CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF THE STATE

1. Art 124 RPC

Arbitrary Detention; elements:
a. That the offender is a public officer or employee;
b. That he detains a person; and
c. That the detention is WITHOUT legal grounds.
Note: If the offender is a private individual, the act of detaining another is
illegal detention under Art 267 or Art 268 of the RPC. But private
individuals who conspired with public officers in detaining another are
guilty of Arbitrary Detention.
Note: 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.
Problem: Policeman X is an intelligence officer of PNP Mallig. He saw the
man whom he is suspected to be a drug suspect and who is listed in their
“Tokhang List”. Policeman X arrested that man and detained him while he
was NOT committing a felony at all. What crime did policeman X commit?
Answer: X is liable for the crime of Arbitrary Detention because he arrested
a person WITHOUR A LEGAL GROUND.
Note: Arrest without a warrant is the usual cause of arbitrary detention. A
peace officer or private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person under
any of the following circumstances:
i. When in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing or is attempting to commit an offense;
ii. 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 an offense;
iii. When the person to be arrested is a detention prisoner, convicted
prisoner or a violent insane person.

2. Art 125 RPC

Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities;
elements:
a. That the offender is a public officer or employee;
b. That he has detained a person for some legal ground; and
c. That he fails to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities
within:
i. 12 hours for offenses punishable by light penalties;
ii. 18 hours for offenses punishable by correctional penalties;
iii. 36 hours for offenses punishable by afflictive penalties or their
equivalent.
Problem: Policeman X arrested Y for violation of RA 9165. He was
detained for a period of 5 days without the person being delivered to the
proper judicial authority. What crime did X commit? Answer: He is
liable for Delay in the delivery of a detained person to the proper judicial
 authority.(Note: He was arrested without a warrant and should have been
subject to inquest proceedings)
3. Art 126 RPC
Delaying Release; elements:
a. That the offender is a public officer or employee;
b. That there is a judicial or executive for the release of a prisoner or
detention prisoner or that there is a proceeding upon a petition for the
liberation of such person; and
c. That the offender without good reason delays either:
i. The service of the notice of such order to the prisoner;
ii. The performance of such judicial or executive order for the release
of the prisoner; or
iii. The proceedings upon a petition for the release of such person.
Problem: X is a detention prisoner at PNP Mallig charged with violation
of RA 9165 pending preliminary investigation of his case at Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor of Isabela. When the case is resolved, the
investigating prosecutor found no probable cause to indict X and hence
issued a resolution dismissing the case. When the resolution is served
before the Chief of Police of PNP Mallig, he refused to release X on the
ground that only judicial order may release a detained person under their
custody. Is the COP correct? Answer: NO. The failure to release a
detention prisoner despite an order of the Provincial Prosecutor
dismissing the case is violation under this article. AN order of the
Provincial Prosecutor ordering the release of a detention prisoner because
of the outright dismissal of the case is an Executive Order which falls
under this article.

4. Art 127 RPC

Expulsion; 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; and
c. That the offender is not authorized to do so by law.
Problem: The municipal mayor of San Juan orders the prostitutes working in
a KTV Bar to leave the municipality commits this crime.

5. Art 128 RPC

Violation of Domicile; elements:
Punishable acts:
a. By entering any dwelling against the will of the owner;
b. By searching papers or other effects found therein without the
previous consent of such owner; and
c. By refusing to leave the premises after having surreptitiously entered
said dwelling and after having required to leave the same.
Common elements:
 a. That the offender is a public officer or employee; and
b. That he is not authorized by judicial order to enter the dwelling and/or
to make a search for papers or other effects.
Problem: Policeman X entered the house of Y without a search warrant.
X found assorted firearms resulting to the arrest of Y. What crime did X
commit? Answer: X committed the crime of Violation of Domicile for
not having a search warrant before searching the house of Y. The
evidence confiscated is inadmissible as evidence in court.

