Z

CRIMINAL LAW 2 CASES
(2) Crimes Against The Fundamental Laws of the State | Under PJ Amparo Cabotaje-Tang (2019)

ARTICLE 124 - ARBITRARY DETENTION ARTICLE 133 - OFFENDING THE RELIGIOUS FEELINGS
1. Astorga vs. People. 412 SCRA 152 (2003) 1. Carlos Celdran v. People, G.R. No. 220127 (2018)
Tags: mayor; “don’t you know that i can box?!”; b a n c a banca banca Tags: morebirthdays2come; damaso
2. Astorga vs. People (2004)
Tags: haha inoverturn nila; f e a r; ayaw ni JT dito
3. Padilla vs. Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA 402 (1997)
Tags: ROBIN; PMA 777; Manukan sa Highway; kawawa balut vendor

ARTICLE 125 - DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF DETAINED

PERSONS TO THE PROPER JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES
1. Soria vs. Desierto, 450 SCRA 339 (2005)

Tags: no-office day, holiday, proper application of 12-18-36 periods
2. Agbay vs. Deputy Ombudsman for the Military, 309 SCRA 726 (1999)
Tags: finger sa tricycle; pag di niyo pa alam: proper judicial authorities

ARTICLE 128 - VIOLATION OF DOMICILE
1. G
eroche v. People, GR No. 179080 (2014)
Tags: LSPI LANG DAPAT PERO NATANGA HAHAHA MR PA

ARTICLE 130 - SEARCHING DOMICILE W/O WITNESSES
1. Moncado vs. People, 80 Phil. 1 (1948)

Tags: SPEEEEEEEEEYNISH
2. Galvante vs. Casimiro, 552 SCRA 304 (2008)
T
ags: retired policeman, firearms

ARTICLE 131 - PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION AND

DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL MEETINGS
1. Evangelista vs. Earnshaw, 57 Phil. 255 (1932)

Tags: COMMUNISM
2. Gonzales vs. COMELEC, 27 SCRA 835 (1969)
Tags: election, conzeeshushonality

Deconstructed cases | Maria Andrea Louise T. Barba - Jessu R. Trinidad | 1
● 5-6pm or about 45 mins later; a banca arrived bearing 10 men;
dressed in fatigue uniforms; armed with M-14 and M-16 rifles; they
ARTICLE 124 - ARBITRARY DETENTION surrounded the team, guns pointed
○ Simon tried to explain their mission to Astorga; he also
took out his handheld ICOM radio to inform his people at
DENR Catbalogan them about their whereabouts
*1. ASTORGA V. PEOPLE (2003)1 ○ Astorga grabbed it, saying, “It’s better if you have no radio
FACTS: so that your office would not know your whereabouts and
● September 1, 1997 - A team was sent by Regional Special so that you cannot ask for help.”
Operations Group (RSOG) of the DENR Office No. 8, Tacloban City ○ Slapped again the right shoulder of Simon, adding, “If you
to conduct intelligence gathering and forest protection operations.2 are tough guys in Leyte, do not being it to Samar because I
○ Composed of: will not tolerate it here.”
○ Team leader: Elpidio E. Simon, Chief of the Forest ○ Simon asked the Mayor to allow them to go home; Astorga
Protection and Law Enforcement Section said no, brought to to Daram instead.
○ Team members: Forester II Moises dela Cruz, Scaler ○ Mayor to the team: “If you really want to confiscate
Wenifredo Maniscan, Forest Ranger Renato Militante, and anything, you start with the big-time. If you confiscate the
Tree Marker Crisanto Pelias boats of Figueroa at Brgy. Bagacay, I will surrender mine.”
○ Escorted by SPO3 Andres B. Cinco, Jr. and SPO1 Rufo ○ Simon reiterated his request his request for permission to
Capoquian. leave; only irked Astorga who said, “You cannot go home
● 2 pm, same day - stopped at Brgy. Bagacay, Daram, Western Samar; now because I will bring you to Daram. We will have many
saw two yacht-like boats being constructed things to discuss there.”
○ Consulted with local brgy. Officials, learned it belonged to ○ Brought to a house where they would be served dinner
Michael Figueroa ● 7-8pm - dinner with Mayor Astorga, et al., at a long table
○ Figueroa not present, left Brgy. Bagacay ● Militante Maniscan and SPO1 Capoquian were allowed to go down
● Between 4:30-5pm - en route to Brgy. Manungca, Sta. Rita, Samar, from the house, not to leave barangay. SPO3 Cinco, et al. just rested
the team spotted two more boats being constructed in the vicinity sa house until 2 AM when they were finally allowed to leave.
of Brgy. Lucob-Lucob, Daram, Samar; ● Complainants filed a criminal complaint for arbitrary detention
○ Maniscan and Militante disembarked from the DENR’s against Mayor Astorga and his men, which led to the Office of the
service pump boat and proceeded to the construction; met Ombudsman filing an Information against Benito Astorga, Mayor
Mayor Astorga of Daram, Samar, and his men. (October 28, 1998)
○ After talking, Militante returned to their boat for the ● July 3, 2000 - arraignment; pleaded not guilty
purpose of fetching Team Leader Simon, at the request of ● During trial - prosecution presented the testimonies of SPO1
Mayor Astorga Capoquian and SPO2 Cinco + Joint Affidavit; none of the team
● Simon, accompanied by SPO3 Cinco and SPO1 Capoquian, members came to testify; members of the team sent by DENR
approached Mayor Astorga to try and explain the purpose of their RSOG executed a Joint Affidavit of Desistance
mission; suddenly slapped hard twice on the shoulder by the Mayor:
“I can make you swim back to Tacloban. Don’t you know that I can SANDIGANBAYAN: July 5, 2001; Benito Astorga Y Bocatcat; guilty of
box? I can box. Don’t you know that I can declare this a Arbitrary Detention; no MC nor AAC; applied ISLAW, sentenced to suffer
misencounter?” imprisonment of 4 months of AM as minimum to 1 year and 8 months of PC
● Astorga ordered someone to fetch “reinforcements” as maximum.

MAYOR ASTORGA FILED:
1
G.R. No. 154130 | October 1, 2003 | First Division | Ynares-Santiago, J. ● MR: filed on July 11, 2001; denied by Sandiganbayan reso (Sept. 28,
2001)
2
Why? Gov’t had a campaign against illegal logging

