of explosives on a
commercial plane en route from Manila to Davao, for the purpose of testing the
systems and procedures established by the authorities to discover and seize
explosives carried on commercial planes by would-be terrorist without, of course,
any intentions of actually exploding the same. X intended that, upon arrival at the
Davao International Airport, he would immediately call a press conference to
announce that he had been able to prove that the Philippine authorities had not,
contrary to their claims, established fail-safe systems and procedures to discover
and seize explosives carried on commercial planes by would-be terrorist.
Unfortunately, due to the concussion cause by a bad landing at the Davao
International Airport, an explosion occurred, ripping the tail-end portion of the

aircraft and causing deaths and physical injuries to a number of passengers. Of

what crime or crimes may X be prosecuted?
A40: X carried a pack of explosives on a commercial place en route from
Manila to Davao, hence, X violated Section 3 of Republic Act No. 6235. Section 3
provides that, It shall be unlawful for any person, natural or juridical, to ship,
load or carry in any passenger aircraft operating as a public utility within the
Philippines, any explosive, flammable, corrosive or poisonous substance or

material. Section 7 of the same special law provides that, For any death or
injury to persons or damage to property resulting from a violation of Sections
three and four hereof, the person responsible therefor may be held liable in
accordance with the applicable provisions of the Revised Penal Code.
JUSTIFICATION: Correct. The penalty also would increase since the act resulted
into deaths and physical injuries to the passengers.