Module II Criminal Law II

CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE

Crimes against the fundamental laws of the State

1. Arbitrary detention (Art. 124, RPC);
2. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities
(Art. 125, RPC);
3. Delaying release (Art. 126, RPC);
4. Expulsion (Art. 127, RPC);
5. Violation of domicile (Art. 128, RPC);
6. Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those
legally obtained (Art. 129, RPC);
7. Searching domicile without witnesses (Art. 130, RPC);
8. Prohibition, interruption, and dissolution of peaceful meetings (Art. 131,
RPC);
9. Interruption of religious worship (Art. 132, RPC); and
10. Offending the religious feelings (Art. 133, RPC).

GR: Offenders under this title are public officers or employees.

XPN:
1. Under Art. 133, offending the religious feelings, the offender maybe any
person.
2. When a private person conspires with a public officer or acts as
accomplice or accessory in the commission of the crime.
They are called crimes against “the fundamental laws of the State” because
they violate certain provisions of the Bill of Rights under the 1987 Philippine
Constitution.

RPC bases
1. Art. 124 (Arbitrary Detention); Art. 125 (Delay in the Delivery of
Detained Persons); Art. 126 (Delaying Release)
2. 2. Art. 127 (Expulsion)
3. 3. Art. 128 (Violation of Domicile);
4. Art. 129 (Search Warrants Maliciously Obtained and Abuse in the
Service of those Legally Obtained);
5. Art. 130 (Searching Domicile Without Witnesses)
6. Art. 131 (Prohibition, Interruption and Dissolution of Peaceful Meetings)
7. Art. 132 (Interruption of Religious Worship); Art. 133

Constitutional bases of the crimes under this title

 Sec. 1 of Article III (Bill of Rights) “No person shall be deprived of xxx
liberty xxx without due process of law xxx.”
Sec. 6 “The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits
prescribed by law shall not be impaired.”
Sec. 2 “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizure xxx shall be
inviolable.”
Sec. 4 “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of
expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances xxx.”
(Offending the Religious Feelings)
Sec. 5 “No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of
religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference shall
forever be allowed.

Classes of arbitrary detention

1. Detaining a person without legal ground (Art. 124, RPC);
2. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper authorities (Art.
125, RPC); and
3. Delaying release (Art. 126, RPC). NOTE: Arts. 125 and 126 refer to the
penalties provided for in Art. 124 for their penalties.

ARBITRARY DETENTION ART. 124 Elements

1. Offender is a public officer or employee vested with the authority and
jurisdiction to effect arrest and detain a person;
2. He detains a person; and
3. Detention is without legal grounds (US v. Braganza, G.R. No. 3971,
February 3, 1908).

What is Detention?
Detention is defined as the actual confinement of a person in an enclosure,
or in any manner detaining and depriving him of his liberty.
Periods of detention and punishment
1. Detention for 3 days or less — punishable by arresto mayor in its
maximum to prision correccional in its minimum
2. Detention for more than 3 to 15 days— punishable by prision
correccional in its medium and maximum
3. Detention for more than 15 to 6 months — punishable by prision mayor
4. Detention for more than 6 months— punishable by reclusion temporal

Arbitrary detention even if the victims were not kept in an enclosure. There
is arbitrary detention even if the victims were not kept in an enclosure. The
prevailing jurisprudence on kidnapping and illegal detention is that the
curtailment of the victim’s liberty need not involve any physical restraint
upon the victim’s person. If the acts and actuations of the accused can
produce such fear in the mind of the victim sufficient to paralyze the latter,
to the extent that the victim is compelled to limit his own actions and
movements in accordance with the wishes of the accused, then the victim
is, for all intent and purposes, detained against his will (Astorga v. People,
G.R. No. 154130, October 1, 2003).

Is it necessary that a public officer be a public officer to be held liable for

arbitrary detention?
NO. It is important, however, that the public officer must be vested with the
authority to detain or order the detention of persons accused of a crime
such as policemen and other agents of law, judges or mayors. Effect if the
public officer has no authority to detain a person If the offender does not
have the authority to detain a person or to make such arrest, the crime
committed by him is illegal detention. A public officer who is acting outside
the scope of his official duties is no better than a private citizen.

