1.

Is rebellion a crime against national

security?
No. Rebellion is included in crimes
against public order. As such, it is not
among the exceptions to the territoriality
rule under Article 2 (5) which covers
crime under this Title. Hence, rebellion
planned and carried out outside of the
Philippines is not within this jurisdiction.
2. Who can be liable for the crime of
treason?
Both citizens and aliens can be liable
for treason; for citizens, as they owe
permanent allegiance to the
Philippines as such. For aliens, because for
their presence here, they owe temporary
allegiance to this country which is
bound to extend to them the same
protection accorded its citizens.
3. Where are crimes against the law of
nations triable?
Crimes against the law of nations
may be punished anywhere because
they are considered crimes against
the family of nations, such as piracy
generis).
Those against national security may be
punished only in the country whose
national security was offended.
4. What is misprision of treason?
 It is the failure of a citizen to
report as soon as possible a conspiracy,
which comes to his knowledge, against
the government. But there must be a
war in which the Philippines is involved.
The offender shall be "punished as an
accessory to the crime of treason."

5. Distinguish piracy and mutiny.

1. In piracy, the offenders are neither
members of the complement of the
vessel nor passengers. In mutiny,
they are the members of the
complement of the vessel.
2. The essence of piracy is robbery and
consists of the sei• zure of the vessel
or cargo or personal belongings of
the passengers. In mutiny, the
members of the complement raise
commotion to protest or go against
the lawful com• mand of the captain
employing violence and endangering
the safety of passengers. Any gain
derived by the offend• ers is merely
incidental.

• What is qualified piracy (Article

Qualified piracy is committed under
any of the following circumstances:
 CRIME S AGAINS T NATIONA L SECURITY

1. Offenders seized the vessel by

boarding or firing upon the same
2. They abandoned the victims
means of saving
themselves
3. The crime is accompanied by
murder, homicide, physical
injuries or rape
2. Is there qualified mutiny?
Yes. Article 123 specifies that it
covers "any of the crimes referred to in
the preceding article." Thus, it covers
not only qualified piracy but also qualified
mutiny. However, the first circumstance
applies only to piracy because in mutiny,
the offenders are "insiders" of the vessel.
The second and third
circumstances apply both to mutiny
and piracy. The murder, homicide, rape,
or physical injuries committed in the
third circumstance are not crimes in
themselves, but are qualifying
circumstances. The crime is not
complex under Article 48 but a
 special complex crime or composite
crime. When crimes, other than
homicide, rape, murder or physical
injuries are committed, such are crimes in
themselves and not qualifying
circumstances. Example: piracy with
direct assault.
• Compare arbitrary detention with
unlawful arrest.
Arbitrary detention is committed by a
public officer authorized to arrest and
detain a person but he does so without
lawful cause. While unlawful arrest
(Article 269) is by either private
individual or public officer who
feigned to arrest a person without any
legal cause, the purpose, which is the
essence of unlawful arrest is to bring
him to authority and file a charge. If a
charge is filed, the detention is deemed
an incident of the arrest and the filing
of charges against him. It is the arrest
that is penalized in Article 269.
Compare rebellion and subversion.
If it is conceded that force and
violence are the very essence of
subversion, then it loses its distinction
from rebellion.
distinguished subversion from
rebellion viz.:
 NOTES AN D CASES ON THE REVISED
PENAL CODE

Rebellion is committed by rising

publicly and taking up arms against
the Government for any of the
purposes under Article 134; while
subversion is affiliation or membership
in a subversive organization. Taking
up arms against the government is but
a circumstance which raises the
penalty to be imposed upon the
subversive.
2. Subversion is a crime against national
security; rebellion, against public order.
Rising publicly and taking arms
against the government is the very
element of the crime of rebellion
whereas R.A. 1700 was enacted to
outlaw the CPP, other similar
associations and its successors because
their existence and activities constitute
a clear, present and grave danger to
national security. (R.A. 7636 repealed
R.A. decriminalizing
subversion.)
3. Rebellion makes use of force and
violence whereas subversive acts do
 not only constitute force and violence
but may partake of other form as
(id.)
What is the nature of the crime of rebellion?

