Title One CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THELAW OF NATIONS Section One. Treason and espionageArticle 114.

TreasonArticle 115. Conspiracy and proposal to committreasonArticle 116. Misprision of treasonArticle 117. EspionageSection Two. Provoking war and disloyalty in case of warArticle 118. Inciting to war or giving motives forreprisalsArticle 119. Violation of neutralityArticle 120. Correspondence with hostile countryArticle 121. Flight to enemys countrySection Three. Piracy and mutiny on the high seas inPhilippine watersArticle 122. Piracy in general and mutiny on thehigh seas or in Philippine watersArticle 123. Qualified piracy Article 114. Treason Elements: 1. Offender is a Filipino citizen or an alienresiding in the Philippines;2. There is a war in which the Philippines is involved;3. The offender either a. Levies war against theGovernment; or b. Adheres to the enemies, givingthem aid or comfort. Treason cannot be committed in timeof peace. 1st mode: Levying war against theGovernment There must be an actual assembling of men. Thus, the actual enlistment of men to serveagainst the government doesnt amount tolevying war. Under this mode, it is not necessary that therebe a formal declaration of the existence of astate of war. Actual hostilities may determinethe date of the commencement of war. The war must be directed against thegovernment, not merely to resist a particular statute or to repel a particular officer. However, it is NOT necessary that thoseattempting to overthrow the govt succeed intheir designs. Q: Is it necessary under this mode that thepurpose of levying war is to deliver the countryin whole or in part to the enemy? A: Yes, if the uprising is committed withoutenemy collaboration, the crime would berebellion not treason. 2nd mode: Adhering to the enemies,giving them aid or comfort Adherence to the enemy means intent to betray. There is adherence to the enemywhen a citizen intellectually or emotionally favors the enemy and harbors sympathies orconvictions disloyal to his countrys policy orinterest. Aid or comfort means an act which strengthens or tends to strengthen the enemy in the conduct of war against the traitorscountry and an act which weakens or tends toweaken the power of the traitors country toresist or to attack the enemy. Adherence alone, without giving aid or comfort,does NOT constitute treason. The aid and comfort must be a deed or physical activity. To be treasonous, the extentof aid and comfort must be to renderassistance to them as enemies and not merelyas individuals, and be directly in furtherance of the enemies hostile designs. However, the act need not actually strengthen the enemy. The aid or comfort under this mode must beafter the declaration of war. The enemies mustbe subject of a foreign power. When killings and other common crimes are charged as overt acts of treason, they cannot be regarded as separate crimes or complexed with treason. Example: Where the accused served assecret agent for the Japanese, and inthe performance of such service, heparticipated in the Japaneseexpeditions against guerillas andcommitted mass murders, arson androbberies, and those deeds werecharged an element of treason, theybecome identified with the crime of treason and cannot be the subject of aseparate punishment. But this rule will not preclude the punishmentof common crimes as such, IF the prosecutionshould elect to prosecute the culpritspecifically for those crimes, instead of relyingon them as an element of treason. Ways of proving treason A person may be convicted of treason on thefollowing evidence ONLY:1. [Two-witness rule] Testimony of twowitnesses, at least, to the same overtact; or2. Confession of the accused in opencourt. The two-witness rule The testimony of two witnesses is required toprove the overt act of giving aid or comfort. Itis not necessary to prove adherence.

Q: A testified that he saw X on guard duty inthe Japanese garrison on Monday. B testifiedthat he also saw X on guard duty in thegarrison on Wednesday. Can X be convicted of treason on the basis of A & Bs testimony? A: No. Both overt acts, although of the samenature and character, are two distinct acts. Either one, to serve as a ground for conviction,must be proved by two witnesses. That onewitness should testify as to one, and anotheras to the other, was held not enough. Laurel v. Misa Petition for habeas corpus by Laurel based on the theorythat a Filipino citizen who adhered to the enemy giving thelatter aid and comfort during the Japanese occupationcannot be prosecuted for the crime of treason because (1)of the suspension of the sovereignty of the legitimategovernment in the Philippines resulting in the suspension of the correlative allegiance of Filipinos thereto, and (2) of the changes of sovereignty upon the proclamation of thePhilippine Republic. HELD: Citizen owes absolute/permanent allegiance to hisgovernment/sovereign, which should not be confused withthe qualified/temporary allegiance which a foreigner owesto the government of his current residence. This absoluteallegiance is not abrogated by enemy occupation becausethe sovereignty of the government de jure is nottransferred thereby to the occupier, remaining vested inthe legitimate government. What may be suspended is theexercise of the rights of sovereignty passing temporarily tothe occupant, and not the allegiance which subsists withthe subsistence of the sovereignty of the legitimategovernment. The change in government from commonwealth does notaffect the crime of treason. It holds applicable to thepresent government being an offense against the samegovernment and sovereign people. People vs. Perez Perez was convicted of treason and sentenced to deathwhere 5 of the 7 counts against him alleged his abductionof girls for the purpose of using them to satisfy the sexualdesires of Japanese officials. HELD: For an act to be treasonous, it should be one thatrenders assistance to the occupants to further their hostiledesigns. Sexual relations between the women and theJapanese officials cannot be said to aid in the furtheranceof the objectives of the enemies. Dissent by Pablo: Entertainment tones up the nerves of thesoldiers. Services or favors that should have beenperformed by Japanese women were done by Filipinowomen. This helped improve the phases of their militaryactivities. People vs. Prieto Prieto, a Makapili who aided the Japanese in apprehendingFilipino guerillas (who were tortured and executed afterbeing apprehended) was convicted of 4 counts of treason. HELD: Murder and physical injuries are identified as anelement of treason and they cannot be the subject of aseparate punishment, or make a complex crime withtreason. They are averred as a constitutive ingredient of treason. But where the State prosecutes them for such actsnot as an overt act for treason, then the accused can bepunished for such acts if found guilty. People vs. Manayao Manayao et al were charged and found guilty of treasonwith multiple murders. They were sentenced to death andto pay the fine with indemnity to heirs of the victims of thetown they massacred with the Japanese troops. Themassacre was witnessed by the two children spared fromthe killing. HELD: The Makapili is not part of the Japanese Army in thePhilippines being an organization of traitors, pure andsimple. This doesnt divest the Peoples Court of jurisdiction. They have not lost their citizenship when noevidence that he has subscribed to an oath of allegiance tosupport the laws of Japan and that he showed hisacceptance of a commission in the Armed Forces of Japanwere presented. They are still subject of the law ontreason in the Philippines. People vs. Adriano Adriano was found guilty of treason by virtue of his being aMakapili. The prosecution however did not introduce anyother evidence except for his membership. Furthermore,the alleged acts committed by the accused were notestablished or concurred by testimonies from 2 witnesses. HELD: The two-witness requirement in the crime of treasonshould be applied restrictively the