NOTE: In arbitrary detention, the offender is a public officer whose

functions have something to do with the protection of life and/or property
and maintenance of peace and order. Thus, if the person, who arrests
another without legal ground, is without authority to do so, like a clerk in the
Office of the Central Bank Governor, arbitrary detention is not the proper
charge but illegal detention. A barangay chairman can be guilty of arbitrary
detention He has authority, in order to maintain peace and order, to cause
the arrest and detention of a person (Boado, 2008). Legal grounds for the
detention of persons

GR: 1. Commission of a crime; a. arrest with a warrant b. warrantless

arrest Instances of a valid warrantless arrest
Under Rule 113, Sec. 5 of the Revised Rules of Court
a. Suspect is caught in flagrante delicto
b. Suspect is caught immediately after the commission of the offense when
the officer has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of
facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested committed it.
c. Escaping prisoners
2. Violent insanity or other ailment requiring compulsory confinement of the
patient in a hospital;
XPN: When the peace officers acted in good faith even if the grounds
mentioned above are not obtaining, there is no arbitrary detention.

NOTE: RA 7438 mandates the duties of arresting officer under pain of

penalty (imprisonment of 8 years to 10 years or fine of Php 6, 000 or both)
in case of failure to comply. Arbitrary detention can be committed thru
imprudence

ARBITRARY DETENTION
The principal offender must be a public officer.
The offender who is a public officer has a duty which carries with it the
authority to detain a person.

ILLEGAL DETENTION
The principal offender is a private person.
The offender, even if he is a public officer, does not include as his function
the power to arrest and detain a person.

ARBITRARY DETENTION
The offender is a public officer possessed with authority to make arrests.
The purpose for detaining the offended party is to deny him of his liberty.

UNLAWFUL ARREST
The offender may be any person.
The purpose is to accuse the offended party of a crime he did not commit,
to deliver the person to the proper authority, and to file the necessary
charges in a way trying to incriminate him.

DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF DETAINED PERSONS TO THE PROPER

JUDICIAL AUTHORITY
ART. 125 Elements
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. He has detained a person for some legal ground; and
3. He fails to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within:
a. 12 hours for crimes/offenses punishable by light penalties or their
equivalent;
b. 18 hours for crimes/offenses punishable by correctional penalties or
their equivalent;
c. 36 hours for crimes/offenses punishable by afflictive penalties or their
equivalent.

NOTE: The phrase “or their equivalent” means that it is applicable even in
violation of special laws
Circumstances considered in determining liability of officer detaining a
person beyond the legal period
1. The means of communication;
2. The hour of arrest; and
 3. Other circumstances such as the time of surrender and material
possibility of the fiscal to make the investigation and file in time the
necessary information.

DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF DETAINED PERSONS

The detention is legal at the outset but becomes arbitrary when the
detention exceeds any of the periods of time specified in Art. 125, without
the person detained having been charged before the proper judicial
authority.

ARBITRARY DETENTION
The detention is illegal at the very inception because of the absence of
lawful cause for such arrest.

Situation contemplated by Art. 125 Art. 125 contemplates a situation where

arrest was made without a warrant but there exists a legal ground for the
arrest. It does not apply when the arrest is on the strength of a warrant of
arrest, because in the latter case, there is no period required for the
delivery of a detained person to the proper judicial authorities except that it
must be made within a reasonable time. The person arrested can be
detained indefinitely until his case is decided by the court or until he posts
bail for his temporary release.
Warrantless arrest is lawfully effected when
1. In Flagrante Delicto - When, in his presence, the person to be arrested
has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense
2. Hot Pursuit - When an offense has in fact 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 Probable
cause — such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonable
discreet and prudent man to believe than an offense has been committed
and that the object sought in connection with the offense are in the place
sought to be searched Personal knowledge of facts — must be based upon
probable cause, which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of
suspicion
3. Escaping Prisoner - 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. It means the filing
of correct information or complaint with the proper judicial authorities. It
does not mean physical delivery or turnover of arrested person to the court.
Proper judicial authorities It refers to 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.
Duty of the officer if the judge is not available Where a judge is not
available, the arresting officer is duty-bound to release a detained person, if
the maximum hours for detention had already expired. Failure to cause the
release may result in an offense under Art. 125 (Albor v. Auguis, A.M. No.
P-01-1472, June 26, 2003). Person arrested without a warrant who opts to
avail his right to preliminary investigation Under the Revised Rules of
Court, he should waive in writing his rights under Art. 125. The waiver must
be under oath and with the assistance of counsel.
Rights of the person detained
1. He shall be informed of the cause of his detention; and
2. He shall be allowed, upon his request to communicate and confer at
anytime with his attorney or counsel.

NOTE: The illegality of detention is not cured by the filing of the

information in court. Length of waiver 1. Light offense – 5 days 2. Serious
and less serious offenses – 7 to 10 days If the person arrested does not
want to waive his rights under Art. 125 The arresting officer will have to
comply with Art. 125 and file the case immediately in court without
preliminary investigation.