● 2MR: O ctober 24, 2001; denied by reso July 10, 2012 ○ Despite pleas, they were not allowed to go home >
● Petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rule of Court: seeking followed by armed “reinforcements” > circled by them,
reversal of SANDY decision and resolutions weapons pointed at them. Gave credence to SPO1
Capoquian’s statement: it was not “safe” to refuse Mayor
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT: basis of the court were mere speculations; Astorga’s orders.
did not consider the Affidavit of Desistance which declared his innocence;
prosecution failed to establish the required quantum of evidence to prove the 2. Other issues:
his guilty; mere presence of armed men does not qualify as competent ● Joint Affidavit of Desistance - not a clear repudiation of the
evidence to prove that fear was in fact instilled in the minds of the team material points alleged but mere expression of the lack of interest
members, to the extent that they would feel compelled to stay; and trial court of private complainants to pursue the case.4
erred in relying on testimony of SPO1 Capoquian for the reason that the ● Testimony of SPO1 Capoquian - doctrine that the trial court’s
latter is not one of the private complainants in the case. factual findings are conclusive and binding upon appellate courts
unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have
HELD: Petition denied. Affirmed the decision of Sandiganbayan. been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted. Nothing in
this case. Not required by penal law and rules of evidence that only
1. Court discussed the elements of AD: private complainants should give testimony. Also, SPO1 witnesses
all the circumstances which led to the AD of the team.
Elements of Arbitrary Detention:
● SPO3 Cinco - they did not use the time between their dinner with
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee. Mayor Astorga and their departure the following morning to “enjoy
2. That he detains a person. the place”; if given a choice, would’ve gone home.
3. That the detention is without legal grounds. ● Denied the cold neutrality of an impartial judge; ponente acted
both as magistrate and advocate, extensive and clarificatory
question - Sandy just did their job ok “ferret out the truth” “not an
First element: present. Mayor of Daram, Samar idle arbiter during trial”
Third element: present. Petitioner admitted that his acts were motivated by
his instinct for self-preservation. He felt that he was singled out. Regarding the penalty:
● Detention has not exceeded three days = AM max to PC min (4
Second element: present. months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months)
● Prevailing jurisprudence3 on kidnapping and illegal detention: ● Apply ISLAW; minimum = AM min and med (1 month and 1 day to
curtailment of the victims liberty need not involve any physical 4 months)
restraint upon the victim’s person. If the acts and actuations of the ● TAMA LANG SI SANDY ANU BA 5
accused can produce such fear in the mind of the victim sufficient
to paralyze the latter, to the extent that the victim is compelled to
limit his own actions and movements in accordance with the
wishes of the accused, then the victim is detained against his will.
● In this case, restraint resulting from fear is evident.
4
People v. Ballabare: AoD is merely an additional ground to buttress the defense of
the accused, not the sole consideration that can result in acquittal. There must be
3 other circumstances which, when coupled with the retraction or desistance create
Cases cited:
doubts as to the truth of the testimony given by the witnesses at the trial and accepted
● People v. Acosta: illegal detention of a child. Still kidnapping despite lack of
by the judge. Not applicable in this case.
physical restraint. Boy of tender age was ordered not to leave; feared to
violate instruction.
5
Ebas lang J. Ynares-Santiago na nag quote pa ng opinion ni J. Perfecto (Lino v.
● People v. Cortez: not necessary that offended party be kept within an Fugoso); skip mo na, na-overturn naman eh HAHAHA:
● Law punishing arbitrary or illegal detention already in effect during Spanish regime;
enclosure to restrict freedom of locomotion.She did not attempt to leave the ● Minsan lang daw magkaroon ng prosecutions under this provision since erring
premises; afraid that kidnappers were to act upon their threats. Fear not individuals and prosecuting officers belong to the same government
baseless; kidnappers knew where she resided. ● “Earnest enforcement” will reduce to its minimum the trampling of personal freedom

○ Municipal mayor merely extended his hospitality and

2. ASTORGA V. PEOPLE (2004)6 entertained the DENR team in his house
● Petitioner seeks a reconsideration of October 1, 2003 Decision ○ SPO1 C’s narration:
● Private offended parties are members of DENR RSOG Tacloban ○ Questioned by Atty. Jumamil: On their way to Brgy. Sta
City Rita in Daram but saw a boat being constructed so
● On sept 1, 1997 – with SPO3 and SPO1 of the Philippine National proceeded to Brgy. Lucodlucod; arrived at 5pm; left at 2am
Police Regional Intelligence Group were sent to the Island of of sept 2; had wine; they did not drink wine haha sad
Daram, Western Samar to conduct intelligence operations on ○ Questioned by AJ Nario: SPO1 mentioned that he could
possible illegal logging activities not hear the convo between Mayor and the foresters; they
● 4:30-5pm – found two boats measuring 18 meters in length and 5 were just laughing
meters in breadth; Brgy. Locob-Locob; met Mayor Astorga, owner ○ Questioned by AJ Palattao: “probably they were talking of
of the boats; had an altercation; same facts something humorous”
○ Note: Mention that he was charged with and convicted of ● Testimonial evidence shows there was no actual restraint imposed
Arbitrary Detention by Sandy; affirmed in toto by SC on the private offended parties;
● Petitioner filed a MR, denied with finality on January 12, 2004 ○ SPO1 – free to leave the house and roam around the
● Petitioner filed an “Urgent Motion for Leave to File Second Motion barangay
for Reconsideration” with attached “MR”; following submissions: ○ Questioned by Atty. Jumamil: condition of the sea was
1. Armed men were not summoned for the purpose of good when they arrived in Lucoblucob; it was raining from
detaining private offended parties; 8pm to 1 am; possible that petitioner prevented the team
2. No evidence that supposed victims insisted on leaving the from leaving the island since it was unsafe for them to
place where they were supposed to be detained; travel by boat; rain was “a little bit hard” (haha title of ur
3. Victims themselves declared the innocence of petitioner; sextape); doesn’t know when the rain stopped
4. Criminal intent is wanting ○ Questioned by AJ Palattao: they were not explicitly told
● Subsequently, petitioner filed a Supplement to the Second Motion not to leave the place; doesn’t know if they would’ve been
for Reconsideration apprehended if they left the place; can go to places but not
● Prosecution was required to comment on both filings by petitioner leave barangay lucoblucob;
● SC: grounds were well-taken ● Mr. Elpidio Simon – one of the private offended parties, took the
○ GR: second MR is a prohibited pleading; sound discretion witnesses stand on August 16, 2000
of the court to admit the same, provided it is filed with ○ Did not complete his testimony-in-chief due to lack of
prior leave whenever substantive justice may be better material time
served thereby ○ Only covered preliminary matters; did not touch the
○ Rules of procedure are tools designed to facilitate the circumstances of the alleged detention
attainment of justice; ● August 23, 2000 – Joint Affidavit of Desistance by the private
○ Technicalities take a backseat against substantive rights offended parties, namely, Elpidio E. Simon, Moises de la Cruz,
○ Suspend the rules if it would frustrate rather than promote Renato Militante, Crisanto Pellas and Wenefredo Maniscan
justice ○ Human limitation aggravated by the exhaustion of the
● Mentioned the elements again of AD team in scouring the shores of the small islands of Samar
● Determinative factor in AD, in absence of actual physical restraint, for several days; same predicament of Mayor; resulted to a
is fear heated argument à misunderstanding
● No proof that petitioner instilled fear in the minds of the offended ○ Misinterpreted the invitation; Mayor Astorga is the local
parties → based this on the narration of SPO1 Capoquian Chief Executive of the Municipality of Daram, Samar;
respect prevailed when he ordered us to take dinner with
him and other local residents
○ After a natural and spontaneous conversation
6
G.R. No. 154130 | August 20, 2014 | Special First Division | Ynares- Santiago, J.

