ARTICLE 117 - Espionage

I.
Go Tian Sek Santos vs Eriberto Misa, Director of Prisons
GR No. L-319
March 28, 1946
John Kessler S. Misterio
FACTS:
Petitioner, a Chinese National, was apprehended and detained as a political prisoner
by the Counter Intelligence Corps of the Unites States Army. He was later turned
over to the Commonwealth Government where he was detained as a political
prisoner for active collaboration with the Japanese.
Petitioner contended that such detention is illegal because he has not been charged
nor convicted of by the judge of any competent court. In addition, he owns no
allegiance to both the United States and Commonwealth of the Philippines, and that
he is a Chinese national, not a Japanese.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner can be convicted for the crime of espionage.
HELD:
Yes, petitioner may be held guilty for the crime of espionage.
Under the Commonwealth Act No. 616, the following are acts that may be
punishable as crime of Espionage:
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 times of peace;
4.
Disloyal acts or words in times of war;
5.
Conspiracy to violate preceding sections; and
6.
Harboring or concealing violators of law.

In this present case, the accused may be prosecuted for the crime of espionage if
there are facts and evidence presented, justifying his active collaboration with the
Japanese, regardless of his foreign status or nationality.

II.
Lily Raquiza, et.al, vs. Lt. Col. Bradford, et.al
GR No. L-44

September 13, 1945

Erick Jay Inok
FACTS:
Petitioners file for a writ of Habeas Corpus as they were held by Us military for acts
of espionage claiming that they were confined, restrained and deprived" of their
liberty in the Correctional Institution for Women, petitioners, Lily Raquiza, Haydee
Tee Han Kee and Emma Link Infante.
Both respondents made returns of service attaching commitment emanating from
the Headquarters and Counter Intelligence Corps Detachment, and the second from
that of the United States Army Forces in the Far East, Counter Intelligence Corps
Detachment. The returns, as well as from the arguments of counsel, was due to
proclamation issued by General of the Army MacArthur regarding the arrest of
petitioner Lily Raquiza who was arrested by the Counter Intelligence Corps
Detachment U.S. Sixth Army, and detained under Security Commitment Order No.
being charged as follows:
Commitment Order. The person named and described above is deemed a risk to
the security of the U.S. Forces for the reasons set forth above. The commanding
officer of any military stockade, jail, or comparable installation in which this person
may be confined is authorized and directed to detain him in custody until released
by competent military authority.
In said Schedule A the specific complaint or charge against complaint or charge
against petitioner Lily Raquiza is "Espionage activity for Japanese. As to petitioner
Haydee Tee Han Kee, was arrested by the same for "active collaboration with the
enemy". With regard to petitioner Emma Link Infante, "active collaboration with the
Japanese." Her previous association with the enemy constituted a present security
risk to the United States Armed Forces.
ISSUE:
Whether or not holding of the petitioners by reason of US Army, and its Intelligence
Department investigation that petitioners are involved in espionage during
occupation is valid notwithstanding that some of the petitioners are Filipino Citizens.
HELD:
SC held that there is no question that the power of the power of the Commander in
Chief of the United States Army to issue the foregoing proclamation cannot be
seriously questioned effects. Reason of the restraint of petitioners were upon two
grave reasons, to wit, (1) that evidence was before him "that certain citizens of the
Philippines voluntarily have given aid, comfort and sustenance to the enemy in
violation of allegiance due the Government of the United States and the
Commonwealth of the Philippines;" and (2) that "military necessity requires that
such persons be removed from any opportunity to threaten the security of our
military forces or the success of our military operations." The exigencies of the
military operations for the destruction or defeat the enemy did not permit of any

other procedure. To deny such power or competency to determine the strength and
sufficiency of such evidence would have been destructive of that military efficiency
with which, in the interest of all the citizens of the Philippines themselves, not
excluding the herein petitioners, the operations for their liberation had to be
conducted. Has the war terminated within the meaning of that part of his
proclamation wherein the Commander in Chief declared his purpose to hold such
persons in restraint "for the duration of the war"?
The Court decided, it did not as there was no Presidential proclamation to that
effect. The Court said in United States vs. Tubig (3 Phil., 244, 254):
From that day the fighting continued, and the insurrection did not end
officially until the President proclaimed it an end, July 4, 1902. It is necessary
to refer to a public act of the Executive Department to fix the date of the
closing of the war. (Freeborn vs. The Protector, 79 U.S., 700.)
The Court dismissed the petition.

