TREASON

Elements

1. That the offender is a Filipino Citizen or an alien residing in the Philippines;

2. That there is a war in which the Philippines is involved;
3. That the offender either—
a. Levies war against the government, or;
b. Adheres to the enemies, giving them aid or comfort.

Treason

- Is a breach of allegiance to a government, committed by a person who owes allegiance to it.

- This is a violation of his allegiance to his sovereign or to the supreme authority of the State
(U.S. V. Abad)

Due to the revision of the RPC, a resident alien can commit a treason (People V. Marcaida).

How can the citizenship be proven?

- Through witnesses or by his prison record which sets out his personal circumstances.

First Element

The offender owes allegiance to the Government of the Philippines.

What is allegiance?

- The obligation of fidelity and obedience which the individuals owe to the government under
which they live or to their sovereign, in return for the protection they receive.

Types of Allegiance

1. Permanent allegiance
- Owed by an alien to his own country, he, at the same time owes a temporary allegiance to
the country where he resides.
- Consists in the obligation of fidelity and obedience which a citizen or subject owes to his
government or sovereign.
2. Temporary allegiance
- Obligation of fidelity and obedience which a resident alien owes to our government.

Treasons cannot be committed in the time of peace.

Modes in committing a treason:

1. By Levying a war against the Government;

2. By adhering to the enemies of the Philippines, giving them aid or comfort.

Number one Explained

Levying war- means concurring of two things

1. That there is an actual assembly of men;

Cases:

a. The mere acceptance of the commission from the secretary of war of Katipunan Society by the
accused, nothing else having been done, was not an overt act of treason within the law.
b. The actual enlistment of men to sere against the government does not amount to levying war,
because there is no actual assembly of men.
c. It is not necessary that there be any formal declaration of the existence of a state of war to
justify the conclusion that those engaged in such attempt are levying war and therefore guilty of
treason. Actual hostilities may determine the date of the commencement of the war.
d. The war must aim to overthrow the government as such, not merely to resist a particular
statues or to repel a particular officer.
e. It is not necessary that those attempting to overthrow the government by force of arms should
have the apparent power to succeed in their design in the whole or in part
f. Is it necessary that the purpose of levying war is to deliver the country in whole or in part to the
enemy?
- Yes. Levying a war as an act of treason must be for the purpose of executing a treasonable
design by force
g. The levying of war must be in collaboration with a foreign enemy.
2. For the purpose of executing a treasonable design by force.
Must concur together:
a. Adherence
- Intent to betray;
- It exists when a citizen intellectually or emotionally favors the enemy and harbors
sympathies or convictions disloyal to his country’s policy or interest.
b. Giving aid or comfort
- An act which strengthens the enemy in the conduct of war against the traitor’s country and
an act which weakens the power of the traitor’s country to resist or to attack the enemy.
- The fact that the accused had friendly relations with the Japanese during the war, openly
revealing himself sympathetic to the cause of the enemy and also believing in the
invincibility of the Japanese Armed Forces does not constitute in itself a treasonable act.
- Emotional or intellectual attachment or sympathy to the enemy, without giving the enemy
aid or comfort is not treason.
- When there is no adherence to the enemy, the act which may do aid or comfort to the
enemy does not amount to treason.
- CASE: The sale to the enemy of alum crystals and water pipes does not per se constitute a
treason, because said articles or materials are not exclusively for war purposes and their
sale does not necessarily carry an intention on the part of the vendor to adhere to the
enemy.
- CASE: Giving information to, or commandeering foodstuff for the enemy is evidence of both
adherence and aid or comfort.
- Aid and Comfort- must be in form of physical activity (providing arms, troops, supplies,
information, or means of transportation.)
- GENERAL RULE: the extent of the aid and comfort given to the enemies must be to render
assistance to them as enemies and not merely as an individuals, and, in addition, be directly
in furtherance of the enemies hostile design.
 - CASE: TO lend or give money to an enemy as a friend out of charity to the beneficiary so that
he may buy personal necessities is to assist him as an individual and is not technically
traitorous. ON the other hand, to lend or give him money to enable him to buy arms or
ammunition to use in waging war against the giver’s country enhances his strength, and by
the same count injuries the interest of the government of the giver.
- CASE: It is not necessary that the effort to aid to be successful, provided overt acts are done
which if successful would advance the interest of the enemy. It is not on the degree of
success.
- CASE: Commandeering of women to satisfy the lust of the enemy is not treason.

