Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TITLE TWO enclosure, or in any from one confinement to another. judge shall be governed by paragraph
Crimes against the fundamental laws manner detaining and (a) of this section. When the
of the State depriving him of his Paragraphs (a) and (b) refer to cases investigation is conducted by the judge
liberty. when a suspect is caught in flagrante himself, he shall follow the procedure
1. Arbitrary detention. (Art. 124) C. Without legal ground delicto or immediately thereafter, provided in section 3 of this Rule. If the
2. Delay in the delivery of (1) when he has not while paragraph (c) refers to escaping findings and recommendations are
detained persons to the committed any crime prisoners. affirmed by the provincial or city
proper judicial authorities. or, at least, there is no prosecutor, or by the Ombudsman or
(Art. 125) reasonable ground for Section 6, Rule 113. When warrant of his deputy, and the corresponding
3. Delaying release. (Art. 126) suspicion that he has arrest may issue. — (a) By the Regional information is filed, he shall issue a
4. Expulsion. (Art. 127) committed a crime, or Trial Court. — Within ten (10) days from warrant of arrest. However, without
5. Violation of domicile. (Art. (2) when he is not the filing of the complaint or waiting for the conclusion of the
128) suffering from violent information, the judge shall personally investigation, the judge may issue a
6. Search warrants maliciously insanity or any other evaluate the resolution of the warrant of arrest if he finds after an
obtained and abuse in the ailment requiring prosecutor and its supporting evidence. examination in writing and under oath
service of those legally compulsory He may immediately dismiss the case if of the complainant and his witnesses in
obtained. (Art. 129) confinement in a the evidence on record clearly fails to the form of searching question and
7. Searching domicile without hospital. establish probable cause. If he finds answers, that a probable cause exists
witnesses. (Art. 130) probable cause, he shall issue a warrant and that there is a necessity of placing
8. Prohibition, interruption, and Arrest without warrant is usual cause of arrest, or a commitment order if the the respondent under immediate
dissolution of peaceful of arbitrary detention. accused has already been arrested custody in order not to frustrate the
meetings. (Art. 131) pursuant to a warrant issued by the ends of justice.
9. Interruption of religious Arrest without warrant – when lawful. judge who conducted the preliminary
worship. (Art. 132) Offending investigation or when the complaint or (c) When warrant of arrest not
the religious feelings. (Art. Sec. 5, Rule 113, Criminal Procedure information was filed pursuant to necessary. — A warrant of arrest shall
133) A peace officer or a private person may, section 7 of this Rule. In case of doubt not issue if the accused is already under
without a warrant, arrest a person: on the existence of probable cause, the detention pursuant to a warrant issued
Arbitrary Detention (Art. 124) judge may order the prosecutor to by the municipal trial court in
Elements: (a) When, in his presence, the person to present additional evidence within five accordance with paragraph (b) of this
1. That the offender if a public be arrested has committed, is actually (5) days from notice and the issue must section, or if the complaint or
officer or employee. committing, or is attempting to commit be resolved by the court within thirty information was filed pursuant to
2. That he detains a person. an offense; (30) days from the filing of the section 7 of this Rule or is for an offense
3. That the detention is complaint of information. penalized by fine only. The court shall
without legal grounds. (b) When an offense has in fact just then proceed in the exercise of its
A. Public officer or employee been committed, and he has probable (b) By the Municipal Trial Court. — original jurisdiction.
- Must have must be cause to believe based on personal When required pursuant to the second
vested with authority knowledge of facts and circumstances paragraph of section 1 of this Rule, the In his “presence" in paragraph (a) Sec.
to detain or order the that the person to be arrested has preliminary investigation of cases 5, Rule 113, construed - When the
detention of persons committed it; and falling under the original jurisdiction of officer sees the offense being
accused of a crime the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal committed, although at a distance, or
Note: If by individual = only illegal (c) When the person to be arrested is a Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial hears the disturbance created thereby
detention prisoner who has escaped from a penal Court, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court and proceeds at once to the scene
B. Detain establishment or place where he is may be conducted by either the judge thereof, or when the offense is
- Detention is defined as serving final judgment or temporarily or the prosecutor. When conducted by continuing or has not been
the actual confinement confined while his case is pending, or the prosecutor, the procedure for the consummated at the time the arrest is
made, the offense is said to be - Detention is defined as 3. By unduly delaying the 1. That the offender is a
committed in his presence. the actual confinement proceedings upon any public officer or
of a person in an petition for the liberation of employee.
"Personal knowledge of facts" in arrests enclosure, or in any such person. 2. That he expels any
without a warrant must be based upon manner detaining and Elements: person from the
probable cause, which means an actual depriving him of his 1. That the offender is a public Philippines, or compels
belief or reasonable grounds of liberty. officer or employee; person to change his
suspicion. C. Without legal ground 2. That there is a judicial or residence.
(1) when he has not executive order for the 3. That the offender is not
No fix period fixed for minimum committed any crime release of a prisoner or authorized
period of detention. or, at least, there is no detention prisoner, or that to do so by law.
Even if the offended party was detained reasonable ground for there is a proceeding upon a
for less than half an hour. suspicion that he has petition for the liberation of
committed a crime, or such person.
Delay in the delivery of detained (2) when he is not 3. That the offender without
persons to the proper judicial suffering from violent good reason delays: (1) the
authorities (Art. 125) insanity or any other service of the notice of such
Elements: ailment requiring order to the prisoner, or (2)
1. That the offender is a public compulsory the performance of such
officer or employee. confinement in a judicial or executive order
2. That he has detained a hospital. for the release of the
person for some legal prisoner, or (3) the
ground. Art. 125 applies only: proceedings upon a petition
3. That he fails to deliver such when the arrest is made without for the release of such
person to the proper judicial warrant of arrest. But the arrest must person.
authorities within: be Example: For failure to prosecute,
a. twelve (12) hours, light lawful and there is a because the witness of the
penalties need to deliver the detained person prosecution did not appear, the case
b. eighteen (18) hours, before the judicial authorities. was dismissed and the justice of the
correctional penalties, or peace gave an order to release the
their equivalent; or If the arrest is made with a warrant of accused. The jailer refused to release
c. thirty-six (36) hours, arrest, the person arrested can be the accused, notwithstanding that
afflictive or capital detained indefinitely until his case is order of release, until after several
penalties, or their decided by the court or he posts a bail days.
equivalent. for his temporary release. Wardens and jailers are the public
officers most likely to commit.