ARTICLE 127 Expulsion

Zacarias Villavicencio vs. Justo Lukban
GR No. L-14639
March 25, 1919
John Kessler S. Misterio
FACTS:
Respondent Lukban, then Mayor of Manila, together with the citys Chief of Police,
ordered the district of ill-repute women closed. As a result, 170 women, mostly
inmates of the houses of prostitution, were shipped and deported to Davao without
their knowledge and consent. There, the women were signed as laborers in a
particular banana plantation.
Some of the women were able to escape and return to Manila. The attorney for the
relatives and friends of a considerable number of the deportees presented an
application for habeas corpus to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondents are guilty of the crime of expulsion
HELD:
Yes. The Court held that respondents committed the crime of expulsion.
Under Article 127 of the Revised Penal Code, a person is guilty of expulsion when
the offender is a public officer or employee and he either:
a. expels any person from the Philippines; or
b. compels a person to change residence;
c. Offender is not authorized to do so by law.
In the present case, the Court said that although the intention of the respondent
was commendable, but there is no law enforcing the City Mayor to forcibly change
the domicile of those women from Manila to other place.
Hence, respondent is guilty of the crime of expulsion.

ARTICLE 136 - CONSPIRACY & PROPOSAL TO COMMIT REBELLION,

INSURRECTION OR COUP D ETAT
I.
People vs. Lamberto Magboo, et.al
GR No. L-4975
May 16, 1969
Jayson Camasura
FACTS:
In this case, the defendants were Lamberto Magboo, Nicanor Razon, Sr., Esteban
Gonzales y la Torre, Marcos Medina, Cesario Torres, Rosenda Canlas Reyes, and
Arturo Baking y Calma.
Appeal of Marcos Medina
Appellant Marcos Medina was arrested by MIS agents on October 17, 1950 at 1028B, Quezon Boulevard. He used the alias Hiwara. He admitted in his written
statement that he was a member of the Hukbalahap Squadron 25 with headquarters
at Kandating, Candaba; that he became a corporal of the Huks in 1944; and that he
was a member of the Organizational Committee, Reco 4, Laguna, from 1946 to
1949. In 1949, he studied at the Central Institute of Technology, and while studying,
he used to help HMB couriers Lydia (alias of Alicia Villegas), and Celong (alias of
Marcelino Calma) in carrying things for delivery to Commander REG of Reco 4. In his
testimony he stated that the Organizational Committee, of which he was a member,
had the duty to go to the barrios to teach and convince the people to join the HMB
ISSUE:
Whether or not Marcos Medina is guilty of the crime of conspiracy to commit
rebellion under 136 of the Revised Penal Code.
HELD:
Yes.
Appellant Marcos Medina is found guilty of the crime of conspiracy to commit
rebellion under Article 136 of the Revised Penal Code, and he is hereby sentenced
to suffer imprisonment of five (5) years, four (4) months, and twenty (20) days
of prision correccional and a fine of P2,000, with the accessories provided by law,
with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay his proportionate
share of the costs.
The SC did not agree with the finding of the lower court that this appellant is guilty
as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion. There is no evidence that he
actually participated in any of the raids and ambushes alleged in the information
although he admitted that he was a Huk. The evidence shows that he simply helped
HMB couriers. The Court hold, however, that his being a member of the HMB is a
sufficient basis to find him guilty of the crime of conspiracy to commit rebellion,
punishable under Article 136 of the Revised Penal Code.

In the case of People vs. Hernandez, supra, this Court held:.

On the other hand, membership in the HMB (Hukbalahap), implies
participation in an actual uprising or rebellion to secure, as the Huks pretend,
the liberation of the peasants and laboring class from thraldom. By
membership in the HMB, one already advocates uprising and the use of force,
and by such membership he agrees or conspires that force be used to secure
the ends of the party. Such membership, therefore, even if there is nothing
more, renders the member guilty of conspiracy to commit rebellion
punishable by law.
And when a Huk member, not content with his membership, does anything to
promote the ends of the rebellion like soliciting contributions, or acting as courier,
he thereby becomes guilty of conspiracy, unless he takes to the field and joins in
the rebellion of uprising, in which latter case he commits rebellion

PEOPLE VS HERNANDEZ
(G.R. NO. L-6025)
Jayson Camasura
Facts:

