Title Two CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE Arbitrary detention or expulsion, violation of dwelling, prohibition,

interruption and dissolution of peaceful meetings and crimes against religious worship Section One. Arbitrary detention and expulsion Article 124. Arbitrary detention Article 125. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities Article 126. Delaying release Article 127. Expulsion Section Two. Violation of domicile Article 128. Violation of domicile Article 129. Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those legally obtained Article 130. Searching domicile without witnesses Section Three. Prohibition, interruption dissolution of peaceful meetings Article 131. Prohibition, interruption dissolution of peaceful meetings Section Four. Crimes against religious worship Article 132. Interruption of religious worship Article 133. Offending the religious feelings and and

accused acted without malice, but he should have verified the order of release before proceeding to make the re-arrest. The law doesnt fix a min period of detention. In US vs. Braganza, the detention was for less than half an hour; and in US vs. Agravante, the detention was only for one hour.
Rule 112 Sec. 6 When warrant of arrest may issue (a) By the RTC Within 10 days from the filing of the complaint or information, the judge shall personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. He may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on the record clearly fails to establish probable cause. If he finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest or a commitment order if the accused has already been arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by the judge who conducted the PI or when the complaint or information is filed pursuant to Sec. 7 of this Rule. In case of doubt on the existence of probable cause, the judge may order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within 5 days from notice and the issue must be resolved by the court within 30 days from the filing of the complaint or information. (b) By the MTC When required pursuant to par.2 Sec. 1 of this Rule, the PI of cases falling under the orig jurisdxn of the MTCs may be conducted by either the judge or the prosecutor. When conducted by the prosecutor, the procedure for the issuance of a warrant of arrest by the judge shall be governed by par. (a) of this section. When the investigation is conducted by the judge himself, he shall follow the procedure provided in sec. 3 of this Rule. If his findings and recommendations are affirmed by the provincial or city prosecutor, or by the Ombudsman or his deputy, and the corresponding information is filed, he shall issue a warrant of arrest. However, without waiting for the conclusion of the investigation, the judge may issue a warrant of arrest if he finds after an examination in writing and under oath of the complainant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers, that a probable cause exists and that there is a necessity of placing the respondent under immediate custody so as not to frustrate the ends of justice. (c) Where warrant of arrest not necessary A warrant of arrest shall not issue if the accused is already under detention pursuant to a warrant issued by the MTC in accordance with par. (b) of this section, or if the complaint or information was filed pursuant to Sec. 7 of this rule or is for an offense penalized by fine only. The court shall then proceed in the exercise of its original jurisdiction.

Article 124. Arbitrary Detention Elements: 1. 2. 3. Offender is a public officer or employee; He detains a person; The detention is without legal grounds.

Meaning of absence of legal grounds 1. 2. 3. 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.

When is there detention? A person is detained when he is placed in confinement or there is a restraint on his person. The crime of arbitrary detention can be committed through imprudence. Illustration: The chief of police rearrested a woman who had been released by means of a verbal order of the justice of the peace. The

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

Rule 113 Sec. 5 Arrest without warrant; when lawful A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is service final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. In cases falling under pars. (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with Sec. 7 of Rule 112.

subversive documents which were found in his house. Burgos denied the allegations. HELD: Arrest and search by the PC officers were not lawful where personal knowledge of the fact of the crime is essential. Knowledge came from Masamloks information. Burgos was not committing any criminal or subversive act at the time of the arrest. Evidence adduced against him are inadmissible, having been obtained in violation of his constitutional rights. Milo vs. Salonga Barrio Captain Tuvera Sr., with some private persons, maltreated Valdez by hitting him, and immediately thereafter, without legal grounds and with deliberate intent to deprive Valdez of his liberty, accused Tuvera with Cpt. Mendoza and Pat. Mangsat lodged and locked Valdez in side he municipal jail for about 11 hours. Judge Salonga quashed the information. HELD: Barrio captains are recognized persons in authority long before PD299. Therefore, Tuvera had authority to detain Valdez but such detainment for 11 hours was without legal cause. The crime committed is arbitrary detention. Astorga vs. People (2004)