Rebellion is a continuing crime hence

rebels can be arrested at anytime
without a warrant. v.
Enrile, 121 SCRA 472; v. Ramos,
211).
(Justice Isagani Cruz decried this as a
dangerous doctrine for it allows
warrantless arrest despite the innocence
of the acts of accused at the time they are
arrested.)
3. What is the nature of sedition?
4. Sedition is a crime of dissent or
protest by means outside of legal The
offenders rise publicly and
tumultuously to attain their purpose by
force, intimidation, or by other means
outside of legal methods. It is done in
excess of the legal means authorized
under the freedoms of expression and
assembly clauses of the Constitution.
Compare rebellion and sedition.
In rebellion:
a. The purpose is political — to overthrow
the duly consti• tuted government.
 b. The use of firearm is essential; it is an
ingredient of rebellion because the
law specifies "taking arms against the
government."
The offender cannot be prosecuted for
illegal possession of firearms because
this is absorbed in rebellion.
In sedition:
a. The purpose may be political or social
for carrying out protest or disobedience
from a governmental action and not
for the purpose of overthrowing the
government. The act may be against
a social class.
b. The use of firearm is not an essential
ingredient of sedition. (However, R.A.
8294 included sedition among the
crimes which absorb the use of
unlicensed firearm as an element
thereof.)
In view of R.A. 8294, the offenders can
no longer be prosecuted for illegal
possession of firearm, for it made the
use of unlicensed firearm to be
absorbed in sedition.

1.
Can direct assault be committed during a rebellion or sedition?
No, direct assault cannot be committed when there is
 rebellion or sedition as public uprising is an element of rebellion or
sedition which should be absent in direct assault. Article 148 defines
direct assault as "without public uprising."
What is the rationale for penalizing direct assault?
Direct Assault (D A ) is a crime manifesting offender's spirit
of lawlessness displayed in the commission of an act indicative of
utter lawlessness or spirit against the rule of law. This is shown by
accused in attacking, injuring or assaulting a person in authority
( PA ) or an agent of a person in authority ( A P A ) who are the
visible representatives of the law.

• How is direct assault committed?

There are two ways of committing DA:
a. By employing violence or force with for the purpose of
attaining any of the objectives of rebellion or sedition except
that the offenders are not numerous enough to constitute public
uprisings. (Hence, this is also called rebellion by a handful.)
The offended party or victim need not be a public officer but
may be a certain social class.
b. By attacking or laying hands upon a PA or an A P A .
There are two ways of committing atentados contra la
autoridad o susagentes. The first is not a true atentadoas it is
tantamount to rebellion or sedition, except that there is no public
uprising. On the other hand, the second mode is the more
common way of committing assault and is aggravated when: (1)
there is a weapon employed in the attack, or (2) the offender is a
public officer, or (3) the offender lays hands upon a public
authority. (People v. Abalos, July 1996)
What is the crime if the escapee is a detention prisoner or serving
final judgment?

Wh ere the prisoner is serving sentence by final judgment, he

is liable for evasion of service of sentence. If he is a detention
prisoner, there is no sentence to evade, Article 157 is not
applicable, for it specifies "convict." The offense of the detention
prisoner should fall under Article which refers to "any
person confined therein" if there was conspiracy between the
detention prisoner and the one who helped in his escape. The
detention prisoner in that case is either a principal by inducement or
by direct participation. In the latter case, he is a principal by direct
participation if there was no prior agreement for his escape but he
acquiesced at the time of escape which is implied conspiracy.
What are the distinctions between Direct and Indirect Bribery?
a. In direct bribery, the public officer must do or omit the
doing of something in consideration of the gift. In indirect
bribery, there is no such requirement.
 b. Mere agreement consummates the crime of direct
bribery if the act agreed upon amounts to a crime. In
indirect bribery, the public officer must accept the gift to
consummate the crime of indirect bribery.