A. For some legal ground
- Must have must be Delaying Release (Art. 126) Expulsion (Art. 127)
vested with authority Three acts punishable. Two acts punishable:
to detain or order the 1. By delaying the 1. By expelling a person
detention of persons performance of a judicial or from the Philippines.
accused of a crime executive order for the 2. By compelling a person
Note: If by individual = only illegal release of a prisoner. to change his residence.
detention 2. By unduly delaying the Elements:
B. Detain service of the notice of such
order to said prisoner.
issues raised, praying for the issuance of actually committing, or is attempting
the writ of habeas corpus. to commit an offense;
Respondents (with the authority who (b) When an offense has in fact
detain persons because they were holding just been committed, and he has
said offices) uniformly assert that the personal knowledge of facts indicating
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is that the person to be arrested has
not available to the petitioners as they
committed it; and
have been legally arrested and are
detained by virtue of valid
(c) When the person to be
informations filed in court against them.
arrested is a prisoner who has escaped
Petitioners counter that their detention from a penal establishment or place
is unlawful as their arrests were made where he is serving final judgment or
without warrant and, that no preliminary temporarily confined while his case is
investigation was first conducted, so that pending, or has escaped while being
the informations filed against them are transferred from one confinement to
null and void. another.
ISSUE: W/N the petitioners detention In cases falling under paragraphs (a)
amounted to an arbitrary detention? and (b) hereof, the person arrested
without a warrant shall be forthwith
RULING: No. delivered to the nearest police station
It finds that the persons detained have or jail, and he shall be proceeded
not been illegally arrested nor against in accordance with Rule 112,
arbitrarily deprived of their Section 7.
constitutional right to liberty, and that
the circumstances attending these An without a warrant of arrest, under
cases do not warrant their release on Section 5 paragraphs (a) and (b) of Rule
habeas corpus. 113 of the Rules of Court, as amended,
is justified when the person arrested is
An arrest of a person without a warrant caught in flagranti delicto, viz., in the
of arrest or previous complaint is act of committing an offense; or when
recognized in law. The occasions or an offense has just been committed
instances when such an arrest may be and the person making the arrest has
effected are clearly spelled out in personal knowledge of the facts
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of indicating that the person arrested has
Court, as amended, which provides: committed it. The rationale behind
ABITRARY DETENTION lawful arrests, without warrant, was
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when stated by this Court in the case of
UMIL VS. RAMOS lawful. — A peace officer or a private People vs. Kagui Malasugui 1 thus:
person may, without a warrant, arrest a
FACTS: person: To hold that no criminal can, in any
Eight (8) petitioners for habeas corpus case, be arrested and searched for the
filed before the Court, which have been (a) When, in his presence, the evidence and tokens of his crime
consolidated because of the similarity of person to be arrested has committed, is without a warrant, would be to leave
society, to a large extent, at the mercy
of the shrewdest, the most expert, and 2:00 o'clock PM where through the house of Ruben Burgos for the purpose committed is an essential precondition.
the most depraved of criminals, help of Pedro Burgos, brother of of arresting him upon information It is not enough to suspect that a crime
facilitating their escape in many accused, the team was able to locate given by Cesar Masamlok that the may have been committed. The fact of
instances. accused, who was plowing his field. accused allegedly recruited him to join the commission of the offense must be
(TSN, pages 6-7, Hearing-October 14, the New People's Army (NPA), they did undisputed. The test of reasonable
The record of the instant cases would 1982). not have any warrant of arrest or ground applies only to the identity of
show that the persons in whose behalf search warrant with them. the perpetrator.
these petitions for habeas corpus have Right in the house of accused, the latter
been filed, had freshly committed or was caned by the team and Pat. Bioco As a rule under Art. 6, Sec. 3 that there Re: test of reasonableness.
were actually committing an offense, asked accused about his firearm, as shall be no unreasonable invasion of the In this case, the accused was arrested
when apprehended, so that their reported by Cesar Masamlok. At first privacy and liberty of a citizen as to his on the sole basis of Masamlok's verbal
arrests without a warrant were clearly accused denied possession of said person, papers and effects. report. Masamlok led the authorities to
justified, and that they are, further, firearm but later, upon question suspect that the accused had
detained by virtue of valid informations profounded by Sgt. Alejandro Buncalan Section 6(a) of Rule 113, the officer committed a crime. They were still
filed against them in court. with the wife of the accused, the latter arresting a person who has just fishing for evidence of a crime not yet
pointed to a place below their house committed, is committing, or is about ascertained. The subsequent recovery
where a gun was buried in the ground. to commit an offense must have of the subject firearm on the basis of
PEOPLE VS. BURGOS (TSN, page 8, Hearing-October 14, personal knowledge of that fact. The information from the lips of a
1982). offense must also be committed in his frightened wife cannot make the arrest
presence or within his view. lawful, If an arrest without warrant is
FACTS: Ruben Burgos y Tito was Pat. Bioco then verified the place unlawful at the moment it is made,
convicted of The crime of Illegal pointed by accused's wife and dug the In this case, it was wrong for the RTC to generally nothing that happened or is
Possession of Firearms in Furtherance grounds, after which he recovered the uphold the validity of the arrest of discovered afterwards can make it
of Subversion before the Regional Trial firearm, Caliber .38 revolver. Burgos because there was the police lawful. The fruit of a poisoned tree is
Court of Davao del Sur. officers did not have any personal necessarily also tainted.
