Can Corporate Spies Be Prosecuted Under Article 117?

Introduction

International enterprises operating in the Philippines may encounter the unauthorized acquisition, disclosure, or transfer of proprietary designs, technical information, and security-related plans. The criminal remedy depends primarily on whether the information concerns national defense or the security of the Philippine Archipelago, rather than merely the private commercial interests of the company.

Article 117 of the Revised Penal Code punishes espionage involving confidential information connected with the defense of the Philippines. It does not automatically cover every act of corporate spying, theft of trade secrets, or misuse of confidential business information. A complainant must therefore establish the statutory elements of espionage and distinguish them from offenses involving industrial secrets, employee misconduct, or other forms of unlawful disclosure.

What Does Article 117 Punish?

Article 117 of the Revised Penal Code imposes prision correccional on a person who, without authority, enters a warship, fort, naval or military establishment, or reservation to obtain confidential information, plans, photographs, or other data relating to the defense of the Philippine Archipelago.

The same provision also covers a person who, because of a public office held, possesses defense-related articles, data, or information and discloses their contents to a representative of a foreign nation. If the offender is a public officer or employee, the penalty is increased by one degree. [The Revised Penal Code](#L1.123)

The provision therefore focuses on two principal forms of conduct:

• Unauthorized entry into protected military or defense locations to obtain confidential defense information; and
• Disclosure by a public officer or employee of defense-related information to a representative of a foreign nation.

Does Article 117 Cover Corporate Trade Secrets?

No, not by itself. Article 117 is directed at espionage affecting national defense. The fact that the victim is an international corporation, or that the stolen material has significant commercial value, does not automatically transform the conduct into espionage.

The information must have a legally sufficient connection with the defense of the Philippines. Examples may include designs for military communications systems, defense installations, weapons-related infrastructure, naval facilities, protected military technology, or national-security systems controlled by the government or its authorized contractors.

By contrast, the unauthorized taking of an ordinary commercial formula, manufacturing process, customer list, pricing model, or private engineering design will generally require examination under other applicable laws and causes of action. Article 292 of the Revised Penal Code separately punishes the revelation of industrial secrets by a person in charge, employee, or workman of a manufacturing or industrial establishment, when the disclosure prejudices the owner. [The Revised Penal Code](#L1.299)

Elements of an Article 117 Espionage Charge

For the first mode of espionage, the prosecution should be prepared to show:

1. The accused entered a warship, fort, naval or military establishment, or reservation;
2. The entry was without authority;
3. The purpose was to obtain information, plans, photographs, or other data;
4. The material was confidential in nature; and
5. The information related to the defense of the Philippine Archipelago.

For the second mode, the prosecution must establish that:

1. The accused was in possession of defense-related articles, data, or information because of public office;
2. The accused disclosed the contents; and
3. The disclosure was made to a representative of a foreign nation.

A private employee of a corporation may fall within the first mode if the employee unlawfully entered a protected military or defense facility to obtain confidential information. The second mode, however, expressly concerns possession arising from public office and should not be extended to a private employee without a sufficient statutory basis.

Relationship Between Article 117 and Commonwealth Act No. 616

Commonwealth Act No. 616, or the Act to Punish Espionage and Other Offenses Against National Security, contains more detailed provisions concerning the unlawful acquisition, receipt, retention, communication, and disclosure of information affecting national defense.

Section 1 covers acts such as entering or obtaining information concerning defense-related places, copying or making sketches and photographs, receiving defense documents known to have been unlawfully obtained, and willfully communicating or retaining defense materials without authorization. [Commonwealth Act No. 616](#L2.0) [Commonwealth Act No. 616](#L2.1)

Section 2 addresses the unlawful disclosure of information affecting national defense to a foreign government, foreign military force, or representative of a foreign nation. The provision prescribes substantially heavier penalties, including imprisonment in peacetime and more severe punishment when the offense is committed during wartime. [Commonwealth Act No. 616](#L2.3)

Accordingly, prosecutors and private complainants should assess whether the alleged conduct is more specifically covered by Commonwealth Act No. 616. Article 117 should not be treated as the only possible espionage provision when a special statute directly addresses the acquisition or disclosure of national-defense information.

Corporate Espionage Versus National-Defense Espionage

Issue	Article 117 Espionage	Industrial or Commercial Secret Disclosure
Protected interest	Defense and national security of the Philippines	Private commercial or industrial interests
Typical information	Military plans, defense installations, protected defense systems, or national-security data	Formulas, manufacturing processes, market information, designs, and business methods
Typical offender	Unauthorized entrant or public officer possessing defense information	Employee, workman, officer, or other person entrusted with business information
Foreign recipient required?	Required for the second mode under Article 117; not required for the first mode	Generally not required
Principal legal concern	Threat to national defense	Prejudice to the owner of the industrial or commercial secret

The Supreme Court has recognized that trade secrets may receive judicial protection. In Air Philippines Corporation v. Pennswell, Inc., G.R. No. 172835, 13 December 2007, the Court treated chemical composition and product formulation information as privileged and protected from compulsory disclosure absent a compelling and indispensable reason for the administration of justice. [Air Philippines Corporation v. Pennswell, Inc. (2007)](#J2.15)

That protection, however, does not mean that every trade-secret dispute constitutes espionage. The classification of information, the source of the information, the location where it was obtained, the identity of the recipient, and the connection to national defense remain decisive.