This is the appeal prosecuted by the defendants from the judgment rendered by the
Court of First Instance of Manila, Hon. Agustin P. Montesa, presiding, in its Criminal
Case No. 15841, People vs. Amado V. Hernandez, et al., and Criminal Case No.
15479, Peo ple vs. Bayani Espiritu, et al.
AMADO V. HERNANDEZ
The Courts study of the testimonial and documentary evidence, especially those
cited by the Court in its decision and by the Solicitor General in his brief, discloses
that defendant-appellant Amado V. Hernandez, as a Communist, was an active
advocate of the principles of Communism, frequently exhorting his hearers to follow
the footsteps of Taruc and join the uprising of the laboring classes against capitalism
and more specifically against America and the Quirino administration, which he
dubbed as a regime of puppets of American imperialism.
JULIAN LUMANOG
The court found him to be an organizer of HMB among the mill workers, solicited
contributions for the HMB and Central Committee member of the CLO as per
Testimony of Guillermo Calayag.
He admitted that he joined the Communist Party because he was made to believe
that the Party is for the The Courtlfare of the laborers. He also admitted being a
member of the Central Committee of the CLO Calayag testified that Lumanog
organized the HMB units of the Communist Party in the Lumber Unions and
attended a Communist meeting held by Maclang.
Domingo Clarin testified that he (Julian Lumanog) used to give the money collected
by him to one Nicasio Pamintuan, one of the members of the HMB Special Unit
Trigger Squad) in Manila for the use of the said unit.
FERMIN RODILLAS
The trial court found that Fermin Rodillas was a member of the CPP and the CLO
that his activities consisted in soliciting contributions, in cash and in kind, from city
residents for the use of the HMB, turning over said collections to the Party; that he
has given asylum to a wanted Hukbalahap at his house at Juan Luna St.,

Gagalangin, which house was used as Military post. The above findings of the court
are fully supported by the testimony of Domingo Clarin.
BAYANI ESPIRITU
This appellant was found by the court to be a Communist, he having admitted
membership in the Communist Party since 1945; that his duties as a Communist
was to help in the office of the National Finance Committee, assorting papers and
written documents; that sometimes he accompanied the purchaser of medicines,
shoes, papers, foodstuffs and clothing to be given to the Huks; that he is a member
of the Communication Division of the CPP in Manila, in charge of distribution of
letters or communications; that he admits having written to Salome Cruz, courier of
the Communist Party, when he asked for his necessities, such as money and shoes,
etc.
TEOPISTA VALERIO
The court below found that this appellant joined the Communists in 1938 in San
Luis, Pampanga, under Casto Alejandrino, who later became her common-law
husband; that her aliases are "Estrella" and "Star"; that she was found in possession
of various documents written to top Communists like Alejandrino, Lava and Romy,
as The Courtll as a letter from Taruc congratulating her for the delivers, of a son.
Jose Taguiang testified that she was a member of the Provincial Committee of the
CPP in Nueva Ecija, later Chairman of the Finance Department, and then promoted
to Finance Officer of the Central Luzon Committee. Alicia Vergara, a Huk courier,
testified that she delivered letter from the mountains to Teopista Valerie, who was in
turn also a courier.
Issue:
1. Whether or not Amado Hernandez is liable for the crime of conspiracy and
proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection under Art. 136 of the RPC.
2. Whether or not Julian Lumanog and Fermin Rodillas, Bayani Espiritu and
Teopista Valerio are liable for the crime of conspiracy and proposal to commit
rebellion or insurrection under Art. 136 of the RPC.
3. Whether or not R.A. 1700, known as the Anti-subversion Act, which penalizes
membership in any organization or association committed to subvert the
Government, can be applied to the appellants.
Held:
1. No. the mere fact of his giving and rendering speeches favoring Communism
would not make him guilty of conspiracy, because there was no evidence
that the hearers of his speeches of propaganda then and there agreed to rise
up in arms for the purpose of obtaining the overthrow of the democratic
government as envisaged by the principles of Communism.
2. Yes.