TREASONOUS ACTS

1. Serving as informer and active member of the Japanese Military Police, arresting guerrilla
suspects in an attempt to suppress the underground movement.
2. Serving the Japanese army as spy or agent and participating in the raid of guerrilla hideout.
3. Acting as finger woman when a barrio was zonified by the Japanese, pointing out to the
Japanese several men who she accused as guerrillas.
4. Taking active part in the mass killing of civilians by the Japanese soldiers by personally tying the
hands of the victims.
5. Being a Makapili- Such membership by its very nature gave the enemy aid and comfort. The
enemy derived psychological comfort in the knowledge that he had on his side nationals of the
country which he was at war. The practical effect of it was no different from that of enlisting in
the invader’s army.
6. Admitting that acceptance of public office were really of aid and comfort to the enemy, they
cannot be punishable in this law.
7. Holding high ranking positions that are responsible positions but also policy-determining are
punishable as acts of treason.
8. Membership in the police force during occupation is not treason; but active participation with
the enemies in the apprehension of guerrillas and infliction of ill-treatments make such member
liable of treason.
9. A Japanese spy is the accused: he took part in the execution of some of the guerrilla suspects
and in the infliction of physical injuries on the others, the SC held that murder and physical
injuries were inherent in the crime of treason characterized by the giving of aid and comfort to
the enemy.
10. The accused rendered sevice to the Japanese army as a secret agent, informer and spy and in
the performance of such service, he participated in the Japanese expeditions of guerrillas and
committed mass murders, arson and robberies. The prosecution instead cannot file a case of
treason but the specific crimes.
11. Can be committed outside the Philippines;
12. But treason by an alien should be committed in the Philippines.
13. It is a continuous crime.

NOT TREASONOUS ACTS

1. Acceptance of public office and discharge of official duties under the enemy do not constitute
per se the felony of treason.
 2. Those who refused to cooperate, in the face of danger, were patriotic citizens; but it does not
follow that the faintheart, who gave in were traitors.
3. Appellant’s membership in the Bureau of Constabulary under the government occupation is not
treason.
4. When the arrest of persons alleged to have been guerrillas was caused by the accused due to
their committing a common crime, like arson, he is not liable for treason.
5. Does not include rebel of its nation.

Ways of Proving Treason

1. Testimony of 2 witnesses, at least, to the same overt act;

The Two-Witness Rule

- This must be adhered to as to each and every one of all the external manifestation of the
overt act in issue.
- It must be on the same act, date, place, and moment.
- It is not necessary that their testimony be identical.
- The defendant should be acquitted if only one of the two witnesses is believed by the court.

Not affected by descripancies

- The fact that the said witnesses were not uniform on the points whether there were
Japanese soldiers in the raiding party, or whether the persons arrested and confined
included not only the males but some women and children, is not sufficient to entirely
discredit their testimony, as the deficiency refers as merely to minor details.
2. Adherence may be proved by:
a. One witness;
b. From the nature of the act itself;
c. From the circumstance surrounding the act.

Case:

His act of arresting persons suspected of being guerrillas, his being armed, and his being in the company
with armed Japanese soldiers.

Confession must be done in an open court.

Degense of suspended allegiance and change of sovereignty, not accepted.

Aggravating Circumstances:

1. Cruelty; Ignominy

Defense of obedience to a de facto Government

CASE: The accused cannot divest himself of his Philippine citizenship by the simple expedient of
accepting a commission in the military, naval, or air service of such country. IF the contention of the
accused would protect him from punishment.

CONSPIRACY IN COMMITTING A FELONY

Conspiracy to commit treason is committed when in time of war, 2 or more persons come to an
agreement to levy war against the Government or to adhere to the enemies and to give them id or
comfort, and decide to commit it.

Proposal to commit treason is committed whin in time of war a person who has decided to levy war
against the Government or to adhere to the enemies to give them aid or comfort, proposes its execution
to some other person or persons.

Two-witness rule does not apply to conspiracy or proposal to commit treason.

MISPRISION OF TREASON

ELEMENTS

1. That the offender must be owing allegiance to the Government, and not a foreigner.
2. That he has any knowledge of any conspiracy against the Government.
3. That he conceals or does not disclose and make known the same as soon as possible to the
governor or fiscal of the province or the mayor or fiscal of the city in which he resides.

ESPIONAGE

- is the offense of gathering, transmitting, or losing information respecting the national

defense with the intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury
of the Republic of the Philippines or to the advantage of any foreign nation.
1. By entering, without authority therefore, a warship, fort, or naval or military establishment or
reservation to obtain any information, plans photographs or other data of a confidential nature
relative to the defense of the Philippines.
a. That the offender enters any of the places mentioned therein;
b. That he has no authority therefore;
c. That his purpose is to obtain information, plans, photographs, or other data of a confidential
nature relative to the defense of the Philippines.
2. By disclosing to the representative of a foreign nation the contents of the articles, data or
information referred to in the paragraph No.1 of Article 117, which he had in his possession by
reason of the public office he holds.
a. That the offender is a public officer;
b. That he has in his possession the articles, data or information referred to in the Paragraph
no. 1 of Article 117, by reason of the public office he holds;
c. That he discloses their contents to a representative of a foreign nation.

To be liable under the par.1 the offender must have the intention to obtain information relative to the
defense of the Philippines.

It is not necessary that the information is obtained.

Treason
1. The crime is not conditioned by the
citizenship of the offender.
2. Committed only in times of war;
Treason
Espionage
1. The crime is not conditioned by the
citizenship of the offender.
Can be committed in times of peace
 1. Limited in 2 ways:
a. Levying war
b. Adhering to the enemy giving him aid or comfort

Espionage can be committed in many ways

INCITING TO WAR OR GIVING MOTIVES FOR REPRISALS

Elements:

1. That the offender performs unlawful or unauthorized acts;

2. That such acts provoke or give occasion for a war involving or liable to involve the Philippines or
expose Filipino citizens to reprisal on their persons or property.

