Sie sind auf Seite 1von 54

ARBITRARY DETENTION

Juliet Czarina Furia

The Revised Penal Code


Article 124. Arbitrary Detention
Any public officer or employee who, without legal grounds, detains a person,
shall suffer:
1.
The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional
in its minimum period, if the detention has not exceeded three days;
2.
The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if
the detention has continued more than three but not more than fifteen
days;
3.
The penalty of prision mayor, if the detention has continued for more
than fifteen days but not more than six months; and
4.
That of reclusion temporal, if the detention shall have exceeded six
months.
The commission of a crime, or violent insanity or any other ailment requiring
the compulsory confinement of the patient in a hospital, shall be considered
legal grounds for the detention of any person.

Elements
1.
2.
3.

That the offender is a public officer or employee.


That he detains a person.
That the detention is without legal grounds.

That the offender is a public


officer or employee.

Public Officer or Employee

Vested with authority to detain or to order the


detention of persons accused of a crime
Policemen and other agents of the law, judges, mayors

Milo v Salanga (1987)

Barangay Captain Juan Tuvera Sr. maltreated one


Armando Valdez by hitting him with the butt of his gun
and his fists.
With the help of 2 policemen, Valdez was locked in the
municipal jail for 11 hours.
Respondent Judge Salanga held that a barangay captain is
not a public officer who can be liable for arbirtrary
detention.

Milo v Salanga (1987)

Are barangay captains considered public officers who can


be liable for arbitrary detention?
YES

That he detains a person.

Astorga v People (2003)

A DENR team was sent to Daram, Western Samar to


conduct intelligence gathering and forest protection
operations in line with the governments campaign
against illegal logging.
They met Mayor Astorga, the accused in this case.
When Simon, a member of the DENR team, tried to
explain the purpose of their mission, he was slapped hard
twice in the shoulder.
Then 10 men armed with M-16 and M-14 rifles promptly
surrounded the team members.

Astorga v People (2003)

Whether or not the team was actually detained.


In the case at bar, the restraint resulting from fear is
evident. In spite of their pleas, the witnesses and the
complainants were not allowed by petitioner to go
home.
This refusal was quickly followed by the call for and
arrival of almost a dozen reinforcements, all armed with
military-issue rifles, who proceeded to encircle the team,
weapons pointed at the complainants and the witnesses.

Astorga v People (2003)

we give credence to SPO1 Capoquians statement that


it was not safe to refuse Mayor Astorgas orders.
It was not just the presence of the armed men, but also
the evident effect these gunmen had on the actions of
the team which proves that fear was indeed instilled in
the minds of the team members, to the extent that they
felt compelled to stay in Brgy. Lucob-Lucob. The
intent to prevent the departure of the complainants
and witnesses against their will is thus clear.

That the detention is without


legal grounds.

Legal Grounds for Detention


1.
2.

When the offender has committed a crime.


Violent insanity or any other ailment requiring the
compulsory confinement of the patient in a hospital.

Rule 113, Section 5. When an arrest


without a warrant is lawful

Rule 113, Section 5


Section 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 serving 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 paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested
without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station
or jail, and he shall be proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112,
Section 7.

Rule 113, Section 5


(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
serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his
case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from
one confinement to another.

Rule 113, Section 5


(a) in flagrante delicto
(b) probable cause
(c) prisoner who escaped

Probable Cause
Such facts and circumstances which could lead a
reasonable, discreet and prudent man to believe that an
offense has been committed and that the object sought in
connection with the offense are in the place sought to be
searched.

People v Burgos (1986)

Defendant Ruben Burgos was convicted of Illegal


Possession of Firearms in Furtherance of Subversion by
the RTC Davao del Sur
Prosecutions version:

Intelligent information was obtained from one Cesar


Masamlok who voluntary surrendered to authorities, stating
that he was forcibly recruited by accused Burgos to be a
member of the NPA
The Constabulary then went to the house of the accused
where they recovered a firearm and subversive documents

People v Burgos (1986)

Prosecutions version:

Masamlok testified regarding the subversive activities of the


accused.