Umil vs. Ramos These are eight (8) petitions praying for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus, ordering the respective respondents to produce the bodies of the persons named and to explain why they should not be set at liberty without further delay. In their Returns, the respondents uniformly assert that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is not available to the petitioners as they have been legally arrested and are detained by virtue of valid informations filed in court against them. HELD: No compelling reason exists to abandon the pronouncement in Ilagan vs. Enrile, that a writ of habeas corpus is no longer available after an information is filed against the person detained and a warrant of arrest or an order of commitment is issued by the court where said information has been filed. However, the answer and the better practice would be, not to limit the function of habeas corpus to a mere inquiry as to whether or not the court which issued the process, judgment or order of commitment or before whom the detained person is charged, had jurisdiction or not to issue the process, judgment or order or to take cognizance of the case, but rather, in all petitions for habeas corpus the court must inquire into every phase and aspect of petitioner's detention from the moment petitioner was taken into custody up to the moment the court passes upon the merits of the petition;" and "only after such a scrutiny can the court satisfy itself that the due process clause of our Constitution has in fact been satisfied." People v. Burgos Burgos was arrested by PC Officers while he was plowing his field for being a member of the NPA as alleged by Masamlok whom Burgos forcibly recruited. According to the prosecution, he admitted possession of a firearm and

Simon, de la Cruz, Maniscan, Militante and Pelias are members of the Regional Special Operations Group (RSOG) of the DENR, Tacloban City. On Sept. 1, 1997, together with SPO3 Cinco, Jr. and SPO1 Capoquian of the PNP Regional Intelligence Group, they were sent to Daram, Samar to conduct intelligence operations on possible illegal logging activities. At around 4:30-5:00 pm, the team found two boats measuring 18 m in length and 5 m in breadth being constructed. There they met petitioner Astorga, the Mayor of Daram, who turned out to be the owner of the boats. A heated altercation ensued between Astorga and the DENR team. Astorga called for reinforcements then a boat bearing 10 armed men arrived. The DENR team was then brought to the Mayors house where they had dinner and drinks. The team left at 2:00 am. HELD: The determinative factor in Arbitrary Detention, in the absence of actual physical restraint, is fear. After a careful review of the evidence on record, the court found no proof that Astorga instilled fear in the minds of the private offended parties. Based on the testimony of SPO1 Capoquian, the police who escorted the DENR team, what appears is that petitioner, being then a municipal mayor, merely extended his hospitality and entertained the DENR Team in his house.

Article 125. Delay in the Delivery of Detained Persons to the Proper Judicial Authorities Elements (as amended by E.O. 272) 1. Offender is a public officer or employee; 2. He detains a person for some legal ground;

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

3. He fails to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within a. 12 hours for light penalties; b. 18 hours for correctional penalties; and c. 36 hours for afflictive or capital penalties. If the offender is a private person, the crime is Illegal Detention. Under Art. 125, the public officer has detained the offended party for some legal ground. The detention is legal in the beginning because the person detained was arrested under any of the circumstances where arrest without warrant is authorized by law. However, his detention becomes illegal after a certain period of time because he is not delivered to the proper judicial authority. If the detention is NOT for some legal ground, the crime is Arbitrary Detention under Art. 124. Art. 125 does NOT apply when the arrest is by virtue of a warrant of arrest, in which case, the person arrested can be detained indefinitely until his case is decided by the court or he posts bail for his temporary release. Why? Because there is already a case filed against him in court it is not necessary to deliver the person to that court. Delivery to the proper judicial authorities doesnt consist in a physical delivery, but in making an accusation or charge or filing of an information against the person arrested with the corresponding court or judge. Proper judicial authorities means the courts of justice or judges of said courts vested with judicial power to order the temporary detention or confinement of a person charged with having committed a public offense. Circumstances considered in determining liability of officer detaining a person beyond legal period: means of communication hour of arrest other circumstances such as time of surrender and the material possibility for the fiscal to make the investigation and file in time the necessary information Illustration: When A was arrested for direct assault, punishable by a correctional penalty, on the evening of June 17, the complaint could not normally be filed earlier than 8 a.m. of June

18 because govt offices open for business usually at 8:00 and close at 5:00 p.m. The illegality of detention is not cured by the filing of the information in court because a violation of this article had already been committed before the information was filed.
Rule 112 Sec. 7 When accused lawfully arrested without a warrant Before the complaint or information is filed, the person arrested [without a warrant] may ask for a preliminary investigation in accordance with this Rule, but he must sign a waiver of the provisions of Art. 125 of the RPC, in the presence of his counsel. Notwithstanding the waiver, he may apply for bail and the investigation must be terminated within 15 days from its inception. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7438 An Act Defining Certain Rights Of Person Arrested, Detained Or Under Custodial Investigation As Well As The Duties Of The Arresting, Detaining And Investigating Officers, And Providing Penalties For Violations Thereof. Who are punishable? 1. Any arresting public officer of employee, or any investigating officer, who fails to inform any person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice 2. An officer or employee or anyone acting upon orders of such investigating officer or in his place, who fails to provide a competent and independent counsel to a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation for the commission of an offense if the latter cannot afford the services of his own counsel. 3. Any person who obstruct, persons or prohibits any lawyer, any member of the immediate family of a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation, or any medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by him or by any member of his immediate family or by his counsel, from visiting and conferring privately with him, of from examining and treating him, or from ministering to his spiritual needs, at any hour of the day or, in urgent cases, of the night

Article 126. Delaying Release Acts punished 1. Delaying the performance of a judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner; 2. Unduly delaying the service of the notice of such order to said prisoner; C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

10

3. Unduly delaying the proceedings upon any petition for the liberation of such person. Elements

1. 2. 3.

