Title Two  The law doesn’t fix a min period of detention.
In
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 and dissolution of
peaceful meetings
Article 131. Prohibition, interruption and dissolution of
peaceful meetings
Section Four. Crimes against religious worship
Article 132. Interruption of religious worship
Article 133. Offending the religious feelings
Article 124. Arbitrary Detention
Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. He detains a person;
3. The detention is without legal grounds.
Meaning of absence of legal grounds
1. No crime was committed by the
detained;
2. There is no violent insanity of the
detained person; and
3. 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 accused acted without
malice, but he should have verified the order of
release before proceeding to make the re-arrest.
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.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
8

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.
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
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 Masamlok’s 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.
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;
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
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
9
case filed against him in court  it is not necessary to
deliver the person to that court.
 “Delivery to the proper judicial authorities” doesn’t
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 gov’t 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
Alberto vs. De la Cruz
 Case where the accused was summoned at
the house of the governor to fix the fence.
 In order to be guilty under 223
(connivance) and 224 (negligence), it is
necessary that the public officer had
consented to, or connived in, the escape of
a prisoner on the part of the person in
charge is an essential condition in the
commission of the crime of faithfulness in
the custody of the prisoner. If the public
officer charged with the duty of guarding
him does not connive with the fugitive, then
he has not violated the law and is not guilty
of the crime.
 Negligence in the custody of a prisoner
under 224 of the RPC punishable if it is
definitely and deliberately committed.
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;
3. Unduly delaying the proceedings upon any
petition for the liberation of such person.
Elements
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;
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
10
 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.
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.

 Wardens and jailers are the public officers most  A public officer is “authorized by judicial order”
likely to violate Art. 126. when he is armed with a search warrant duly issued
by the court.

Article 127. Expulsion  To constitute a violation of domicile, the entrance

by the public officer must be against the will of the
Acts punished owner, which presupposes opposition or prohibition of
the owner, whether express or implied. If the
1. Expelling a person from the Philippines; entrance is only without the consent of the owner,
2. Compelling a person to change his the crime is not committed. Besides, silence of the
residence. owner of the dwelling before and during the search,
may show implied waiver.
Elements
 If the public officer searches a person outside his
1. Offender is a public officer or employee; dwelling without a search warrant, the crime
2. S/he either - committed is grave coercion, if violence or
a. expels any person from the intimidation is used, or unjust vexation, if there is
Philippines; or no violence or intimidation.
b. compels a person to change
residence;
3. Offender is not authorized to do so by law.
Bar Question
Violation of Domicile vs. Trespass to Dwelling (2002)
 RE: “Not being authorized by law” – Only the court What is the difference between violation of domicile and
by a final judgment can order a person to change his trespass to dwelling? (2%)
residence. This is illustrated in ejectment proceedings, SUGGESTED ANSWER:
expropriation proceedings and in the penalty of The differences between violation of domicile and trespass to
destierro. dwelling are; 1) The offender in violation of domicile is a
 In Villavicencio vs. Lukban, the Court held that public officer acting under color of authority; in trespass to
the Mayor cannot force prostitutes residing in Manila dwelling, the offender is a private person or public officer
acting in a private capacity.
to live in Davao against their will, there being no law
2) Violation of domicile is committed in 3 different
that authorizes them to do so. ways: (1) by entering the dwelling of another against the
will of the latter; (2) searching papers and other effects
inside the dwelling without the previous consent of the
Article 128. Violation of Domicile owner; or (3) refusing to leave the premises which he
entered surreptitiously, after being required to leave the
Acts punished premises.
3) Trespass to dwelling is committed only in one
way; that is, by entering the dwelling of another against the
1. Entering any dwelling against the will of the
express or implied will of the latter.
owner thereof;
2. Searching papers or other effects found
Article 129. Search Warrants Maliciously
therein without the previous consent of such
Obtained, and Abuse in the Service of Those
owner; or
Legally Obtained
3. Refusing to leave the premises, after having
surreptitiously entered said dwelling and after
Acts punished
having been required to leave the same
1. Procuring a search warrant without just
Common elements
cause;
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
Elements
2. He is not authorized by judicial order to
(1) Offender is a public officer or employee;
enter the dwelling or to make a search therein
(2) He procures a search warrant;
for papers or other effects.
(3) There is no just cause.

