Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Title Two
Title Two
Article 124
ARBITRARY DETENTION
ELEMENTS:
1. 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).
2. That he detains a person (actual restraint).
3. 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.
4. commission of a crime
5. violent insanity or other ailment requiring compulsory confinement of the patient in a
hospital
6. he has not committed any crime or no reasonable ground of suspicion that he has
committed a crime
7. not suffering from violent insanity or any other ailment requiring compulsory
confinement in a hospital
8. Crime is about to be, is being, has been committed
9. Officer must have reasonable knowledge that the person probably committed the crime
Article 125
DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF DETAINED PERSONS
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee
2. That he has detained a person for some legal grounds
3. That he fails to deliver such person to the proper judicial authority within:
4. 12 hours, if detained for crimes/offenses punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent
5. 18 hours, for crimes/offenses punishable by correctional penalties, or their equivalent or
6. 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 Detention is
illegal from the legal in the
beginning. 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:
Article 127
EXPULSION
ELEMENTS:
(The crime of expulsion absorbs that of grave coercion. If done by a private person, will amount to grave
coercion)
Article 128
VIOLATION OF DOMICILE
ELEMENTS:
Article 129
Article 130
Article 131
PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION, AND DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL MEETINGS
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a public officer or employee
2. He performs any of the ff. acts:
3. prohibiting or interrupting, without legal ground the holding of a peaceful meeting, or
dissolving the same (e.g. denial of permit in arbitrary manner).
4. 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
ELEMENTS:
1. That the officer is a public officer or employee
2. That religious ceremonies or manifestations of any religion are about to take place or are
going on
3. 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:
1. That the acts complained of were performed –
2. in a place devoted to religious feelings, or (for this element, no need of religious
ceremony, only the place is material)
3. during the celebration of any religious ceremony
4. That the acts must be notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful (deliberate
intent to hurt the feelings)
5. The offender is any person
6. 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.