TITLE TWO

CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE

CHAPTER ONE - ARBITRARY DETENTION OR EXPULSION, VIOLATION OF

DWELLING, PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION, AND DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL
MEETINGS AND CRIMES AGAINST RELIGIOUS WORSHIP

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).

NOTES:

• Arbitrary detention is the deprivation by a public officer of the liberty of a person

without any legal ground.
• Though the elements specify that the offender be a public officer or employee,
private individuals who conspire with public officers can be liable as principals.

Legal grounds for the detention of any person:

1. Commission of a crime
2. Violent insanity or other ailment requiring compulsory confinement of the patient in
a hospital

Grounds for warrant-less arrest:

1. Crime is about to be, is being, or has been committed;

2. Arresting officer must have personal knowledge that the person probably
committed the crime; or
3. Person to be arrested is an escaped prisoner.

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

TITLE TWO – CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE 1

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.

NOTES:

1. A public officer is deemed such when he is acting within the bounds of his official
authority or function.

• A police officer who employs force in excess of what is necessary is acting

outside the bounds of his duties and is considered acting in his private
capacity.

2. In a case decided by the Supreme Court a Barangay Chairman who unlawfully

detains another was held to be guilty of the crime of arbitrary detention.

• This is because he is a person in authority vested with jurisdiction to

maintain peace and order within his barangay (Milo v. Salanga,1987).

3. There must be an actual restraint of liberty of the offended party.

• The crime committed is only grave or light threat if the offended party may
still go to the place where he wants to go, even though there have been
warnings.

4. If the offender falsely imputes a crime against a person to be able to arrest

him and appear not determined to file a charge against him, the crime is arbitrary
detention through unlawful arrest (Boado, Comprehensive Reviewer in Criminal
Law).

5. Rolito Go v. CA is an example of arbitrary detention (Judge Pimentel)

6. Ramos v. Enrile: Rebels later on retire. Once you have committed rebellion and
have not been punished or amnestied, the rebels continue to engage in rebellion,
unless the rebels renounce their affiliation. Arrest can be made without a warrant
because rebellion is a continuing crime.

TITLE TWO – CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE 2

 Arbitrary Illegal Detention Unlawful Arrest
Detention
Offender Public officer who Private person or Any person
has authority to Public officer who is
make acting in a private
arrest/detain capacity or beyond
persons the scope of his
official duty
Criminal Denied the Denied the offended Accused the offended party of a
Intent offended party of party of his liberty crime he did not commit,
his liberty delivered him to the proper
authority and file the necessary
charges to incriminate him.

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:
a. 12 hours, if detained for crimes/offenses punishable by light penalties, or
their equivalent
b. 18 hours, for crimes/offenses punishable by correctional penalties, or their
equivalent or
c. 36 hours, for crimes/offenses punishable by capital punishment or afflictive
penalties, or their equivalent

NOTES:

• The felony means delay in filing the necessary information or charging of person
detained in court which may be waived if a preliminary investigation is asked for.
This does not contemplate actual physical delivery.
• The filing of the information in court beyond the specified periods does not cure
illegality of detention. Neither does it affect the legality of the confinement under
process issued by the court.
• To prevent committing this felony, officers usually ask accused to execute a waiver
of Article 125 which should be under oath and with assistance of counsel. Such
waiver is not violative of the constitutional right of the accused.
• Contemplates arrest by virtue of some legal ground or valid warrantless arrest.
• If arrested by virtue of arrest warrant, person may be detained until case is decided.

LENGTH OF WAIVER:

1. Light offense – 5 days.

2. Serious and less serious offenses – 7 to 10 days.
3. If offender is a private person, the crime is illegal detention.

TITLE TWO – CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE 3

NOTES:

• This is applicable ONLY WHEN the arrest is without a warrant.

• At the beginning, the detention is legal since it is in the pursuance of a lawful arrest.
Detention becomes arbitrary when the applicable period lapses without the
arresting officer filing a formal charge with the proper court.
• The periods stated are counted only when the prosecutor’s office is ready to
receive the complaint or information. Nighttime is NOT included in the period.

CASES:

1. Sayo v. Chief of Police (1948)

“Deliver” means the filing of correct information with the proper court (or
constructive delivery --- turning over the person arrested to the jurisdiction of the
court).

• Purpose is to determine whether the offense is bailable or not.

2. People v. Tan (1998)

The elements of custodial investigation are:

• The suspect is deprived of liberty in any significant manner;

• The interrogation is initiated by law enforcement authorities;
• The interrogation is inculpatory in character.

3. Sanchez v. Demetriou (1993)

Where the invitation comes from a powerful group composed predominantly of

ranking military officers and the designated interrogation site is a military camp,
the same can be easily taken, NOT as a strictly voluntary invitation.