Example:

The raising, without sufficient authorization, of troops within the Philippines for the service of a foreign
against another nation.

VIOLATION OF NEUTRALITY

Elements

1. That there is a war in which the Philippines IS NOT involved;

2. That there is a regulation issued by competent authority for the purpose of enforcing neutrality
3. That the offender violates such regulations

CORRESPONDENCE WITH HOSTILE COUNTRY

Elements

1. That in time of war in which the Philippines is involved;

2. That the offender makes correspondence with an enemy country or territory occupied by
enemy troops.
3. That the correspondence is either—
a. Prohibited by the government
b. Carried on in ciphers or conventional signs;
c. Containing notice or information which might be useful to the enemy.

FLIGHT TO ENEMY’S COUNTRY

Elements;

1. That there is a war in which the Philippines is involved;

2. That the offender must be owing allegiance to the Government;
3. That the offender attempts to flee or go to enemy country;
4. That going to enemy country is prohibited by competent authority.

PIRACY IN GENERAL AND MUTINY ON HIGH SEAS OR IN PHILIPPINE WATERS

Two modes of committing piracy:

 1. By attacking or seizing a vessel on the high seas or in the Philippine waters.
2. By seizing in the vessel while on the high seas or in Philippine waters the whole or part of its
cargo, its equipment or personal belongings of its complement or passenger.

ELEMENTS

1. That a vessel is on the high seas or in Philippine waters;

2. That the offenders are not member of its complement or passengers of the vessel;
3. That the offenders:
(a) Attack or seize that vessel;
(b) Seize the whole or part of the cargo of said vessel its equipment or personal belongings of
its complement or passengers.

CASE: nor does it matter that the crime was committed within the jurisdictional 3-mile limit of a foreign
state

What is piracy?

- It is robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas, without lawful authority and done
with animo furandi and in the spirit and intention of universal hostility.

CASE: People V. Catantan

Mutiny?

The unlawful resistance to a superior officer, or the raising of commotions and disturbances on
board ship against authority of its commander.

PIRACY MUTINY
The persons who attack a vessel or seize its cargo They are member of the crew or passengers.
are strangers to said vessels.
With intent to gain Intends to ignore the ship’s officers or they may
be prompted by a desire to commit plunder.

QUALIFIED PIRACY

Piracy or mutiny is, therefore, qualified if any of the following circumstances is present:

1. Whenever the offenders have seized the vessel by boarding or firing upon the same;
2. Whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims without means of saving themselves;
3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries, or rape.

CASE: It is qualified piracy when the crime was accompanied by rape and the offenders abandoned their
victims without means of saving themselves. “It cannot be contended with any degree of force that the
Court of First Instance of Sulu was without jurisdiction on the case. Piracy is a crime not against any
particular state but against all mankind. It may be punished in the competent tribunal of any country
where the offender may be found or into which he may be carried. Nor does it matter that the crime
was committed within the jurisdictional 3-limit of foreign state.
PD No. 532 covers any person while Article 122 as amended covers only persons who are not passengers
or members of its complement.

- RA 7659 neither superseded nor amended the provisions on piracy under PD 532. There is
no contradiction between the 2 laws. There
- Piracy under PD No. 532, when considered as Terrorism
- Qualified piracy is a special complex crime punishable by reclusion perpetua to death
regardless of the number of the victims.
- Any person who aids or protects pirates or abets the commission of piracy shall be
considered as an accomplice.
a. Such as giving information
 CRIMES AGAINTS THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE

ARBITRARY DETENTION

Elements:

1. That the offender if a public officer or employee

2. That he detains a person.
3. That the detention is without legal basis.

- The public officers liable for arbitrary detention must be vested with authority to detain or
order the detention of persons accused of a crime, but when they detain a person they have
no legal grounds therefor.
- Examples of public officers are policemen, barangay captain, municipal councillors among
others.
- If the offender is a private individual, the act of detaining another is illegal detention.
- The private individuals who conspired with public officers in detaining certain policemen are
guilty of arbitrary detention.

Detention?

The actual confinement of a persons in an enclosure, or in any manner detaining and depriving him of
his liberty.

- Even if the persons detained could move freely in and out of their prison cell and could take
their meals outside the prision, nevertheless, if they were under the surveillance of the
guards and they could not escape for fear being apprehended again, there would still be
arbitrary detenention.

CASE: Astorga V. People

- The people from DENR were prohibited by the municipal mayor to get out from the
barangay premises.

Without legal grounds?

1. When he has not committed any crime or, at least, there is no reasonable ground for suspicion
that he has committed a crime;
2. When he is not suffering from violent insanity or any other ailment requiring compulsory
confinement in hospital.

CASES:

1. The barrio Lt. was guilty of arbitrary detention, because he detained the offended party without
any reason therefore, such the commission of the crime, and without having the authority to do
so. (Her daughter was only quarrelling with the servant).
 2. Mere suspicion of his connection with any murderous plot is no ground recognized by law for
restraining the freedom of any individual.
3. In overtaking another vehicle, complainant-driver was not committing or had not actually
committed a crime in the presence of the respondent-judge. Such being the case, the
warrantless arrest and subsequent detention of complainant were illegal.

LEGAL GROUNDS for the detention of any person.

1. The commission of a crime;

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

When does a police can arrest without a warrant?

1. When in his presence the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing or is
attempting to commit an offense;
2. When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based
on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the persons to be arrested has
committed it; and;
3. When the persons to be arrested is a prisioner who has escaped from a penal establishment or
place where he is serving final judgement or temporarily confined while his case id pending, or
has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

“In his presence”

- When the officer sees the offense being committed, although at a distance, or hears the
disturbance created thereby and proceeds at once to the scene thereof, or when the
offense is continuing or has not been consummated at the time the arrest is made, the
offense is said to be committed in his presence.
CASE:
- It must be stressed at this point that presence does not only require that the arresting
person sees the offense, but also when he “hears the disturbance created thereby and
proceeds at once to the scene”.
- As testified to by Manarang, he heard the screeching of tires followed by a thud, saw the
sideswiped victim, reported the incident to the police and thereafter gave chase to the
erring Pajero vehicle using his motorcycle in order to apprehend its driver. After having sent
a radio report to the PNP for assistance, Manarang proceeded to the Abacan Bridge where
he found responding policeman SPO2 Borja and SPO2 Miranda already positioned near the
bridge who effected the actual arrest of the petitioner.

“Personal Knowledge is required”

- Must be based upon probable cause, which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of
suspicion.
- When police conducted surveillance activities to the accused.

“Probable cause”
 - 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.
- It must with the personal knowledge of the complainant or the witnesses he may produce
and not based on mere hearsay.
- CASES:
A. Where the distinctive odor of marijuana emanated from the plastic bag carried by the
accused.
B. Where an informer positively identified the accused who was observed to be acting
suspiciously.
C. Where the accused who were riding a jeepney where stopped and searched by
policeman who had earlier received confidential reports that said accused would
transport a quantity of marijuana.

When the person to be arrested is attempting to commit an offense.

CASE: Prevention of crime is just as commendatory as capture of criminals. Surely the officer must not
be forced to await the commission of robbery or other felony.

When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it.

CASE: The constabulary officer was not guilty of arbitrary detention.

CASE: In light of after events, the suspicion directed against the secret service agents was not well
founded, but viewing the facts as they must have presented themselves to the policeman at the time of
the arrest, they must be held to have had reasonable grounds upon whixh to base their suspicions as to
the arrested men.

No reasonable ground if officer only wants to know the commission of a crime.

CASE: the police wants only to see if the person really committed the crime.

That a police officer can make an arrest on mere complaint of the offended party is a debatable
question.

The Persons who have escaped from prison can be arrested by police or any private citizen without
warrant of arrest.

Arbitrary detention can be committed through negligence

CASE: The chief of police rearrested a woman who had been released by means of a verbal
order of the justice of peace. The accused acted without malice, but he should have verified the order of
release before proceeding to make the re-arrest.

Periods of detention penalized:

1. If the detention has not exceeded 3 days;

2. If the detention has continued more than 15 days but not more than 6 months
3. If the detention has exceeded six months.=.
The law does not fix any minimum period of detention.

- The police can be punished even though they just detained the person for just half an hour.

DELAY IN THE DELIVER OF DETAINED PERSONS TO THE PROPER JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES

Elements:

1. That the offender is a public officer of employee;

2. That he has detained a person for some legal grounds;
3. That he fails to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within:
a. 12 hours- crimes punishable by light felonies
b. 18 hours- crimes punishable by correctional penalties
c. 26 hours- crimes punishable by afflictive or capital punishments.

If the offener is a private person, the crime is illegal detention

- The periods of time in Article 125 were applied to the arrests made by a private person.

CASE: Lino V. Fuguso

Note: Before EO 272, the detention of a person legally arrested without a warrant becomes illegal upon
the expiration of:

a. 6 hours- crimes punishable by light penalties

b. 9 hours- crimes punishable by correctional penalties
c. 26 hours- crimes punishable by afflictive or capital punishments

IF the arrest is made with a warrant of arrest, the person arrested can be detained indefinitely until his
case is decided by the court or he posts a bail for his temporary release.

The delivery to the judicial authority of a person arrested without warrant by a peace officer, does not
consist in a physical delivery, but in making an accusation or charge or filing an information against the
persons arrested with the corresponding court or judge, whereby the latter acquires jurisdiction to an
issue an order of release or of commitment of the prisoner, because the arresting officer cannot transfer
to the judge the latter does not assume the physical custody of the person arrested.

“Proper Judicial authorities”

- The courts of justice or judges of said courts vested with judicial power to order the
temporary detention or confinement of a person charged with having committed a public
offense, that is the SC and such inferior courts as may be established by law.

Detained person should be released when a judge is not available.

Circumstance considered in determining liability of officer detaining a person beyond legal period.

1. The means of communication as well;

 2. The hour of arrest
3. Other circumstances such as time to surrender

Violation of Article 125 does not affect legality of confinement under process issued by a court.