lawmakers havingintended for it to be applied with the same rigidity andinflexibility due to the seriousness of the crime and theabnormality of the times from American origin. Hilado dissenting: Being a Makapili was one singlecontinuous and indivisible overt act of giving aid to theJapanese invaders. There is no need for at least 2witnesses to have testified on one same act. Article 115. Conspiracy and proposal tocommit treason Elements (Conspiracy):1. In time of war2. Two or more persons come to anagreement to levy war against the govt orto adhere to the enemies and to give themaid or comfort; and3. They decide to commit it. Elements (Proposal):1. In time of war2. A person who has decided to levy waragainst the govt or to adhere to theenemies and to give them aid or comfort,3. Proposes its execution to some otherperson or persons. The two-witness rule does not apply toconspiracy or proposal to commit treason. Article 116. Misprision of treason Elements:1. Offender must be owing allegiance tothe Government, and not a foreigner2. He has knowledge of any conspiracy(to commit treason) against theGovernment3. He conceals or doesnt disclose andmake known the same as soon as possibleto the governor or fiscal of the province orthe mayor or fiscal of the city in which heresides. A116 will not apply when the crime of treason has already been committed bysomeone and the accused doesnt report itscommission to the proper authority. The lawsays knowledge of any conspiracy againstnot knowledge of treason actually committed. The offender in misprision is punished as anaccessory to the crime of treason. Hence, thepenalty for misprision is two degrees lowerthan that provided for treason. Article 117. EspionageTwo ways of committing espionage(Mode 1) Elements: 1. Offender enters a warship, fort or navalor military establishment or reservation2. He has no authority therefore3. His purpose is to obtain information,plans, photographs or other data of aconfidential nature relative to the defenseof the Philippines It is not necessary that information beactually obtained. (Mode 2) Elements: 1. Offender is a public officer2. He has in his possession (by reason of the public office he holds) any information,plans, photographs or other data of aconfidential nature relative to the defenseof the Philippines3. He discloses their contents to arepresentative of a foreign nation COMMONWEALTH ACT No 616 An Act to Punish Espionage and Other Offences Against National Security Acts punished: 1)Unlawfully obtaining or permitting tobe obtained information affectingnational defence o by going upon, entering, flying overor otherwise by obtaining informationconcerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defence or other place connected withthe national defence, or any other placewhere ay vessels, aircraft, arms,munitions or other materials for the usein time of war are being made, orstored, for the purpose of obtaininginformation respecting nationaldefence, with intent to use it to theinjury of the Phil or to the advantage of any foreign nation. (this is the 1st par) o by copying, taking, making orattempting or inducing or aidinganother to copy, take, make or obtainany sketch, photograph, photographicnegative, blue print, plan, mapinstrument, appliance, document,writing, or note of anything connectedwith the national defence, for the samepurpose and with like intent as in 1st par. (this is the 2nd par) o by receiving or obtaining oragreeing or attempting or inducing oraiding another to receive or obtain fromany sources any of those datamentioned in 2nd par, code book orsignal book, knowing that it will beobtained or disposed of by any personcontrary to the provisions of the Act. o by communicating or transmitting,or attempting to communicate ortransmit to any person not entitled toreceive it, by wilfully retaining andfailing to deliver it on demand to anyofficer or employee entitled to receiveit, the offender being in possession of,having access to, control over,