DELAYING RELEASE ART. 126

Punishable acts under Art. 126
1. Delaying the performance of judicial or executive order for the release of
a prisoner;
2. Unduly delaying the service of the notice of such order to said prisoner;
and
3. Unduly delaying the proceedings upon any petition for the liberation of
such person.
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. There is a judicial or executive order for the release of the prisoner or
detention prisoner, or that there is a proceeding upon a petition for the
liberation of such person; and The prisoners could be prisoners by final
judgment or detention prisoners.
3. Offender without good reason delays:
a. Service of notice of such order to the prisoner, or
b. Performance of such judicial or executive order for the release of the
prisoner, or
c. Proceedings upon a petition for the release of such person.

NOTE: Wardens and jailers are the public officers most likely to violate this
article.
EXPULSION ART. 127 Punishable acts under this article
1. Expelling a person from the Philippines; and
 2. Compelling a person to change his residence. This article does not
apply in cases of ejectment, expropriation or when the penalty imposed is
destierro.

Essence of the crime of expulsion It is coercion but it is specifically termed

expulsion when committed by a public officer. A private person who
committed any of the punishable acts under Art. 127 is responsible for the
crime of grave coercion. Expulsion The crime of expulsion is committed if
aliens are deported without an order from the President or the
Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation after due proceedings.

NOTE: Pursuant to Sec. 69 of the Revised Administrative Code, only the

President of the Philippines is vested with authority to deport aliens. The
crime of expulsion is also committed when a Filipino who, after voluntarily
leaving the country, is illegally refused re-entry by a public officer because
he is considered a victim of being forced to change his address.

VIOLATION OF DOMICILE ART. 128 Punishable acts under this article

(BAR 2002,2009)
1. Entering any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof;
2. Searching papers or other effects found therein without the previous
consent of such owner; and
3. Refusing to leave the premises after having surreptitiously entered said
dwelling and after having been required to leave the same.
NOTE: What is punished is the refusal to leave, the entry having been
made surreptitiously.
When one voluntarily admits to a search or consents to have it made upon
his person or premises, he is precluded from later complaining thereof. The
right to be secure from unreasonable searches may, like every right, be
waived and such waiver may be either expressly or impliedly.
Common elements
1. Offender is public officer or employee; and
2. He is not authorized by judicial order to enter the dwelling and/or to
make a search for papers and for other effects.

Trespass to dwelling
The crime committed is trespass to dwelling when the punishable acts
under Art. 128 are committed by a private person.
Applicability of provisions under Art. 128 if the occupant of the premises is
not the owner. It would be sufficient if the inhabitant is lawful occupant
using the premises as his dwelling, although he is not the property owner.
Art. 128, when not applicable. If a public officer, not armed with a search
warrant or a warrant of arrest, searches a person outside his dwelling, the
crime committed is grave coercion, if violence and intimidation are used
(Art. 286), or unjust vexation, if there is no violence or intimidation (Art.
287).
Qualifying circumstances under Art. 128
1. If committed at night time; and
2. If any papers or effects not constituting evidence of a crime are not
returned immediately after the search is made by the offender.

SEARCH WARRANTS MALICIOUSLY OBTAINED AND ABUSE IN THE

SERVICE OF THOSE LEGALLY OBTAINED ART. 129
Punishable acts under this article
1. Procuring a search warrant without just cause.
Elements:
a. That the offender is a public officer or employee;
b. That he procures a search warrant; and
c. That there is no just cause.
2. 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 has legally procured a search warrant; and
c. That he exceeds his authority or uses unnecessary severity in executing
the same.
Search warrant It 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
1. Subject of the offense;
2. Stolen or embezzled and the other proceeds or fruits of the offense; or
3. Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense
[Sec. 3, Rule 126, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (Reyes, 2017)].

Requisite for the issuance of search warrant A search warrant shall not
issue except upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense
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 things to be seized
which may be anywhere in the Philippines (Sec. 4, Rule 126, Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure).

NOTE: A search warrant shall be valid for 10 days from its date. Thereafter,
it shall be void. Search warrant illegally obtained Search warrant is
considered illegally obtained when it was procured without a probable
cause. Probable cause Probable cause for a search is defined as such
facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and
prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the
object sought in connection with the offense are in place sought to be
searched (Burgos v. Chief of Staff, G.R. No. L64261, December 26, 1984).
Test for lack of just cause Whether the affidavit filed in support of the
application for search warrant has been drawn in such a manner that
perjury could be charged thereon and the affiant could be held liable for
damages caused (Alvarez v. Court, et al 64 Phil 33). Consequence of
evidence obtained, using a search warrant that was issued without just
cause When papers and effects are obtained during unreasonable
searches and seizures, or under a search warrant issued without probable
cause, or in violation of the privacy of communications and
correspondence, the papers or effects obtained are not admissible for any
purpose in any proceeding (Sec. 2 and 3, Art. III, 1987 Constitution).

