TITLE TWO

I. CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE

Classes of Arbitrary Detention:

By detaining a person without legal ground

Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities
Delaying release

Article 124

ARBITRARY DETENTION

ELEMENTS:
That the offender is a public officer or employee (whose official duties include the authority to
make an arrest and detain persons; jurisdiction to maintain peace and order).
That he detains a person (actual restraint).
That the detention was without legal grounds (cannot be committed if with warrant).
Detention: when a person is placed in confinement or there is a restraint on his person.
Though the elements specify that the offender be a public officer or employee, private
individuals who conspire with public officers can also be liable.
Legal grounds for the detention of any person:
Without legal grounds:
Know grounds for warrantless arrest:
For escaped prisoner – no need for warrant
Rolito Go v. CA is an example of arbitrary detention (Judge Pimentel)
Example: Y was killed by unknown assailant. Officers got a tip and arrested X. X voluntarily
admitted to the officers that he did it although he was not asked. X was detained immediately.
According to the SC, there was NO arbitrary detention. Why? Because once X made a
confession, the officers had a right to arrest him.
Continuing crime is different from a continuous crime
Ramos v. Enrile: Rebels later on retire. According to the SC, once you have committed rebellion
and have not been punished or amnestied, then the rebels continue to engage in rebellion,
unless the rebels renounce his affiliation. Arrest can be made without a warrant because this is
a continuing crime.
commission of a crime
violent insanity or other ailment requiring compulsory confinement of the patient in a hospital
he has not committed any crime or no reasonable ground of suspicion that he has committed a
crime
not suffering from violent insanity or any other ailment requiring compulsory confinement in a
hospital
Crime is about to be, is being, has been committed
Officer must have reasonable knowledge that the person probably committed the crime

Article 125

DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF DETAINED PERSONS

ELEMENTS:
That the offender is a public officer or employee
That he has detained a person for some legal grounds
That he fails to deliver such person to the proper judicial authority within:
12 hours, if detained for crimes/offenses punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent
18 hours, for crimes/offenses punishable by correctional penalties, or their equivalent or
36 hours, for crimes/offenses punishable by capital punishment or afflictive penalties, or their
equivalent
Really means delay in filing necessary information or charging of person detained in court. May
be waived if a preliminary investigation is asked for.
Does not contemplate actual physical delivery but at least there must be a complaint filed. Duty
complied with upon the filing of the complaint with the judicial authority (courts, prosecutors –
though technically not a judicial authority, for purposes of this article, he’s considered as one.)
The filing of the information in court does not cure illegality of detention. Neither does it affect
the legality of the confinement under process issued by the court.
To escape from this, officers usually ask accused to execute a waiver which should be under
oath and with assistance of counsel. Such waiver is not violative of the accused constitutional
right.
What is length of waiver? Light offense – 5 days. Serious and less serious offenses – 7 to 10
days. (Judge Pimentel)
Article does not apply when arrest is via a warrant of arrest
If offender is a private person, crime is illegal detention
Arbitrary Detention (124)

Delay in Delivery of Detained (125)

Detention is illegal from the beginning. Detention is legal in the beginning, but illegality
starts from the expiration of the specified periods without the persons detained having been
delivered to the proper judicial authority.

Article 126
DELAYING RELEASE
ELEMENTS:

That the offender is a public officer or employee

That there is a judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner or detention prisoner, or
that there is a proceeding upon a petition for the liberation of such person
That the offender without good reason delays:
the service of the notice of such order to the prisoner, or
the performance of such judicial or executive order for the release of the prisoner, or
the proceedings upon a petition for the release of such person
Three acts are punishable:
Wardens and jailers are the persons most likely to violate this provision
Provision does not include legislation
delaying the performance of a judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner
delaying the service of notice of such order to said prisoner
delaying the proceedings upon any petition for the liberation of such person

Article 127
EXPULSION

ELEMENTS:

That the offender is a public officer or employee

That he expels any person from the Philippines, or compels a person to change his residence
That the offender is not authorized to do so by law
2 acts punishable:
by expelling a person from the Philippines
by compelling a person to change his residence
(The crime of expulsion absorbs that of grave coercion. If done by a private person, will amount
to grave coercion)

i.e.,Villavicencio v. Lukban: prostitutes’ case

Does not include undesirable aliens; destierro; or when sent to prison

If X (Filipino) after he voluntarily left, is refused re-entry – is considered forcing him to change
his address here
Threat to national security is not a ground to expel or change his address.