or beingentrusted with any of the datementioned in 2nd par, or code book orsignal book. o by permitting, through grossnegligence, to be removed from itsproper place or custody or delivered toanyone in violation of his trust, or to belost, stolen, abstracted or destroyedany of the data mentioned in 2nd par,code book or signal book, the offenderbeing entrusted with or having lawfulpossession or control of the same. 2)Unlawful disclosing of informationaffecting national defence o by communicating, delivering ortransmitting or attempting or aiding orinducing another to do it, to any foreigngovt or any faction or party or militaryor naval force within a foreign country,whether recognised or unrecognised bythe Phil, or to any representative,officer, employee, subject or citizenthereof, any of the date mentioned in 2nd par above, code book or signal book. If committed in times of war, thepenalty is death or imprisonment fornot more than 30 years. o in times of war, by collecting, recording,publishing or communicating orattempting to elicit any informationwith respect to the movement, number,description, cnondition or disposition of any of the armed forces, ships, aircraft,or war materials of the Phil, or withrespect to the plans or conduct of anymilitary, naval or air operations or withrespect to any works or measuresundertaken for the fortification ordefence of any place, or any otherinformation relating to the publicdefence, which might be useful to theenemy. The penalty is death orimprisonment for not more than 30years. 3)Disloyal acts or words in time of peace o by advising, counselling, urging or inany other manner by causinginsubordination, disloyalty, mutiny orrefusal of duty of any member of themilitary, naval or air forces of the Phil o by distributing any written or printedmatter which advises, counsels, orurges such insubordination, disloyalty,mutiny, or refusal or duty. 4)Disloyal acts or words in time of war o by willfully making or conveying falsereports or false statements with intentto interfere with the operation orsuccess of the Armed Forces of the Phil o to promote the success of its enemies,by willfully causing or attempting tocause insubordination, disloyalty,mutiny or refusal of duty in the ArmedForces o by willfully obstructing the recruiting orenlistment service. 5)Conspiracy to violate precedingsections o 2 or more persons conspire to violatethe provisions of section 2, 3 or 4 o one or more of such persons do any actto effect the object of the conspiracy 6)Harboring or concealing violators of the law o the offender knows that a personhas committed or is about to commit anoffence o the offender harbors or concealssuch person Other acts punished: o using or permitting or procuringthe use of an aircraft for the purpose of making photograph, sketch, etc of vitalinstallations or equipment of the ArmedForces o reproducing, publishing, selling etcuncensored copies of photograph,sketch etc of the vital military, naval orair post, camp or station, withoutpermission of the commanding officer o injuring or destroying orattempting to injure or destroy warmaterials, premises or war utilitieswhen the Phil is at war o making or causing was materials tobe made in a defective manner whenthe Phil is at war o injuring or destroying nationaldefence material, premises or utilities o making or causing to be made in adefective manner, or attempting tomake or cause to be made in adefective manner, national defencematerial. Espionage and Treason: - Both not conditioned by the citizenship of theoffender

- Espionage may be committed intime of peace or war. - Many ways of committing espionage,taking RPC117 and CA616 together. Only two ways of committing treason Article 118. Inciting to war or givingmotives for reprisals. Elements:1. Offender performs unlawful orunauthorized acts2. Such acts provoke or give occasion fora war involving or liable to involve thePhilippines or expose Filipino citizens toreprisals on their persons or propertyIllustration: The public destruction of the flag orseal of a foreign state or the publicmanifestations of hostility to the head orambassador of another state. Article 119. Violation of neutrality Elements:1. There is a war in which the Philippinesis no involved2. There is a regulation issued bycompetent authority for the purpose of enforcing neutrality3. The offender violates such regulation Article 120. Correspondence with hostilecountry Elements:1. In time of war in which the Philippinesis involved2. The offender makes correspondencewith an enemy country or territoryoccupied by enemy troops3. The correspondence is either a. Prohibited by the Government,orb. Carried on in ciphers orconventional signs, orc. Containing notice orinformation which might be useful tothe enemy. Correspondence means communications bymeans of letters. Even if the correspondence containsinnocent matters, if the correspondence hasbeen prohibited by the Government, it ispunishable. Prohibition by the Government is notessential in paragraphs 2 & 3 of Article 120. Circumstances qualifying the offense:1. Notice or information might be usefulto the enemy; AND2. Offender intended to aid to enemy These acts amount to treason. Hence, thepenalty is the same as that for treason. Article 121. Flight to Enemy's Country Elements:1. There is a war in which the Philippinesis involved;2. Offender must be owing allegiance tothe government;3. Offender attempts to flee or go toenemy country;4. Going to the enemy country isprohibited by competent authority. bMere attempt to flee or go to enemy countryconsummates the crime. Article 122. Piracy in general and Mutiny on the High Seas or in Philippine Waters Acts punished as piracy1. Attacking or seizing a vessel on thehigh seas or in Philippine waters;2. Seizing in the vessel while on the highseas or in Philippine waters the whole orpart of its cargo, its equipment or personalbelongings of its complement orpassengers. Elements of piracy1. The vessel is on the high seas orPhilippine waters;2. Offenders are neither members of itscomplement nor passengers of the vessel;3. Offenders either -a. attack or seize a vessel on the highseas or in Philippine waters; orb. seize in the vessel while on the highseas or in Philippine waters the wholeor part of its cargo, its equipment orpersonal belongings of its complementor passengers;4. There is intent to gain. Piracy is robbery or forcible depredation onthe high seas, without lawful authority anddone with animo furandi and in the spirit andintention of universal hostility. Piracy | Robbery on the highseas Offender is an outsider | The offender is amember of thecomplement or apassenger of the vessel Manner of committing the crime is the same Both with intent to gain Piracy | Mutiny a. Piracy - Persons who attack avessel or seize its cargoare strangers to said vessels; Mutiny Offenders are membersof the crew of passengers b. Piracy - Intent to gain essential; Mutiny - Intent to gain not essential, offenders mayonly intend to ignore theships officers