Defendants version

He was brought by military personnel from his farm to the PC


barracks
He was detained with respect to the subject firearm but he
denied ownership
Because of his refusal, he was mauled and tortured

People v Burgos (1986)

Was the arrest of Ruben Burgos lawful?


Were the search of his house and sufficient confiscation
of a firearm and documents conducted in a lawful
manner?
They did not have any warrant of arrest or search
warrant.
The trial court justified the arrest without warrant with
Section 6(a)*, Rule 113.
The conclusions reached by the trial court are
erroneous.
* now Section 5(a)

People v Burgos (1986)

Under Section 6(a)* of Rule 113, the officer arresting a


person who has just committed, is committing, or is
about to commit an offense must have personal
knowledge of that fact. The offense must also be
committed in his presence or within his view.
There is no such personal knowledge in this case.
Whatever knowledge was possessed by the arresting
officers, it came in its entirety from Cesar Masamlok.

* now Section 5(a)

People v Burgos (1986)

At the time of appellants arrest, he was not in


possession of any firearm or subversive document. He
was, in fact, plowing his field.
The Solicitor General posits that the arrest may still be
lawful under Section 6(b)*
However, under Section 6(b)*, it is not enough that there
is reasonable ground to believe that the person to be
arrested has committed a crime. A crime must in fact or
actually have been committed. It is an essential
precondition.
* now Section 5(b)

People v Burgos (1986)

The arrest being unlawful, the search and seizure which


transpired afterwards could not likewise be deemed
legal.
Decision of the lower court set aside.Accused acquitted.

Umil v Ramos (1991)

Rolando Dural

Arrest without warrant is justified under Rule 113, Sec 5.


It can be said that he was committing an offense when
arrested because he was arrested for being a member of the
NPA, an outlawed organization where membership is
penalized.
He had shot 2 policemen as part of his mission sparrow
Subversion and rebellion are continuing offenses.

Umil v Ramos (1991)

Amelia Roque and Wilfredo Buenaobra, Domingo


Anonuevo and Ramon Casiple,Vicky Ocaya

Arrest without warrant is justified under Rule 113, Sec 5(a).


They were searched pursuant to search warrants issued by a
court of law and were found with unlicensed firearms,
explosives, and ammunitions in their persons.
In flagrante delicto

Umil v Ramos (1991)

Espiritu

Spoke in a gathering of drivers and sympathizers: Bukas tuloy


ang welga natinhanggang sa magkagulo na
During the press conference of the NPC, where police
authorities were present, Espiritu called for a nationwide
strike (of jeepney and bus drivers)

Umil v Ramos (1991)

Nazareno

Ramil Regala, one of the suspects in the killing of Romulo


Bunye II, was arrested and pointed to Nazareno as one of his
companions
Although the arrest without warrant was made 14 days after
the killing, said arrest falls under Sec 5(b) of Rule 113
It was only then that they had determined probable cause

Rule 112, Section 6. When a


warrant of arrest may issue

Rule 112, Section 6 (a)


Section 6. When warrant of arrest may issue.
(a) By the Regional Trial Court. Within ten (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 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 preliminary investigation or when the
complaint or information was filed pursuant to section 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 five
(5) days from notice and the issue must be resolved by the court
within thirty (30) days from the filing of the complaint of
information.

Rule 112, Section 6 (a)


Regional Trial Court
1. Within 10 days from the filing of the information, judge
shall evaluate the evidence
2. Judge shall issue a warrant if he finds PROBABLE
CAUSE.
3. In case of doubt, judge may order prosecution to
present additional evidence within 5 days, and must be
resolved within 30 days.