1. Offender is a public officer or employee; 2. 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. Offender without good reason delays a. the service of the notice of such order to the prisoner; b. the performance of such judicial or executive order for the release of the prisoner; or c. the proceedings upon a petition for the release of such person. Wardens and jailers are the public officers most likely to violate Art. 126. Article 127. Expulsion Acts punished 1. Expelling a person from the Philippines; 2. Compelling a person to change his residence. Elements 1. Offender is a public officer or employee; 2. S/he either a. expels any person from the Philippines; or b. compels a person to change residence; 3. Offender is not authorized to do so by law. RE: Not being authorized by law Only the court by a final judgment can order a person to change his residence. This is illustrated in ejectment proceedings, expropriation proceedings and in the penalty of destierro. In Villavicencio vs. Lukban, the Court held that the Mayor cannot force prostitutes residing in Manila to live in Davao against their will, there being no law that authorizes them to do so. Article 128. Violation of Domicile Acts punished

Entering any dwelling against the will of the owner 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

Common elements 1. 2. Offender is a public officer or employee; He is not authorized by judicial order to enter the dwelling or to make a search therein for papers or other effects.

Circumstances qualifying the offense 1. If committed at nighttime; or 2. If any papers or effects not constituting evidence of a crime are not returned immediately after the search made by offender. A public officer is authorized by judicial order when he is armed with a search warrant duly issued by the court. To constitute a violation of domicile, the entrance by the public officer must be against the will of the owner, which presupposes opposition or prohibition of the owner, whether express or implied. If the entrance is only without the consent of the owner, the crime is not committed. Besides, silence of the owner of the dwelling before and during the search, may show implied waiver. If the public officer searches a person outside his dwelling without a search warrant, the crime committed is grave coercion, if violence or intimidation is used, or unjust vexation, if there is no violence or intimidation. Article 129. Search Warrants Maliciously Obtained, and Abuse in the Service of Those Legally Obtained Acts punished 1. Procuring a search warrant without just cause; Elements (1) Offender is a public officer employee; (2) He procures a search warrant; (3) There is no just cause. or

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

11

2. Exceeding his authority or by using unnecessary severity in executing a search warrant legally procured. Elements (1) Offender is a public officer or employee; (2) He has legally procured a search warrant; (3) He exceeds his authority or uses unnecessary severity in executing the same. Review requisites for issuing a search warrant, manner of executing the warrant, definition of probable cause in the Rules of Court. Q: When is a search warrant said to have been procured without just cause? A1: When it appears on the face of the affidavits filed in support of the application, or through other evidence, that the applicant had every reason to believe that the search warrant sought for was unjustified. A2: 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 a manner that perjury could be charged thereon and affiant held liable for damages caused. Illustration: Pulis wanted to verify a report that some corpse was unlawfully buried in a monastery. Instead of stating to that effect, he alleges in his affidavit that opium was hidden in the premises. The offender in this article may also be held liable for perjury. In view of the phrase in addition to the liability attaching to the offender for the commission of any other offense, even if the crime of perjury was a necessary means of committing Art. 129, they cannot form a complex crime.
Rule 126 Searches and Seizures (Tignan na lang sa rules, mahaba saka alam na natin to! )

objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and cannot be availed of by 3rd parties. Consequently, the petitioners may not validly object to the use in evidence against them of the things seized, since the right to object to the admission of said papers in evidence belongs exclusively to the corporations, to whom they belong, and may not be invoked by the corporate officers in proceedings against them in their individual capacity. The warrants issued in this case state that the persons named therein committed a violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue Laws and the Revised Penal Code. As such, no specific offense has been alleged in said application. It was impossible for the judges who issued the warrants to have found the existence of probable cause, for the same presupposes the introduction of competent proof that the party against whom it is sought has performed particular acts or omission, violating a given provision of criminal laws. Finally, the warrants issued here were general warrants that authorized the search and seizure of records pertaining to all business transactions of petitioners, regardless of whether the transactions were legal or illegal. Burgos Sr., vs. Chief of Staff The validity of two search warrants is assailed by the petitioners in this case. Under these warrants, a house in Project 6, QC and 2 units of the RMC building in Q.Ave., QC were searched. Office and printing machines, equipment, paraphernalia, motor vehicles and other articles used in the printing, publication and distribution of the said newspapers, as well as numerous papers, documents, books and other written literature alleged to be in the possession and control of petitioner Burgos. HELD: The search warrants in this case were also in the nature of general warrants, hence invalid.