People vs. Lol-lo and Saraw Boat carrying men, women and children on its way betweentwo islands in the Dutch East Indies were waylaid by sixvintas manned by 24 armed Moros. At first, they asked forgood but one on the Dutch boat, they took all of the cargo,attacked some of the men and brutally violated two of thewomen. All the people were placed back into the boatexcept the two men, and holes were made with the idea of submerging the boat. They took the women and repeatedlyviolated them. Two of the raiders were Lol-lo and Saraw,the former participating in the rape. The women eventuallyescaped while Saraw and Lol-lo returned to TawiTawiwhere they were apprehended and tried. They were foundguilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. HELD: Pirates are in the law hostes humani generis. Piracyis a crime not against any particular state but against allmankind. It may be punished in the competent tribunal of any country where the offender may be found or into whichhe may be carried. The jurisdiction in the crime of piracyunlike other crimes has no territorial limits, nor does itmatter that a crime was committed within thejurisdictional 3-mile limit of a foreign state, for thoselimits, through neutral to war, are not neutral to crimes. People vs. Rodriguez Rodriguez et al (crew members of M/V Noria 767) werecharged with the crime of piracy, found guilty andsentenced to death. They were able to obtain 3M as totalamount and escaped through the use of pump-boats. Tendead bodies were seen at the wharf as victims of the seajackingHELD: Where rape, murder or homicide is committed in thecrime of piracy, the penalty imposable is mandatory deathpenalty according to PD532 amending RPA 134. People vs. Siyoh Siyoh et al were accused of qualified piracy with triplemurder and frustrated murder, found guilty and sentencedto death. With the use of pump-boats, they were able todivest money and goods from de Guzman and hiscompanions on the way to Mataja island. The companionswere killed while de Guzman was able to escape wounded. HELD: Although the body of de Guzman was still missing,the number of persons killed on the occasion of piracy isnot material. PD532 considers qualified piracy (when rape,murder, or homicide is committed as a result or on theoccasion of piracy) as a special complex crime punishableby death regardless of the number of victims. Article 123. Qualified Piracy Elements:1. The vessel is on the high seas orPhilippine waters:2. Offenders may or may not be membersof its complement, or passengers of thevessel;3. Offenders either -a. attack or seize the vessel; orb. seize the whole or part of the cargo, itsequipment. , or personal belongings of the crew or passengers;4. The preceding were committed underany of the following circumstances:a. whenever they have seized a vessel byboarding or firing upon the same;b. whenever the pirates have abandonedtheir victims without means of savingthemselves; orc. whenever the crime is accompanied bymurder, homicide, physical injuries orrape. R. A. 6235An Act Prohibiting Certain Acts Inimical to CivilAviationWho are punishable? 1. Any person who shall compel a change inthe course or destination of an aircraft of Philippine registry, or to seize or usurp thecontrol thereof, while it is in flight. Anaircraft is in flight from the moment all itsexternal doors are closed following embarkationuntil any of such doors is opened fordisembarkation. (1) 2. Any person who shall compel an aircraft of foreign registry to land in Philippine territory orto seize or usurp the control thereof while it iswithin the said territory. (1) The penalty shall be increased whenever theviolations above were committed under any of thefollowing circumstances: Whenever he has fired upon thepilot, member of the crew or passenger of the aircraft; Whenever he has exploded orattempted to explode any bomb orexplosive to destroy the aircraft; or Whenever the crime isaccompanied by murder, homicide, seriousphysical injuries or rape. (2) 3. Any person, natural or juridical, who shallship, load or carry in any passenger aircraftoperating as a public utility within thePhilippines, any explosive, flammable, corrosiveor poisonous

substance or material. (3) Explosive - any substance, either solid orliquid, mixture or single compound, which bychemical reaction liberates heat and gas at highspeed and causes tremendous pressureresulting in explosion. The term shall include butnot limited to dynamites, firecrackers, blastingcaps, black powders, bursters, percussions,cartridges and other explosive materials, exceptbullets for firearm. "Flammable" any substance or material thatis highly combustible and self-igniting bychemical reaction and shall include but notlimited to acrolein, allene, aluminum dyethylmonochloride, and other aluminum compounds,ammonium chlorate and other ammoniummixtures and other similar substances ormaterials. "Corrosive" any substance or material, eitherliquid, solid or gaseous, which through chemicalreaction wears away, impairs or consumes anyobject. It shall include but not limited to alkalinebattery fluid packed with empty storage battery,allyl chloroformate, allytrichlorosilane,ammonium dinitroorthocresolate and othersimilar materials and substances. "Poisonous" any substance or materials,except medicinal drug, either liquid, solid orgaseous, which through chemical reactions kills,injures or impairs a living organism or person,and shall include but not limited to allylisothiocyanate, ammunition (chemical, non-explosive but containing Class A, B or poison),aniline oil, arsine, bromobenzyle cyanide,bromoacetone and other similar substances ormaterials. For any death or injury to persons or damage toproperty resulting from a violation of 3 above, theperson responsible therefor may be held liable inaccordance with the applicable provisions of theRevised Penal Code. Authority of airline companies to inspect cargoetc. Aircraft companies which operate as publicutilities or operators of aircraft which are for hire areauthorized to open and investigate suspiciouspackages and cargoes in the presence of the owneror shipper, or his authorized representatives if present; in order to help the authorities in theenforcement of the provisions of this lawIf the owner, shipper or his representativerefuses to have the same opened and inspected, theairline or air carrier is authorized to refuse theloading thereof. (8) Disclaimer on airline ticket Every ticket issued to a passenger by theairline or air carrier concerned shall contain amongothers the following condition printed thereon:"Holder hereof and his hand-carried luggage(s) aresubject to search for, and seizure of, prohibitedmaterials or substances. Holder refusing to besearched shall not be allowed to board the aircraft,"which shall constitute a part of the contract betweenthe passenger and the air carrier. (9) 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 religiousworshipSection One. Arbitrary detention and expulsionArticle 124. Arbitrary detentionArticle 125. Delay in the delivery of detainedpersons to the proper judicial authoritiesArticle 126. Delaying releaseArticle 127. ExpulsionSection Two. Violation of domicileArticle 128. Violation of domicileArticle 129. Search warrants maliciouslyobtained and abuse in the service of those legally obtainedArticle 130. Searching domicile withoutwitnessesSection Three. Prohibition, interruption anddissolution of peaceful meetingsArticle 131. Prohibition, interruption anddissolution of peaceful meetingsSection Four. Crimes against religious worshipArticle 132. Interruption of religious worshipArticle 133. Offending the religious feelings Article 124. Arbitrary Detention Elements:1. Offender is a public officer oremployee;2. He detains a person;3. The detention is without legalgrounds. Meaning of absence of legal grounds1. No crime was committed by thedetained;2. There is no violent insanity of thedetained person; and3. The person detained has noailment which requires compulsoryconfinement in a hospital.