○ Required by their supervisors to submit an affidavit ● 8pm, October 26, 1992 – Enrique Manarang and his compadre
○ Differences had already been reconciled; both parties Danny Perez inside the Manukan sa Highway Restaurant in Sto.
expressed their apologies; no longer interested to pursue Kristo, Angeles City; took shelter from the heavy downpour that
the case against the Mayor had interrupted their ride on their motorcycles along Mac Arthur
● Private offended parties did not appear in court to testify; still, the Highway
Sandy convicted petitioner based on the testimonies of the police ● While inside the restaurant, Manarang noticed a vehicle, a
escorts of the DENR team Mitsubishi Pajero, running fast down the highway; observed that
● SPO1 testimonies negate the elements of detention; car might get into an accident considering the inclement weather
● Fear is a state of mind, it is subjective; it must be viewed in the (local vernacular)
light of the perception and judgment of the victim at the time of the ● After the car had passed the restaurant, M&P heard a screeching
crime sound produced by the sudden and hard braking of a vehicle
● SPO1 and SPO3, not being the victims, were not competent to running very fast followed by a sickening sound of the vehicle
testify on W/N fear existed in the minds of the private offended hitting something
parties therein à error of Sandy to have relied on their testimonies ● Danny Cruz (NAGING CRUZ BIGLA HAHAHA) unsure of what
● Circumstances capable of two interpretations happened remarked that Manarang had been right in his
○ Private offended parties were prevented from leaving until observation
2am ● M&C went out to investigate; saw vehicle occupying the edge or
○ Petitioner merely extended his hospitality and served shoulder of the highway giving it a slight tilt to its side
dinner and drinks to the team at his house ● Manarang, member of both the Spectrum, a civic group and the
○ He could have advised them to stay on the island; sea Barangay Disaster Coordinating Council, decided to report the
travel was unsafe due to heavy rains; incident to the PNP of Angeles City
○ Ate together with the private offended parties;; laughed ○ Took out his radio; called the Viper, the radio controller of
with them while conversing over dinner the PNP of Angeles City; as he completed his call, vehicle
○ Inconsistent with a hostile confrontation between the had started to leave, direction of north
parties; Mayor also served alcoholic drinks, not at all ● Manarang went to the location of the accident; found that
unusual that his guests left the house at 2AM, the somebody was hit
following morning ● M asked C to look after the victim, returned to the resto, rode his
● Presumption of innocence; entitled to acquittal unless his guilt is motorcycle, chased the vehicle
shown beyond reasonable doubt → which is moral certainty, or that ○ Able to make out the plate number of the vehicle: PMA
degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced 777
mind. ○ Called the viper once again, reported that vehicle was
○ Prosecution’s evidence must stand or fall on its own merit; heading north, plate number, hit and run accident
cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of ● Viper, aka SPO2 Ruby Buan flashed the message to all units of the
the evidence for the defense; Prosec’s evidence is weak PNP Angeles City with the order to apprehend the vehicle
○ “when the circumstances are capable of two or more inferences, as in this case, one of
which is consistent wth the presumption of innocence while the other is compatible
○ A unit received the alarm, Patrol Division at Jake Gonzales
with guilt, the presumption of innocence must prevail and the court must acquit. It is Street near the Traffic Division (Mobile No. 3)
better to acquit a guilty man than to convict an innocent man.” [do u aGreE] ■ SPO2 Juan C. Borja III and SPO2 Ermelito
Miranda boarded a mobile patrol vehicle;
positioned themselves near the south approach of
*3. PADILLA V. CA7
Abacan bridge (only passable way going to the
F
ACTS: north)
■ Ten seconds – from office to the Abacan bridge
○ Another PNP mobile patrol vehicle responded to the flash
message: Mobile No. 7 of the Pulongmaragal Detachment.
7
G.R. No. 121917 | March 12, 1997 | Third Division | Francisco, J.

On board were SPO Ruben Mercado and SPO3 Tan and ○ Pointed out the plate number was dangling, railing and
SPO2 Odejar the hood were dented
■ SPO Mercado told SPO3 Tan to proceed to the ○ Arrogantly (emphasized talaga sa case HAHA) denied his
MacArthur Highway to intercept the vehicle with misdeed
plate number PMA 777 ○ Played with the crowd, held their hands with one hand and
● Manarang continued to chase the vehicle, passing thru a flooded pointed at SPO2 Borja with his right hand saying, “iyan
portion (2 feet deep) of the MacArthur Highway in front of INC kinuha ang baril ko”
church; he could not catch up with the vehicle ○ Short jacket; exposed a long magazine of an armalite rifle
● Saw that the car was heading towards Magalang, he proceeded to tucked in appellant’s back right pocket
Abacan bridge because he knew Pulongmaragal was not passable ○ SPO Mercado saw this; so when appellant turned around
● Reached Abacan bridge, found Mobile No. 3 and SPO2 Borja III as he was talking and proceeding to his vehicle, Mercado
and SPO2 Miranda confiscated the magazine
○ Informed them of the incident; went back to where he ○ Suspecting that he might also be carrying a rifle inside the
came from vehicle, prevented the appellant from going back to his
● Manarang was in front of Tina’s restaurant when he saw the vehicle by opening himself the door of vehicle
vehicle emerging from the corner adjoining Tina’s resto; saw the ○ Saw a baby armalite rifle lying horizontally at the front
license plate; followed towards the Abacan bridge by the driver’s seat
● Vehicle within sight of SPO2s Borja and Miranda; 12 meters from ■ Long magazine filled with live bullets in a
their position, they boarded their Mobile car; cut into the path of semi-automatic mode
the vehicle forcing it to stop ○ Asked the papers. At home daw sabi ni appellant
○ Alighted the mobile car ■ SPO modified the arrest of appellant by including
○ SPO2 Miranda approached the car and instructed its as its ground of illegal possession of firearms
driver to alight ■ Read his constitutional rights
○ Driver rolled down the window and put his head out while ● Police officers brought appellant to the Traffic Division at Jake
raising both his hands Gonzales Boulevard (sabi sa isang page Street ampz)
○ Recognized the driver as Robin C. Padilla ○ Voluntarily surrendered a third firearm, a pietro berretta
○ No one else in the vehicle pistol with a single round in its chamber and a magazine
● Borja noticed that Manarang arrived and stopped his motor behind loaded with 7 other live bullets
the vehicle of the appellant ○ Surrendered a black bag containing two additional long
● SPO2 told appellant to alight to which the appellant complied magazines and one short magazine
○ Short leather jacket, raised both hands, revealed a gun ○ Interrogated by the Chief of the Traffic Division
tucked on the left side of his waist, its butt protruding ● Transferred to the Police Investigation Division at Sto. Rosario
○ SPO2 Borja made a move to confiscate the gun, appellant Street beside the City Hall Building
held the hand, alleging that it was covered by legal papers ○ Appellant + firearms and ammuni turned over to SPO2
○ SPO2B: eh if covered pala, ipapakita parin sa office Rene Jesus Gregorio
○ Successfully disarmed; told him about the hit and run ○ During investigation:
incident; angrily denied; Crowd had formed ■ Admitted possession of the firearms, used for
○ SPO2 B checked the cylinder of the gun and found 6 live shooting
bullets inside ■ Not able to produce any permit to carry or
● While SPO2 Borja and appellant were arguing, Mobile 7 with SPO memorandum of receipt to cover the three
Ruben Mercado, SPO3 Tan and SPO2 Odejar arrived firearms
○ SPO Mercado took over (most senior police off); informed ● SUMMARY OF October 26, 1992 – high-powered firearms with
him that he was being arrested for the hit and run incident live ammunitions found in the possession of petitioner Robin @
Robinhood Padilla