Fiscal not liable, unless he ordered detention

- Because he is not the one who arrested and illegally detained the person arrested, unless he
has ordered or induced the arresting officer to hold and not release the prisoner after the
expiration of said period.

DELAYING RELEASE

Acts

1. By delaying the performance of a judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner.
2. By unduly delaying the service of the notice of such order to said prisoner.
3. By unduly delaying the proceedings upon any petition for the liberation of such person.

Elements:

a. That the offender is a public officer or employee;

b. 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.
c. That the offender without good reasons delays:
1. The service of the notice of such order to the prisoner
2. The performance of such judicial or executive order for the release of the prisoner
3. The proceedings upon a petition for the release of such person.

EXPULSION

Two acts are punishable under Article 127

1. By expelling a person from the Philippines

2. By compelling a person to change his residence.

Elements:

a. That the offender is a public officer or employee.

b. That he expels any person from the Philippines, or compels a person to change his residence.
c. That the offender is not authorized to do so by law.

Only the court can order a person to change his residence.

VIOLATION OF DOMICILE

Acts

1. By entering any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof; or

 2. By searching papers or other effects found therein without the previous consent of such owner;
3. By refusing to leave the premises, after having surreptitiously entered said dwelling and after
having been required to leave the same.

Elements:

a. That the offender is a public officer or employee;

b. That he is not authorized by judicial order to enter the dwelling and/or make search therein for
paper or other effects.

A peace officer withour search warrant cannot lawfully enter the dwelling against the will of the
owner, even if he knew that someone in the dwelling is having unlawful possession of opium.

- But the mere fact that a visitor of the house of another is suspected f having unlawful
possession of opium, is no excuse for entry into the house by a peace officer for the purpose
of search against the will of its owner and without search warrant.
- Where the owner of the house did not object to the opening of her wooden closet and the
taking of their personal properties, such failures to object or resist did not amount to an
implied waiver of her right against unreasonable search and seizure where the petitioners
were armed with handguns and one of the petitioners threatened and intimidated her.
- Two policeman were charged with violation of domicile, What they did was to enter the
house of the complainant and look for the pen knife which the latter carried when they
followed him. Nobody prohibited or prevented their entrance to said house whose doors
were open and the alleged search was limited to looking at what was in the sala and the
kitchen. It was held that the fact of looking at hwat was in the sala and the kitchen of the
house to see if the pen knife was there, cannot be strictly considered as the search of papers
nad other effects punished.

Circumstance qualifying the offense:

1. If the offense is committed at nighttime;

2. If any papers or effects not constituting evidence of a crime are not returned immediately after
the search made by the offender.

SEARCH WARRANTS MALICIOUSLY OBTAINED, AND ABUSE IN THE SERVICE OF THOSE LEGALLY
OBTAINED.

Acts

1. By procuring a search warrant without just cause;

2. By exceeding his authority or by using unnecessary severity in executing a search warrant legally
procured.

Elements

a. That the offender is a public officer or employee

 b. That he procures a search warrant
c. That there is no just cause.

Search Warrant

- Is an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge
and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal property described
therein and bring it before the court.

Personal Property to be seized

a. Subject of the offense

b. Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the offense;
c. Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense.
- The officer, if refused admittance to the place of directed search after giving notice of his
purpose and authority, may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house or
any part of a house or anything therein to execute and the warrant or liberate himself or
any person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained therein.
- Search of house, room, or premise to be made in presence of 2 witnesses.
- A search warrant should be valid 10 day from its date.
 Title 2

CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE

Art 124 Arbitrary Detention

Elements:

1. That the offender is a public officer or employee.

2. That he detains a person.
3. That the detention is WITHOUT legal grounds.

The offender in Arbitrary Detention is a Public officer or employee.

- Public officers liable for arbitrary detention must be vested with the Authority to detain or
order the detention of a persons accused of a crime, BUT when they detain a persons they
HAVE NO LEGAL grounds therefor.
- Private individuals who CONSPIRTED with PUBLIC OFFICERS in detaining certain POLICEMEN
are guilty of ARBITRARY DETENTION.

Detention?

- The actual confinement of a persons in an enclosure, or in any manner detaining and

depriving him of his liberty.
- Even if the persons detained could move freely in and out of their prison cell and could take
their meals outside the prison, nevertheless, if they were under the surveillance of the
guards and they could not escape for fear of being apprehended again, there would still be
AD.

CASE: (Astorga V. PP)

- The accused-mayor refused to allow a DENR team to go home despite their pleas, and the
refusal was quickly followed by the call for and arrival of almost a dozen of “reinforcement”,
all armed with the military-issued riffles, who proceeded to encircle the team, weapons
pointed at the complainants and the witnesses, and the teams was instead brought to a
house where after dinner, some of the members were allowed to go down from the house,
BUT NOT TO LEAVE THE BARANGAY, and the rest sat in the house until 2 in the morning.
- HELD: 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 the barangay.
THE INTENT to prevent the departure of the complainant and witnesses against their will is
clear.

