crimes against fundamental laws of the State

Arbitrary Detention
3 ways
By detaining a person without legal grounds (Art 124)
By delaying delivery of detained person (Art 125)
By delaying release of prisoner despite order (Art 126)
Art. 124
By detaining a person without legal grounds
Elements:
1. Committed by public officer or employee
Private serious illegal detention
Public officer directly vested by law to effect arrest or detain a person
- includes police officer, members of congress, mayor
2. Offender detains a person
- restraint on person or liberty of the victim which must be manifest;
- held in captivity
3. Detention is without legal grounds no warrant of arrest and arrest does not fail
under exemption under warrantless arrest or person is not suffering any mental
insanity where
Valid grounds for detention
1. When there is warrant of arrest
2. arrest is made under circumstances of valid warrantless arrest
3. person is suffering violent insanity or any sanity which confinement is
necessary
Police officers son is quarrelling with son of a neighbor. PO took the son of the
neighbor and incarerated the child. Is the act of PO amounts to arbitrary
detention?
Yes, the dention is without any legal ground, PO commits arbitratry detension.
If X is known a know cellphone snatcher in the place. When the PO saw him, PO
immediately arrested X and brought to the PNP station. The PO told X to wait
and not leave for investigator will come. PO told X he can move around
otherwise, if he will leave, X will be killed. So X goes around but come back. Is
PO liable for AD?
No, AD is not committed by PO. The PO does not restrain the liberty of X. The
grave threats cause return of X. What was committed is grave threats and not AD
becausethere was no restraint on trade of X.
What if PO brought X to PNP investgation. X was required to admit the crime
and so PO said if X will not admit, they will not allow him to. PO later allow X to
leave. What crime is committed.
No AD, no showing of estrain on liberty of X, not intention to detain but what was
committed is to compel to do something against his will Grave coercion
What if the PO caught a person arrested a person and brought that person to the
forest. In the said forest, the PO detained the same person and took them a week
before the PO went downtown.

This time there is AD...- restraint on person/property of that person.

Art 125 Delay in the delivery of the detained persons to the proper judicial
authorities
Elements:
That the offender is a public officer or employee
That he has arrested and detained a person for some legal grounds
Fails to deliver the person arrested to proper judicial authorities within 12, 24, 36
hrs
12 hrs light penalties or their equivalent
24 correctional penalties
36 capital
Art 125 applicable to the ff Warrantless arrest
In flagrante delicto
Hot pursuit
Escape of prisoner
At start, detention is legal, because the arrest was based on legal ground.
However, when there is AD, if PO fails to deliver to proper judicial authorities
Delivery of the Detained person = constructive or legal delivery
- not actual delivery which means filing of proper case before the proper court
PO to deliver to judicial authorities means to proper judicial authorities coutrs of
justices of judges of these court including SC and other lower court ; does not
include fiscal, public prosecutor for they are not vested to issue a warrant of arrest
Under Art 124 ; at the beginning detention is already arbitrary, under 125,
detention is legal from the start, detention is arbtray once PO fails to deliver
within period prescribed by law
Or thir equivalent means it applies to violations of special penal laws
Can the provision of Art 125 be waived? Yes, as provided in the rules of criminal
procedure provided in writing and in the presence of the counsel of the accused so
that PO detaining will not be liable
Art. 126 AD by delaying the release of the prisoner despite the judicial or executive
order to release that prisoner
a.
b.
c.
a)
b)
c)

That the offender is a public officer

There is a judicial
Thatthe offender
service of notice of such order to the prisoner
performance
proceeding upon the petition for release of such

Example of Judicial order order of the court releasing the accused

Executive order if after PI, the investigating prosector found no probable case, the
resolution said the immediate release of the prisoner