Rule 112, Section 6 (b)


(b) By the Municipal Trial Court. When required pursuant to the second paragraph of
section 1 of this Rule, the preliminary investigation of cases falling under the
original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities,
Municipal Trial Court, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court may be conducted by either
the judge or the prosecutor. When conducted by the prosecutor, the procedure for
the issuance of a warrant or arrest by the judge shall be governed by paragraph (a)
of this section. When the investigation is conducted by the judge himself, he shall
follow the procedure provided in section 3 of this Rule. If the 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 question and answers, that a probable cause exists and that there
is a necessity of placing the respondent under immediate custody in order not to
frustrate the ends of justice.

Rule 112, Section 6 (b)


Municipal Trial Court
1. When required pursuant to the 2nd paragraph of
Section1 (next slide), preliminary investigation of cases
under the jurisdiction of MeTC, MTCC, and MTC, may
be conducted by either the judge or prosecutor
2. When the preliminary investigation is conducted by the
prosecutor, it shall be governed by Sec 6(a).
3. When conducted by the judge, it shall be governed by
Sec 3.

Rule 112, Section 1

Section 1. Preliminary investigation defined; when required.


Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding
to determine whether there is sufficient ground to
engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been
committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof,
and should be held for trial.
Except as provided in section 7 of this Rule, a preliminary
investigation is required to be conducted before the filing
of a complaint or information for an offense where the
penalty prescribed by law is at least four (4) years, two
(2) months and one (1) day without regard to the fine.

Rule 112, Section 7

Section 7. When accused lawfully arrested without warrant. When a person is


lawfully arrested without a warrant involving an offense which requires a
preliminary investigation, the complaint or information may be filed by a
prosecutor without need of such investigation provided an inquest has been
conducted in accordance with existing rules. In the absence or unavailability of an
inquest prosecutor, the complaint may be filed by the offended party or a peace
office directly with the proper court on the basis of the affidavit of the offended
party or arresting officer or person.
Before the complaint or information is filed, the person arrested may ask for a
preliminary investigation in accordance with this Rule, but he must sign a waiver of
the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in the
presence of his counsel. Notwithstanding the waiver, he may apply for bail and the
investigation must be terminated within fifteen (15) days from its inception.
After the filing of the complaint or information in court without a preliminary
investigation, the accused may, within five (5) days from the time he learns of its
filing, ask for a preliminary investigation with the same right to adduce evidence in
his defense as provided in this Rule.

Rule 112, Section 6 (b)


Municipal Trial Court
4. If the findings and recommendations are affirmed by
the Provincial or City Prosecutor, or by the
Ombudsman, or his deputy and the corresponding
information is filed, the judge shall issue a warrant of
arrest.
5. BUT the judge may issue a warrant without waiting for
the conclusion of the investigation if he already finds
that probable cause exists.

Rule 112, Section 6(c)


(c) When 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 municipal
trial court in accordance with paragraph (b) of this
section, or if the complaint or information was filed
pursuant to section 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.

Rule 112, Section 6 (c)


When Warrants of Arrest Not Necessary
1. If the accused is already under detention
2. Complaint or information was filed (in relation to
those validly arrested without a warrant)
3. For an offense penalized by fine only

Relationship of RPC Art 124, Rule


113 Sec 5 and Rule 112 Sec 6
Why taking them up together is important

Elements of Arbitrary Detention


1.
2.
3.

That the offender is a public officer or employee.


That he detains a person.
That the detention is without legal grounds.

Importance of Rule 113, Sec 6

The most common cause of Arbitrary Detention is the


lack of the 3rd element (legal grounds) which is
evidenced by a valid Warrant of Arrest.
The lack of a valid warrant of arrest is also a common
defense of the accused (the ones arrested).
Rule 113, Sec 6 takes the place of a valid warrant of
arrest by providing the instances where arrests are
valid (thus, with legal ground) despite the lack of a
warrant of arrest.

Importance of Rule 113, Sec 6

The arrest remains valid even if the accused is later


found innocent and the arresting officer will not be
liable for Arbitrary Detention.