○ One 357 caliber revolver, Smith and Wesson, SN-32919 ● August 6, 1995 – filed a MR (and to recall the warrant of arrest);
with 6 live ammunitions denied by respondent court in its September 20, 1995 Resolution,
○ One M-16 Baby Armalite rifle, SN-RP 131120 with 4 long received by petitioner for review on September 27, 1995
and 1 short magazine with ammunition ● September 28, 1995 – petitioner filed the instant petition for
○ One .380 Pietro Beretta, SN-A 35723 Y clip and 8 review on certiorari with application for bail is followed by two
ammunitions; and supplemental petitions filed by different counsels, a second
○ 6 additional live double action ammunitions of .38 caliber supplemental petition and an urgent motion for the separate
revolver resolution of his application for bail
● November 28, 1992 – certification were issued by Captain Senior ● Solgen again sought the denial of the application for bail → agreed
Inspector Mario Espino, PNP, Chief, Record Branch of the by the SC, resolution July 31, 1996
Firearms and Explosives Office ● Also granted solgen’s motion to file a consolidated comment on the
○ Three firearms were not registered in the name of Robin petitions and required the petitioner to file his reply
C. Padilla ● Success of petitioner on the intramural of bail (both in the
■ M-16 Baby armalite rifle (SN-RP 1312 80) respondent court and this Court) and thorough exposition of
■ .357 Calibre revolver Smith and Wesson (SN petitioner’s guilt in his 55-page Brief in the respondent court
32919) ● Solgen now filed a Manifestation in Lieu of Comment, praying for
■ .380 Pietro Berette (SN-A35720) petitioner’s acquittal
● December 3, 1992 – petitioner charged before the RTC OF Angeles
City with illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions under PD PETITIONER’S DEFENSES:
1866. Lower court ordered the arrest, but granted application for 1. His arrest was illegal and consequently, the firearms and
bail ammunitions taken in the course thereof are inadmissible in
● December 11, 1992 – certification issued by Captain Espino three evidence under the exclusionary rule;
firearms not registered 2. That he is a confidential agent authorized under a Mission Order
● January 20, 1993 – arraignment; plea of not guilty was made after and Memorandum Receipt, to carry the subject firearms; and
he refused upon advice of counsel to make any plea; waived in 3. Penalty for simple illegal possession constitutes excessive and cruel
writing his right to be present in any and all stages of the case punishment under the 1987 Constitution
● April 25, 1994 – Angeles City RTC Judge David Rosete rendered
judgment, convicting petitioner of the crime charged; sentenced SC: Court is convinced of petitioner’s guilt of the crime charged stands terra
petitioner to an indeterminate penalty from 17 years, 4 months and firma, notwithstanding the SolGen’s change of heart (AWOW HAHAHA)
1 day of RT in minimum to 21 years of RP as maximum
● April 28, 1994 – petitioner filed a notice of appeal to the CA FIRST DEFENSE:
● December 2, 1994 - Solgen: convinced of strong evidence of guilt; PART 1: His arrest was illegal and consequently, the firearms and
filed a motion to cancel petitioner’s bail bond ammunitions taken in the course thereof are inadmissible in evidence under
● Resolution of this motion was incorporated in the assailed decision the exclusionary rule;
of the respondent which sustained petitioner’s conviction ● No warrant of arrest, but that does not mean that his apprehension
○ Cancelled the 200k bailbond posted by accused-appellant at the Abacan bridge was illegal
for provisional liberty ● Relevant provision: S ection 5, Rule 113 of the RRCP8:
○ Directed RTC, Branch 61, Angeles City to issue the Order
of Arrest; transmittal to the National Bureau of Prisons
thru the PNP where he shall remain confinement pending
8
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private
resolution of his appeal, should he appeal to the Supreme person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
Court (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
● July 26, 1995 – petitioner received a copy of this decision committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge
of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it;

● Sec. 5(a) requires that the person be arrested: (a) after he has ○ Applied for bail = waived the irregularities and defects
committed or while he is actually committing or is at least
attempting to commit an offense; (b) in the presence of the PART 2: firearms and ammunition seized from the petitioner without a
arresting officer or private person. search warrant. UPHOLD.
● Both elements are present
○ Petitioner’s vehicle figured in a hit and run The five (5) well-settled instances when a warrantless search and seizure of
○ “presence” of Manarang; not required that he actually property is valid, are as follows:
sees, enough that he hears the disturbance created thereby 1. warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under
AND proceeds at once at the scene Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and by prevailing
○ Manarang: heard the screeching of tires, thud, saw the jurisprudence;
victim (balut vendor), reported the incident and gave 2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view", the elements of which are: (a). a
chase; sent a report to the PNP for assistance; proceeded prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which
to the Abacan bridge, found the responding policemen the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties;
SPO2s borja and Miranda positioned who effected the (b). the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had
actual arrest the right to be where they are; (c). the evidence must be
○ Petitioner: still illegal; not at the scene of the hit and run immediately apparent, and (d). "plain view" justified mere seizure of
○ “hot pursuit” present; a fleeing suspect, a moving vehicle, evidence without further search.
the public place and the raining nighttime---speed is 3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the government,
essential and delay improvident the vehicle's inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy
○ Police authority had more than mere reasonable and especially when its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a
articulable suspicion that the occupant of the vehicle was highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the
engaged in criminal activity occupant committed a criminal activity.
○ Also, when caught in flagrante delicto with possession of 4. consented warrantless search, and
an unlicensed firearm (Smith & Wesson) and ammunition 5. customs search.
(M-16 magazine), arrest was proper since it was another
offense (illegal possession of firearm and ammuni) and this ● No active search (prying into hidden places for that which is
time in the presence of an actual peace officer concealed) by the authorities
● Also justified under Sec. 5(b) – just committed the offense ○ Smith & Wesson revolver and M-16 rifle mag – “plain
○ No supervening event or a considerable lapse of time view” of the policemen who inadvertently discovered the
between the hit and run and actual apprehension revolver and mag tucked in the petitioner’s waist and back
○ Policemen saw for themselves the fast approaching Pajero, pocket respectively after raising his hands
its dangling plate number (PMA 777) and dented hood and ○ M-16 armalite rifle – immediately apparent; casual glance
railings = personal knowledge of the facts that this was the at the Pajero (lying horizontally near the driver’s seat)
vehicle involved in the hit and run incident; acted upon ○ Barreta pistol and a black bag containing assorted
verified personal knowledge magazines – voluntarily surrendered; waiver of his right;
● Any objection, defect or irregularity attending an arrest must be failure to quash the information estopped him
made before the accused enters his plea
○ Failure to quash info + Participation in the trial + EXTRA: ASSUMING ARGUENDO PART
presentation of evidence = estoppel ● Assuming that firearms and ammunitions product of active search: still
justified under a search incidental to a lawful arrest (see: first instance)
● Once lawful arrest effected, police may do a protective search of the
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal passenger compartment and containers of the vehicle in accordance with
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined the two tiered test of an incidental search:
while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one 1. The item to be searched was within the arrestee’s custody or area
confinement to another. of immediate control; and

2. Search was contemporaneous with the arrest ○ Only registered is a pistol, Smith and Wesson, calibre 9
Note: Admissible, not excluded by the exclusionary rule mm with SN TCT 8214; November 28, 1992
● Also justified under the third instance: search of a moving vehicle ● People v. Tobias: testimony of a representative of, or a certification
○ Officers have reasonable or probable cause to believe before the from the PNP Firearms and Explosives Office (FEO) attesting that a
search that either the motorist is a law-offender or the contents or
person is not a licensee of any firearm would suffice to prove
cargo of the vehicle are or have been instruments or the subject
matter or the proceeds of some criminal offense
beyond reasonable doubt the second element of illegal possession
● MTS: Wala siyang takas of firearm

SECOND DEFENSE: appointed civilian agent. THIRD DEFENSE: court should have applied the previous laws since the
● Mission order and memorandum receipt duly issued by PNP Supt. penalty imposed under PD 1866 no longer exists. The penalty of 17 years and
Rodialo Gumtang, the deputy commander of Task Force Aguila, 4 months to 21 years for simple illegal possession of firearm is cruel and
Lianga, Surigao del Sur excessive in contravention of the Constitution.
● In crimes involving illegal possession of firearm two requisites: (1) ● Court bound to apply the governing law at the time of the
the existence of the subject firearm; and (2) the fact that the accused commission of the offense
who owned or possessed the firearm does not have the ● Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones ;;)
corresponding license or permit to possess. ● Penalty for possession is RT max to RP, not just the year specified
● Mere afterthoughts; issued under suspicious circumstances; issued by the petitioner
after apprehended on October 28, 1992 ● Severity of a penalty does not ipso facto make it cruel and excessive
○ Did not present it during preliminary investigation → must be flagrantly and plainly oppressive, wholly
○ Even not alleged in appellant’s demurrer to evidence disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to shock the moral
○ Witness cited was James Neneg; not even Superintendent sense of the community → Not C&E if within the statutory limits
Gumtang ● Presumption of constitutionality; there must be a clear and
● Authenticity questioned. Witness for the prosec Police Supt. unequivocal breach of the Consti
Durendes denied under oath his signature on the dorsal side of the ○ Upheld twice by the Court: Misolas v. Panga and Baylosis
Mission Order; he did not authorize anyone; surname was v. Chavez, Jr. (no excerpts in the case, footnotes lang)
misspelled as “Durembes” ○ Only function of the courts is to interpret and apply the
● Only unit commanders and Chief of offices have the authority to laws
issue such docs under the Guidelines on the issuance of Mos, MRs ● BUT courts will reduce the penalty provided by CA in line with
& PCFORs (issued by PNP Director-General Cesar Nazareno) People v. Lian
● Mere deputy commander; thus infirm and lacking in force and ○ Indeterminate penalty for simple illegal possession of
effect firearm, without MC or AC; range:
● Covers only “Recom 1-12 Baguio City” outside of Supt. Gumtang’s ○ Minimum: 10 years and 1 day to 12 years of PM to
area of responsibility; needs approval by next higher headquarters ○ Maximum: 18 years, 8 months and 1 day to 20 years of RT
● Also no certification from the corresponding Responsible Supply ○ WHY: penalties were taken from the RPC, rules
Officer of the appropriate AFP unit (March 5, 1998 Memorandum graduating by degrees and determining period shall be
of the Secretary of Defense) applied
● Petitioner’s name does not appear in the Plantilla of Non-Uniform
Personnel or in the list of Civilian Agents or Employees of the PNP
(required by PD 1866 issued by them PC-INP Chief and Dir-Gen Lt. ARTICLE 125 - DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF
Gen. Fidel V. Ramos and Circular No. 1 of then Ministry of Justice) DETAINED PERSONS TO THE PROPER
● Fabricated in accordance with the testimony and certification of JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES
the Chief of the Records Branch of the firearms and Explosives
Office of the PNP declaring that confiscated firearms are not
licensed or registered in the name of the petitioner

● 4:30pm, same day – an Information for Illegal Possession of

*1. SORIA V. DESIERTO9 Firearms and Ammunition was filed against Bista with the 4th
FACTS: S
poiler. Dismissed. MCTC of Narvacan, Ilocos Sur
● 8PM of 13 May 2001 (Sunday, a day before the 14 May 2001 ● 5pm, same day – Informations for Illegal Possession of Firearms
elections) – petitioners were arrested without a warrant by and Ammunition and violation of Article 261 par. (f) of the OEC in
respondents police officers for alleged illegal possession of firearms rel. to COMELEC Reso. No. 3328 were filed in the RTC at
and ammunition Narvacan, Ilocos Sur
○ Petitioner Rodolfo Soria: ill possess of .38 cal. Revolver ● 8 June 2001 - petitioner Bista was released upon filing of bail
(PC in max period); and violation of Omnibus Election bonds. Detained for 28 days.
Code in relation to Comelec Resolution No. 3328 ● 15 August 2001 – petitioners filed with the Office of the
(imprisonment not less than 1 year, not more than 6 years) Ombudsman for military affairs a complaint-affidavit for violation
○ Petitioner Edimar Bista: ill possess of submachine pistol of Art. 125 of the RPC against private respondents
UZI, cal. 9 mm and a .22 cal. Reolver with ammunition ○ Ombudsman: d ismissed the case. Lack of merit.
○ Detained at Santa, Ilocos Sur, Police Station ● 4 March 2002 – MR; denied for lack of merit.
○ Where petitioner Bista was identified for having a ● Petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari; pub
standing warrant of arrest for violation of BP Blg. 610 respondents gravely abused their discretion in dismissing the
issued by MTC of Vigan, Ilocos Sur (Crim case no 12272) complaint for violation of Art. 125
● 4:30 PM of 14 May 2001 (Monday, elec day) – brought to the
residence of Provincial Prosecutor Jessica Viloria in San Juan, HELD:
Ilocos Sur ● Petitioner Soria – alleged crimes were punishable by correctional
○ Joint-Affidavit against petitioners were subscribed and penalties or their equivalent, thus crim complaints or infor should
sworn to by arresting officers be filed within 18hrs of his arrest
● 6pm, same day – brought to the Provincial Prosec’s Office in ● Petitioner Bista – afflictive or capital penalties, or their equi, only
Vigan; Joint-Affi filed and docketed be detained for 36hrs
● 6:30pm – petitioner Soria was released upon order of Prosec Viloria ● Proper application of 12-18-36 periods
to undergo requisite preliminary investigation; Bista brought back
and continued to be detained at the Santa Police Station PETITIONERS:
● 22 HOURS HAD PASSED FROM THE TIME OF PETITIONER ● With respect to Soria: Detention of Petitioner Soria lasted for 22 hrs
SORIA’S DETENTION UP TO THE TIME OF HIS RELEASE as excluding Sundays, holidays and election days in the
● 2pm, 15 May 2001 – Bista brought before the MTC of Vigan, case computation of the periods prescribed within which public officers
of violation of BP Blg. 6 was pending should deliver arrested persons to the proper judicial authorities as
○ Posted bail and an order of tempo release was issued the law never makes an exception. When the law is clear, it must be
○ No order of release issued in connection with petitioner given its literal application.
Bista’s arrest for alleged ill possess ● With respect to Petitioner Bista: filing if info in court against
petitioner did not justify his detention. Info filed at 4:30 pm aof 15
may 2001 but the orders for his released were issued by the RTC
and MTC of Narvacan only on 8 June 2001. They argued that if no
charge is filed by the prosec within the period fixed by law, the
9
GR. Nos. 153524-25 | January 31, 2005 | Second Division | Chico-Nazario arresting officer must release the detainee.
10
“AN ACT REDUCING THE PENALTY FOR ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF BLADED,
POINTED OR BLUNT WEAPONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, AMENDING FOR RESPONDENTS:
THE PURPOSE PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NUMBERED NINE.” → What’s this for???
Well, eto kasi yun, bois. Martial Law diba so in order to get his desired result, may mga
inemplement si Marcuz na laws. PD 9, amended by BP 6, mentioned yung mga bawal na weapons,
etc.

● relied on the cases Medina v. Orozco, Jr. and Sayo v. Chief of Police an order of release. He could only be released if he has no other
of Manila11: Sundays, holidays and election days are excluded in the pending crim case requiring his continuous detention.
computation of the periods provided; arresting officers delivered ● Crim infos against Bista were filed with RTC and MTC on May 15,
petitioners well within the allowable time. 2001 but released detention on June 8, 2001; orders of rtc and mtc.
● Countered that the duty of arresting officers ended upon the filing No delay. Complaints against him were seasonably filed in the
of the infoo with the proper judicial authorities following the court of justice within the 36hr period prescribed by law. The duty
rulings in Agbay v. Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and People of the complaining officers is deemd complied with upon filing of
v. Acosta. the complaints. The action, like issuance of a release order, then
rests upon judicial authority.
HELD: Did not abuse their discretion in dismissing for lack of probable ● Since no GAOD on the part of ombudsman, the court shall respect
cause the complaint against private respondents. such findings.

● No GAOD12 since their disposition of petitioner’s complaint was
properly backed up by law and jurisprudence. *2. AGBAY V. DEPUTY OMB FOR THE MILITARY14
● Election day or a special holiday should not be included in the FACTS:
computation of the period prescribed by law for the filing of ● 7 sept 1997 – at Sitio Bonbon, Brgy. Catarman, Liloan, Metro Cebu,
complaint/ information in courts in cases of warrantless arrests; PH, Jasper Agbay manipulating to finger the vagina of Gayle
no-office day13 (Medina Orosco) Fatima Amigable Gicayara, his companion blocked the sight of
● Furthermore, complaints against Soria for ill possess and violation Mrs. Joan A. Gicaraya while on board a tricycle; upon initial
of comelec reso filed only on May 15, 2001 at 4:30 pm, he had investigation of the brgy capt of brgy catarman, accused jugalbot
already been released the day before or on May 14, 2001 at about was released and accused agbay is presently detained at the liloan
6:30 pm as directed by Prov Prosec Viloria police station jail; med cert form Don Vicente Sotto Memorial
● As to issue concerning the public duty of the arresting officer after Medical Center, Cebu City is attached
the information has already been filed in Court, public respondents ● Same day – petitioner, together with a certain Sherwin Jugalbot,
acted well within their discretion. The running of the 36hr period arrested and detained at the Liloan Police Station, Metro Cebu for
prescribed by law for the filing of the complaint against him from an alleged violation of RA 7610 (Special Protection of Children
the time of his arrest was tolled by one day (election day). Moreover, Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act)
he has a standing warrant of arrest for violation of BP 6 and it was ● Sept 8 – Complaint for Violation of RA 7610 filed against them
only on May 15, 2001, 2pm, that he was able to post bail and secure before the 7th MCTC of Liloan, Metro Cebu by one Joan Gicaraya
for and in behalf of her daughter Gayle
● September 10, 1997 – counsel for petitioner wrote to the chief of
police; immediate release; failed to deliver within 36hrs from
11
Sayo: means of communication as well as the hour of the arrest and other September 7, 1997 à priv resp did not respond, continued to detain
circumstances, such as the time of surrender and the material possibility for the fiscal
● Sept 12, 1997 – 7th MCTC issued an order (Detention During the
to make the investigation and file in time the necessary information, must be taken
into consideration.
Pendency of the Case) committing petitioner to the jail warden of
Cebu City
12
GAOD → such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment on the part of the ● 5 days later; Sept 17, 1997 – released by the court after he had
public officer concerned which is equivalent to an excess of lack of jurisdiction. AoD
must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a refusal
posted bond
to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law as where the ● September 26, 1997 – petitioner filed a complaint for delay in the
power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner. delivery of detained persons against priv resp SPO4 Nemesio
13
Orozsco: In these no-office days, it was not an easy manner for a fiscal to look for Natividad Jr., SPO2 Eleazar M. Salomon and other unidentified
his cleark and stenographer, draft the info and search the judge to have him act
thereon, and get the clerk of court to open the courthouse, docket the case, and have
the order of commitment prepared. 14
G.R. No. 134503 | July 2, 1999 | Third Division | Gonzaga-Reyes, J.

police officers at the liloan police substation before the Office of did not interrupt the period prescribed by art 125; Judge-Designate of the 7th
dep omb for the visayas MCTC issued a Commitment Order on September 12, 1997, acting contrary
● Nov 10, 1997 – 7th mctc issed a resolution which found a probable to law since there was no basis for the detention of the petitioner; when a
cause for the crime in violation of RA 7610; filed an information MTC judge conducts prelim inves, he is acting as a fiscal. Fiscal is not the
against th the twocused; forwarded the case to the provincial proper judicial authority as ruled in the case of Sayo.
fiscal’s office for appropriate action.
● The case filed by petitioner was transferred to the Deputy Office of the Deputy Ombudsman: fulfilled by respondent when the formal
Ombudsman for the military for its proper disposition.15 complaint was filed on Sept. 8, 1997, barely 20 hrs after the arrest
Recommended its dismissal.
● Petition for certiorari – nullify the reso of the deputy ombudsman SOLGEN: while a municipal court judge may conduct preliminary
for the military (January 19, 1998) → dismissal of the crim complaint investigations as an exception to his normal judicial duties, he still retains
filed by petitioner against priv respondent for violation of art 125 authority to issue an order of release or commitment. Upon filing of the
and order of april 13, 1998 which denied his MR complaint with the MCTC, Art. 125 is complied with.

FIRST ISSUE: OMBUDSMAN COMMITTED GAOD W/N: filing of the complaint with the MCTC constitutes delivery to a proper
PETITIONER: judicial authority under Art 125
● Due to the civilian character of the PNP, Office of DO for M has
no competence of jurisdiction HELD:
● Constitutionality of Memo Circ. No 14 as it purports to vest the ● Provision intended to prevent any abuse resulting from confining a
Office of DO for MA with juris to investigate all cases against person without informing him of his offense and without
personnel of the PNP permitting him to go on bail
● Judicial authority → courts of justices or judges of said courts vested
with judicial power to order the temporary detention or
COURT: confinement of a person charged with having committed a public
● No question in civilian character as mandated by the 1987 offense, that is, the SC and other such inferior courts as may be
Constitution in Section 6, Article XVI16and RA 6975 described the established by law. (Sayo v. Chief of Police of Manila)
civilian char of police force ● “When a prelim investigation is conducted by a judge, he is
● Despite designation as “for the Military” not a member of the performing a non-judicial function as an XPN to his usual duties
military establishment ● Muni court judge retains the power to issue an order of release of
● Office of the Ombudsman as the “eyes and ears of the people” and commitment
“a champion of the citizen”; owe their allegiance to the people and ● Upon filing of the complaint with the MTC, intent of provision is
ordinary citizens; assumption of jurisdiction by the said office will satisfied: he be informed of the crime imputed against him; may be
not detract or violate the civilian character of the police force since released on bail. Thus, the filing of the complaint of the MCTC
it is a civilian office. interrupted the period prescribed
● No GAOD on the part of Office of Deputy Ombudsman for the
SECOND ISSUE: A rticle 125. Military; dismissed the petition.
● Ra 7610 – section 5(b), RT in its medium to RP ; afflictive penalty

PETITIONER: act of private complainant in filing the complaint before the ARTICLE 128 - VIOLATION OF DOMICILE
MCTC was for purpose of preliminary investigation since MCTC has no
jurisdiction to try the offense; RTC has jurisdiction over the offense, hence it
15
Memo Circ. No. 14, Series of 1995 of the Office of the Ombudsman.
16
One police force, which shall be national in scope and civilian in character.

● Hematoma, left side of nose + back

*1. GEROCHE V. PEOPLE17 portion of body (hip region) + back
Petitioners: Edigardo Geroche, Roberto Garde and Geeroso Marfil alias portion of right scapular region
“Tapol” ● Abrasion on right side of breast + left
side of body at axillary region
FACTS: ● Injuries will heal in 7-10 days
● May 14, 1989, around 10pm
○ Where = Sitio New Lantawan, Barangay Greenhills, PETITIONERS: Declared in unison they were in their respective houses on
President Roxas, Cotabato the evening of May 14.
○ Who (all are persons in authority)
■ Edigardo Geroche = Barangay Chairman ● May 13 = conducted roving foot patrol with barangay officials
■ Roberto Garde, Generoso “Tapol” Marfil = ● Recovered a stolen carabao owned by Francisco Pongasi from 3
CAFGU18 unidentified people (escaped)
○ What
■ Conspiring, confederating and mutually helping RTC: (nov 15 2001) finds petitioners GBRD of Less Serious Phys Injuries.
each other
■ Willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously Prosecution failed to prove that petitioners are public officers
■ Entered the house of Roberto Mallo without ● Only evidence produced by prosecution = testimony of witnesses
judicial order by forcibly breaking door ● There is a doubt as to W/N petitioners are public officers
■ Searched effects of house without consent ● When in doubt, favorable to accused
■ Mauled Bariliano Limbag (occupant)
● Arraignment on Nov 5, 1990 = petitioners pleaded Not guilty Petitioners: elevated to CA
(kung nag guilty edi sana walang readings HAY) (dami mo
problema) CA( nov 18 2005): Petitioners should not be convicted of Less Serious Phys
● Baleriano Limbag testimony: May 14, 1989, around 10pm Injs. Guilty of Violation of Domicile, due to judicial admission of being
○ He was inside house he bought from Roberto Mallo Barangay Chairman/CAFGU. Sentenced to AM Max -> PC Min (ISLAW)
○ He was aroused from sleep by petitioners, who weren’t
armed with search warrant Motion for Reconsideration = DENIED
○ Petitioners entered house by breaking front door, also
mauled him with garand rifle Petitioners
○ They looked for firearms, but instead found + took his 1. There is Double Jeopardy, since RTC acquitted them from
airgun (pew pew) Violation of Domicile; and
● Roberto Limbag (nephew, was there during occurrence of act) = 2. Appeal to CA is only for LSPI, CA violated constitutional right to
corroborated BL’s testimony Due Process when they were convicted for Violation of Domicile
○ SPO4 Felomino Calfoforo = testified to police blotter
○ Dr. Antonio Cabrera SC: G
AGO KA BA
■ Affirmed Medical certificate he issued ● Appeal in criminal case opens entire case for review
■ Baleriano has: ● No double jeopardy in CA convicting petitioners of Violation of
Domicile = CA merely corrected erroneous judgment by RTC
● Conviction Affirmed, petitioners didn’t deny being
Chairman/CAFGU = Public officer
● Penalty modified = Violation was qualified (Nighttime + airgun not
17
G.R. No. 179080 | November 26, 2014 | Third Division | Peralta, J. evidence but not returned)
● Penalty imposed = PC Med - Max
18
Citizen Armed Force Geographical Unit

● Upon arrival at Plaza’s house together with Lorenzo Sanoria, Delfin
Ramirez and Pedro Ramas (asked for a ride to Sitio Cahi-an from
ARTICLE 130 - SEARCHING DOMICILE highway), was stopped by 4 policemen in uniform (Who)
WITHOUT WITNESSES ● 4 Policemen pointed firearms at him, hearing a safely lock released
● Avenido = Amo isang pusil, ihatag (Give me your firearm)
● Galvante = wala man ako’y pusil (I have no firearms), then showing
waistline by raising T-shirt
1. MONCADO V. PEOPLE OF THE PELEPENS ● While petitioner’s arms raised, Plaza came down from house,
telling respondents to not harass petitioner since he was a former
police officer, but respondents didn’t listen
● SPO4 Conde Jr. went near petitioner’s owner type jeep and
2. GALVANTE V. CASIMIRO19 conducted a search, petitioner asked if they had a search warrant
● Policemen saw .38 on jeep, asked for Memorandum Receipt,
● May 14, 2001 (afternoon) petitioner gave
○ Where: Sitio Cahi-an, Kapatungan, Trento, Agusan Del ● Policemen immediately left, bringing firearm:
Sur ● 2:30pm, same day = left Plaza’s house, went to Trento Police
○ Who: Station. Saw a civilian with revolver tucked on waist. Asked
■ PO1 Ramil Avenido policemen to apprehend
■ PO1 Eddie Degran ● Policemen didn’t apprehend (xxpecteedd), petitioner went to office
■ PO1 Valentino Rufano of Police Chief Ricacorba, civilian was brought to office + disarmed
■ PO1 Federico Balolot ● After disarming, petitioner was imprisoned with civilian until May
○ What: 16, 4pm after posting bond
■ Confiscated from Feliciano Galvante: ● Petitioner also submitted Joint Affidavit of Plaza and Sanoria
■ 1 Colt Pistol Super .38 automatic, Serial # 67973 ● Conde affidavit: Had nothing to do with detention, Ricacorba
■ 1 Short Magazine ordered detention of petitioner; Didn’t search vehicle, but searched
■ 9 super .38 live ammunition person of petitioner. Violating COMELEC Res 3258 in plain view
● Confiscated materials were covered by EXPIRED Memorandum ● Avenido/Degran/Rufano/Balolot: Originally stated in joint affidavit
receipt dated Sep 2 1999 that they saw Galvante armed with a pistol on his waist; Retracted
● Asst. Provincial Prosecutor filed against petitioner Information for statement, instead said that Conde took handgun from Galvante’s
Illegal possession of firearms in relation to COMELEC resolution jeep
3258 ● Galvante then filed Affidavit of Desistance
○ Absolved Avenido/Degran/Rufano/Balolot
Petitioner filed: Administrative case against private respondents, for Grave ○ Maintained that Conde be prosecuted admin + crim
Misconduct; and Criminal case for Arbitrary Detention, Illegal Search, and
Grave Threats IAS decision in admin case = guilty of grave misconduct, penalty =
suspension
Petitioner’s narration:
● May 14 2001 – left house at around 1pm after lunch, on the way to Crim case (Illegal possession) = Prosecution moved to dismiss, motion
Sitio Cahi-an to meet Percival Plaza cc: retirement procedure for granted
policemen
Crim Case (Arbi Detention, Illegal Search, Grave Threats) = dismissed,
lack of probable cause

Petitioner filed Motion for Reconsideration:
19
G.R. No. 162808 | April 22, 2018 | Third Division | Austria-Martinez, J.

● Called attention of Ombudsman to IAS decision that search was
illegal, contradicting Ombudsman decision that search is legal 1. EVANGELISTA V. EARNSHAW22
● Motion Denied = no new evidence/errors of law FACTS:
● Plaintiff alleges that he is president of Communist Party in the
Petitioner filed petition for certiorari/mandamus with SC Philippine Islands
● Deputy Ombudsman Casimiro, Director Blancaflor, Prosecutor ○ CPP = political group seeking speedy granting of
Garcia = GAOD independence to PH Islands + redemption of the
○ Due to their saying that warrantless arrest/search was proletariat. Roughly 300,000 members (HEIL MARXISM)
valid; Due to denying Motion for Reconsideration in ● March 2 1931 = Plaintiff requested to defendant through a letter to
“capricious, whimsical, despotic, arbitrary manner” hold a popular meeting at Plaza Moriones (afternoon of March 12),
to be followed by a parade through the streets of Juan Luna,
OSG Memo = no GAOD to public respondents, no crime committed by Azcarraga, Avenida Rizal, Echague, and General Solano in order to
private deliver a message to the Governor-General from the working class.
● March 3 = Mayor denied petition, while instructing chief of police
SC = petition lacks merit to prohibit all private and public meetings of the Communist Party
● Consti vests in Ombudsman “power to determine whether there
exists reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been Plaintiff:
committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and, ● In denying my request, defendant deprived the Communist Party of
thereafter, to file the corresponding information with the a constitutional right
appropriate courts” ● Prays a writ of Mandamus be issued to compel defendant to issue a
● No GAOD permit for holding meetings and parades by CPP in Manila
● No crime of warrantless search, only criminal searches are:
Maliciously obtained/abuse of legally obtained; and Searching Defendant: Subsequent to issuance of permit, it was discovered that CPP is
domicile without witnesses an illegal organization, principal object is to incite revolt of the
● Remedy of petitioner is civil proletariat/working class
○ Art. 3220 in relation to Art. 221921
● Or remedy may be administrative ● By virtue of original permits issued, CPP held several meetings in
○ Sec 41, RA 6975 different parts of Manila, in which seditious speeches were made
● No arbitrary detention: Respondents were not those who urging laboring class to unite with CPP to overthrow gov’t
detained petitioner, it was Ricacorba ○ stir up enmity (hostility) against insular and local police
● No grave threats: Case is based merely on allegation of forces
petitioner; Presumption of regularity ○ CPP insisted that gov’t must be for laborers by laborers,
like Russia
○ When laborers are united, neither constabulary nor US
ARTICLE 131 - PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION Army can stop them; Etc etc basta communist bullshit
AND DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL MEETINGS HELD:
● It is evident that petitioner cannot expect defendant to hold
meetings and parades in the manner described.
● Mayor’s Duty: to see that nothing should occur which would tend
20
Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly to provoke or excite the people to disturb the peace of the
obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following community or the safety or order of the Government
rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages: (marami
to lolz)
21
Basta moral damages to 22
G.R. No. 36453 | September 26, 1932 | En Banc | Ostrand, J.

● Mayor’s power cc: permits : To grant and refuse municipal

licenses or permits of all classes and to revoke the same for SC:
violation of the conditions upon which they were granted, or if ● Cabansag v. Fernandez – two tests for permissible restriction in
acts prohibited by law or municipal ordinance are being freedom of speech/press
committed under the protection of such licenses or in the ○ Clear and present danger – evil consequence of utterance
premises in which the business for which the same have been must be extremely serious and degree of imminence
granted is carried on, or for any other good reason of general extremely high
interest. ○ Dangerous tendency – W/N words uttered created
● MAYOR SHOULD NOT BE CONDEMNED/CRITICIZED, BUT dangerous tendency which state has a right to prevent
PRAISED AND COMMENDED ● Art III Sec 8 – not contrary to law
○ Prompt, courageous, firm stand against CPP before CPP ○ Clear and present danger rule reapplied
can cause dmg through its revolutionary agenda ● Right to Association affected, but did not render ineffective
● RIGHT TO PEACEFUL ASSEMBLAGE IS NOT ABSOLUTE constitutional right
● People v. Perez – constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech + ○ Political parties only have less freedom, not none
assembly/petition must yield to punitive measures of Consti/Laws, ○ No infringement in freedom to assemble, only not for
and existence of state purpose of nominating

● This Court, with the aforementioned five Justices unable to agree,
2. GONZALES V. COMELEC 23
is of the view that no unconstitutional infringement exists insofar
as the formation of organizations, Associations, clubs, committees,
● Felicisimo Cabigao (Nacionalista Party Manila Vice-Mayor or other groups of persons for the purpose of soliciting votes or
Candidate) and Arsenio Gonzales challenged the validity of 2 undertaking any campaign or propaganda or both for or against a
sections in the Revised Election Code (RA 4880) candidate or party is restricted and that the prohibition against
○ Approved/took effect on June 17, 1967 giving, soliciting, or receiving contribution for election purposes,
○ Prohibiting the too early nomination of candidates (150 either directly or indirectly, is equally free from constitutional
days before for at large, 90 otherwise) infirmity.
○ Limiting the period of election campaign or partisan ● RA 4880 not rendered unconstitutional due to loss of 2/3 rule24
political activity

PETITIONERS: ARTICLE 133 - OFFENDING THE RELIGIOUS
● Enforcement of RA will prejudice right to FEELINGS
○ Freedom of speech + form associations or societies for
purposes not contrary to law. Thus, unconstitutional
● Nomination of candidate + fixing election campaign period are
matters of political expediency, to regulate them using police power *1. CELDRAN V. PEOPLE 25
in absence of clear/present danger to state would render consti ● Sept 30 2010 = 2nd Anniversary of the May They Be One Campaign
rights irrelevant (MBTC) (more birthdays to come! HAHAHAHA) and launching of
Handwritten Bible which coincided with Feast day of St. Jerome
Comelec: allegations are mere conclusions of law, and erroneous at that

Senator Lorenzo Tañada appeared as amicus curiae (friend of the court)
Petitioners: filed Declaratory relief with preliminary injunction 24
1935 constitution, ⅔ of all members. 1987 Constitution requires majority of members
who took part in deliberations
23
G.R. No. L-28196 | November 9, 1967 | En Banc | Concepcion, CJ. 25
G.R. No. 220127 | March 21, 2018 | First Division Notice (Librada C. Buena)

● A throng of people, primarily Catholic church dignitaries, gathered

around Manila Cathedral
● Event had 3 parts:
1 – ecumenical liturgical religious worship
2 – eucharistic celebration (Holy Mass)
3 – Handwritten Unity Bible
● 3:00pm - while Bro. Edgar J. Tria Tirona was reading a bible
passage, petitioner entered Manila Cathedral, clad in a black suit +
hat
○ Went to center of aisle, front of altar
○ Suddenly brought out a placard emblazoned with
DAMASO
○ Shouted “Bishops, stop involving yourself in politics” ->
led to commotion
○ Disrupted + disrespected otherwise solemn celebration
● Defense alleged that incident did not happen during Holy Mass,
nothing disturbed proceedings

MeTC = Petitioner guilty of Offending Religious Feelings
RTC = Affirmed MeTC Decision
Petitioner filed petition for review to CA
CA = Affirmed MeTC/RTC Decision
Petitioner filed motion for reconsideration with CA = DENIED AGAIN
Petitioner filed petition for review on certiorari with SC

SC
● Only questions of law may be raised in a review on certiorari
● Thus, question of fact as to W/N petitioner offended religious
feelings is not entertained in said petition
● Affirmed CA finding that acts of petitioner were meant to
mock/insult/ridicule clergy who has “diametrically opposing”
views with petitione


Z

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Z

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRIMINAL LAW 2 CASES

ARTICLE 125 - DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF DETAINED

1. Soria vs. Desierto, 450 SCRA 339 (2005)

ARTICLE 128 - VIOLATION OF DOMICILE

ARTICLE 130 - SEARCHING DOMICILE W/O WITNESSES

1. Moncado vs. People, 80 Phil. 1 (1948)

ARTICLE 131 - PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION AND

1. Evangelista vs. Earnshaw, 57 Phil. 255 (1932)

○ Municipal mayor merely extended his hospitality and

● 4:30pm, same day – an Information for Illegal Possession of

● Hematoma, left side of nose + back

● Mayor’s power cc: permits : To grant and refuse municipal

● A throng of people, primarily Catholic church dignitaries, gathered

You might also like