• If the disbursement of public funds is unauthorized, will that

make up a case of malversation?

Not every unauthorized payment of public funds is

malversation. There is malversation only if the public officer
who has custody of public funds should appropriate the same,
or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, or through
abandonment or negligence shall permit any other person to
take such public funds. Where the payment of public funds
has been made in good faith, and there is reasonable ground
to believe that the public officer to whom the fund had been
paid was entitled thereto, he is deemed to have acted in good
faith, there is no criminal intent, and the payment, it if turns
out that it is unauthorized, renders him only civilly but not
criminally liable.

Compliance to a patently lawful order is rectitude far

better than contumacious disobedience. The order emanated
from the Office of the President and bears the signature of
the President himself. It carries with it the presumption that
it was issued. And on its face, the memorandum is
patently lawful for no law makes the payment of an obligation
 MAL VERS ATIO N OF PUBLIC FUND S OR PROPERTY

illegal. This fact, coupled with the urgent tenor for its execution
constrains one to act swiftly without question. Obedientia est
essentia.

• Is good faith a valid defense in malversation?

Yes, for it would negate criminal intent on the part of the

accused. To constitute a crime, the act must, except in certain
crimes made such by statute, be accompanied by a criminal
intent or by such negligence or indifference to duty or to
consequences as, in law, is equivalent to criminal intent. Actus
non facit nisi mens sit rea — a crime is not committed
if the mind of the person performing the act complained of is
innocent. Ordinarily, evil intent must unite with an unlawful
act for there to be a crime. There can be no crime when the
criminal mind is wanting.

Criminal intent in embezzlement is not based on technical

mistakes as to the legal effect of a transaction honestly entered
into, and there can be no embezzlement if the mind of the
person doing the act is innocent or if there is no wrongful
purpose. The accused may always introduce evidence to show
he acted in good faith and that he had no intention to convert.
(People v. Pepito, February

But negligence must be absent for the defense of good

faith to prosper.
• What is the effect of the restitution of the amount

Restitution does not affect criminal liability. It is in fact

an implied admission of guilt. However, by analogy to voluntary
plea of guilt, it is considered as a mitigating circumstance.
Payment, for the disappearance of the same. (Dumagat
v. Sandiganbayan) indemnification, or reimbursement of,
or compromise as to, the amounts or funds malversed or
misappropriated, affects only the civil liability of the offender
but does not extinguish his criminal liability. (Felicilda v.
Grospe, G.R. No. 102494, July 3, 1992)

• If falsification of documents was resorted to for the purpose of

concealing malversation, is a complex crime committed?
No, for complex crimes require that one crime is used to
commit another. If the falsification is resorted for the purpose of
hiding the malversation, the falsification and malversation are
separate offenses. Thus, where the provincial treasurer, as the
custodian of the money forming part of the road and bridge fund,
effected payments to his co-accused for construction materials
supposedly delivered to the province for various projects when
in fact no such materials were delivered, and to conceal the
defraudation, the accused used six fake vouchers the crimes
 NOTES AND CASES ON THE REVISED PENAL CODE

committed are not complex but separate crimes of falsification and

malversation. The falsifications cannot be regarded as constituting
one continuing offense impelled by a single criminal impulse. Each falsification of
a voucher constitutes one crime. The falsification of six vouchers constitutes six
separate or distinct offenses; and each misappropriation as evidenced by a
provincial voucher constitutes a separate offense.
These are not cases where the execution of a single act constitutes two
grave or less grave felonies or where the falsification was used as a means to
commit malversation. If falsification was resorted to for the purpose of hiding the
malversation, the falsification and malversation are separate offenses. (People v.
Sendaydiego, G.R. Nos. L-33252-54,
January 20, 1978)

14