Burgos’ defense: knowledge about of the offense. Since
May 12, 1982, one Cesar Masamlok The investigation was conducted in the it came in its entirety from the More important, we find no compelling
personally and voluntarily surrendered PC barracks, where he was detained information furnished by Cesar reason for the haste with which the
to the authorities at about 9:00 o'clock with respect to the subject firearm, Masamlok. The location of the firearm arresting officers sought to arrest the
A.M. at Digos, Davao del Sur which the investigator, wished him to was given by the appellant's wife. accused. We fail to see why they failed
Constabulary Headquarters, stating admit but accused denied its to first go through the process of
that he was forcibly recruited by ownership. Because of his refusal At the time of the appellant's arrest, he obtaining a warrant of arrest, if indeed
accused Ruben Burgos as member of accused was mauled, hitting him on the was not in actual possession of any they had reasonable ground to believe
the NPA, threatening him with the use left and right side of his body which firearm or subversive document. that the accused had truly committed a
of firearm against his life, if he refused. rendered him unconscious and that he Neither was he committing any act crime. There is no showing that there
was subjected to torture if he continued which could be described as subversive. was a real apprehension that the
Immediately, upon receipt of said to deny such ownership over the He was, in fact, plowing his field at the accused was on the verge of flight or
information, a joint team of PC-INP firearm. time of the arrest. escape. Likewise, there is no showing
units, composed of fifteen (15) that the whereabouts of the accused
members, headed by Captain ISSUE: W/N the detention of Ruben In arrests without a warrant under were unknown,
Melchesideck Bargio, (PC), on the amounted to an arbitrary detention? Section 6(b), however, it is not enough
following day, May 13, 1982, was that there is reasonable ground to The basis for the action taken by the
dispatched at Tiguman; Davao del Sur, RULING: Yes. believe that the person to be arrested arresting officer was the verbal report
to arrest accused Ruben Burgos. The has committed a crime. A crime must in made by Masamlok who was not
team left the headquarter at 1:30 P.M., The records of the case disclose that fact or actually have been committed required to subscribe his allegations
and arrived at Tiguman, at more or less when the police authorities went to the first. That a crime has actually been under oath. There was no compulsion
for him to state truthfully his charges women were kept confined to their SC. The Court awarded the writ and prostitutes. Always a law! Even when
under pain of criminal prosecution. houses in the district by the police. directed Lukban, Hohmann, Sales, the health authorities compel
(TSN, p. 24, October 14, 1982). Yñiego to bring them on Dec. 2, 1918. vaccination, or establish a quarantine,
Consequently, the need to go through During this period, the city authorities or place a leprous person in the Culion
the process of securing a search quietly perfected arrangements with Before the deadline, 7 of the women leper colony, it is done pursuant to
warrant and a warrant of arrest the Bureau of Labor for sending the were able to return but at their own some law or order. But one can search
becomes even more clear. The arrest of women to Davao, Mindanao, as expense. in vain for any law, order, or regulation,
the accused while he was plowing his laborers; with some government office which even hints at the right of the
field is illegal. The arrest being for the use of the coastguard cutters 3 of the women were only notified to Mayor of the city of Manila or the chief
unlawful, the search and seizure which Corregidor and Negros, and with the appear before the court. of police of that city to force citizens of
transpired afterwards could not Constabulary for a guard of soldiers. the Philippine Islands — and these
likewise be deemed legal as being mere The defense of Sales was that it was women despite their being in a sense
incidents to a valid arrest. October 25, the police, acting pursuant impossible to fulfill the order of the lepers of society are nevertheless not
to orders from the chief of police, Anton Supreme Court because the women chattels but Philippine citizens
Neither can it be presumed that there Hohmann and the Mayor of the city of had never been under his control, protected by the same constitutional
was a waiver, or that consent was given Manila, Justo Lukban, descended upon because they were at liberty in the guaranties as are other citizens — to
by the accused to be searched simply the houses, hustled the women placed Province of Davao, and because they change their domicile from Manila to
because he failed to object. To them aboard the steamers that awaited had married or signed contracts as another locality. On the contrary,
constitute a waiver, it must appear first their arrival. The women were given no laborers. Respondent Yñigo answered Philippine penal law specifically
that the right exists; secondly, that the opportunity to collect their belongings, alleging that he did not have any of the punishes any public officer who, not
person involved had knowledge, actual and apparently were under the women under his control. being expressly authorized by law or
or constructive, of the existence of such impression that they were being taken regulation, compels any person to
a right; and lastly, that said person had to a police station for an investigation. ISSUE: W/N Lukban, Hohmann, being change his residence.
an actual intention to relinquish the They had no knowledge that they public officials had the authority to
right (Pasion Vda. de Garcia v. Locsin, were destined for a life in Mindanao. depot the prostitutes? Under the American constitutional
65 Phil. 689). The fact that the accused They had not been asked if they wished system, liberty of abode is a principle so
failed to object to the entry into his to depart from that region and had deeply imbedded in jurisprudence and
house does not amount to a permission neither directly nor indirectly given RULING: No. considered so elementary in nature as
to make a search therein (Magoncia v. their consent to the deportation. Alien prostitutes can be expelled from not even to require a constitutional
Palacio, 80 Phil. 770). the Philippine Islands in conformity sanction. Even the Governor-General of
The women landed in Davao and with an Act of congress. The Governor- the Philippine Islands, even the
receipted for as laborers by Francisco General can order the eviction of President of the United States, who has
EXPLUSION Sales, provincial governor of Davao, undesirable aliens after a hearing from often been said to exercise more power
and by Feliciano Yñigo and Rafael the Islands. Act No. 519 of the than any king or potentate, has no such
VILLAVICENCIO VS. LUKBAN Castillo had no previous notification Philippine Commission and section 733 arbitrary prerogative, either inherent or
that the women were prostitutes who of the Revised Ordinances of the city of express. Much less, therefore, has the
had been expelled from the city of Manila provide for the conviction and executive of a municipality, who acts
FACTS: Mayor of the city of Manila, Manila. punishment by a court of justice of any within a sphere of delegated powers. If
Justo Lukban, for the best of all person who is a common prostitute. Act the mayor and the chief of police could,
reasons, to exterminate vice, ordered The women then did start their only No. 899 authorizes the return of any at their mere behest or even for the
the segregated district for women of ill lives in Davao, etc. citizen of the United States, who may most praiseworthy of motives, render
repute 170 (prostitutes), which had have been convicted of vagrancy, to the the liberty of the citizen so insecure,
been permitted for a number of years in The attorney for the relatives and homeland. New York and other States then the presidents and chiefs of police
the city of Manila, closed. Between friends of the deported women have statutes providing for the of one thousand other municipalities of
October 16 and October 25, 1918, the presented an application for habeas commitment to the House of Refuge of the Philippines have the same privilege.