Effect if the search warrant is secured through a false affidavit The crimes
committed are separate crimes of perjury and violation of Art. 128. The
liability of the offender under Art. 129 shall be in addition to his liability for
the commission of any other offense.
Elements of exceeding authority or using unnecessary severity in executing
a search warrant legally procured:
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee.
2. That he has legally procured a search warrant.
3. That he exceeds authority or uses unnecessary severity in executing the
same.

SEARCHING DOMICILE WITHOUT WITNESSES ART. 130

Elements
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. He is armed with search warrant legally procured;
3. He searches the domicile, papers or other belongings of any person; and
NOTE: The papers or other belongings must be in the dwelling of the
owner at the time the search is made.
4. Owner or any member of his family, or two witnesses residing in the
same locality are not present.
NOTE: Article 130 does not apply to searches of vehicles or other means of
transportation, because the searches are not made in the dwelling.
5. Owner or any member of his family, or two witnesses residing in the
same locality are not present. This article does not apply to searches of
vehicles and other means of transportation (Reyes, 2008).
The witnesses during the search should be in the following order:
1. Homeowner
2. Members of the family of sufficient age and discretion
3. Responsible members of the community Unlike in Art.128 where the
public officer is not armed with a warrant, in crimes under Art. 129 and 130,
the search is made by virtue of a valid warrant, but the warrant
notwithstanding, the liability for the crime is still incurred through the
following situations:
1. The search warrant was irregularly obtained
2. The officer exceeded his authority under the warrant
3. The public officer employs unnecessary or excessive severity in the
implementation of the search warrant
4. The owner of dwelling or any member of the family was absent, or two
witnesses residing within the same locality were not present during the
search.

PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION AND DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL

MEETINGS ART. 131
Punishable acts under this article
1. Prohibiting or interrupting, without legal ground, the holding of a peaceful
meeting, or by dissolving the same;
2. Hindering any person from joining any lawful association or from
attending any of its meetings; and
3. Prohibiting or hindering any person from addressing, either alone or
together with others, any petition to the authorities for correction of abuses
or redress of grievances.
In all three cases, the following elements must concur:
1. Offender is a public officer; and
2. He performs any of the acts mentioned above
Necessity that the offender be a stranger to the meeting that has been
interrupted and dissolved To be held liable under Art. 131, it is necessary
that the offender be a stranger to the meeting that has been interrupted and
dissolved. If the offender is a participant of the meeting, he is liable for
unjust vexation. Only a public officer or employee can commit this crime. If
the offender is a private individual, the crime is disturbance of public order
defined in Article 153. Requiring a permit before any meeting or assembly
cannot be construed as preventing peaceful assemblies The permit
requirement shall be in exercise only of the government’s regulatory
powers and not really to prevent peaceful assemblies. This requirement is
legal as long as it is not being exercised as a prohibitory power.

NOTE: But if such application for permit is arbitrarily denied, or conditions

which defeat the exercise of the right to peaceably assemble is dictated by
the officer, this article applies.

Prohibition, Interruption, or Dissolution of Peaceful Meetings under Art.131

The public officer is not a participant.
INTERRUPTION OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP ART. 132

Elements
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. Religious ceremonies, or manifestations of any religious ceremonies are
about to take place or are going on; and
3. Offender prevents or disturbs the same,
If the offender is a private individual, he may be liable under Art. 133.
Religious worship includes people in the act of performing religious rites for
religious ceremony or manifestation of religion. If the prohibition or
disturbance is committed only in a meeting or rally of a sect, it would be
punishable under Art. 131. Qualifying circumstances of the crime If the
crime is committed with violence or threats Rationale for punishing the
interruption of religious worship Persons who meet for the purpose of
religious worship, by any method which is not indecent and unlawful, have
a right to do so without being molested or disturbed (U.S. v. Balcorta, 25
Phil 279).

OFFENDING THE RELIGIOUS FEELINGS ART. 133

Elements
1. Acts complained of were performed:
a. In a place devoted to religious worship; or
b. During the celebration of any religious ceremony; and
2. Acts must be notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful. It is not
necessary that there is religious worship.

NOTE: Art. 133 is the only crime against the fundamental law of the State
that may be committed not only by public officer but also by a private
person.
Religious Ceremonies
Those religious acts performed outside of a church, such as processions
and special prayers for burying dead persons (Reyes, 2012).

Act considered notoriously offensive

An act is considered notoriously offensive when the act is directed against
religious practice or dogma or ritual for the purpose of ridicule, as mocking
or scoffing at or attempting to damage an object of religious veneration
(People v. Baes, G.R. No. 46000, May 25, 1939). There must be deliberate
intent to hurt the feelings of the faithful, mere arrogance or rudeness is not
enough.