Petition for deliberation of a prisoner petition for habeas corpus

127 Expulsion committed by any person who compels persons to change
a. public officer
b. expels the person w/o authorization or compels to change his residence
without being autorized to do so
Who are authorized
1. President-authorized to order deportation
2. Court for crimes of destierro or expropriation or ejectment proceedings
Other than the above, any other person who commit above will be liable for 127
128 violation of domicile
committed by
1. public officer; if private tresspass to dwelling
2. not authorized by a JO TO ENTER THE DWELLING and to make search
3. without being armed with judicial order
a.`entered any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof
- there is prohibition or opposition from entering which can be express
orimplied
express sign of no entry
implied door is closed even if not locked
not necessary that owner is present
b. search the paper or other effects found therein without the previous consent
of such owner
- the offender or PO was allowed entry inside th house, however, once inside
the house, he searches papers and effects without
PO knowcked in the house of door, allows entry by the owner, PO said he was
lloking in the lost of stereo, X saaid the steroe no in the house but PO conducted
search,
there is violation of domicile, PO althougha llowed entry, he was not given
consent to make search for articles found inside the houee
what if PO, entered, allowed entry and the said PO told the owner that tey
were looking for a lost car stereo and began searching, while searching, X did not
prohibit them, later PO found the car stereo, are the said PO liable for violation of
domicile? how about evidence...PO is not liable for violation of domicile, entry is
with consent and search was impliedly permitted- consented search, evidence is
admissible
c. refuse to leave the premises after having surreptitiously entered said dwelling
and after having been required
- it is the refusal the PO to leave the premises; necessarily that surresptisiously
candidily, secretly entered the dwelling
-if leave, no violation but if not, violatio
What if a PO is conducting surveillance, there was a party, PO disguise
himself as a visitor, however inside, X, owner discovered him, told him to
leave, PO left, PO did not commit violation of domicile; gravemen is refusal
to leave, if in the sa me problem, he did not leave, then the said PO commits
violation of domicile

What if Xs house is closed, PO opens the door since not locked, when PO
entered, he tip toed to avoid discover, PO able to enter, but X suddenly went
downstair and sawthe PO and X told PO to leave and PO office immediately
leave? Did the PO commitis violation of domicile? Yes, there is violation.
This is because the PO the moment he enters, entry is against the will of the
owner, violation fo domicile is committed under the 1st act entry against the
owner
Example: What if the door of the house is open and PO entered PO enter but
the owner does not but PO does not leave, no violation of the 1st act since it is not
against the will of the owner. What if said PO enteres the dwelling of a person but eh
door was closed and the said PO opens the door and he does not enter the said
door.the owner saw him, there is cviolation because the door was closed, he opens and
entry is violation
What if a person, the PO knocked the door at the house of X, X opens the
door, PO upon entering tells X that he will make search warrant, the owner said no,so
PO respected denial of X and is about to leave, but PO suddenly saw drug
paraphernalia saw drugs on table of X, PO confiscate, is there violation of domicile?
First, no violation of domicile because PO is allowed entry
second, no search was made, they are about to leave
inadvertently saw the drug paraphernalia or contrabands or any unlawful items
without conducting search, under the said situation, PO is mandated to confiscate,
under plain view doctrine, they are admissible in evidence
Art. 129/130 violation of domicile even armed with search warrant
Art. 129
when PO procures a search warrant w/o just cause
illegally procures search warrnat
2nd although he legally procures SW, he exceeded
3rd when SW is procured, exercises excessive authority in the implementation of a SW
Art 130 when the search was conducted either the owner of the house, any member
or any two witnesses coming from the same locality
Art. 129
When SW was maliciously procured w/o just cause
Elements for the procurement of a valid SW
- must comply w the ff reqts
1st, there must be probable cause
2nd , SW is for 1 specific offense
3rd, determination of probable cause was made by issuing judge/officer
4th personal determination of judge must be done by searching questions in
writing and under oath or affirmation
5th , the said applicant for said SW and witnesses must testify only on fact
known to them
THE sw MUST SPeCIFY THE THINGS TO SEARCH AND PLACE TO BE
SEARCH
If any of the elements above is missing, then said SW was said to be procured
without just cause (maliciosuly)

What if a PO maliciouly procures a SW, it is w/o just cause, and PO armed with
illegally produced SW and give it to X, X knew that the said SW is illegal
procured, nevertheless, despite X knew , should X allow the PO t conduct search?
Yes, even though X knew it is defective, the PO must still be allowed : reason:
presumption in regularity of duty
Remedies of X: 1. File a motion to quash the said SW
2. Motion to supress evidence must be filed before the court in
the court where the case is filed or where the SW was issued
Other remedies:
The owner can file a criminal case against the said PO for violation of
domicile under Art. 129
the said PO can be sued for perjury
same instnces above, X filed a violation of domicile against the PO and perjusry?
Could the crime b complexed considering the perjusry is necessary to commit
violation of domiciled? No, Art 48. Because under Art 129, expressly stated that
liability for violation of domicile is an additional to the liability to any crime
committed ; so 2 crimes has to be filed
Instances # 2 in Art 129
PO legally procured but exceeded authority
1st when PO implemented or effected a SW after 10 days from issuance, it is as
if there is no SW
SW is valid only for 10 days; aftr 10 days, said SW is invalid
2nd when the SW was implemented by the PO at nighttime unless there is
provision that the search may be conducted at any time or any day
- there must be statement in the SW expressly allowing otherwise, search must
be conducted only during day time
3rd when there is variance bet facts stated in the SW and between the physical
facts present at the place where the SW is to be implemented
Let us say the SW says SW to be conducted in the house of X at 123
Piamonte St. PO went to the address but the person inside the house is Y? What do
you want? Said Y, PO said we are going to donduct Search at the house of X. Y said
I AM Y, House address of X is 321 PIamonte St. Went to X, look for X but X said the
housa is 321, not 123 as stated in the SW, nevertheless PO conducted the SW. Did the
PO committed violation of Art. 129? Yes, committed violation of domicile under art
129 because despite the variance beween physical facts between actual and what is
stated in the SW, they conducted search. How about evidence seized? They are
inadmissble under exclusionary rule. If there is variance bet SW and the physical, PO
should not conduct search but go back and file motion for amendment for SW. PO
shld have returned to the issuing judge and ask for amendment.
Instances $ 3 in Art 129
When SW is illegally exercised, PO exercised excessive severity in the
implementation of the SW.
Examples of excessive severity
When implementing SW, PO must not exercise severity in its implementation.