Article 128
VIOLATION OF DOMICILE

ELEMENTS:
That the offender is a public officer or employee
That he is not authorized by judicial order to enter the dwelling and/or to make a search therein
for papers or other effects
That he commits any of the following acts:
entering any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof
searching papers or other effects found therein without the previous consent of such owner
refusing to leave the premises, after having surreptitiously entered said dwelling and after
having been required to leave the same
Aggravating Circumstance (medium and maximum of penalty imposed):
If the offender who enters the dwelling against the will of the owner thereof is a private
individual, the crime committed is trespass to dwelling (Art 280)
When a public officer searched a person “outside his dwelling” without a search warrant and
such person is not legally arrested for an offense, the crime committed by the public officer is
grave coercion, if violence or intimidation is used (Art 286), or unjust vexation, if there is no
violence or intimidation (Art 287)
A public officer without a search warrant cannot lawfully enter the dwelling against the will of the
owner, even if he knew that someone in that dwelling is having unlawful possession of opium
3 acts punishable:
“Being authorized by law” – means with search warrant, save himself or do some things good
for humanity
There must be expression that entry is denied or that he is asked to leave
Papers and effects need not be part of a crime.
offense committed at nighttime
papers or effects not constituting evidence of a crime be not returned immediately
person enters dwelling w/o consent or against the will
person enters and searches for papers and effects
person entered secretly and refuses to leave after being asked to

Article 129

SEARCH WARRANTS MALICIOUSLY OBTAINED

ELEMENTS:

1.That the offender is a public officer or employee

2.That he procures a search warrant
3.That there is no just cause
ABUSE IN THE SERVICE OF WARRANT OR EXCEEDING AUTHORITY OR USING
UNNECESSARY SEVERITY IN EXECUTING A SEARCH WARRANT LEGALLY PROCURED

ELEMENTS:

1. That the offender is a public officer or employee

 2. That he has legally procured a search warrant
3. That he exceeds his authority or uses unnecessary severity in executing the same
Search warrant is valid for 10 days from its date
Search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name of the People, signed by the judge and
directed to a public officer, commanding him to search for personal property described therein
and bring it before the court
No just cause – warrant is unjustified
Search – limited to what is described in the warrant, all details must be with particularity
Malicious warrant. Example. X was a respondent of a search warrant for illegal possession of
firearms. A return was made. The gun did not belong to X and the witness had no personal
knowledge that there is a gun in that place.
Abuse examples:
X owner was handcuffed while search was going-on.
Tank was used to ram gate prior to announcement that a search will be made
Persons who were not respondents were searched

Article 130

ELEMENTS OF SEARCHING DOMICILE WITHOUT WITNESSES:

That the offender is a public officer or employee
That he is armed with a search warrant legally procured
That he searches the domicile, papers or other belongings of any person
That the owner, or any member of his family, or two witnesses residing in the same locality are
not present
Order of those who must witness the search:
Validity of the search warrant can be questioned only in 2 courts: where issued or where the
case is pending. Latter is preferred for objective determination.
Homeowner
Members of the family of sufficient age and discretion
Responsible members of the community (can’t be influenced by the searching party)

Article 131
PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION, AND DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL MEETINGS

ELEMENTS:
Offender is a public officer or employee
He performs any of the ff. acts:
prohibiting or interrupting, without legal ground the holding of a peaceful meeting, or dissolving
the same (e.g. denial of permit in arbitrary manner).
hindering any person from joining any lawful association or from attending any of its meetings
prohibiting or hindering any person from addressing, either alone or together with others, any
petition to the authorities for the correction of abuses or redress of grievances
If the offender is a private individual, the crime is disturbance of public order (Art 153)
Meeting must be peaceful and there is no legal ground for prohibiting, dissolving or interrupting
that meeting
Meeting is subject to regulation
Offender must be a stranger, not a participant, in the peaceful meeting; otherwise, it’s unjust
vexation
Interrupting and dissolving a meeting of the municipal council by a public officer is a crime
against the legislative body, not punishable under this article
The person talking on a prohibited subject at a public meeting contrary to agreement that no
speaker should touch on politics may be stopped
But stopping the speaker who was attacking certain churches in public meeting is a violation of
this article
Prohibition must be without lawful cause or without lawful authority
Those holding peaceful meetings must comply with local ordinances. Example: Ordinance
requires permits for meetings in public places. But if police stops a meeting in a private place
because there’s no permit, officer is liable for stopping the meeting.

Article 132

INTERRUPTION OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP

ELEMENTS:
That the officer is a public officer or employee
That religious ceremonies or manifestations of any religion are about to take place or are going
on
That the offender prevents or disturbs the same
Circumstance qualifying the offense: if committed with violence or threats
Reading of Bible and then attacking certain churches in a public plaza is not a ceremony or
manifestation of religion, but only a meeting of a religious sect. But if done in a private home, it’s
a religious service
Religious Worship: people in the act of performing religious rites for a religious ceremony; a
manifestation of religion. Ex. Mass, baptism, marriage
X, a private person, boxed a priest while the priest was giving homily and while the latter was
maligning a relative of X. Is X liable? X may be liable under Art 133 because X is a private
person.
When priest is solemnizing marriage, he is a person in authority, although in other cases, he’s
not.

Article 133
OFFENDING RELIGIOUS FEELINGS

ELEMENTS:
That the acts complained of were performed –
in a place devoted to religious feelings, or (for this element, no need of religious ceremony, only
the place is material)
during the celebration of any religious ceremony
That the acts must be notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful (deliberate intent to hurt
the feelings)
The offender is any person
There is a deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the faithful, directed against religious tenet
If in a place devoted to religious purpose, there is no need for an ongoing religious ceremony
Example of religious ceremony (acts performed outside the church). Processions and special
prayers for burying dead persons but NOT prayer rallies
Acts must be directed against religious practice or dogma or ritual for the purpose of ridicule, as
mocking or scoffing or attempting to damage an object of religious veneration
There must be deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the faithful, mere arrogance or rudeness is
not enough.