• It is an authoritative command that one can only defy at his peril.

Arbitrary Detention (Article 124) Delay in Delivery of Detained (Article 125)

Detention is illegal from the beginning. Detention is legal in the beginning, but
illegality starts from the expiration of the
specified periods without the persons
detained having been delivered to the
proper judicial authority.

TITLE TWO – CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE 4

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:

• The service of the notice of such order to the prisoner, or

• The performance of such judicial or executive order for the release of the
prisoner, or
• The proceedings upon a petition for the release of such person

NOTES:

• Three acts are punishable:

1. Delaying the performance of a judicial or executive order for the release of

a prisoner.
2. Delaying the service of notice of such order to said prisoner.
3. Delaying the proceedings upon any petition for the liberation of such
person.

• Wardens and jailers are the persons most likely to violate this provision.
• Provision does not include legislation.

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

ACTS PUNISHABLE:

• by expelling a person from the Philippines; or

• by compelling a person to change his residence

TITLE TWO – CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE 5

CASES:

1. Villavicencio v. Lukban (1919)

The City Mayor of Manila committed the crime of expulsion when he ordered
certain prostitutes to be transferred to Davao WITHOUT observing due processes
since they have not been charged with any crime.

2. Marcos v. Manglapus (1989)

The request or demand of the Marcoses to be allowed to return to the Philippines

cannot be considered in light solely of the constitutional provisions guaranteeing
liberty of abode and the right to travel which are neither absolute nor inflexible.

• Considering the unusual circumstances and the attendant national security

issues, the matter can be appropriately addressed by the residual powers
of the president which are implicit in and correlative to the paramount duty
residing in that office to safeguard and protect general welfare.

NOTES:

• Threat to national security is not a valid ground to expel or to compel one to

change his address.
• The Chief Executive has the power to deport undesirable aliens.
• Acts punishable:

1. The crime of expulsion absorbs that of grave coercion. If done by a private

person, act will amount to grave coercion.
2. Crime does not include expulsion of undesirable aliens, destierro, or when
sent to prison.
3. If a Filipino who, after voluntarily leaving the country, is illegally refused
re-entry is considered a victim of being forced to 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:
a. Entering any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof.
b. Searching papers or other effects found therein without the previous
consent of such owner.
c. Refusing to leave the premises, after having surreptitiously entered said
dwelling and after having been required to leave the same.

TITLE TWO – CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE 6

SPECIAL AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:

1. Offense committed at nighttime.

2. Papers or effects not constituting evidence of a crime be not returned
immediately.
a. Person enters dwelling without consent or against the will.
b. Person enters and searches for papers and effects.
c. Person entered secretly and refuses to leave after being asked to.

3 Acts Punishable:

1. “Being authorized by law” – means with search warrant, save himself or do some
things good for humanity.
2. There must be expression that entry is denied or that he is asked to leave.
3. Papers and effects need not be part of a crime.

NOTES:

• 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 (Article 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 (Article
286), or unjust vexation, if there is no violence or intimidation (Article 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.
• Under RULE 113 OF THE REVISED RULES OF COURT a public officer, who
breaks into the premise, incurs no liability WHEN a person to be arrested enters
said premise and closes it thereafter. The public officer should have first given
notice of an arrest.
• Stop and frisk is no longer included.
• “Against the will” means that the offender ignored the prohibition of the owner
which may be express or implied as when the door is closed even though not
locked (Boado, Comprehensive Reviewer in Criminal Law)
• According to People vs. Doria (1999) and People vs. Elamparo (2000), the
following are the accepted exceptions to the warrant requirement:
1. Search incidental to an arrest;
2. Search of moving vehicles;
3. Evidence in plain view;
4. Customs searches; AND
5. Consented warrantless search.

Domicile – the status or attribution of being a lawful permanent resident in a

particular jurisdiction.

TITLE TWO – CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE 7

Article 129 – Search Warrants Maliciously Obtained and Abuse in the Service of
Those Legally Obtained

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.

NOTES:

• 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.

EXAMPLES:

1. X owner was handcuffed while search was going-on.

2. Tank was used to ram gate prior to announcement that a search will be made
3. Persons who were not respondents were searched.

TITLE TWO – CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE 8

Article 130 – Searching Domicile without Witnesses

ELEMENTS:

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.

NOTES:

• Order of those who must witness the search:

1. Homeowner
2. Members of the family of sufficient age and discretion
3. Responsible members of the community

• Validity of the search warrant can be questioned only in 2 courts: where issued or
where the case is pending. The latter is preferred for objective determination.

RULE 116: SEARCH AND SEIZURE

• A search warrant is an order in writing.

1. Signed by a judge
2. Directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal property
described therein and bring it before the court.

