TITLE TWO

CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE (Articles

124 – 133)

Note: The acts under TITLE TWO are made criminal because they appease
the Bill of Rights.

Arbitrary Detention: 124, 125, and 126

THREE ACTS PUNISHED AS ARBITRARY DETENTION:

1. Arbitrary Detention by detaining a person without legal ground under Article 124
2. Arbitrary Detention by failing to deliver the detained person to the proper judicial
authorities within 12, 18 or 36 hours under Article 125
3. Arbitrary Detention by delaying the release of prisoners despite the judicial or
executive order to do so under Article 126

ARTICLE 124 – ARBITRARY DETENTION BY DETAINING A PERSON

WITHOUT LEGAL GROUND

ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee.

➢ The offender is a public officer or employee. But not all public officers or employees
can commit arbitrary detention. The public officer or employee who can commit
arbitrary detention are only those who have been vested with authority to effect
arrest and detain a person or at least to cause the detention of a person.
Even if he is a public officer and he detains another, but if he was not vested with
authority to effect arrest or detain another, although a public officer, he was acting in his
private capacity, then the crime committed is either Article 267 – Illegal Detention or
Article 268 – Slight illegal detention but not Arbitrary detention.

Public officers who have been vested with authority to effects arrest and detain a person
are POLICE OFFICERS. On the other hand, public officers vested with authority to
cause the detention of a person are MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. They can order the
detention of a person who has been cited in contempt for failing to accurate their proof,
or we have JUDGES- they can order the summary detention of persons cited in
contempt of court.

2. That he detains a person.

➢ There is detention when the offended party is placed in incarceration, when the
offended party is placed behind bars or when the offended party is restrained of his
person or liberty.
➢In order to amount arbitrary detention there must be an act of restraint on the
person or liberty of the offended party. Absent that intent, absent the actual
restraint on the person or liberty of the offended party – It can be any other crime
BUT NOT ARBITRARY DETENTION. Therefore, Supreme Court said that intent
to detain must be manifest, it must be evident. Absent that, it can be any other crime
but not arbitrary detention.

3. That the detention is without legal ground.

Note: Detention is without legal grounds under Article 124:

(1) When the said offended party was arrested without a warrant of arrest.
(2) When the said offended party was arrested and his arrest and detention does not
fall under any of the circumstances of a valid warrantless arrest.
(3) When he is not suffering from violent insanity or any other ailment which requires
compulsory confinement.

Valid grounds for detention:

(1) If the person was received and detained by virtue of a warrant of arrest.
(2) If a person was arrested and detained under any of the circumstances for a valid
warrantless arrest
(3) If a person was suffering violent insanity or any illness which requires compulsory
confinement.

ARTICLE 125 – ARBITRARY DETENTION BY FAILING TO DELIVER THE

DETAINED PERSON TO THE PROPER JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES WITHIN
12, 18 OR 36 HOURS

ELEMENTS:
1. The offender here is a public officer or employees vested with authority to effect
arrest and detain a person.

2. That offender has detained a person for some legal ground

➢ The second element requires that the offender arrests and detains a person for some
legal ground.

What legal grounds are referred to under Article 125?

The legal ground being referred to in Article 125 is not the fact that the said arrest was
made by virtue of a warrant of arrest because if the offended party was arrested by the
public officer by virtue of a valid warrant of arrest he does not have the obligation to
deliver him to the proper judicial authorities.

RATHER, valid instances in arresting a person refer to circumstances of valid

warrantless arrests under Section 5 Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. It requires that a
peace officer or a private individual may even without a warrant arrest a person under
the following circumstances:

a.) That in his presence the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing,
or is attempting to commit a crime. This is otherwise known as INFLAGRANTE
DELICTO ARREST
b.) When a crime has in fact just been committed, and the police officer has probable
cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the person
to be arrested is the one who committed the crime. This is otherwise known as HOT
PURSUIT ARREST.
c.) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or a place where he is serving final sentence or temporarily detained
while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one penal
institution to another.

3. That the offender failed to deliver the person arrested to the proper judicial
authorities within 12, 18 or 36 hours.

The third element requires that that the offender fails to deliver the person arrested to
the proper judicial authorities within 12, 18 or 36 hours.