When is there detention? A person isdetained when he is placed in confinement orthere is a restraint on his person. The crime of arbitrary detention can becommitted through imprudence. Illustration: The chief of police rearrested awoman who had been released by means of averbal order of the justice of the peace. Theaccused acted without malice, but he shouldhave verified the order of release beforeproceeding to make the re-arrest. The law doesnt fix a min period of detention. In US vs. Braganza, the detentionwas for less than half an hour; and in US vs. Agravante, the detention was only for onehour. Rule 112 Sec. 6 When warrant of arrest may issue-(a) By the RTC Within 10 days from the filing of thecomplaint or information, the judge shall personallyevaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and itssupporting evidence. He may immediately dismissthe case if the evidence on the record clearly fails toestablish probable cause. If he finds probable cause,he shall issue a warrant of arrest or a commitmentorder if the accused has already been arrestedpursuant to a warrant issued by the judge whoconducted the PI or when the complaint orinformation is filed pursuant to Sec. 7 of this Rule. Incase of doubt on the existence of probable cause,the judge may order the prosecutor to presentadditional evidence within 5 days from notice andthe issue must be resolved by the court within 30days from the filing of the complaint or information. (b) By the MTC When required pursuant to par. 2Sec. 1 of this Rule, the PI of cases falling under theorig jurisdxn of the MTCs may be conducted by eitherthe judge or the prosecutor. When conducted by theprosecutor, the procedure for the issuance of awarrant of arrest by the judge shall be governed bypar. (a) of this section. When the investigation isconducted by the judge himself, he shall follow theprocedure provided in sec. 3 of this Rule. If hisfindings and recommendations are affirmed by theprovincial or city prosecutor, or by the Ombudsmanor his deputy, and the corresponding information isfiled, he shall issue a warrant of arrest. However,without waiting for the conclusion of theinvestigation, the judge may issue a warrant of arrestif he finds after an examination in writing and underoath of the complainant and his witnesses in theform of searching questions and answers, that aprobable cause exists and that there is a necessity of placing the respondent under immediate custody soas not to frustrate the ends of justice. (c) Where warrant of arrest not necessary Awarrant of arrest shall not issue if the accused isalready under detention pursuant to a warrant issuedby the MTC in accordance with par. (b) of thissection, or if the complaint or information was filedpursuant to Sec. 7 of this rule or is for an offensepenalized by fine only. The court shall then proceedin the exercise of its original jurisdiction. Rule 113 Sec. 5 Arrest without warrant; when lawful - A peace officer or a private person may, without awarrant, arrest a person:(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrestedhas committed, is actually committing, or isattempting to commit an offense;(b) When an offense has just been committed and hehas probable cause to believe based on personalknowledge of facts or circumstances that the personto be arrested has committed it; and(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner whohas escaped from a penal establishment or placewhere he is service final judgment or is temporarilyconfined while his case is pending, or has escapedwhile being transferred from one confinement toanother. In cases falling under pars. (a) and (b) above, theperson arrested without a warrant shall be forthwithdelivered to the nearest police station or jail andshall be proceeded against in accordance with Sec. 7of Rule 112. Umil vs. Ramos These are eight (8) petitions praying for the issuance of thewrit of habeas corpus, ordering the respective respondentsto produce the bodies of the persons named and to explainwhy they should not be set at liberty without further delay. In their Returns, the respondents uniformly assert that theprivilege of the writ of habeas corpus is not available to thepetitioners as they have been legally arrested and aredetained by virtue of valid informations filed in courtagainst them. HELD: No compelling reason exists to abandon thepronouncement in Ilagan vs. Enrile, that a writ of habeascorpus is no longer available after an information is filedagainst the person detained and a warrant of arrest or anorder of commitment is issued by the court where saidinformation has been filed. However, the answer and thebetter practice would be, not to limit the function of habeas corpus to a mere inquiry as to whether or not thecourt which issued the process,

