Lecture 2
CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF
THE STATE
 Crimes under this title are those which violate the Bill
of Rights accorded to the citizens under the
Constitution.
 Under this title, the offenders are public officers,
except as to the last crime – offending against
religious feelings under Art. 133, which refers to any
person. The public officers who may be held liable
are only those acting under supposed exercise of
official functions, albeit illegally.
 In its counterpart in Title IX (Crimes Against
Personal Liberty and Security), the offenders are
private persons. But private persons may also be
liable under Title II as when a private person conspires
with a public officer. What is required is that the
principal offender must be a public officer.
o Thus, if private person conspires with a
public officer, or becomes an accessory or
an accomplice, the private person also
becomes liable for the same crime.
o But a private person acting alone
CANNOT commit the crimes under Article
124 to article 132 of this title.
Constitution.
The fundamental law of the State is the Constitution of which is
regarded as the supreme law of the land.  The provisions in the
fundamental law, specifically, being referred to herein, is the Bill
of Rights under Article III of the Constitution.
It establishes the relationship of an individual to, and with, the
State and defines his or her rights by limiting the lawful powers of
the State.  Thus, when the rights of certain persons defined therein
are violated, what is being committed is a crime against the
fundamental laws of the State guaranteeing their civil rights and
liberties, which are as follows:
Liberty.
Liberty shall include the right to existence and to survive.
Likewise, it shall encompass the right to be free from arbitrary
and whimsical personal restraint or servitude.
The same incorporates, as well, the right of the citizen to be free
to lawfully use his faculties.  Its infringement incurs a liability for
a crime of arbitrary detention, delay in delivery of detained persons
to proper judicial authorities and delaying release.
Liberty of abode. 
The fundamental and constitutional right to the liberty of abode
and changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall
be inviolable, except upon lawful order of the court. A violation
thereof can be considered as a crime of expulsion.
What are the Differences among the felonies of Arbitrary Detention (Art. 124), Illegal Detention (Arts. 267 – 268), and
1
Right against unreasonable searches.
The Constitution protects the right of every individual against
unreasonable searches and seizures. This is also a consequence
of person’s right to privacy.  Indispensably, the State recognizes
the right of the people to be as secure as possible in their houses,
papers and effects.
Breaches thereof may be deemed as violation of domicile, search
warrants maliciously obtained and abuse legally obtained, and/or
searching domicile without witnesses.
Freedom of expression. 
Any and all modes of expression shall be embraced in the
guarantee, unless there is a valid law which accords due process
and observe the equal protection which may limit such guarantee.
Free expression shall also cover the right to peaceable assembly
and to petition the government for redress of grievances. The right
to form associations is also an adjunct of this constitutional right. 
A violation for such is chargeable of a crime prohibition,
interruption, dissolution of peaceful meetings.
Freedom of religion.
 This freedom guarantees the free exercise of religious beliefs. It
prohibits the State from unduly interfering with the outside
manifestations of one’s belief and faith.  Violation thereof may
subject the offender to be held liable for interruption of religious
worship and offending religious feelings.
ARBITRARY DETENTION
Elements:
 Offender is a public officer or employee; (Though the
elements specify that the offender be a public officer or
employee, private individuals who conspire with
public officers can also be liable.)
 He detains a person;
 The detention is without legal grounds.
A person is detained when he is placed in confinement or
there is a restraint on her person.
Meaning of Absence of Legal Grounds:
 no crime was committed by the detained;
 there is no violent insanity of the detained person; and
 the person detained has no ailment which requires
compulsory confinement in a hospital.
Arrest without warrant is the usual cause of arbitrary
detention.
In every case, the person detained shall be informed of the cause
of his detention and shall be allowed upon his request, to
communicate and confer at any time with his attorney or
counsel. (As amended by E.O. Nos. 59 and 272, Nov. 7, 1986 and
July 25, 1987, respectively).
 Unlawful Arrest (Art. 269)?

 In arbitrary detention, the differentiating factor is that the public officer or employee to be held liable under this offense should be
vested with authority to detain or order the detention of persons accused of a crime.

Moreover, if the warrantless arrest is without any legal ground, the arresting officers become liable for arbitrary detention. 

 However, if the apprehending individuals are NOT among those with vested authority to arrest, they become liable for illegal
detention.
 While for unlawful arrest, this may only apply if the arrest is for the purpose of delivering the person arrested to the proper
authorities without any reasonable ground.
 Otherwise, it is considered arbitrary detention when the public officer or employee merely detains a person without any intention
in bringing the person to the proper authorities.