corpus before one of the justices of the women convicted of being common If these officials can take to themselves
such power, then any other official can being the essence of slavery itself." SEARCH WARRANTS MALICIOUSLY
do the same. And if any official can (Yick Wo vs. Hopkins [1886], 118 U.S., OBTAINED
exercise the power, then all persons 356, 370.) All this explains the motive in
would have just as much right to do so. issuing the writ of habeas corpus, and STONEHILL VS. DIOKNO
And if a prostitute could be sent against makes clear why we said in the very
her wishes and under no law from one beginning that the primary question
locality to another within the country, was whether the courts should permit a FACTS: Respondents- Prosecutors —
then officialdom can hold the same club government of men or a government of several judges — hereinafter referred to
over the head of any citizen. laws to be established in the Philippine as Respondents-Judges — issued, on
Law defines power. Centuries ago Islands. different dates, a
Magna Charta decreed that — "No total of 42 search warrants against
freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, petitioners herein4 and/or the
or be disseized of his freehold, or 3 remedies of unhappy victims of corporations of which they were
liberties, or free customs, or be official oppression: officers, to search the persons above-
outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise 1. Civil Action named and/or the premises of their
destroyed; nor will we pass upon him 2. Criminal offices, warehouses and/or residences,
nor condemn him, but by lawful 3. Habeas corpus and to seize and take possession of the
judgment of his peers or by the law of following personal property.
the land. We will sell to no man, we will
not deny or defer to any man either Search warrant contained: Books of
justice or right." (Magna Charta, 9 Hen., accounts, financial records, vouchers,
111, 1225, Cap. 29; 1 eng. stat. at Large, correspondence, receipts, ledgers,
7.) No official, no matter how high, is journals, portfolios, credit journals,
above the law. The courts are the forum typewriters, and other documents
which functionate to and/or papers showing all business
safeguard individual liberty and to transactions including disbursements
punish official transgressors. "The law," receipts, balance sheets and profit and
said Justice Miller, delivering the loss statements and Bobbins (cigarette
opinion of the Supreme Court of the wrappers).
United States, "is the only supreme as "the subject of the offense; stolen or
power in our system of government, embezzled and proceeds or fruits of the
and every man who by accepting office offense," or "used or intended to be
participates in its functions is only the used as the means of committing the
more strongly bound to submit to that offense," which is described in the
supremacy, and to observe the applications adverted to above as
limitations which it imposes upon the "violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff
exercise of the authority which it gives." and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue
(U.S. vs. Lee [1882], 106 U.S., 196, 220.) (Code) and the Revised Penal Code.
"The very idea," said Justice Matthews
of the same high tribunal in another The petitioners alleged that the search
case, "that one man may be compelled warrants were void because:
to hold his life, or the means of living, or 1. They did not describe
any material right essential to the particularly or specifically the
enjoyment of life, at the mere will of documents, books, and things
another, seems to be intolerable in any to be seized
country where freedom prevails, as
2. Cash money was not to above, since the right to object to the no specific offense had been alleged in made of the effects to be searched for
mentioned admission of said papers in evidence said applications. The averments and seized, to wit:
3. Warrants were issued to fish belongs exclusively to the corporations, thereof with respect to the offense Books of accounts, financial records,
evidence against them in to whom the seized effects belong, and committed were abstract. As a vouchers, journals, correspondence,
deportation cases filed may not be invoked by the corporate consequence, it was impossible for the receipts, ledgers, portfolios, credit
against officers in proceedings against them in judges who issued the warrants to have journals, typewriters, and other
4. The search was in an illegal their individual capacity. found the existence of probable cause, documents and/or papers showing all
manner for the same presupposes the business transactions including
5. The seized documents seized Petitioners maintain that the introduction of competent proof that disbursement receipts, balance sheets
were not delivered to the aforementioned search warrants are in the party against whom it is sought has and related profit and loss statements.
courts the nature of general warrants and that performed particular acts, or
accordingly, the seizures effected upon committed specific omissions, violating Thus, the warrants authorized the
ISSUE: W/N the search warrant was the authority thereof are null and void. a given provision of our criminal laws. search for and seizure of records
valid? As a matter of fact, the applications pertaining to all business transactions
The Constitution provides: involved in this case do not allege any of petitioners herein, regardless of
RULING: No. The right of the people to be secure in specific acts performed by herein whether the transactions were legal or
The documents, papers, and things their persons, houses, papers, and petitioners. It would be the legal illegal. The warrants sanctioned the
seized under the alleged authority of effects against unreasonable searches heresy, of the highest order, to convict seizure of all records of the petitioners
the warrants in question may be split and seizures shall not be violated, and anybody of a "violation of Central Bank and the aforementioned corporations,
into two (2) major groups, namely: (a) no warrants shall issue but upon Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, whatever their nature, thus openly
those found and seized in the offices of probable cause, to be determined by Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised contravening the explicit command of
the aforementioned corporations, and the judge after examination under oath Penal Code," — as alleged in the our Bill of Rights — that the things to
(b) those found and seized in the or affirmation of the complainant and aforementioned applications — be seized be particularly described —
residences of petitioners herein. the witnesses he may produce, and without reference to any determinate as well as tending to defeat its major
As regards the first group, we hold that particularly describing the place to be provision of said laws. objective: the elimination of general
petitioners herein have no cause of searched, and the persons or things to warrants.