6. Art 129 RPC

Search Warrants Maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those
legally obtained; elements:
I. Punishable acts:
a. Procuring a search warrant without just cause; and
b. Exceeding his authority or by using unnecessary severity in
executing a search warrant legally procured.
1.Procuring a search warrant without just cause; elements:
i. That the offender is a public officer or employee;
ii. That he procures a search warrant; and
iii. That there is no just cause.
*Search warrant was irregularly obtained- This means that there was
no probable cause determined in obtaining the search warrant.
Although void, the search warrant is entitled to respect because of
presumption of regularity. One remedy is a motion to quash the search
warrant, NOT REFUSAL TO ABIDE BY IT. The public officer may
also be prosecuted for perjury.
2. Exceeding his authority or by using unnecessary severity in
executing a search warrant legally obtained; elements:
i. That the offender is a public officer or employee;
ii. That he has legally procured a search warrant; and
iii. He exceeds his authority or uses unnecessary severity in
executing the same.
Ex: PDEA obtained a search warrant but the name of person in the
search warrant did not tally with the address stated. Eventually, the
person with the same name was found but in a different address. The
occupant resisted but the public officer insisted on the search. Drugs
were found and seized and occupant was prosecuted and convicted by
the trial court. The Supreme Court acquitted him because the public
officers are required to follow the search warrant to the letter. They
have no discretion on the matter. Plain view doctrine is inapplicable
since it presupposes that the officer was legally entitled to be in the
place where the effects were found. Since the entry is illegal, plain
view doctrine does not apply.
7. Art 130 RPC
Searching Domicile without witnesses; elements:
a. That the offender is a public officer or employee;
b. He is armed with a search warrant legally obtained;
c. He searches the domicile, papers or other belongings of any person; and
d. The owner or any member of his family or two witnesses residing in the
same locality are not present.

Problem: PNP Mallig, armed with a search warrant, searched the house
of B without the presence of the owner or any member of his immediate
family or two witness residing in the same locality. Held: The searching
team violated Art 130 for not complying requirement provided under this
article.

8. Art 131 RPC

Prohibition, interruption and dissolution of peaceful meetings; elements/act
punishable:
i. By prohibiting or by interrupting, WITHOUT LEGAL GROUND, the
holding of a peaceful meeting, or by dissolving the same.
ii. By hindering any person from joining any lawful association or from
attending any of its meeting.
iii. By prohibiting or hindering any person from addressing, either alone
or together with others, any petition to the authorities for the
correction of abuses or redress of grievances.
Note: A private individual cannot commit this crime. Only a public officer
or employee can commit this crime. If the offender is a private individual,
the crime is Disturbance of public order under Art 153 of the RPC.
Note: The offender must be a STRANGER, not a participant in the peaceful
meeting.
Problem: A spoke before the people, raising his fist and accusing the
government for oppressing their rights and says “let’s fight them”, “let’s
fight them until death”. The PNP arrested him and the meeting was also
dispersed. Held: There was no violation under Art 131 of the RPC because
the meeting is not peaceful.(People v. Evangelista)

9. Art 132 RPC

Interruption of Religious worship, elements:
a. The offender is a public officer or employee;
b. That religious ceremonies or manifestations of any religion are about to
take place or are going on;
c. The offender prevents or disturbs the same.

Problem: In a barangay chapel, a priest was ready to say mass and a

number of barrio folks were there to hear a mass. The barangay captain
made an actual threat on the life of the priest should the latter persist in
his intention to say the mass. As a result, the mass was not celebrated.
 What crime did the barangay captain commit? Answer: The barangay
captain is guilty of Art 132.

10.Art 133 RPC

Offending the religious feelings; elements:
a. That the acts complained of were performed:
i. In a place devoted to religious worship; or
ii. During the celebration of any religious ceremony.

b. That the acts must be notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.

Problem: Throwing stone at the minister of the Iglesia ni Cristo who was
preaching or spreading his beliefs before a crowd notoriously offended
the religious feelings of the minister and of the members of the INC who
witnesses the incident. (People v. Migallos)