Lumanog
Considering that the HMB was engaged in a rebellion to overthrow the
government, it is evident that by giving his contributions he actually
participated in the conspiracy to overthrow the government and should,
therefore, be held liable for such conspiracy, and should be sentenced
accordingly.
Rodillas
Considering that while he has not actually taken part in the rebellion, he has
shown sympathy with the cause by soliciting contributions for it and had
given shelter to the Huks. The Court feel that the court was fully justified in
finding him guilty, but The Court hold that he should be declared liable
merely as a co-conspirator in the crime of conspiracy to commit rebellion,
and should be sentenced accordingly.
Espiritu
Considering that the PKP was engaged in an actual uprising against the
constituted Government and that Bayani Espiritu was in constant
communication with the Communist Party and served it as courier, The Court
believe that the court was fully justified in finding him guilty. HoThe Courtver,
The Court believe that not having actually taken up arms in the uprising he
may only be declared guilty of conspiracy to commit rebellion.
Valerio
Without considering the close relationship that she had with top Communist
Casto Alejandrino, The Court are satisfied that she herself was, aside from
being a Huk courier, also a Huk, a member of the HMB from 1942 to 1951. As
she was a Communist and at the same time a member of the HMB, and
considering that the HMB was engaged in an uprising to uproot the legitimate
government, there cannot be any question that she was in conspiracy with
the other members of her Party against the constituted government. The
Court hold, therefore, that the evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that
she is guilty of conspiracy to commit rebellion
3. No.
R.A. 1700, known as the Anti-subversion Act, which penalizes membership in
any organization or association committed to subvert the Government,
cannot be applied to the appellants because said Act was approved on June
20, 1957 and was not in force at the time of the commission of the acts
charged against appellants (committed 1945-1950) ; the Anti-Subversion Act
punishes participation or membership in an organization committed to
overthrow the duly constituted Government, a crime district from that of
actual rebellion with which appellants are charged.
Note: The advocacy of Communism or Communistic theory and principle is not to
be considered as a criminal act of conspiracy unless transformed or converted
into an advocacy of action. In the very nature of things, mere advocacy of a
theory or principle is insufficient unless the communist advocates action,
immediate and positive, the actual agreement to start an uprising or rebellion

or an agreement forged to use force and violence in an uprising of the working

class to overthrow constituted authority and seize the reins of Government
itself. Unless action is actually advocated or intended or contemplated, the
Communist is a mere theorist, merely holding belief in the supremacy of the
proletariat a Communist does not yet advocate the seizing of the reins of
Government by it. As a theorist the Communist is not yet actually considered as
engaging in the criminal field subject to punishment. Only when the Communist
advocates action and actual uprising, war or otherwise, does he become guilty
of conspiracy to commit rebellion. Unless action is actually advocated or
intended or contemplated, the Communist is a mere theorist, merely holding
belief in the supremacy of the proletariat a Communist does not yet advocate
the seizing of the reins of Government by it. As a theorist the Communist is not
yet actually considered as engaging in the criminal field subject to punishment.
Only when the Communist advocates action and actual uprising, war or
otherwise, does he become guilty of conspiracy to commit rebellion.

II.
Alejandro Magtoto vs. NLRC
GR No. L-63370
November 18, 1985
John Kessler Misterio
FACTS:
Petitioner, working as an administrative clerk to private respondent Wyeth-Suaco
Laboratories, Inc., was arrested and charged with the violation of Article 136 and
138 of the Revised Penal Code for allegedly taking into possession propaganda
materials against the government.
ISSUE:
Whether or not possession of propaganda materials is enough to convict a person
for violation of Article 138 (Conspiracy and Proposal to commit rebellion)
HELD:
No. The Court held that the evidence against the petitioner was insufficient for even
a prima facie case.
Article 136 of the Revised Penal Code explains that there are two crimes defined
and penalized in this article: Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion. There is
conspiracy to commit rebellion when two or more persons come to an agreement to
rise publicly and take arms against the government for any of the purposes of
rebellion and decide to commit it. There is proposal to commit rebellion when the
person who has decided to rise publicly and take arms against tile government for
any of the purposes of rebellion proposes its execution to some other person or
persons.

In the present case, none of the elements of the above crimes have been shown to
exist even prima facie in this case. The propaganda materials seized by complainant
and submitted in this case do not prove the alleged conspiracy to commit nor incite
to rebellion. They do not show even prima facie respondents' common design, or
unity of purpose to commit the crime charged

III.
People vs. Geronimo, et.al
GR No. L-8936
October 23, 1956
John Kessler S. Misterio
FACTS:
In an information filed on June 24, 1954, appellant Federico Geronimo, et.al, were
charged with the complex crime of rebellion with murder, robberies and kidnapping.
In addition to that, all accused, being then ranking officers and members or
affiliated with the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and Hukbong
Mapagpalaya ng Bayan (HMB) or otherwise known as the Hukbalahaps (HUKS) the
latter being the armed force of said Communist Party of the Philippines (CCP) having
come to an agreement and decide to commit the crime of Rebellion, and therefore,
conspiring together and confederating among themselves with all of the 31
accused.
ISSUE:
Whether or not accused-appellants are guilty with the violation of Article 136 of the
Revised Penal Code (Conspiracy and Proposal to commit rebellion)
HELD:
Yes.

Under article 136, if two or more persons merely conspire and come to an
agreement to commit rebellion or insurrection, which is defined in article 134,
without actually committing it or performing the acts mentioned in said article 134,
they are already guilty and are punished with prision correcional in its maximum
period and a fine not exceeding P5,000.
In the case at bar, the above element was present when all of the accused-appellant
committed the actual crime of rebellion, therefore conspiring together among
themselves.