Note: Delivery does not mean that you really have to deliver the physical body of the
person arrested to the court. It means constructive delivery or legal delivery, meaning,
the filing of the appropriate case before the proper court. That is delivery to proper
judicial authorities - filing of the case before the proper court. The proper judicial
authorities refer to courts of justices or judges of the courts that have the power to
order the incarceration or detention of a person or his temporary restraint upon
posting of appropriate complaint.

The law says that a public officer must deliver the person arrested to proper judicial
authority within:

a) 12 hours, for crimes punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent

b) 18 hours, for crimes punishable by correctional penalties, or their equivalent
c) 36 hours, for crimes punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or their equivalent

ARTICLE 126 – ARBITRARY DETENTION BY DELAYING THE RELEASE OF

PRISONERS DESPITE THE JUDICIAL OR EXECUTIVE ORDER TO DO SO

ELEMENTS:
1. The offender is a public officer or employee

2. That there is a judicial or executive order for the release of the prisoner or detention
prisoner, or that there is a proceeding upon a petition for the liberation of such person.
3. That the offender without good/valid reason delays:
a. The service of the notice of such order to the prisoner; or
b. The performance of such judicial or executive order for the release of the prisoner; or
c. The proceeding upon a petition for the release of such person.

NOTE: What is punishable is the delay without valid reason, the delay of the release of
the prisoner despite the judicial or executive order to do so.

➢Example of judicial order for the release of a prisoner let’s say that a person has
been charged in court and the public prosecutor failed to present any evidence four
consecutive times and no witness has ever been presented since the beginning. The
judge will dismiss the case and order the release of the accused from jail. This is an
example of a judicial order for the release of a prisoner. Or let’s say the judge
acquitted the accused then he will order the release of the said accused from jail.

➢ How about an example of an executive order for a release of a prisoner? A person

was arrested and placed behind bars and proceeding was filed before the fiscal’s office.
The fiscal ordered the release of the prisoner. This is an example of executive order for
the release the prisoner.

ARTICLE 127 – EXPULSION

ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a public officer or employee

2. The public officer or employee acts either:

a.) By expelling a person from the Philippines
b.) By compelling a person to change his residence

3. Offender is not authorized to do so by law

➢What the law prohibits is that if this public officer or employee expels him from the
Philippines or compels him to change his residence without lawful authority to do so
because there are persons who have been authorized by law to deport a person from
the Philippines or to compel a person to change his residence.

➢ For example, the President has the power to deport or expel a person from the
Philippines. Another example is a foreigner who is known to be a persona non grata;
the President may order his deportation to his home.
➢ The courts on the other hand, have the power to compel a person to change his place
of residence. Let’s say the offender is a concubine and the penalty to be imposed to a
concubine is destierro. Therefore, the concubine is prohibited from entering a
particular place based on the judgment of the court. Now, the prohibited place from
which she is prohibited from entering is the place where she lives. She cannot enter the
said place therefore; the court is empowered to compel her to change her place of
residence because she cannot enter the place wherein her house is situated.

VIOLATION OF DOMICILE: ARTICLE 128, 129, 130

Different prohibited acts constituting violation of domicile:

I. By entering any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof; or
II. By searching papers or other effects found therein without the previous consent of
such owner; or
III. By refusing to leave the premises, after having surreptitiously entered.

ARTICLE 128 – VIOLATION OF DOMICILE

ELEMENTS:
1. The offender is a public officer or employee
➢ The offender in the violation of domicile is a public officer or employee acting under
color of authority.
➢ A public officer or employee is said to be acting under color of authority if he has been
vested with the authority to implement a search warrant, but when he entered in the
said dwelling, he is not armed with a judicial order or search warrant. Therefore, he was
acting under color of authority.
➢Even if he is a public officer or employee, but he did not act under color of authority,
he is liable only, not for violation of domicile, but is either liable for qualified trespass
to dwelling or trespass to property because the public officer or employee is acting
under his private capacity.

2. He was not authorized by a judicial order to enter the dwelling and/or make a search
therein for papers or other effects

Note: The second element requires that entering upon the dwelling of another which is
not authorized by a judicial order. The judicial order refers to a search warrant.