Arbitrary Detention – Art. Illegal Detention – Art. 267, 268

Particulars Unlawful Arrest – Art. 269
124

Who can Public officer or Private individual, generally (Although may also Any person, either public officers or
commit employee be committed by a public officer) private persons

How Detains a person Unlawfully kidnaps, detains or otherwise deprives Arrest or detain a person without legal
committed without legal ground a or reasonable ground
person of liberty

Type of crime Crime against the Crime is against personal liberty and security Crime is against personal liberty and
fundamental law of security
the State

Purpose Just to detain and deprive the To deprive the person of his or her liberty for any To deliver the arrested person to the
person arrested of his or her unlawful purpose proper judicial authorities
liberty

DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF DETAINED PERSONS
Elements:
 Offender: public officer or employee;
 he detains a person for some legal ground;
 he fails to deliver such person to the proper judicial
authorities within:
o 12 hours for crimes or offenses punishable
by light penalties, or their equivalent
o 18 hours for crimes or offenses punishable
by correctional penalties, or their equivalent
o 36 hours for crimes or offenses punishable
by afflictive or capital penalties, or their
equivalent.
 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.)
 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?
o Light offense – 5 days.
o 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.

2
 Arbitrary Detention (124)
Detention is legal in the beginning, but illegality starts from the
Detention is illegal from the beginning.
expiration of the specified periods without the persons detained
having been delivered to the proper judicial authority.
DELAYING RELEASE
Acts punished:
 Delaying the performance of a judicial or executive
order for the release of a prisoner;
 Unduly delaying the service of the notice of such
order to said prisoner;
 Unduly delaying the proceedings upon any petition
for the liberation of such person.
Elements:
 Offender is a public officer or employee (Wardens and
jailers are the persons most likely to violate this
provision)
 There is a judicial or executive order for the release
of a prisoner or there is a proceeding upon any
petition for the liberation of such person;
 Offender, without good reason, delays –
o the performance of a judicial or executive
order for the release of a prisoner;
o the service of the notice of such order to said
prisoner; or
o the proceedings upon any petition for the
liberation of such person.
EXPULSION
Elements:
 Offender: public officer or employee;
 He either –
o expels a person from the Philippines; or
o compels a person to change his residence.
 The offender is not authorized to do so by law.
The crime of expulsion absorbs that of grave coercion.
When committed by a private person, the crime is GRAVE
COERCION.
 Only the competent court, as a consequence of a
final judgment, shall have the power to order a
person to change his residence or even remove him
therefrom.
 This may be illustrated in cases such as but not limited
to ejectment, expropriation proceedings, and in the
service of the penalty of destierro.
VIOLATION OF DOMICILE
Acts punished:
 Entering the dwelling against the will of thereof;
 Searching papers or other effects found therein
without the previous consent of such owner; or
 Refusing to leave the premises, after having
surreptitiously entered said dwelling and after having
been required to leave the same.
3
Delay in Delivery of Detained (125)
Common elements:
Ø Offender is a public officer or employee;
Ø He is not authorized by judicial order to enter
the dwelling and/or make a search therein for
papers or other effects. Being “authorized by
law” – means with search warrant, save himself or
do some things good for humanity.
Circumstances qualifying the offense:
Ø if the offense is committed at NIGHTTIME.
Ø if any papers or effects not constituting evidence
of a crime are not returned immediately after
the search made by the offender.
 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.
People vs Luis Sane (CA 40 OG 113)
It will be noted that to constitute a violation of domicile, the
entrance by the public officer or employee must be against the
will of the owner of the dwelling, which presupposes opposition
or prohibition by said owner, whether express or implied. If the
entrance by the public officer or employee is only without the
consent of the owner of the dwelling, the crime is not committed.
Neither is the crime committed if the owner of the dwelling
consented to such entrance.
SEARCH WARRANTS MALICIOUSLY OBTAINED
Acts punished:
Procuring a search warrant without just cause.
Elements:
  Offender is a public officer or employee;
 He procures a search warrant;
 There is no just cause.
Exceeding authority or using unnecessary severity in executing
a search warrant legally procured:
Elements:
 Offender is a public officer or employee;
 He has legally procured a search warrant;
 He exceeds his authority or uses unnecessary
severity in executing the same.
How does a public officer violate the provision of Article
129 of the Revised Penal Code?
The law provides that public officers may as well violate one’s
domicile when the former has maliciously obtained search
warrants or procured the same without just cause.
Alvarez vs. CFI G.R. No. L-45358, January 29, 1937)
In Alvarez vs. CFI G.R. No. L-45358, January 29, 1937, the
Supreme Court decreed that the true test of lack of just cause is
whether the affidavit filed in support of the application for search
warrant has been drawn in such manner that perjury could be
charged thereon -- The oath required must refer to the truth of the
facts within the personal knowledge of the petitioner or his
witnesses, because the purpose thereof is to convince the
committing magistrate, not the individual making the affidavit and
seeking the issuance of the warrant, of the existence of probable
cause.
Can a public officer or employee commit a complex crime
under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code when he
maliciously procured a Search Warrant through Perjury?
While Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code may seem, on its face,
in point and applicable, there are crimes which cannot be
complexed.
As you read Article 129 of the RPC you will note the phrase “In
addition to the liability attaching to the offender for the
commission of any other offense“.
This phrase in the aforesaid provision effectively withdraws it from
the application of complex crime proper found in Article 48 of the
RPC. Consequently, even if the perjury is a necessary means to
violate Article 129 [RPC], still, the former crime will be treated as
separate offense in view of the above phrase.
SEARCHING DOMICILE WITHOUT WITNESSES
Elements:
 Offender is a public officer or employee;
 He is armed with search warrant legally
procured;
 He searches the domicile, papers or other
belongings of any person;
 The owner, or any members of his family, or two
witnesses residing in the same locality are not
present.
PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION, AND DISSOLUTION
OF PEACEFUL MEETINGS:
Elements:
 Offender is a public officer or employee;
 He performs any of the following acts:
o prohibiting or interrupting, without legal
ground, the holding of a peaceful meeting,
or dissolving the same;
o hindering any person from joining any
lawful association, or from attending any of
its meetings;
o 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.
INTERRUPTION OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP
Elements:
 Offender is a public officer or employee;
 Religious ceremonies or manifestations of any
religion are about to take place or are going on;
 Offender prevents or disturbs the same.
Qualified if committed by violence or threat.
OFFENDING RELIGIOUS FEELINGS:
Elements:
 Acts complained of were performed in the place
devoted to religious worship, or during the celebration
of any religious ceremony;
 The acts must be notoriously offensive to the feelings
of the faithful;
 There must be deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of
the faithful.

