1

1.1 The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and
no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or
things to be seized.
1.2 No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
1.3 The liberty of abode and shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court, or when
necessary in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health.
1.4 Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed
of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own
choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These
rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible
in evidence against him.
1.5 No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. In all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent util the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy
the right to be heard by himself and the counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to the attendance of witnesses
and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed
notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure
to appear is unjustifiable.

2.1 The following are the legal grounds for the detention any person: the commission of a crime; violent
insanity or other ailment requiring the compulsory confinement of the patient in a hospital

2.2 When a person is detained when he is placed in confinement or there is restraint on his person.

2.3 The following are the lawful warrantless arrest: flagrante delicto, when the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually commiting, or is about to commit an offense in his presence; hot pursuit, when an
offense has in fact been committed, and he has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be
arrested has committed it; when the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is
pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

2.4 The following are the kinds of arbitrary detention: detaining a person without legal ground; delay in
the delivery of detained persons to the proper authority within 12 , 18, or 36 hours, as the case may be;
delaying release by competent authority with the same period mentioned in number 2

2.5.1 No, the inquest prosecutor is not liable for arbitrary detention. According to Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code, when a prosecutor does not file the information within the period prescribed by
law, the prosecutor will not be responsible for violation of Article 125.

2.5.2 If I were the arresting officer, I would release the detainee. According to Article 125 of the Revised
Penal Code, when the arresting officer failed to deliver the detainee to the proper judicial authorities
within the period prescribed by law, the arresting officer violated Article 125. Here, if no charge is filed
by the prosecutor within the period prescribed by law, the arresting officer must release the detainee;
otherwise, he will be guilty under Art. 125.

3. The following are the manners violation of domicile: by entering any dwelling against the will of the
owner thereof; or by searching papers or other effects found therein without the previous consent of
such owners; or by refusing to leave the premises, after having surreptitiously entered said dwelling and
after having been required to leave the same.

3.2 In against the will, the owner is within or outside the house and has expressly or impliedly showed
his opposition or prohibition on the entrance of the public officer; however, in without the consent of
the owner, the crime is not committed.

3.3 The policemen have committed a crime of violation of domicile. According to Article 128 of the
Revised Penal Code, when the public officer shall enter any dwelling against the will of the owner of the
house, then it will constitute the crime thereof. Here, if the rich man’s house was closed, it’s an implied
opposition or prohibition of the owner against any entrance of the public officer. Therefore, the
policemen have committed a crime of violation of domicile.

3.4 The policemen have committed a crime of violation of domicile. . According to Article 128 of the
Revised Penal Code, when the public officer shall enter any dwelling against the will of the owner of the
house and refused to leave the premises after being told to leave the same, then it will also constitute
the crime thereof. Here, if the policemen won’t leave the premises after being told by the owner to
leave; therefore, they have committed a violation of domicile.

4.1 The following are the examples of lawful search and seizure without warrant: when the public officer
has acquired a search warrant from the proper judicial authorities; search and seizure without warrant
of vessels and air crafts; when the public officer actually saw an illegal item.

4.2 It provides that a person charged with an offense may be searched for dangerous weapons or
anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense. A lawful arrest may be made
without warrant in certain cases and in any of those cases a search may lawfully be made to find anseize
things connected with the crime as its fruits or as the means by which it was committed.

4.3 The students had not committed any crime. According to Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code, to
violate the crime of Article 133, the following elements must be present: that the acts complained of
were performed during the celebration of any religious ceremony; that the acts must be notoriously
offensive to the feelings of the faithful. Here, there was no deliberate intent on the part of the students
to hurt the feelings of the people who performed a prayer rally in Manila Bay. A mere noises and
disturbances to the prayer are not enough to constitute a deliberate intent to offend the latter.
Therefore, the students didn’t commit any crime.