judgment or order of commitment or before whom the detained person ischarged, had jurisdiction or not to issue the process,judgment or order or to take cognizance of the case, butrather, in all petitions for habeas corpus the court mustinquire into every phase and aspect of petitioner'sdetention from the moment petitioner was taken intocustody up to the moment the court passes upon the meritsof the petition;" and "only after such a scrutiny can thecourt satisfy itself that the due process clause of ourConstitution has in fact been satisfied. " People v. Burgos Burgos was arrested by PC Officers while he was plowinghis field for being a member of the NPA as alleged byMasamlok whom Burgos forcibly recruited. According to theprosecution, he admitted possession of a firearm andsubversive documents which were found in his house. Burgos denied the allegations. HELD: Arrest and search by the PC officers were not lawfulwhere personal knowledge of the fact of the crime isessential. Knowledge came from Masamloks information. Burgos was not committing any criminal or subversive actat the time of the arrest. Evidence adduced against him areinadmissible, having been obtained in violation of hisconstitutional rights. Milo vs. Salonga Barrio Captain Tuvera Sr. , with some private persons,maltreated Valdez by hitting him, and immediatelythereafter, without legal grounds and with deliberateintent to deprive Valdez of his liberty, accused Tuvera withCpt. Mendoza and Pat. Mangsat lodged and locked Valdez inside he municipal jail for about 11 hours. Judge Salongaquashed the information. HELD: Barrio captains are recognized persons in authoritylong before PD299. Therefore, Tuvera had authority todetain Valdez but such detainment for 11 hours waswithout legal cause. The crime committed is arbitrarydetention. Astorga vs. People (2004) Simon, de la Cruz, Maniscan, Militante and Pelias aremembers of the Regional Special Operations Group (RSOG)of the DENR, Tacloban City. On Sept. 1, 1997, togetherwith SPO3 Cinco, Jr. and SPO1 Capoquian of the PNPRegional Intelligence Group, they were sent to Daram,Samar to conduct intelligence operations on possible illegallogging activities. At around 4:30-5:00 pm, the team foundtwo boats measuring 18 m in length and 5 m in breadthbeing constructed. There they met petitioner Astorga, theMayor of Daram, who turned out to be the owner of theboats. A heated altercation ensued between Astorga andthe DENR team. Astorga called for reinforcements then aboat bearing 10 armed men arrived. The DENR team wasthen brought to the Mayors house where they had dinnerand drinks. The team left at 2:00 am. HELD: The determinative factor in Arbitrary Detention, inthe absence of actual physical restraint, is fear. After acareful review of the evidence on record, the court foundno proof that Astorga instilled fear in the minds of theprivate offended parties. Based on the testimony of SPO1Capoquian, the police who escorted the DENR team, whatappears is that petitioner, being then a municipal mayor,merely extended his hospitality and entertained the DENRTeam in his house. Article 125. Delay in the Delivery of Detained Persons to the Proper Judicial Authorities Elements (as amended byE. O. 272) 1. Offender is a public officer oremployee;2. He detains a person for some legalground; 3. He fails to deliver such person to theproper judicial authorities within a. 12 hours for light penalties;b. 18 hours for correctionalpenalties; andc. 36 hours for afflictive or capitalpenalties. If the offender is a private person, the crimeis Illegal Detention. Under Art. 125, the public officer hasdetained the offended party for some legalground. The detention is legal in the beginningbecause the person detained was arrestedunder any of the circumstances where arrestwithout warrant is authorized by law. However,his detention becomes illegal after a certainperiod of time because he is not delivered tothe proper judicial authority. If the detention isNOT for some legal ground, the crime is Arbitrary Detention under Art. 124. Art. 125 does NOT apply when the arrest isby virtue of a warrant of arrest, in which case,the person arrested can be detainedindefinitely until his case is decided by thecourt or he posts bail