Distinguish Arts. 131, 132, and 133 of the Revised Penal Code
Article 131 is all about the prohibition, interruption, & dissolution of peaceful meetings. This felony punished the following acts:

1. Prohibiting, interrupting or dissolving without legal ground the holding of a peaceful meeting;
2. Hindering any person from joining any lawful association or from attending any of its meetings; and
3. 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.

To constitute this felony, the common elements are as follows:

1. That the offender is a public officer; and

2. That he performs any of the acts mentioned above.

While, Article 132 speaks of interruption of religious worship where the requisites to constitute this are:

4
 1. That the offender is a public officer or employee;
2. Those religious ceremonies or manifestations of any religion are about to take place or are going on; and
3. That the offender prevents or disturbs the same. It is qualified by violence or threats.

On the other hand, Article 133 is offending religious feelings. To constitute this felony, the following requisites must be present, to wit:

1. That the acts complained of were performed:

 In a place devoted to religious worship (not necessary that there is a religious worship); or
 During the celebration of any religious ceremony; and[87]
 That the acts must be notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.

Prohibition, interruption, and

Interruption of religious worship – Offending the religious feelings – Art.
Particulars dissolution of peaceful meetings – Art.
Art. 132 133
131

Who can commit Public officer or Public officer or Any person

employee employee

As to subject of Any peaceful meeting Interruption of religious worship Offending the religious feelings
acts

Manner of Prohibiting, interrupting or dissolving Committed with violence or threats Acts notoriously offensive to the feelings
commission without legal ground the holding of a of the faithful
peaceful meeting.

People vs. Reyes, et. Al ( G. R. No. 13633-R, July 27, 1955)
In People vs. Reyes, et. Al ( G. R. No. 13633-R, July 27, 1955), the Chief of Police had directed the speaker in a public meeting of the Iglesia ni
Cristo, who was then attacking the Catholic and Aglipayan churches, to stop the latter’s speech. This Chief of Police, thereupon, fired two shots
in the air which had caused the dispersal of the crowd, who scampered for their safety, and the meeting to a halt, is liable under Article 131.

People vs. Baes, (G.R. No. L-46000, May 25, 1939)

In People vs. Baes, (G.R. No. L-46000, May 25, 1939) the High Court has made a pronouncement relative to the acts deemed to be notoriously
offensive to the feelings of the faithful. If and when these so called acts are directed against religious practice or dogma or ritual for the purpose
of ridicule, as mocking or scoffing at or attempting to damage an object of religious veneration, then they may be considered as notoriously
offensive. Thus:

“In the second place, whether or of the act complained of is offensive to the religious feelings of the Catholics, is a question of fact which
must be judged only according to the feelings of the Catholics and not those of other faithful ones, for it is possible that certain acts may offend
the feelings of those who profess a certain religion, while not otherwise offensive to the feelings of those professing another faith.”