Without legal Grounds

1. He has not committed any crime or at least;

2. When he is not suffering from violent insanity or any other ailment requiring
compulsory confinement in a hospital.
The following are detention WITHOUT any legal ground

1. A barrio lieutenant, seeing his servant quarrelling with his daughter, seized the servant and an
hour later sent him to the Justice of Peace. The servant was kept in detention from 5-9 in the
morning.
Held:
The barrio lt. was GUILTY of AD, because he detained the offended party WITHOUT any reason
therefor such as the commission of the crime, and without having the authority to do so.
Note:
Merely quarrelling is not a crime.
2. A Manila Detective arrected Taruc because of SUSPICION that he might be implicated in the plot
to assassinate the president and that he was related to Luis Taruc.
Held:
The mere suspicion of his connection with any murderous plot is no ground recognized by law
for restraining the freedom of any individual. Lawlessness from above only lead to CHAOS and
ANARCHY.
3. In OVERTAKIN another vehicle, complainant-driver was not committing or had not actually
committed a crime in the presence of respondent-judge. Such being the case, the warrantless
arrest and subsequent detention of complainant were ILLEGAL.

Legal Grounds for the Detention of Any Person

1. The commission of a crime;

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

Arrest without warrant is the Usual Cause of AB

1. When, in HIS PRESENCE, the person to be arrested COMMITTED, IS ACTUALLY COMMITTING, or

IS ATTEMPTING to commit an offense;
2. When an offense has in fact JUST BEEN COMMITTED, and he has probable cause to believe
based on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the persons to be arrested HAS
COMMITTED it; and
3. When the person to be arrested is a PRISONER who has escaped from penal establishment or
place where is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has
escaped while being transferred from one confinement or another.
(1) And (2) refer to cases when a suspect is caught in flagrante delicto.

“IN HIS PRESENCE”

- When the officer sees the offense being committed, although at a distance, or hears the
disturbance created thereby and proceeds at once to the scene thereof, or when the
offense is CONTINUING or HAS NOT BEEN CONSUMMATED at the time of the arrest is made.
- It must be stressed that at this point presence does not only require that the arresting
person sees the offense, but also when he hears the disturbance created thereby and
proceeds at the scene.

CASE:
 - As testified to by Manarang, he heard the screeching of tires followedby a thud, saw
sideswiped victim, reported the incident to the police and thereafter gave chase to the
erring Pajero using his motorcycle in order to apprehend its driver. After having sent a radio
report to the PNP for assistance, Manarang proceeded to the Abacan bridge where he found
responding SP02 Borja and SP02 Miranda already positioned near the bridge who effected
the actual arrest of the petitioner.

Personal knowledge is required

- Must come from probable cause;

- Such as coming from surveillance.

CASE:

- Both Patrolman Luciano and Caraan actually witnesses the same and their testimonies were
based on their actual and personal knowledge of the events took place leading to
appellant’s arrest. They may not have been within hearing distance, specially since
conversation would expectedly be carried on hushed tones, but they were certainly near
enough to observe the movements of the appellant and buyers.

Probable cause?

- 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.

INSTANCES WHERE PROBABLE CAUSE WAS FOUND TO BE PRESENT

1. Where the distinctive odor of Marijuana emanated from the plastic bag carried by the
accused.
2. Where AN INFORMER positively identified the accused who was observed to be acting
SUSPICIOUSLY.
3. Where the accused whose were riding a jeepney were stopped and searched by policeman
who had earlier RECIEIVED confidential reports that said accused would transport a
quantity of Marijuana.

A CRIME MUST in fact or actually have committed first.

When the Persons to be Arrested is attempting to commit an offense

CASE:

- A policeman, acting under orders of his chief who DESIRED to put a STOP TO PILFERING IN A
CERTAIN LOCALLY, patrolled his district, and about midnight, seeing two persons in front of
an uninhabited house who afterward entered an uninhabited house. The policeman took
them to the municipal presidencia where they were detained in jail for six or seven hours
before they were released.
- HELD:
Prevention of crimes just as COMMENDATORY as the capture of criminals. Surely, the officer
must not be force to await the commission of ROBERRY or other Felony. The rule is
 supported by the necessities of life. The applicable principles rest upon the same foundation
of reason and common sense.

When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts and circumstance that the person to be arrested has committed.

- Held: The constabulary officer was not guilty of AF. The Constabulary officer, in ordering the
arrest and detention of the girl, had probable cause to believe that the girl, participated in
the assault as one of the conspirators.
- It is sufficient that the agent or person in authority making the arrest has reasonable
sufficient grounds to believe the existence of an act HAVING the characteristics of a CRIME
and that the SAME GROUNDS exists for him to believe that the person sought to be
detained participated therein. The obligation to make an arrest by reason of crime, DOES
NOT PRESUPOOSE AS NECESSARY REQUISIT for the fulfilment thereof, the indubitable
existence of a crime.

The legality of the detention of a person DOES NOT DEPEND UPON ACTUAL COMMISSION of a crime by
him, but UPON THE NATURE OF HIS DEED when its characterization as a crime may reasonably be
inferred by the officer to whom the law at the moment leaves the decision for the URGENT purpose of
suspending the liberty of that person.

- Held:
No charge of arbitrary detention can be maintained against the 2 policemen. In the light of
after the events, the suspicion directed against the secret service agents WAS NOT WELL
FOUNDED, but viewing the facts as they must have PRESENTED themselves to the policemen
at the time of the arrest, they must be held to have had reasonable grounds upon which to
base there suspicions as to the arrested men.

BUT the justice of the peace who ARBITRARILY and WITHOUT INVESTIGATION directed the
detention of the agents was held guilty of the crime “detention through negligence”. The
justice of the peace was not actuated by any special malice or ill-will toward the prisoners
but he was wilfully negligent of their rights.

No reasonable grounds if officer ONLY WANTS TO know the commission of Crime.

In case where the accused was arrested and prosecuted for illegal possession of opium, the
witness testified that the only reason why he ordered the arrest of the accused WAS THAT HE WAS
ACTING SUSPICIOUSLY. He did not say in what way the accused was acting suspiciously or what was the
particular act or circumstance which aroused his suspicion. He caused the arrest because, as he said, “I
wanted to see if he had committed a crime.”

That a police officer can make an arrest on mere complain of the offended party is a debatable question.

1. Held: The arrest and detention of the accused for the purpose of identifying his persons, were
justified, since according to the acting chief of police reasonable grounds existed for believing In
the existence of a crime and suspicion pointed to that individual.
 2. A police officer has no authority to arrest and detain a person charged with an offense upon
complaint of the offended party even though, after investigation, he becomes convinced that
the accused is guilty of the offense charged.

When the person to be arredted is a prisoner who has escaped

- This right of arrest without a warrant of arrest, is found on the principle that at the time of
the arrest, the escapee is in the CONTINUOUS act of COMMITTING a crime—evading the
serving of his sentence.

AD through imprudence.

- The chief of Police rearrested a woman who had been released by means of a VERBAL
ORDER of the justice of the peace. The accused acted without malice, but he should have
verified the order of release before proceeding to make the re-arrest. The crime committed
by the Chief of Police is AF through simple imprudence.
Note:
…even if the offended party was detained for LESS THAN HALF an hour

Art.125 DELAY IN THE DELIBERY OF DETAINED PERSONS TO THE PROPER JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES.

Elements:

1. The offender is a PUBLIC OFFICER or EMPLOYEE

2. That he has DETAINED a person for SOME LEGAL CAUSE.
3. That he fails to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within:
a. 12 hours- light penalities
b. 18 hours- correctional penalties or their equivalent
c. 36 hours- for crimes or offenses punishable by afflictive or capital penalities, or their
equivalent

If the offender is a private person, the crime is Illegal detention.

“Shall detain any person for some legal ground.”

- Held: Pacifico Deoduco and Pascual Montaniel’s detention is illegal. Even assuming that they
were legally arrested without warrant on November 7 and 8, respectively, their continued
detention became illegal upon the expiration of 6 hours without their having been delivered
to the CORRESPONDING judicial authorities.

Article 125 does not apply when the arrest is by virtue of a warrant of Arrest

- If the arrest is made with a warrant of arrest, the person arrested can be detained
INDEFINTELY until his case is decided by the court or he posts a bail for his temporary
release.
- The delivery does not mean physical delivery, but in making an accusation or charge or filing
of an information against the person arrested with the corresponding court or judge,
whereby the latter acquires jurisdiction to issue an order of release or of commitment of the
persons, because the arresting officer can not transfer to the judge the latter does not
assume the physical custody of the person arrested.
Duty of detaining officer is deemed complied with upon the filing of the complaint with the judicial
authority.

- The answer is negative. The accused and others who were jailed with him on the evening of
June 1958m were delivered to the judicial authority upon the filing of the complaint for
assault against them in the morning of the following day.
- As the duty of the detaining officer is deemed complied with upon the filing of the
complaint, further action rests upon the judicial authority. It is for the judicial authority to
determine.

Held: Article 125 of the RPC is intended to prevent any abuse resulting from confining a person
without informing him of his offense and without permitting him to go on a bail. Upon the filling
of the complaint with the MTC, the intent behind Article 125 is satisfied considering that by such
act, the detained person is informed of the crime imputed against him and, upon his application
with the court, he may be released on bail.

Proper Judicial authorities?

- Cannot be considered as the fiscal because THEY cannot issue a warrant of arrest or
commitment order for temporary confinement of a person surrendered to legalize the
detention of the person arrested without warrant.

Detained person should be release when a judge is not available

Before the complaint or information is filed, the person arrested may ask for a preliminary investigation
in accordance with the Rule, but he must SIGN A WAIVER of the provision of Article 125 of RPC.
Notwithstanding the waiver, he may apply for bail and the investigation must be terminated within 1
days from its inception.

Circumstances considered in determining the liability of officer detaining a person beyond legal period

1. Means of communication as well

2. Hour of arrest
3. Other circumstances such as the time or surrender and the material possibility for the
fiscal to make the investigation and file in time the necessary information must be taken
into consideration

Violation of Article 125 does not affect legality of confinement under process issued by a court

- Held: The failure of the arresting officer to deliver the person arrested to the judicial
authority within the time specified in article 125 does not affect the legality of the
confinement of the petitioner who is detained because of the warrant subsequently issued
by a competent court when an information was filed therein.
- The violation of Art 125 is not considered as one of the grounds on which one can predicate
a motion to quash the information.