action to assail the legality of the be seized. Such is the seriousness of the
contested warrants and of the seizures irregularities committed in connection
made in pursuance thereof, for the Two points must be stressed in with the disputed search warrants, that
simple reason that said corporations connection with this constitutional this Court deemed it fit to amend
have their respective personalities, mandate, namely: (1) that no warrant Section 3 of Rule 122 of the former
separate and distinct from the shall issue but upon probable cause, to Rules of Court 14 by providing in its
personality. Indeed, it is well settled be determined by the judge in the counterpart, under the Revised Rules of
that the legality of a seizure can be manner set forth in said provision; and Court that "a search warrant shall not
contested only by the party whose (2) that the warrant shall particularly issue but upon probable cause in
rights have been impaired thereby, describe the things to be seized. connection with one specific offense."
and that the objection to an unlawful Not satisfied with this qualification, the
search and seizure is purely personal None of these requirements has been Court added thereto a paragraph,
and cannot be availed of by third complied with in the contested directing that "no search warrant shall
parties. warrants. Indeed, the same were issued issue for more than one specific
upon applications stating that the offense."
Consequently, petitioners herein may natural and juridical person therein
not validly object to the use in evidence named had committed a "violation of The grave violation of the Constitution
against them of the documents, papers Central Ban Laws, Tariff and Customs made in the application for the
and things seized from the offices and Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and contested search warrants was
premises of the corporations adverted Revised Penal Code." In other words, compounded by the description therein
Services, Inc. were seized although the life was called Antonio Macabigtas, in
SEARCH WARRANTS MALICIOUSLY warrants were directed against Jose Another factor which makes the search accordance with the rites of religious
OBTAINED Burgos, Jr. Alone. warrants under consideration sect known as the "Church of Christ",
constitutionally objectionable is that willfully, unlawfully, and criminally
BURGOS VS. CHIEF OF STAFF 4. That real property was seized under they are in the nature of general caused the funeral to pass, as it in fact
the disputed warrants like machinery, warrants. passed, through the churchyard
receptacles, instruments, etc. fronting the Roman Catholic Church,
FACTS: This case questioned the In Stanford v. State of Texas, the which churchyard belongs to the said
validity of two [2] search warrants 5. The search warrant was based only search warrant which authorized the Church, which churchyard belongs to
issued on December 7, 1982 by on the affidavits of Col. Abadilla’s that search for "books, records, pamphlets, the said Church and is devoted to the
respondent Judge Ernani Cruz- Pano, they conducted surveillance of the cards, receipts, lists, memoranda, religious worship thereof, against the
Executive Judge of the then Court of premises could not have provided pictures, recordings and other written opposition of the undersigned
First Instance of Rizal [Quezon City], sufficient basis for the finding of a instruments concerning the complainant who, through force and
under which the premises of business probable cause. Communist Party in Texas," was threats of physical violence by the
addresses of the "Metropolitan Mail" declared void by the U.S. Supreme accused, was compelled to allow the
and "We Forum" newspapers were As a whole, they contend the Court for being too general. In like funeral to pass through the said
searched, and office and printing abovementioned documents could not manner, directions to "seize any churchyard. An act committed in grave
machines, equipment, paraphernalia, have provided sufficient basis for the evidence in connectionwith the profanation of the place, in open
motor vehicles and other articles used finding of a probable cause upon which violation of SDC 13-3703 or otherwise" disregard of the religious feelings of the
in the printing, publication and a warrant may validly issue in have been held too general, and that Catholics of this municipality, and in
distribution of the said newspapers, as accordance with Section 3, Article IV of portion of a search warrant which violation of Article 133 of the Revised
well as numerous papers, documents, the 1973 Constitution. authorized the seizure of any Penal Code.
books and other written literature "paraphernalia which could be used to
alleged to be in the possession and ISSUE: W/N there is probable cause on violate Sec. 54-197 of the Connecticut The complaint was filed by Jose Baes,
control of petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. the part of Judge Pano to sufficiently General Statutes [the statute dealing who was the parish priest.
publisher-editor of the "We Forum" issue a search warrant? with the crime of conspiracy]" was held
newspaper, were seized to be used as to be a general warrant, and therefore At most they might be chargeable with
an evidence against Burgos in a criminal RULING: No. invalid. The description of the articles having threatened the parish priest, or
case filed against him. Probable cause for a search is defined sought to be seized under the search with having passed through a private
as such facts and circumstances which warrants in question cannot be property without the consent of the
The petitioners contested that would lead a reasonably discreet and characterized differently. owner. Justice Albert, commenting on
1. The judge failed to conduct an prudent man to believe that an offense the article, has this to say: "An act is said
examination under oath or affirmation has been committed and that the OFFENDING RELIGIOUS BELIEFS to be notoriously offensive to the
of the applicant and his witnesses, as objects sought in connection with the religious feelings of the faithful when a
mandated by the above-quoted offense are in the place sought to be PEOPLE VS. BAES person ridicules or makes light of
constitutional provision as wen as Sec. searched. And when the search warrant anything constituting a religious
4, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. applied for is directed against a dogma; works or scoffs at anything
2. There are two (2) search warrants newspaper publisher or editor in FACTS: Enrique Villaroca, Alejandro devoted to religious ceremonies; plays
issued but pinpointed only one place connection with the publication of Lacbay and Bernardo del Rosario was with or damages or destroys any object
where petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. was subversive materials, as in the case at charged with an offense against of veneration by the faithful." The mere
allegedly keeping and concealing the bar, the application and/or its religion committed as follows: act of causing the passage through the
articles listed. supporting affidavits must contain a churchyard belonging to the Church, of
specification, stating with particularity That on April 14, 1937, at about 9 o'clock the funeral of one who in life belonged
3. That the articles belonging to his co- the alleged subversive material he has a.m., in this municipality of Lumban, to the Church of Christ, neither offends
petitioners Jose Burgos, Sr., Bayani published or is intending to publish. Province of Laguna, Philippines, and, nor ridicules the religious feelings of
Soriano and the J. Burgos Media Mere generalization will not suffice. while holding the funeral of one who in
those who belong to the Roman rebellion cannot be a complex crime
Catholic Church. TITLE III CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC with murder, arson or robbery. Senator Enrile filed for petition of
ORDER habeas corpus.