3. He either:
a. Enters the dwelling of another against the will of the latter; or
b. Searching for papers or other effects found therein without the consent of the owner;
or
c. After having surreptitiously entered the dwelling, being discovered and asked to leave,
he refuses to leave.
Different modes of violation of domicile:
(These three modes are separate and distinct from each other – do not look for all the
three modes in a problem, violation of one of them will bring about violation of
domicile.)

1. By entering any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof; or

➢ There must a prohibition, an opposition from entering. It can either be an implied or
expressed opposition from entering.

Examples:
Implied opposition – the door is closed. It can be said that the owner is saying that “No
one can enter my house”

Expressed prohibition – when the owner is inside the house and the officer knocks upon
the door and upon seeing the officer, the owner closes the door. If there are sayings –
“Do not enter”, “No entry”

➢ It does not mean entering without the consent. An entry without the consent is not an
entry against the will.
➢ When you say entry against the will, there must be an opposition or a prohibition
from entering the dwelling.
2. By searching papers or other effects found therein without the previous
consent of the owner; or
➢ The consent of the owner matters. Even if the public officer or employee is allowed
inside, the fact that he is allowed inside does not mean that he is allowed to conduct the
search.
➢ He must ask first for the previous consent of the owner before proceeding with the
search. Without the previous consent of the owner to conduct the search, any search
would be a violation of domicile.
3. By refusing to leave the premises, after having surreptitiously entered
the dwelling
➢ It is his refusal to leave the premises that will bring about the violation of domicile,
NOT the surreptitiously entering. But it is required that entering must be done
surreptitiously.

Surreptitious entering – means entering the dwelling secretly or candidly.

Therefore, it is important that he must refuse to leave after being discovered and asked
to leave in order to amount to violation of domicile.

➢ Mere surreptitious entering will not bring about violation of domicile.

Note: Under Articles 129 and 130, there is still violation of domicile despite the fact that
the public officer or employee is armed with a search warrant.

ARTICLE 129 – SEARCH WARRANTS MALICIOUSLY OBTAINED AND

ABUSE IN THE SERVICE OF THOSE LEGALLY OBTAINED

COMMITTED THROUGH:
I. By procuring a search warrant without just cause
➢ When a public officer or employee conducts a search and the search warrant was an
illegally procured search warrant. It was procured without just cause.

SEARCH WARRANT – is an order in writing, issued in the name of the People of the
Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to
search for personal property described therein and to bring to court the particular
things to be seized.

II. By exceeding his authority or by using unnecessary severity in executing

a search warrant legally procured ➢ A search warrant is valid only for a period of
10 days from the date of its issuance appearing on the search warrant.

The public officer is said to have exceeded his authority in the search warrant
when despite the discrepancy or the variance between the facts alleged in the search
warrant and the actual facts on the place to be searched, the peace officer still proceeded
with the search. The Supreme Court said that a search warrant is always specifically
worded because the officers serving the search warrant are not allowed to exercise
discretion. They must follow what is stated in the search warrant – the things to be
seized, the place to be searched, the time of the search. There must be no deviation.
The public officer is said to have employed excessive severity in the
implementation of the search warrant when in the conduct of search, they
deliberately caused damage on the property, they deliberately caused harm or injury to
any person in the conduct of the said search.

EXCEPTION: Under the Rules of Court, the police officers are allowed to break door
or window if at the time they will conduct the search, they are not allowed entry.
In real life, the police officers have this document, Affidavit of Orderly Search which
they will later ask the owner of the place searched to sign in order to testify that the
search was done in an orderly manner.

Note: A search warrant is only valid for ten days. If a search warrant was dated Dec.
1. A police officer received it on Dec 3. The search was conducted Dec. 13. The said
search warrant is already invalid. When they conducted the said search on Dec. 13,
they already exceeded the authority in the said search warrant. Therefore, they are
liable of violation of domicile under Article 129.
Q: What if the said search warrant says that they could conduct the search, anytime of
the day. They conducted the search at night time.

A: They are liable of violation of domicile under Article 129 because they
exceeded the authority in the said search warrant.

Note: A search warrant may only be conducted at day time. It may only be
implemented at day time.

EXCEPTION: When there is a specific order in the search warrant stating that it can be
conducted at any time of the day or night. Absence of such order in the said search
warrant, a search warrant can only be implemented at day time.

Note: According to the Rules of Court, peace officers are allowed to break open the
door or window of a house if at the time of the service of the search warrant, they are
not allowed entry. But if the said officers, upon service of the search warrant were
allowed to enter and despite such fact, they still caused damage upon the property and
hurt members of the family, they are liable under Article 129 for employing excessive
severity.

ARTICLE 130 – SEARCHING DOMICILE WITHOUT WITNESSES

Committed by conducting a search in the absence of the owner of the house,
or any member of his family, or two witnesses residing in the same locality

ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a public officer or employee

2. He is armed with a search warrant legally procured

3. He searches the domicile, papers, or other belongings of any person

4. The owner or any member of his family or two witnesses residing in the same locality
are not present

HIERARCHY:
1. Owner
2. Any member of his family
3. Two witnesses residing in the same locality

ARTICLE 131 – PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION AND DISSOLUTION OF

PEACEFUL MEETINGS

ELEMENTS:
1. The offender is a public officer or employee
2. The offender committed any of the following acts:
a. By prohibiting or by interrupting, dissolving, without legal ground, the holding of a
peaceful meeting, or by dissolving the same. (any peaceful meeting)
b. By hindering any person from joining any lawful association or from attending any of
its meetings.
c. By 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.

➢ For the crime to arise, it is necessary that the meeting that was prevented, interrupted
or dissolved must be a peaceful meeting and it must be for any lawful purpose. If the
meeting is not a peaceful meeting or if the meeting is not for lawful purpose, a public
officer or employee has all the rights to prevent, interrupt or dissolve the said meeting.
➢ This is in the exercise of the freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of
assembly. However, these 3 freedoms are not absolute. The Supreme Court has enjoined
the power of the State to regulate these meetings through permits.
➢Before any of these peaceful meetings for a lawful purpose may be held in a public
place, there must be a permit coming from the local authority of the place. The permit
is only to regulate the said meeting and not to prohibit it. Regulate as to the time,
place and to the date, so that the public would not be in inconvenience.

ARTICLE 132 – INTERRUPTION OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP

ELEMENTS:
1. This is committed by an offender who is again a public officer or employee.

2. Then there is a religious ceremony or manifestations of any religion that is about to

take place or are going on.

3. That the offender prevents or disturbs the said religious worship or religious
ceremony.

QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE:
➢ If the offender makes use of violence or threats in committing the crime, such use
of violence or threats would not constitute a separate and distinct charge. Rather it is
considered as an aggravating or qualifying circumstance which would mean an
imposition of a higher penalty

ARTICLE 133 – OFFENDING THE RELIGIOUS FEELINGS

ELEMENTS:
1. Committed by a public officer or employee or a private individual.
➢The first element provides for the offender. The offender may be a public officer or
employee or a private individual. This is the only crime under Title Two where the
offender can be a private individual. From Article 124 to Article 132 under Title Two,
 the offender can ONLY be a public officer or employee. The only exception is Article
133, offending the religious feelings wherein the offender can either be a public officer
or employee or a private individual. The reason is, whoever may be the offender, a
public officer or employee or a private individual, there will be the same offense made
on the feelings of the faithful.

2. That the acts must be notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.
➢ The second element requires that the offender performs acts notoriously offensive to
the feelings of the faithful. Acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful
are those acts directed against their religious dogma, ritual, faith of the religion, or
mocks, ridicule, or scoffs of the said dogma, ritual, faith or he attempts to damage the
object of veneration of a certain religion. The law says “notoriously offensive”, according
to Reyes, it means that it is offensive to all kinds of religion. If the same thing
would be done to any religion they will also be offended.

➢ Acts directed against a religion in connection with its:

a. Practice,
b. Ritual,
c. Dogma
Or acts causing damage to the object of veneration.

3. The said offender performs acts:

(1) in a place devoted to religious worship, or
(2) during the celebration of any religious ceremony.

Note: The third element requires that the said acts notoriously offensive to the feelings
of the faithful can be committed only (1) in a place devoted to religious worship, or (2)
during the celebration of any religious ceremony. The law uses the word “or”
therefore, if the act is done in a place devoted to religious worship, it is not necessary
that there be a religious ceremony ongoing. Because it can either be with or without a
religious ceremony for as long as the place is devoted for religious worship.