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! )
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
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. Searching Domicile without
Witnesses
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. He is armed with search warrant legally
procured;
3. He searches the domicile, papers or other
belongings of any person;
4. The owner, or any members of his family, or two
witnesses residing in the same locality are not
present.
Violation of Domicile Searching Domicile
without witnesses
Public officer has no Public officer has a search
authority to make a search warrant
 Art. 130 does NOT apply to searches of vehicles or
other means of transportation, because the searches
are not made in a dwelling.
Article 131. Prohibition, Interruption, and
Dissolution of Peaceful Meetings
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
12
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. 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.
 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. Interruption of Religious Worship
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. Religious ceremonies or manifestations of any
religious are about to take place or are going on;
3. Offender prevents or disturbs the same.
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
 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. Offending the Religious 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.
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
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
13
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.
Republic Act 9372
Human Security Act of 2007
Procedure when a suspected terrorist is arrested
A. A suspected terrorist maybe arrested by any law
enforcement personnel provided:
1. The law enforcement agent was duly authorized
in writing by the Anti Terrorism Council
2. The arrest was the result of a surveillance or
examination of bank deposits
B. Upon arrest and prior to actual detention, the law
enforcement agent must present the suspected terrorist
before any judge at the latter’s residence or office
nearest the place of arrest, at any time of the day or
night. The judge shall, within three days, submit a
written report of the presentation to the court where the
suspect shall have been charged.
C. Immediately after taking custody of a person charged
or suspected as a terrorist, the police or law
enforcement personnel shall notify in writing the judge
of the nearest place of apprehension or arrest, but if the
arrest is made during non-office days or after office
hours, the written notice shall be served at the nearest
residence of the judge nearest the place of arrest
D. Failure to notify in writing is punished by 10 years
and one day to12 years of imprisonment
Period of Detention has been extended to three days
A. The three day period is counted from the moment the
person charged or suspected as terrorist has been
apprehended or arrested, detained and taken into
custody
B. In the event of an actual or imminent terrorist attack,
suspects may not be detained for more than three days
without the written approval of the Human Rights
Commission, or judge of the MTC RTC, Sandiganbayan
or Court of Appeals nearest the place of arrest
C. If arrest was on a nonworking day or hour, the
person arrested shall be brought to the residence of any
of the above named officials nearest the place of arrest.
D. Failure to deliver the person charged or suspected as
terrorists to the proper judicial; authority within three days is
punished by 10 years and one day to 12 years.
Republic Act 9745
Anti-Torture Act of 2009
Punishable Acts:
1.] Torture
2.] Other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment
Sec 4: Acts of Torture. - For purposes of this Act, torture
shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(a) Physical torture is a form of treatment or punishment
inflicted by a person in authority or agent of a person in
authority upon another in his/her custody that causes severe
pain, exhaustion, disability or dysfunction of one or more
parts of the body, such as:
(1) Systematic beating, headbanging, punching, kicking,
striking with truncheon or rifle butt or other similar objects,
and jumping on the stomach;
(2) Food deprivation or forcible feeding with spoiled food,
animal or human excreta and other stuff or substances not
normally eaten;
(3) Electric shock;
(4) Cigarette burning; burning by electrically heated rods,
hot oil, acid; by the rubbing of pepper or other chemical
substances on mucous membranes, or acids or spices
directly on the wound(s);
(5) The submersion of the head in water or water polluted
with excrement, urine, vomit and/or blood until the brink of
suffocation;
(6) Being tied or forced to assume fixed and stressful bodily
position;
(7) Rape and sexual abuse, including the insertion of foreign
objects into the sex organ or rectum, or electrical torture of
the genitals;
(8) Mutilation or amputation of the essential parts of the
body such as the genitalia, ear, tongue, etc.;
(9) Dental torture or the forced extraction of the teeth;
(10) Pulling out of fingernails;
(11) Harmful exposure to the elements such as sunlight and
extreme cold;
(12) The use of plastic bag and other materials placed over
the head to the point of asphyxiation;
(13) The use of psychoactive drugs to change the
perception, memory. alertness or will of a person, such as:
(i) The administration or drugs to induce confession and/or
reduce mental competency; or
(ii) The use of drugs to induce extreme pain or certain
symptoms of a disease; and
(14) Other analogous acts of physical torture; and
(b) "Mental/Psychological Torture" refers to acts committed
by a person in authority or agent of a person in authority
which are calculated to affect or confuse the mind and/or
undermine a person's dignity and morale, such as:
(1) Blindfolding;
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
14
(2) Threatening a person(s) or his/fher relative(s) with bodily
harm, execution or other wrongful acts;
(3) Confinement in solitary cells or secret detention places;
(4) Prolonged interrogation;
(5) Preparing a prisoner for a "show trial", public display or
public humiliation of a detainee or prisoner;
(6) Causing unscheduled transfer of a person deprived of
liberty from one place to another, creating the belief that
he/she shall be summarily executed;
(7) Maltreating a member/s of a person's family;
(8) Causing the torture sessions to be witnessed by the
person's family, relatives or any third party;
(9) Denial of sleep/rest;
(10) Shame infliction such as stripping the person naked,
parading him/her in public places, shaving the victim's head
or putting marks on his/her body against his/her will;
(11) Deliberately prohibiting the victim to communicate with
any member of his/her family; and
(12) Other analogous acts of mental/psychological torture.
Sec. 5: Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or
Punishment. - Other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment refers to a deliberate and aggravated
treatment or punishment not enumerated under Section 4 of
this Act, inflicted by a person in authority or agent of a
person in authority against another person in custody, which
attains a level of severity sufficient to cause suffering, gross
humiliation or debasement to the latter. The assessment of
the level of severity shall depend on all the circumstances of
the case, including the duration of the treatment or
punishment, its physical and mental effects and, in some
cases, the sex, religion, age and state of health of the victim.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

15