ISSUE: W/N the passing in the ISSUE: W/N the attacks that were
churchyard by the accused already was REBELLION, INSURRECTION, COUP committed by the accused in the The Solicitor General filed a
an act which offended religious beliefs? D’ETAT commission of rebellion should be consolidated return which urged that
treated as a separate offense? the petitioners' case does not fall within
RULING: Yes. PEOPLE VS. HERNANDEZ the Hernandez ruling because-and this
Whether or of the act complained of is RULING: No. is putting it very simply-the information
offensive to the religious feelings of the About March 15, 1945, Amado in Hernandez charged murders and
Catholics, is a question of fact which Hernandez and other appellants were The Court ruled that “murder, arson, other common crimes committed as a
must be judged only according to the accused of conspiring, confederating and robbery are mere ingredient of the necessary means for the commission of
feelings of the Catholics and not those and cooperating with each other, as crime of rebellion as means “necessary” rebellion, whereas the information
of other faithful ones, for it is possible well as with the thirty-one (31) for the perpetration of the offense. against Sen. Enrile et al. charged
that certain acts may offend the defendants charged in the criminal Such common offense is absorbed or murder and frustrated murder
feelings of those who profess a certain cases of the Court of First Instance of inherent of the crime of rebellion. committed on the occasion, but not in
religion, while not otherwise offensive Manila. They were accused of being Inasmuch as the acts specified in Article furtherance, of rebellion. Stated
to the feelings of those professing members of PKP Community Party of 135 constitutes, one single crime it otherwise, the Solicitor General would
another faith. the Philippines which was actively follows that said acts offer no occasion distinguish between the complex crime
engaged in an armed rebellion against for the application of Article 48 which ("delito complejo") arising from an
We, therefore, take the view that the the government of the Philippines. requires therefore the commission of at offense being a necessary means for
facts alleged in the complaint With the party of HUKBALAHAP least two crimes. committing another, which is referred
constitute the offense defined and (Hukbo ng Bayan Laban sa mga to in the second clause of Article 48,
penalized in article 133 of the Revised Hapon), they committed the crime of HERNANDEZ DOCTRINE: Rebellion Revised Penal Code, and is the subject
Penal Code, and should the fiscal file an rebellion causing murder, pillage, cannot be complexed with common of the Hernandez ruling, and the
information alleging the said facts and looting plunder, etc., enumerated in 13 crimes such as killings, destruction of compound crime ("delito compuesto")
a trial be thereafter held at which the attacks on government forces or property, etc., committed on the arising from a single act constituting
said facts should be conclusively civilians by HUKS. occasion and in furtherance thereof. two or more grave or less grave
established, the court may find the The thinking is not anymore correct offenses referred to in the first clause of
accused guilty of the offense They committed the crimes of rebellion more so that there is no legal basis for the same paragraph, with which
complained of, or that of coercion, or with multiple murder, arsons and such rule now. Rebellion constitutes Hernandez was not concerned and to
that of trespass under article 281 of the robberies, kidnapping. ONLY ONE CRIME. *** which, therefore, it should not apply.
Revised Penal Code, as may be proper,
pursuant to section 29 of General The government, headed by the ENRILE VS. SALAZAR The parties written pleas presented the
Orders, No. 58. Solicitor General, argued that the Court:
gravity of the crime committed FACTS: In the afternoon of February 27,
required the denial of bail. Moreover, 1990, Senate Minority Floor Leader (a) abandon Hernandez and adopt the
the complex crime charged by the Juan Ponce Enrile was arrested by law minority view expressed in the main
government against Hernandez has enforcement together with the spouses dissent of Justice Montemayor in said
been successfully imposed with other Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio, and case that rebellion cannot absorb more
arrested communist leaders and was Gregorio Honasan with the crime of serious crimes, and that under Article
sentenced to life imprisonment. rebellion with murder and multiple 48 of the Revised Penal Code rebellion
frustrated murder allegedly committed may properly be complexed with
The accused defended and questioned during the period of the failed coup common offenses, so-called; this
the decision of the CFI of Rizal that attempt from November 29 to option was suggested by the Solicitor
December 10, 1990.
General in oral argument although it is occasion, either as a means or order, as well as such common crimes Recovered from the grave site were 67
not offered in his written pleadings; as an unintended effect. as may be committed to achieve a severely deteriorated skeletal remains
political purpose. The decisive factor is believed to be victims of Operation VD.