for his temporary release. Why? Because there is already a case filedagainst him in court it is not necessary todeliver the person to that court. Delivery to the proper judicial authoritiesdoesnt consist in a physical delivery, but inmaking an accusation or charge or filing of aninformation against the person arrested withthe corresponding court or judge. Proper judicial authorities means thecourts of justice or judges of said courts vestedwith judicial power to order the temporarydetention or confinement of a person chargedwith having committed a public offense. Circumstances considered in determiningliability of officer detaining a person beyondlegal period: -means of communication -hour of arrest - other circumstances such astime of surrender and thematerial possibility for thefiscal to make the investigationand file in time the necessaryinformationIllustration: When A was arrested for directassault, punishable by a correctional penalty,on the evening of June 17, the complaint couldnot normally be filed earlier than 8 a. m. of June18 because govt offices open for businessusually at 8:00 and close at 5:00 p. m. The illegality of detention is not cured by thefiling of the information in court because aviolation of this article had already beencommitted before the information was filed. Rule 112 Sec. 7 When accused lawfully arrested without a warrant Before the complaint or information is filed, theperson arrested [without a warrant] may ask for apreliminary investigation in accordance with thisRule, 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 bailand the investigation must be terminated within 15days from its inception. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7438An Act Defining Certain Rights Of PersonArrested, Detained Or Under CustodialInvestigation As Well As The Duties Of TheArresting, Detaining And InvestigatingOfficers, And Providing Penalties For ViolationsThereof. Who are punishable? 1. Any arresting public officer of employee, or anyinvestigating officer, who fails to inform any personarrested, detained or under custodial investigation of his right to remain silent and to have competent andindependent counsel preferably of his own choice2. An officer or employee or anyone acting uponorders of such investigating officer or in his place,who fails to provide a competent and independentcounsel to a person arrested, detained or undercustodial investigation for the commission of anoffense if the latter cannot afford the services of hisown counsel. 3. Any person who obstruct, persons or prohibits any lawyer, any member of the immediate family of a person arrested, detained or under custodialinvestigation, or any medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by him or by any memberof his immediate family or by his counsel, from visiting and conferring privately with him, of fromexamining and treating him, or from ministering tohis spiritual needs, at any hour of the day or, inurgent cases, of the night Article 126. Delaying Release Acts punished1. Delaying the performance of a judicialor executive order for the release of aprisoner;2. Unduly delaying the service of thenotice of such order to said prisoner; 3. Unduly delaying the proceedings uponany petition for the liberation of suchperson. Elements1. Offender is a public officer oremployee;2. There is a judicial or executive orderfor the release of a prisoner or detentionprisoner, or that there is a proceeding upona 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 therelease of the prisoner; orc. the proceedings upon apetition for the release of such person. Wardens and jailers are the public officersmost likely to violate Art. 126. Article 127. Expulsion Acts punished1. Expelling a person from the Philippines;2. Compelling a person to change hisresidence. Elements1. Offender is a public officer oremployee;2. S/he either -a. expels any

person from thePhilippines; orb. compels a person to changeresidence;3. Offender is not authorized to do so bylaw. RE: Not being authorized by law Only thecourt by a final judgment can order a person tochange his residence. This is illustrated inejectment proceedings, expropriationproceedings and in the penalty of destierro. InVillavicencio vs. Lukban , the Court heldthat the Mayor cannot force prostitutesresiding in Manila to live in Davao against theirwill, there being no law that authorizes them todo so. Article 128. Violation of Domicile Acts punished1. Entering any dwelling against the willof the owner thereof;2. Searching papers or other effects foundtherein without the previous consent of such owner; or3. Refusing to leave the premises, afterhaving surreptitiously entered said dwellingand after having been required to leave thesameCommon elements1. Offender is a public officer oremployee;2. He is not authorized by judicial order toenter the dwelling or to make a searchtherein for papers or other effects. Circumstances qualifying the offense1. If committed at nighttime; or2. If any papers or effects notconstituting evidence of a crime are notreturned immediately after the searchmade by offender. A public officer is authorized by judicialorder when he is armed with a search warrantduly issued by the court. To constitute a violation of domicile, theentrance by the public officer must be againstthe will of the owner, which presupposes opposition or prohibition of the owner, whetherexpress or implied. If the entrance is only without the consent of the owner, the crime isnot committed. Besides, silence of the owner of the dwelling before and during the search, mayshow implied waiver. If the public officer searches a personoutside his dwelling without a search warrant,the crime committed is grave coercion, if violence or intimidation is used, or unjustvexation, if there is no violence orintimidation. Article 129. Search Warrants MaliciouslyObtained, and Abuse in the Service of Those Legally Obtained Acts punished1. Procuring a search warrant without justcause;Elements(1)Offender is a public officer oremployee;(2)He procures a search warrant;(3)There is no just cause. 2. Exceeding his authority or by usingunnecessary severity in executing a searchwarrant legally procured. Elements(1)Offender is a public officer oremployee;(2)He has legally procured a searchwarrant;(3)He exceeds his authority or usesunnecessary severity in executing thesame. Review requisites for issuing a searchwarrant, manner of executing the warrant,definition of probable cause in the Rules of Court. Q: When is a search warrant said to have beenprocured without just cause? A1: When it appears on the face of theaffidavits filed in support of the application, orthrough other evidence, that the applicant hadevery reason to believe that the search warrantsought for was unjustified. A2:The true test of lack of just cause iswhether the affidavit filed in support of theapplication for search warrant has been drawnin such a manner that perjury could be chargedthereon and affiant held liable for damagescaused. Illustration: Pulis wanted to verify a report thatsome corpse was unlawfully buried in amonastery. Instead of stating to that effect, healleges in his affidavit that opium was hiddenin the premises. cThe offender in this article may also be heldliable for perjury. In view of the phrase inaddition to the liability attaching to theoffender for the commission of any otheroffense, even if the crime of perjury was anecessary means of committing Art. 129, theycannot form a complex crime. Rule 126 Searches and Seizures (See ROC) Stonehill vs. Diokno Upon application of some officers of the government,several judges issued 42 search warrants