When an International Enterprise May File a Criminal Complaint

An international enterprise may initiate a complaint-affidavit before the appropriate prosecutorial office if it has a factual and legal basis to allege that a Philippine criminal offense was committed. The corporation should identify the affected information, explain its connection to Philippine national defense, and present evidence linking the respondent to the acquisition, possession, entry, disclosure, or transmission of the material.

The corporation should not rely solely on the commercial value of the information. A complaint based only on the assertion that the information is proprietary may be vulnerable if it does not establish the national-defense element of Article 117 or the elements of a more appropriate offense.

The complaint should ordinarily be supported by:

• Affidavits of persons with personal knowledge of the unauthorized conduct;
• Proof of the information’s classification and restricted-access status;
• Access logs, electronic records, surveillance footage, emails, or messaging records;
• Evidence showing the respondent’s authority, lack of authority, or access credentials;
• Technical testimony explaining the information’s relationship to defense or protected infrastructure; and
• Evidence identifying any foreign recipient, representative, government, or military organization involved.

Evidence and Confidentiality Concerns

A corporation must protect the information while proving the offense. Filing unrestricted copies of sensitive designs or technical files may create additional security, confidentiality, and commercial risks.

The complainant should consider submitting a detailed description of the information, affidavits from qualified custodians or technical experts, controlled inspection procedures, and requests for appropriate protective measures. The evidence must still be sufficiently specific to permit the investigating prosecutor and the court to assess whether the statutory elements are present.

Where the information is a trade secret rather than a defense secret, the company should also explain the measures used to preserve confidentiality, such as access restrictions, confidentiality agreements, encryption, compartmentalized systems, employee policies, and exit procedures.

Employee Disclosure and Loss of Trust

Unauthorized disclosure may also give rise to employment consequences. In Yonzon v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 226244, 16 August 2021, the Supreme Court held that dismissal for loss of trust and confidence requires that the employee occupy a position of trust and that a clearly established act justify the loss of confidence. Vague or overly broad company rules on confidential information are insufficient, particularly where the disclosure was made in good faith and for a legitimate purpose such as pursuing a legal claim. [Yonzon v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. (2021)](#J1.5)

Thus, an employer should distinguish among a criminal complaint, an administrative investigation, and a labor case. The same conduct may be relevant to all three proceedings, but each proceeding has different elements, evidentiary requirements, and available remedies.

Possible Defenses and Risk Areas

A respondent may challenge the charge by arguing that the information was not confidential, did not relate to national defense, was lawfully accessed, or was obtained and used for a legitimate purpose. The respondent may also dispute the authenticity, chain of custody, or interpretation of electronic records.

For the second mode of Article 117, the prosecution must address whether possession arose by reason of public office and whether the recipient was a representative of a foreign nation. A private commercial recipient is not automatically a representative of a foreign government or foreign military force.

Another risk is overcharging. If the evidence shows only the disclosure of a private industrial process, Article 292 or another applicable statute may be more appropriate than Article 117. The Supreme Court’s treatment of trade-secret protection in Air Philippines Corporation v. Pennswell, Inc. illustrates the distinction between protecting confidential commercial information and proving a national-security offense.

Recommended Steps for International Enterprises

1. Classify the information. Determine whether it concerns private business operations, government infrastructure, military facilities, or national defense.
2. Preserve evidence. Secure original devices, access logs, emails, files, metadata, and surveillance records while maintaining a documented chain of custody.
3. Restrict further access. Disable compromised accounts, preserve forensic images, and avoid altering original evidence.
4. Obtain technical assessments. Use qualified personnel to explain the information’s function, sensitivity, and relationship to defense or protected infrastructure.
5. Select the appropriate offense. Assess Article 117, Commonwealth Act No. 616, Article 292, and other applicable laws based on the established facts.
6. Coordinate with competent authorities. Where national defense or government facilities are involved, coordinate with the appropriate Philippine investigative, prosecutorial, and security authorities.
7. Separate legal proceedings. Evaluate criminal, civil, employment, regulatory, and injunctive remedies independently.

Conclusion

Article 117 may support a criminal complaint when a person unlawfully obtains confidential information connected with the defense of the Philippine Archipelago, or when a public officer discloses such information to a representative of a foreign nation. The fact that the complainant is an international enterprise or that the information has substantial economic value is not, standing alone, sufficient.

The decisive inquiry is whether the information and the alleged conduct fall within the statutory concept of espionage. Companies should therefore establish the defense-related character of the material, preserve reliable evidence, protect sensitive information during the investigation, and compare Article 117 with Commonwealth Act No. 616 and the separate rules on industrial-secret disclosure before filing charges.

About Nicolas and De Vega Law Offices

 Nicolas and de Vega Law Offices is a full-service law firm in the Philippines.  You may visit us at the 16th Flr., Suite 1607 AIC Burgundy Empire Tower, ADB Ave., Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines.  You may also call us at +632 84706126, +632 84706130, +632 84016392 or e-mail us at [email protected]. Visit our website https://ndvlaw.com.