(b) hold Hernandez applicable only to ENRILE VS. AMIN the intent or motive. (p. 536)
offenses committed in furtherance, or The PNP Scene of the Crime Operation
as a necessary means for the The crime of rebellion consists of many (SOCO) Team based in Regional Office
commission, of rebellion, but not to FACTS: December 1, 1989, Ernile acts. It is described as a vast movement 8 was immediately dispatched to the
acts committed in the course of a allegedly having reasonable ground to of men and a complex net of intrigues mass grave site to conduct crime
rebellion which also constitute believe or suspect that Ex-Col. Gregorio and plots. (People v. Almasan [CA] O.G. investigation, and to collect, preserve
"common" crimes of grave or less grave "Gringo" Honasan has committed a 1932). and analyze the skeletal remains.6
character; crime, did then and there unlawfully, Also, from 11-17 September 2006, an
feloniously, willfully and knowingly Jurisprudence tells us that acts investigation team composed of
(c) maintain Hernandez as applying to obstruct, impede, frustrate or delay the committed in furtherance of the intelligence officers, and medico-legal
make rebellion absorb all other apprehension of said Ex. Lt. Col. rebellion though crimes in themselves and DNA experts, conducted forensic
offenses committed in its course, Gregorio "Gringo" Honasan by are deemed absorbed in the one crime analysis and collected from
whether or not necessary to its harboring or concealing him in his single crime of rebellion. (People v. alleged relatives of the victims DNA
commission or in furtherance thereof. house as Geronimo, 100 Phil. 90 [1956]; People v. samples for matching.
Santos, 104 Phil. 551 [1958]; People v.
RULING: The prosecution in this Makati case Rodriguez, 107 Phil. 659 [1960]; People However, in a Special Report10 dated 2
alleges that the Enrile entertained and v. Lava, 28 SCRA 72 [1969]). October 2006, the Case Secretariat of
1. In the view of the majority, the accommodated Col. Honasan by giving the Regional and National Inter-
ruling remains good law, its him food and comfort on December 1, In this case, the act of harboring or Agency Legal Action Group (IALAG)
substantive and logical bases 1989 in his house. Knowing that Colonel concealing Col. Honasan is clearly a came up with the names of ten (10)
have withstood all subsequent Honasan is a fugitive from justice, Sen. mere component or ingredient of possible victims after comparison and
challenges and no new ones Enrile allegedly did not do anything to rebellion or an act done in furtherance examination based on testimonies of
are presented here persuasive have Honasan arrested or of the rebellion. It cannot therefore be relatives and witnesses.1
enough to warrant a complete apprehended. And because of such made the basis of a separate charge.
reversal. failure the petitioner prevented Col. Also attached to the letters were the
2. The Hernandez ruling does Honasan's arrest and conviction in OCAMPO VS. ABANDO affidavits of Zacarias Piedad,12
not only apply and be limited violation of Section 1 (c) of PD No. 1829. Leonardo C. Tanaid, Floro M. Tanaid,
to offenses committed as a FACTS: Chief Inspector Almaden and Numeriano Beringuel, Glecerio Roluna
necessary means for the Enrile is now facing charges of rebellion Army Captain Tiu of the 8th Infantry of and Veronica P. Tabara. They narrated
commission of rebellion and in conspiracy with the fugitive Col. the Philippine Army sent 12 undated that they were former members of the
that the ruling should be Gringo Honasan. Necessarily, being in letters to the Provincial Prosecutor of CPP/NPA/NDFP. According to them,
interpreted as prohibiting the conspiracy with Honasan, petitioners Leyte Vivero. The letters requested Operation VD was ordered in 1985 by
complexing of rebellion with alleged act of harboring or concealing appropriate legal action on 12 the CPP/NPA/NDFP Central
other common crimes was for no other purpose but in complaint-affidavits attached accusing Committee. Allegedly, petitioners
committed on the occasion, furtherance of the crime of rebellion 71 members of the CPP/NPA/NDFP of Saturnino C. Ocampo (Ocampo),
but not in furtherance, thus constitute a component thereof murder. Randall B. Echanis (Echanis), Rafael G.
thereof. and it was motivated by the single Baylosis (Baylosis), and Vicente P.
3. Clarified that the Hernandez intent or resolution to commit the The letters narrated that on 26 August Ladlad (Ladlad) were then members of
doctrine remains binding to crime of rebellion. As held in People v. 2006, elements of the 43rd Infantry the Central Committee.
prohibit the complexing of Hernandez, supra: Brigade of the Philippine Army
rebellion with any other discovered a mass grave site of the Petitioner Ocampo argued that a case
offense committed on the In short, political crimes are those CPP/NPA/NDFP at Sitio Sapang Daco, of rebellion argued that a case of
directly aimed against the political Barangay Kaulisihan, Inopacan, Leyte.4 rebellion against him and 44 others that
was then pending and interposed the But when the political offense doctrine A first jeopardy attaches only after the
political offense doctrine that common is asserted as a defense in the trial accused has been acquitted or FACTS: Police officer Lucilo was
crimes such as the murder are already court, it becomes crucial for the court convicted, or the case has been walking when a man suddenly walked
absorbed in the crime of rebellion when to determine whether the act of dismissed or otherwise terminated beside him and pulled a gun from his
committed as a necessary means in killing was done in furtherance of a without his express consent, by a waist and aimed at the policeman’s ear
connection with and in furtherance of political end, and for the political competent court in a valid indictment and shot.
rebellion. motive of the act to be conclusively for which the accused has entered a
demonstrated. valid plea during arraignment. The incident was witnessed from a
ISSUE: W/N the political offense distance of about nine meters by
doctrine can be a defense for the Petitioners aver that the records show To recall, on 12 May 2006, an Nestor Armenta, a 25 year old welder
charges against the petitioners? that the alleged murders were Information for the crime of rebellion, from Pilar, Sorsogon, who claimed that
committed in furtherance of the docketed as Criminal Case No. 06-944 he knew both the victim and the man
RULING: No. CPP/NPA/NDFP rebellion, and that the was filed before the RTC Makati against who fired the fatal shot. Armenta
Under the political offense doctrine, political motivation behind the alleged petitioners and several others. identified the man who fired at the
"common crimes, perpetrated in murders can be clearly seen from the deceased as Elias Lovedioro y Castro,
furtherance of a political offense, are charge against the alleged top leaders However, petitioners were never his nephew (appellant's father was his
divested of their character as of the CPP/NPA/NDFP as co- arraigned in Criminal Case No. 06-944. first cousin) and alleged that he knew
"common" offenses and assume the conspirators. Even before the indictment for the victim from the fact that the latter
political complexion of the main crime rebellion was filed before the RTC was a resident of Bagumbayan.