Importance of Rule 112, Sec 5

Rule 112, Sec 5 provides for the process of issuing a


valid warrant of arrest.
If the issuing of the warrant of arrest does not follow
the outlined process, then it is not a valid warrant of
arrest and will thus make the arresting officer still liable
for Arbitrary Detention.

Penalties

Penalties
Duration of Detention

Penalty

3 days or less

Arresto Mayor maximum to Prision


Correccional minimum

More than 3 days to 15 days

Prision Correccional medium and


maximum

More than 15 days to 6 months

Prision Mayor

More than 6 months

Reculsion Temporal

Some Questions (and Answers)

Rule 113, Section 5(b)

(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
If the accused was later found to be innocent, will the
arresting officer be liable?
No. He is not liable as long as he complied with the
conditions.
Not evidence of guilt, but "probable cause" is the reason that
can validly compel the peace officers, in the performance
of their duties and in the interest of public order, to
conduct an arrest without warrant.

Arbitrary Detention and Unlawful Arrest


Arbitrary Detention (Art
124)

Unlawful Arrest (Art 269)

Classification

Crime Against the Fundamental


Laws of the State

Crime Against Liberty

Offender

Public officer

Any person

Public Officer

With authority to detain a


person

Without authority to detain a


person

Detaining a person without legal


ground

Arresting a person without


reasonable ground for the
purpose of delivering the
person to the proper
authorities

Act punished

Rule 112, Section 3. Procedure


How a judge conducts a preliminary investigation

Rule 112, Sec 3

Section 3. Procedure. The preliminary investigation shall be


conducted in the following manner:
(a) The complaint shall state the address of the respondent
and shall be accompanied by the affidavits of the complainant
and his witnesses, as well as other supporting documents to
establish probable cause. They shall be in such number of
copies as there are respondents, plus two (2) copies for the
official file. The affidavits shall be subscribed and sworn to
before any prosecutor or government official authorized to
administer oath, or, in their absence or unavailability, before a
notary public, each of who must certify that he personally
examined the affiants and that he is satisfied that they
voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits.

Rule 112, Sec 3

(b) Within ten (10) days after the filing of the complaint, the
investigating officer shall either dismiss it if he finds no ground to
continue with the investigation, or issue a subpoena to the
respondent attaching to it a copy of the complaint and its
supporting affidavits and documents.
The respondent shall have the right to examine the evidence
submitted by the complainant which he may not have been
furnished and to copy them at his expense. If the evidence is
voluminous, the complainant may be required to specify those
which he intends to present against the respondent, and these shall
be made available for examination or copying by the respondent at
his expense.
Objects as evidence need not be furnished a party but shall be
made available for examination, copying, or photographing at the
expense of the requesting party.

Rule 112, Sec 3

(c) Within ten (10) days from receipt of the subpoena with
the complaint and supporting affidavits and documents, the
respondent shall submit his counter-affidavit and that of his
witnesses and other supporting documents relied upon for his
defense. The counter-affidavits shall be subscribed and sworn
to and certified as provided in paragraph (a) of this section,
with copies thereof furnished by him to the complainant. The
respondent shall not be allowed to file a motion to dismiss in
lieu of a counter-affidavit.
(d) If the respondent cannot be subpoenaed, or if subpoenaed,
does not submit counter-affidavits within the ten (10) day
period, the investigating officer shall resolve the complaint
based on the evidence presented by the complainant.

Rule 112, Sec 3

(e) The investigating officer may set a hearing if there are facts
and issues to be clarified from a party or a witness. The
parties can be present at the hearing but without the right to
examine or cross-examine. They may, however, submit to the
investigating officer questions which may be asked to the
party or witness concerned.
The hearing shall be held within ten (10) days from
submission of the counter-affidavits and other documents or
from the expiration of the period for their submission. It shall
be terminated within five (5) days.
(f) Within ten (10) days after the investigation, the investigating
officer shall determine whether or not there is sufficient
ground to hold the respondent for trial.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen