TITLE TWO

I. CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE

Classes of Arbitrary Detention:

1. By detaining a person without legal ground

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

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:

1. That the offender is a public officer or employee

2. 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
3. That the offender without good reason delays:
1. the service of the notice of such order to the prisoner, or
2. the performance of such judicial or executive order for the release of the prisoner, or
3. 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
4. delaying the performance of a judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner
5. delaying the service of notice of such order to said prisoner
6. delaying the proceedings upon any petition for the liberation of such person

Article 127
EXPULSION
ELEMENTS:

1. That the offender is a public officer or employee

2. That he expels any person from the Philippines, or compels a person to change his
residence
3. That the offender is not authorized to do so by law
2 acts punishable:
4. by expelling a person from the Philippines
5. 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:

1. That the offender is a public officer or employee

2. That he is not authorized by judicial order to enter the dwelling and/or to make a search
therein for papers or other effects
 3. That he commits any of the following acts:
1. entering any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof
2. searching papers or other effects found therein without the previous consent of such
owner
3. 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.
4. offense committed at nighttime
5. papers or effects not constituting evidence of a crime be not returned immediately
6. person enters dwelling w/o consent or against the will
7. person enters and searches for papers and effects
8. 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:
4. X owner was handcuffed while search was going-on.
5. Tank was used to ram gate prior to announcement that a search will be made
6. Persons who were not respondents were searched

Article 130

ELEMENTS OF SEARCHING DOMICILE WITHOUT WITNESSES:

1. That the offender is a public officer or employee
2. That he is armed with a search warrant legally procured
3. That he searches the domicile, papers or other belongings of any person
4. 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.
5. Homeowner
6. Members of the family of sufficient age and discretion
7. Responsible members of the community (can’t be influenced by the searching party)

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

INTERRUPTION OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP

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.