Fiscal is NOT LIABLE, unless he order detention

 - Because he is not the one who arrested and illegally detained the person arrested, unless he
has ordered or induced the arresting officer to hold and not release the prisoner after the
expiration of the said period.

Remedy where warrant improperly issued

- If the accused was illegally detained because he was arrested without a preliminary
examination what should have been done was to set aside the warrant of arrest and order
the discharge of the accused, but without enjoining the municipal judge from conducting a
preliminary examination and afterwards properly issuing a warrant of arrest.

Rights of the Person Detained

1. He shall be informed of the cause of his detention

2. He shall be allowed, upon his request, to communicate and confer at anytime with his attorney
or counsel.

Public officer or employee is liable for preventing the exercise of the right of attorneys to visit and
confer with persons arrested.

Art. 126 DELAYING RELEASE

Acts

1. By delying the performance of a judicial or executive order for the relase of a prisoner
2. By unduly delaying the SERVICE of the notice of such order to said prisoner.
3. By unduly delaying the PROCEEDINGS upon any petition for the liberation

Elements

a. That the offender is a public officer or employee

b. 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.
c. That the offender WITHOUT GOOD REASON
1. Delays the service of the notice of such order to the prisoner
2. The performance of such judicial or executive order for the release of the prisoner
3. The proceeding upon a petition for the release of such person.

Art. 128 Violation of Domicile

Acts Punishable

1. By entering any dwelling against the will of the owner therof; or

2. By searching papers or other effects found therein without the previous consent of such owner;
3. By refusing to leave the premises, after having surreptitiously entered the said dwelling and
after having been required to leave the same;

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.

“Against the Will of the Owner”

- If the entrance by the public officer or employee is ONLY without the consent of the owner
of the dwelling, the crime is NOT COMMITTED. Neither is the crime committed if the owner
of the dwelling consented to the entrance.

Right of officer to break building or enclosure

A peace officer WITHOUT search warrant CANNOT lawfully enter the dwelling against the WILL OF THE
owner, even if he knew someone in the dwelling is having UNLAWFUL possession of opium.

Search papers etc. without previous consent of such owner

- When the detectives secured the previous consent of the owner of the house to the search
without a warrant, THEY ARE NOT LIABLE.
- SILENCE of the owner of the dwelling before and during the search without search warrant,
by a public officer, MAY SHOW IMPLIED WAIVER.
- Where the owener of the house did not object to the opening of her wooden closet and
taking of their personal properties, such failure to object or resist did not amount to an
implied waiver of her right against unreasonable search and seizures where the petitioners
were ARMED with handguns and one of the petitioners threatened and intimidated her.

What is search?

- If the door is open, the law enforcers can search through their plain sight alone.
- But if owner will object, there is a violation of domicile.

Art. 129 SEARCH WARRANTS, MALICIOUSLY OBTAINED, AND ABUSE IN THE SERVICE OF THOSE LEGALLY
OBTAINED

Acts Punishable

1. By procuring a search warrant without just cause;

2. By exceeding his authority or by using unnecessary severity in executing a search warrant legally
procured.

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.

Search warrant?

- An order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge
and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for the personal property
described therein and bring it before the court.
Personal Property to be seized

a. Subject of the offense

b. Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the offense; or
c. Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense.

Search warrant is valid for 10 days only.

What is probable cause?

- It is such reasons, supported by facts and circumstances as will warrant cautious man in the
belief that his action, and means taken in prosecuting it are, legally just and proper.

When is search warrant said to have been procured without just cause?

- When it appears on the face of the affidavits filed in support of the application therefor, or
through other evidence, that the applicant had every reason to believe that the search
warrant for was unjustified.

Test of lack of just cause

- The oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the
applicant for search warrant or his witnesses, not of the facts “reported to me by a persons
whom I consider to be reliable.
- The fact that the search warrant was obtained for the purposes of extorting money from the
owner of the premises to be searched, is CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence of illegal procurement
of search warrant.

Peace officers may enter the house of an offender who committed an offense in their presence.

- Provided unlawful conduct is such as to affect the public peace.

Search and seizure of Vessels without a search warrant is Legal

- Because the vessel can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the
search warrant must be sought before such warrant could be secured; hence it is not
practicable to require a search warrant before such search.

Example of exceeding authority in executing search warrant

- Getting things not related to the opium

- But the possession of contraband articles, like firearm, without license, is a flagrant violation
of the law and the contraband can be seized without a writ.

Art. 130. SEARCHING DOMICILE WITHOUT WITNESSES

Elements
 1. That the offender is a public officer or employee
2. That he is armed with search warrant legally procured
3. That he searches the domicile , papers or then belongings of any person
4. That the owner or any member of his family or 2 witnesses residing in the same locality are not
present.

Note: this is not applicable on the searches happened on vehicles

Art. 132 INTERRUPTION OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP

Elements:

1. That the offender 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.

Preventing a religious ceremony that is to take place.

- The barrio chairman threatened the priest should the latter persist in his intention to say the
mass he will kill the priest.

Reading of a Bible and then Attacking certain churches in a public plaza is not a ceremony or
manifestation of a religion but only a meeting of a religious sect.