Ex: PO arrived at the house at X, despite being allowed to enter the house of X, they
still break open Xs house
When PO in conducting search, turned upside down tables, destroy furnitures
and hurt the owner of the house.
Art 130
In the conduct of the search by virtue of a vlid SW, it is necessary that the
search must be witnessed by the owner of the house or in his absemce, a member of
the family or at least two members of locality of sufficient age.
PO arrived at the house of X, X upon reading th e SW, allowed PO to conduct
the search. In that instance, PO look for the room of X, in the room, there were 2
witness, but X and member is left in the sala. Drugs paraphernalia was found inside
the room of X. Did the PO commit violation of domicile? Are evidence admissible?
PO committed violation of domicile. because in the conduct of the search, the owner
although present was not allowed to witness the conduct of the search but ordered to
stay in the sala. Evidences seized are not admissible in evidence against X. Since
there is violation of Art 130, evidences gathered are inadmissible.
Art 130 and Rule 12 provides for an hierarchy of witness:
1. Owner of the house if present
2. Member of the family/Household
3. 2 witness coming from the same locality of sufficient age
Art. 131 Prohibition, interruption and dissolution of peaceful meetings
a. prohibiting or interrupting without legal ground the holding of a peaceful
meeting or by dissolving the same
- it is necessary that the meeting prevented is a peaceful one
- it must be for legal purpose, otherwise illegal assembly
- dissolution must be
-

b. hindering any person from joining any lawful association

it is a violation of a right of expression under the Consitution
c. prohibiting or hindering any person from addressing either alone or
together with others petition to authorities for correction of abuses or
reress of grievances
against freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom toe join
association and to peacful assembly

Right to hold meeting is not absolute such right may be regulated by means of a
permit. The right of state to enjoin permit is within the regulatory powers of the
State. as the state will also take consideration of tehose who will be affected by
the conduct of the meeting
Art 132 Interruption of religious worship
- committed by PO who interrupts religious ceremony
- Offender is a PO
- tjere must be religious ceremony is about to take place or is on going

- PO interrupts
There is a fiesta, the priest is about to conduct mass in celebration of the feast but
suddenly a PO belonging to another religion arrived and told the priest not to
celebrate the mass, otherwise said PO will shoot each and everyone in the church. Te
PO Left, mass not celebrated.
The PO committed interruption of religious worship.
The use of violence or threats are considered absorbed yet they circumstances that
qualify the violation. The use of threaT does not constitute any other crime but
qualifying circumstance
Art 133 Offending religious feelings
committed by any person who performs act notoriously offensive to the
feelings of the faithful
- the offender may be any person, not necessarily be a PO, whether the offender
is public or private, injury is the same
- it is necessary that the offender performs act notoriously offensive to the
feelings of the faithful
o acts that are notoriously offense are acts against the dogma, ritual or
beliefs of a certain religions and offenders ridicules said dogma
o when the attack is against religious dogma or beliefs, it is considered
attack, in order to be considered notoriously offensive, said act must be
offensive not only to specific religion, must be applicable to all
religion if done to all, if specific religion, unjust vexation is the crime
-

third element, notoriously offensive must be performed either in the place of

religious or while a religious ceremony is going on

X is inside the catholic church, while the mass is o going, X wet in the middle of
the church, he took down the crucifix, he placed it on the floor, spit on the crucifix
and broke it...crime committed offending religious feelings, object of faith of
any other religion will be offensive to all other religion
TITLE 3 CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
Art. 134 Rebellion
- committed when
1. there be public uprising or taking of arms against
2. said public arising must be for any of the ff purposes
- remove from said govt any body of land
- to deprive the CHIEF EXECUTIVE or Congress fully or partially any of its
prerogative
134-a coup d etat
- offenders who are members of military w/ or w/o public support with swift
attack