Requisites for issuing and search warrant:

1. Probable cause, in connection with one specific offense, to be determined

personally by the judge.
2. AFTER examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witness
he may produce.
3. Particular description of:
a. Place to be searched; AND
b. Things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines

TITLE TWO – CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE 9

NOTES:

1. EVEN IF the search warrant is valid there is violation of domicile in the following
situations where:

• The officer exceeded his authority under the search warrant;

• He employed excessive severity or destruction in the house;
• The search was made when the occupants were absent and the search is
conducted without at least 2 witnesses residing in the locality where the
search was made.

2. An officer may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house or any
part of a house or anything therein WHEN these circumstances concur:

• He is refused admittance to the place of directed search;

• His purpose is to execute the warrant to liberate himself or any person
lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained therein;
• He has given notice of his purpose and authority.

3. The warrant must direct that it be served in the day time. HOWEVER, it can be
served at any time of the day or night WHEN the affidavit asserts that the property
is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched.

4. A search warrant shall be valid for ten (10) days from its date.

5. The officer seizing the property under the warrant must give a detailed receipt for
the same to the lawful occupant of the premises in whose presence the search
and seizure were made.

• In the absence of such occupant, the officer must leave a receipt in the
place in which he found the seized property in the presence of at least two
witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.

TITLE TWO – CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE 10

Article 131 – Prohibition, Interruption, and Dissolution of Peaceful Meetings

ELEMENTS:

1. Offender is a public officer or employee;

2. He performs any of the following acts:
a. Prohibiting or interrupting, without legal ground the holding of a peaceful
meeting, or dissolving the same (e.g. denial of permit in arbitrary manner).
b. Hindering any person from joining any lawful association or from 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.

NOTES:

• If the offender is a private individual, the crime is disturbance of public order (Article
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 the police stops a
meeting in a private place because there’s no permit, officer is liable for stopping
the meeting.
• The government has a right to require a permit before any gathering could be
made. HOWEVER, the government only has regulatory, NOT PROHIBITORY,
powers with regard to such requirement.
• The permit should state the day, time, and place of the gathering.
• If the permit is denied arbitrarily, OR the officer dictates the place where the
meeting is to be held, this article is VIOLATED.
• If in the course of the assembly, which started out peacefully, the participants
committed illegal acts like oral defamation or inciting to sedition, a public officer or
law enforcer can stop or dissolve the meeting.
• Two criteria to determine whether this article would be violated: (1) Dangerous
tendency rule applicable in times of national unrest such as to prevent coup d’etat.
(2) Clear and present danger rule – applied in times of peace. Stricter rule.

TITLE TWO – CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE 11

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.

NOTES:

• Qualifying Circumstances:
1. Violence
2. 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 Article
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:

a. In a place devoted to religious feelings, or (for this element, no need of
religious ceremony, only the place is material).
b. During the celebration of any religious ceremony.
2. That the acts must be notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful
(deliberate intent to hurt the feelings).
3. The offender is any person.
4. There is a deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the faithful, directed against
religious tenet.

NOTES:

• 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.

TITLE TWO – CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE 12

 • 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.

CASES:

1. People vs. Baes (1939)

An act is NOTORIOUSLY OFFENSIVE to the religious feelings when a person:

• Ridicules or makes light of anything constituting a religious dogma
• Works or scoffs at anything devoted to religious ceremonies
• Plays with or damages or destroys any object or veneration by the faithful

Whether or not an act is offensive to the religious feelings, is a question of fact

which must be adjudged only according to the feelings of the Catholics and not
those of other faithful ones. What happened in this case was that a Catholic
priest complained against a group that passed by the churchyard as they were
holding the funeral rites of a Church of Christ member.
Laurel Dissent: The determination should NOT be made to depend upon more or
less broad or narrow conception of any given religion. Facts and circumstances
should be viewed through an unbiased judicial criterion. This later became the
majority decision in People v. Tengson.

2. People v. Nanoy
The crime is only UNJUST VEXATION when the act is NOT directed to the
religious belief itself and there is no intention of causing so serious a disturbance
as to interrupt a religious ceremony.

CRIME Nature of Crime Who are Liable If Element Missing

Prohibition, Crime against the Public officers, If not by public officer = tumults
Interruption fundamental law of Outsiders
and the state
Dissolution of
Peaceful
Meeting (131)
Interruption of Crime against the Public officers, If by insider = unjust vexation
Religious fundamental law of Outsiders If not religious = tumult or alarms
Worship (132) the state If not notoriously offensive =
unjust vexation
Offending the Crime against Public officers, If not tumults = alarms and
Religious public order private persons, scandal
Feeling (133) outsiders If meeting illegal at onset =
inciting to sedition or rebellion

TITLE TWO – CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE 13