Article 87. Misbehavior of Sentinel.

—Any sentinel who is found drunk or sleeping upon his post, or who
leaves it before he is regularly relieved, shall, if the offense be committed it time of war, suffer death or
such other punishment as a court-martial may direct; and if the offense be committed in time of peace,
he shall suffer any punishment, except death, that a court-martial may direct.

Elements of Misbehavior of Sentinel:

1. The offender is any sentinel;

2. That the offender is—
a. Found drunk,
b. Sleeping upon his post,
c. Leaves it (his post) before he is regularly relieved.

The punishment for Misbehavior of Sentinel:

When committed in time of war, the offender shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court
martial may direct.

When committed in time of peace, the offender shall suffer any punishment, except death, that a court-
martial may direct.

Sentinel—one that watches or guards.(Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

Purpose of Article 87: Is to secure the on the part of the sentinels that alert watchfulness and
steadfastness which are the very essence of the service.

Alert watchfulness & steadfastness:

- These qualities are important as they are to the protection from depredation or loss by fire of
the public property collected at a military station; and these qualities are absolutely essential, in
time of war, to ensure a camp or post against the danger of surprise and capture by a hostile
force.

In time of war, the offense misbehavior of sentinel becomes most aggravated character since the court-
martial may direct any punishment including death against the offender.

a. Found drunk—

State of Drunkenness
Drunkenness must exhibit itself after he has entered upon and while he is on, the duty.

Degree of Drunkenness

The state may be one which incapacitates the officer or soldier, mentally or physically, for the proper
performance of the duty upon which he has entered.

*It does not therefore necessarily follow that his drunkenness shall have commenced after the duty has
been entered upon.

*Drunkenness need not be caused by the drinking of spiritual beverages.

-The offense is complete whether the party found drunk be “under the influence of liquor,
opium, or other intoxicating drug or thing.

b. Sleeping on post, proof—

The officer or non-commissioned officer whose duty it was to detail and to post the sentinel
must show that:

1. The accused was duly detailed; and

2. It must be proved by the testimony of the officer of the day, officer or non-commissioned
officer of the guard or by some member or members of the guard or patrol then present, by
whom he was discovered in that condition. (Winthrop’s, p. 616)

c. Leaving his post before being regularly relieved, proof—

1. Due detail and posting of the accused must be first shown;

2. He was not found upon his post, and

3. He had not been for any cause relieved by an officer or non-commissioned officer of the
guard or other competent authority. (Winthrop’s, p. 616-617)

The offense of Misbehavior of Sentinel is committed in the where watchfulness and special vigilance are
required.

A member of a section occupying a search-light and anti-aircraft gun position was placed “on guard.”
Although the accused was not formally posted as a sentinel, he was charged with watchfulness and
special vigilance which characterize the duties of a sentinel.
Misbehavior of sentinel, not committed—

1. A sentinel going beyond normal limits of his post carrying out his orders for the protection of
adjoining property is “upon his post”.

2. Accused must be upon his post to be guilty of sleeping upon his post.

Accused was found guilty of sleeping upon his post while posted as a sentinel. The evidence showed that
the post was a stationary guard position about two feet from the bunker. When discovered, the accused
was sleeping in the bunker.

-Testimony revealed that it was impossible for a person to perform the duties of the sentinel on that post
while inside the bunker. Each of three witnesses considered the accused as being off his post when he
entered the bunker.

Held: As the accused could not perform his duties as a sentinel while in the bunker, he was not upon his
post.

3. A member of a guard of honor over the remains of a deceased soldier is not on duty as a
sentinel within the meaning of ART. 87.

4. Lesser included offense.

A sentry was sober when posted, but about an hour later was found lying on the ground, drunk,
300 yards from his post. Held: He is not guilty of being “drunk on post”, but may be convicted of
a lesser included offense of being drunk while on guard in violation of AW 85.