of which they are mere ingredients, We had already ruled that the burden of Makati, petitioners Ocampo, Echanis
and, consequently, cannot be punished demonstrating political motivation and Ladlad had already filed a petition Provincial prosecutor of Albay, on
separately from the principal offense, must be discharged by the defense, before this Court to seek the November 6, 1992 filed an Information
or complexed with the same, to justify since motive is a state of mind which nullification of the Orders of the DOJ charging accused-appellant Elias
the imposition of a graver penalty." only the accused knows. The proof denying their motion for the inhibition Lovedioro y Castro of the crime of
showing political motivation is adduced of the members of the prosecution Murder. After trial, Lovedioro was
Any ordinary act assumes a different during trial where the accused is panel due to lack of impartiality and convicted beyond reasonable doubt as
nature by being absorbed in the crime assured an opportunity to present independence. When the indictment principal acting in conspiracy with his
of rebellion. Thus, when a killing is evidence supporting his defense. It is was filed, petitioners Ocampo, Echanis co-accused who were still at large.
committed in furtherance of rebellion, not for this Court to determine this and Ladlad filed supplemental petitions
the killing is not homicide or murder. factual matter in the instant petitions. to enjoin the prosecution of Criminal In the instant appeal, interposed the
Rather, the killing assumes the political Case No. 06-944. We eventually question on whether the trial court
complexion of rebellion as its mere If it is shown that the proper charge ordered the dismissal of the rebellion decision found him guilty of murder and
ingredient and must be prosecuted and against petitioners should have been case. It is clear then that a first jeopardy not rebellion because of Amernta’s
punished as rebellion alone. simple rebellion, the trial court shall never had a chance to attach. testimony that he should have been
dismiss the murder charges upon the charged with rebellion and not murder
However, this is not to say that public filing of the Information for simple because he was identified as a member
prosecutors are obliged to consistently rebellion, as long as petitioners would of NPA and that it was a means to or in
charge respondents with simple not be placed in double jeopardy. furtherance of subversive ends.
rebellion instead of common crimes.
No one disputes the well-entrenched Based on Sec 7, Rule 117, double ISSUE: W/N the crime committed by
principle in criminal procedure that the jeopardy only applies when: (1) a first Loverdioro was only murder and not
institution of criminal charges, jeopardy attached; (2) it has been rebellion?
including whom and what to charge, is validly terminated; and (3) a second
addressed to the sound discretion of jeopardy is for the same offense as in RULING: Yes.
the public prosecutor. the first. PEOPLE VS. LOVEDIORO
Jurisprudence provides that it must be the prerogative of rejecting only a part penalty imposable upon him. It is of
that such common crimes are of a witness' testimony while upholding judicial notice that in many NPA
committed to achieve a political the rest of it.29 While disbelieving the infested areas, crimes have been all-
purpose and the decisive factor is the portion of Armenta's testimony on too-quickly attributed to the
intent or the motive and the burden of appellant's alleged membership in the furtherance of an ideology or under the
proving political motive falls on the NPA, the trial court correctly gave cloak of political color for the purpose
defense (not the prosecution) since it is credence to his unflawed narration of mitigating the imposable penalty
a state of mind that the accused only about how the crime was committed.30 when in fact they are no more than
knows. Such narration is even corroborated in ordinary crimes perpetrated by
its pertinent portions, except as to the common criminals.
It bears emphasis that nowhere in his identity of the gun wielder, by the
entire extrajudicial confession (which testimony of the appellant himself.
only provided that he was only a look- In any case, appellant's claim regarding
out in the group and it was Alwin who the political color attending the
shot the policeman) did appellant ever commission of the crime being a matter SEDITION
mention that he was a member of the of defense, its viability depends on his
New People's Army. A thorough sole and unsupported testimony. He PEOPLE VS. UMALI
reading of the same reveals nothing testified that, upon the prodding of
which would suggest that the killing in alias Alwin and alias Samuel, he joined
which he was a participant was the NPA because of the organization's PEOPLE VS. CABRERA
motivated by a political purpose. goals.31 He claimed that his two
Moreover, the information filed against companions shot Lucilo because he
appellant, based on sworn statements, "had offended our organization,"32 INCITING TO SEDITION
did not contain any mention or allusion without, however, specifying what the
as to the involvement of the NPA in the "offense" was. Appellant claimed that US VS. TOLENTINO
death of SPO3 Lucilo.26 Even he had been a member of the NPA for
prosecution eyewitness Nestor five months before the shooting ESPUELAS VS. PEOPLE
Armenta did not mention the NPA in his incident.33
sworn statement of October 19, As correctly observed by the Solicitor
1992.27 General, appellant's contentions are
As the record would show, allegations couched in terms so general and non-
relating to appellant's membership in specific34 that they offer no
the NPA surfaced almost merely as an explanation as to what contribution the
afterthought, something which the killing would have made towards the
defense merely picked up and followed achievement of the NPA's subversive
through upon prosecution eyewitness aims. SPO3 Jesus Lucilo, a mere
Armenta's testimony on cross- policeman, was never alleged to be an
examination that he knew appellant to informer. No acts of his were
be a member of the NPA. Interestingly, specifically shown to have offended the
however, in the same testimony, NPA. Against appellant's attempts to
Armenta admitted that he was "forced" shade his participation in the killing
to pinpoint appellant as an NPA with a political color, the evidence on
member.28 The logical result, of record leaves the impression that
course, was that the trial court did not appellant's bare allegations of
give any weight and credence to said membership in the NPA was
testimony. The trial court, after all, had conveniently infused to mitigate the