Article 130. Witnesses Elements 1. 2. 3. 4.

Searching Domicile without

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.
Searching Domicile without witnesses Public officer has a search warrant

Stonehill vs. Diokno Upon application of some officers of the government, several judges issued 42 search warrants against the petitioners and the corporations of which they were officers. HELD: The legality of the seizure can be contested only by the party whose rights have been impaired thereby. The

Violation of Domicile Public officer has no authority to make a search

Art. 130 does NOT apply to searches of vehicles or other means of transportation,

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

12

because the searches are not made in a dwelling. Article 131. Prohibition, Interruption, and Dissolution of Peaceful Meetings Elements 1. 2. Offender is a public officer or employee; He performs any of the following acts: a. prohibiting or by interrupting, without legal ground, the holding of a peaceful meeting, or by dissolving the same; b. hindering any person from joining any lawful association, or attending any of its meetings; c. 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.

But the reading of some verses our of the Bible in a private house by a group of 10 to 20 persons, is a religious service. There is no provisions of law which requires religious service to be conducted in approved orthodox style in order to merit protection against interference. Article 133. Feelings Elements 1. Acts complained of were performed in a place devoted to religious worship, OR during the celebration of any religious ceremony; 2. The acts must be notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful. There must be deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the faithful.
People vs. Mandoriao The Iglesia ni Cristo held a religious rally at a public place in Baguio. About 200 people attended the meeting, about 50 of whom were members of the INC but the rest were outsiders and curious listeners. While Salvio, a minister of INC, was expounding on his topic to the effect that Christ is not God, but only man, the crowd became unruly. Some people urged Mandoriao to go up the stage and have a debate with Salvio. Mandoriao however, was not able to speak before the microphone because the wire connecting it was abruptly disconnected. HELD: The meeting here was not a religious ceremony. A religious meeting is an assemblage of people met for the purpose of performing acts of adoration to the Supreme Being, or to perform religious services in recognition of God as an object of worship The meeting here was not limited to the members of the INC. The supposed prayers and singing of hymns were merely incidental because the principal object of the rally was to persuade new converts to their religion. Assuming that the rally was a religious ceremony, the appellant cannot be said to have performed acts or uttered words offensive to the feelings of the faithful. The act complained of must be directed against a dogma or ritual, or upon an object of veneration. There was no object of veneration at the meeting. People vs. Baes A complaint was filed against certain individuals, who while holding a funeral of a person in accordance with the rites of the Church of Christ, caused the funeral to pass throughout the churchyard of a Roman Catholic Church. The fiscal moved for dismissal of the case, which the court granted.

Offending

the

Religious

Only a public officer or employee can commit this crime. If the offender is a private individual, the crime is Disturbance of Public Order under Art. 153. But the offender must be astranger, not a participant, in the peaceful meeting. Where the offender is a participant, the crime committed is unjust vexation. The right to peaceably assemble is not absolute and may be regulated (i.e., with respect to the streets or public places to be used etc.) Article 132. Worship Elements 1. 2. 3. Offender is a public officer or employee; Religious ceremonies or manifestations of any religious are about to take place or are going on; Offender prevents or disturbs the same. Interruption of Religious

Qualified if committed by violence or threat. 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. In which case, the crime committed is violation of Art. 131

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

13

HELD: In his MTD, the fiscal denies that the unlawful act committed by the accused had offended the religious feelings of the Catholics of the municipality in which the act took place. Such ground of the motion is indefensible. Whether or not 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 profession another faith.

People vs. Tengson HELD: The act of performing burial rites inside a Roman Catholic cemetery, in accordance with the rules of practices of the sect called Christ is the Answer, by reading passages from the Bible, chanting the Alleluia, singing religious hymns and praying for the repose of the soul of the dead, is not notoriously offensive to the feelings of religious persons, provided there was no intent to mock, scoff, or to desecrate any religious sect or object venerated by people of a particular religion. Such act may have offended the Roman Catholic priest of the municipality and some Catholic adherents, but since there was a permit for the burial in question in the Roman Catholic Cemetery of that municipality, the religious rights of that sect, to which the members of the family of the deceased belong, and performed upon request of the bereaved husband, are not offensive to the feelings of everybody who professes the Christian religion. People vs. Nanoy While the congregation of the Assembly of God was having its afternoon services in its chapel, the accused who was allegedly drunk entered with uplifted hands and attempted to grab the song leader who ran away from him. The other members of the sect also ran out of the church and the religious services were discontinued. HELD: The accused is only guilty of unjust vexation.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

14