Article 88. Personal interest in the Sale of Provisions.—Any officer commanding in any garrison, fort,
barracks, camp or other place where troops of the Philippines may be serving who, for his private
advantage, lays any duty or imposition upon or is interested, directly or indirectly, in the sale of any
victuals or other necessaries of life brought into such garrison, fort, barracks, camp, or other place for
the use of troops, shall be dismissed from the service and suffer other punishment as a court-martial
may direct.

Elements of Personal Interest in the Sale of Provisions:

1. The offender is any officer.

 2. That such officer is commanding any garrison, fort, barracks, camp, or other place where
troops of the Philippines may be serving;

3. That such officer lays any duty or imposition upon or is interested, directly or indirectly, in
the sale of any victuals or other necessaries of life brought into such garrison, fort, barracks,
camp, or other place for the use of troops;

4. That he committed such act for his private advantage.

 An officer may violate this article by favoring certain private contractors in the supply of victuals,
other foodstuffs or other necessaries of life used by the soldiers in the camp or station of which
he is the commanding officer.

 An act constitutes conduct unbecoming when the act is opposed to good taste or propriety or
consonant with usage. As it is morally unbefitting and unworthy.

In view of AW 96 (PA), the necessity of this Article no longer exists. In fact, it is eliminated from
the Uniform Code of Military Justice (1950)

The main object is to prevent officers from profiting themselves, to the oppression of vendors of
provisions and to the injury of the soldiers for whom those provisions are mainly intended.

To prohibit combinations between officers and vendors, by which undue facilities are furnished
to the latter, to the exclusion of other parties and to the probable detriment and defrauding of
soldiers.

In spirit, Art. 88 may be regarded as declaring that either relation, however slight be the interest
or profit, is wholly incompatible with the character and province of an officer of the army,
especially when commanding troops.

The interest referred in this Article need not be a direct interest.

To violate Article 88, it is necessary that the commanding officer has gained private either for himself or
any member of his family.

Article 88-A. Unlawfully influencing action of court.—Any authority appointing a general, special, or
summary court-martial, or any other commanding officer, who shall censure, reprimand, or admonish
such court, or any member thereof, with respect to any other exercise, by such court or any member
thereof, of its or his judicial responsibility, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. Any person
subject to military law who shall attempt to coerce or unlawfully influence the action of a court-martial
or any military court or commission, or any member thereof, in reaching the findings or sentence in any
case, or the action of an appointing or reviewing or confirming authority with respect to his judicial act,
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. (Inserted by RA 516)

Elements of unlawfully influencing action of court (par.1):

1. The offender is any authority appointing a general, special, or summary court-martial, or any other
commanding officer.

2. That such person shall censure, reprimand or admonish such court, or any member thereof.

3. That such court (general, special or summary) is exercising its or his judicial responsibility.

Punishment: Court-martial may direct

Elements of unlawfully influencing action of court (par.2):

1. The offender is any person subject to military law.

2. That such person shall (a.) attempt to coerce, or (b.) unlawfully influence the action of a court-martial,
or any military court or commission, or any member thereof

3. The offender shall attempt to coerce or influence the action of—

a. court in reaching the findings or sentence in any case, or

b. an appointing or reviewing or confirming authority with respect to his judicial act.

Punishment: Court-martial may direct

Art. 88-A is a new article from Art. 37 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. [The insertion of this
article in AW and in the Uniform Code of Military Justice must have been due to the popular belief that
military justice is not well administered in the sense that courts-martial are not independent and
impartial tribunals because they are subservient to the will of the commander who appoints them.

Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) must not criticize court in his review.

SJA is the legal representative of convening authority, his comment in the SJA’s review criticizing a court
for failing to adjudge an adequate sentence, and concluding with, “Such action reflects a deterioration in
the standards of the officers who adjudged the sentence and has a degrading effect upon their
associates”, closely approaches the conduct forbidden by Art. 37, UCMJ. (1953 CPP, USA, p. 28)