against thepetitioners and the corporations of which they wereofficers. HELD: The legality of the seizure can be contested only bythe party whose rights have been impaired thereby. Theobjection to an unlawful search and seizure is purelypersonal and cannot be availed of by 3rd parties. Consequently, the petitioners may not validly object to theuse in evidence against them of the things seized, since theright to object to the admission of said papers in evidencebelongs exclusively to the corporations, to whom theybelong, and may not be invoked by the corporate officersin proceedings against them in their individual capacity. The warrants issued in this case state that the personsnamed therein committed a violation of Central BankLaws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue Laws andthe Revised Penal Code. As such, no specific offense hasbeen alleged in said application. It was impossible for thejudges who issued the warrants to have found the existenceof probable cause, for the same presupposes theintroduction of competent proof that the party againstwhom it is sought has performed particular acts oromission, violating a given provision of criminal laws. Finally, the warrants issued here were general warrantsthat authorized the search and seizure of recordspertaining 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 thepetitioners in this case. Under these warrants, a house inProject 6, QC and 2 units of the RMC building in Q. Ave. , QCwere searched. Office and printing machines, equipment,paraphernalia, motor vehicles and other articles used inthe printing, publication and distribution of the saidnewspapers, as well as numerous papers, documents, booksand other written literature alleged to be in the possessionand control of petitioner Burgos. HELD: The search warrants in this case were also in thenature 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 legallyprocured;3. He searches the domicile, papers or otherbelongings of any person;4. The owner, or any members of his family,or two witnesses residing in the samelocality are not present. Violation of Domicile | witnesses Public officer has no authority to make a search | Searching Domicile without Public officer has asearch warrant

Art. 130 does NOT apply to searches of vehicles or other means of transportation, because the searches are not made in adwelling. Article 131. Prohibition, Interruption, andDissolution of Peaceful Meetings Elements1. 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 apeaceful meeting, or by dissolving thesame;b. hindering any person from joiningany lawful association, or attendingany of its meetings;c. prohibiting or hindering any personfrom addressing, either alone ortogether with others, any petition tothe authorities for the correction of abuses or redress of grievances. Only a public officer or employee cancommit this crime. If the offender is aprivate individual, the crime is Disturbance of Public Order under Art. 153. But the offender must be astranger, not aparticipant, in the peaceful meeting. Where theoffender is a participant, the crime committedis unjust vexation. The right to peaceably assemble is notabsolute and may be regulated (i. e. , withrespect to the streets or public places to beused etc. ) Article 132. Interruption of ReligiousWorship Elements1. Offender is a public officer or employee;2. Religious ceremonies or manifestations of any religious are about to take place or aregoing on;3. Offender prevents or disturbs the same. Qualified if committed by violence or threat.

 Reading of Bible and then attacking certainchurches in a public plaza is not a ceremony ormanifestation of religion, but only a meeting of a religious sect. In which case, the crimecommitted is violation of Art. 131 But the reading of some verses our of theBible in a private house by a group of 10 to 20persons, is a religious service. There is noprovisions of law which requires religiousservice to be conducted in approved orthodoxstyle in order to merit protection againstinterference. Article 133. Offending the Religious Feelings Elements 1. Acts complained of were performed ina place devoted to religious worship, ORduring the celebration of any religious ceremony; 2. The acts must be notoriously offensiveto the feelings of the faithful. There must be deliberate intent to hurt thefeelings of the faithful. People vs. Mandoriao The Iglesia ni Cristo held a religious rally at a public placein Baguio. About 200 people attended the meeting, about50 of whom were members of the INC but the rest wereoutsiders and curious listeners. While Salvio, a minister of INC, was expounding on his topic to the effect that Christ isnot God, but only man, the crowd became unruly. Somepeople urged Mandoriao to go up the stage and have adebate with Salvio. Mandoriao however, was not able tospeak before the microphone because the wire connectingit was abruptly disconnected. HELD: The meeting here was not a religious ceremony. Areligious meeting is an assemblage of people met for thepurpose of performing acts of adoration to the SupremeBeing, or to perform religious services in recognition of Godas an object of worship The meeting here was notlimited to the members of the INC. The supposed prayersand singing of hymns were merely incidental because theprincipal object of the rally was to persuade new convertsto their religion. Assuming that the rally was a religious ceremony, theappellant cannot be said to have performed acts or utteredwords offensive to the feelings of the faithful. The actcomplained 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 whileholding a funeral of a person in accordance with the ritesof the Church of Christ, caused the funeral to passthroughout the churchyard of a Roman Catholic Church. The fiscal moved for dismissal of the case, which the courtgranted. HELD: In his MTD, the fiscal denies that the unlawful actcommitted by the accused had offended the religiousfeelings of the Catholics of the municipality in which theact took place. Such ground of the motion is indefensible. Whether or not the act complained of is offensive to thereligious feelings of the Catholics, is a question of factwhich must be judged only according to the feelings of theCatholics and not those of other faithful ones, for it ispossible that certain acts may offend the feelings of thosewho profess a certain religion, while not otherwiseoffensive to the feelings of those profession another faith. People vs. Tengson HELD: The act of performing burial rites inside a RomanCatholic cemetery, in accordance with the rules of practices of the sect called Christ is the Answer, byreading passages from the Bible, chanting the Alleluia,singing religious hymns and praying for the repose of thesoul of the dead, is not notoriously offensive to the feelingsof religious persons, provided there was no intent to mock,scoff, or to desecrate any religious sect or objectvenerated by people of a particular religion. Such act mayhave offended the Roman Catholic priest of themunicipality and some Catholic adherents, but since therewas a permit for the burial in question in the RomanCatholic Cemetery of that municipality, the religious rightsof that sect, to which the members of the family of thedeceased belong, and performed upon request of thebereaved 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 havingits afternoon services in its chapel, the accused who wasallegedly drunk entered with uplifted hands and attemptedto grab the song leader who ran away from him. The othermembers of the sect also ran out of the church and

thereligious services were discontinued. HELD: The accused is only guilty of unjust vexation .