Atty.

Tet Ocampo
§ The following are the elements of Arbitrary Detention: (PDL)
1. That the offender is a Public officer or employee;
2. That he/she Detains a person; and
3. That the detention is without Legal grounds (Astorga v. People, G.R. No. 154130,
October 1, 2003)
§ What is the nature of detention contemplated by arbitrary detention?
§ 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 actuation 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/her will (Astorga v. People, G.R. No. 154130, October 1, 2003).
§ What are the legal grounds for the detention of persons?
§ The legal grounds for the detention of person include, but are not limited to the following:
(CIA)
1. The commission of a Crime;
2. Violent Insanity; or
3. Any other Ailment requiring compulsory confinement of the patient in a hospital

§ Who may be liable for arbitrary detention?

§ The following may be liable for arbitrary detention:
1. The public officers liable for Arbitrary Detention must be vested with authority to
detain or order the detention of persons accused of a crime. Such public officers are
the policemen and other agents of the law, the judges or mayors (Milo v. Salanga, G.R.
No. L-37007, July 20, 1987)
2. Private individuals who conspired with public officers (People v. Camerino, CA-G.R.
No. 14207-R, December 14, 1956).
§ What is the effect if the detention is perpetrated by public officers not
vested with authority or any private individual?
§ If the detention is perpetrated by other public officers not vested with
authority or any private individual, the crime committed is illegal
detention under Article 267 or 268 of the RPC.
§ What is the length of detention for it to be considered arbitrary
detention?
§ The law does not fix any minimum period of detention. Offenders have
been convicted of arbitrary detention even when the offended party
was detained for an hour (US v. Agravante, G.R. No. L-3947, January 28,
1908); or even less than half an hour (US v. Braganza, G.R. No. L-3971,
February 3, 1908).
 Arbitrary Detention
(Article 124)
As to the classification It involves a crime against the
fundamental law of the State
As to offender The offender is a public officer
or private individuals
As to the purpose of There is no intention to bring the
the offender offended party to proper
authorities but merely to detain
him
As to the manner of A public officer although
commission authorized, detains a person
without legal ground
Unlawful Arrest
(Article 269)
It involves a crime against liberty
The offender may be any person
The purpose of arrest is to bring the victim to
proper authority and file a charge
In case of a private person, arrests a person
without reasonable ground, and the purpose is to
deliver the person arrested to the proper
authorities; or in a case of a public officer, not
authorized to arrest and detain a person, or
he/she did not act in his/her official capacity
§ The following are the elements of delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper
judicial authorities:
1. That the offender is a Public officer or employee;
2. That he/she has Detained a person for some legal ground; and
3. That he/she fails to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within:
a. Twelve (12) hours for offenses or crimes punishable by light penalties, or their
equivalent; or
b. Eighteen (18) hours for offenses or crimes punishable by correccional penalties, or
their equivalent; or
c. Thirty-six (36) hours for offenses or crimes punishable by afflictive penalties, or their
equivalent
(An election day or special holiday should not be included in the computation of the
period prescribed by law for the filing of complaint/information in courts in cases of
warrantless arrests, it being a “no-office day” (Soria v. Desierto, G.R. No. 153524, January
31, 2005)
§ When is Article 125 applicable?
§ Article 125 applies only to arrests made without a warrant. If the arrest was made pursuant to a
warrant, the prisoner is already deemed in the custody of the court and the officer has only to deliver
him/her without unnecessary delay to the nearest police station or jail
§ The person arrested pursuant to a warrant can be detained indefinitely, until his/her case is decided
by the court or he/she posts a bail. The reason is that there is already a complaint or information filed
against him/her making his/her delivery to the court unnecessary

§ What does the phrase “delivering the person to the proper judicial authorities”
§ The phrase does not consist in a physical delivery but 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 prisoner (Sayo v. Chief of
Police of Manila, G.R. No. L-2128, May 12, 1948).
§ The filing of a complaint with the Municipal Trial Court constitutes delivery to a proper judicial
authority although jurisdiction is with the Regional Trial Court because the intent of the law is
satisfied considering that the detained person is informed of the crime imputed against him (Soria
Soria v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 153524-25, January 31, 2005).
§ When can there be a waiver of the provisions of Article 125?
§ Before the complaint or information is filed, the person unlawfully arrested
without a warrant may ask for a preliminary investigation in accordance with the
Rule, but he/she must sign a waiver of the provision of Article 125 of the RPC, in
the presence of his/her counsel (Sec. 6, Rule 112, ROC)
§ In case there is waiver made in accordance with the Rules of Court, how long may a
person be detained?
§ Even when a waiver is signed, a detainee cannot be held indefinitely. Upon
signing of the waiver, a preliminary investigation must be conducted and
terminated within fifteen (15) days (Leviste v. Almeda, G.R. No. 182677, August 3,
2010).
§ What are the circumstances considered in determining the liability of an officer
detaining a person beyond the legal period?
§ The following are the circumstances considered in determining the liability of an officer
detaining a person beyond the legal period:
1. The means of communication;
2. The hour of arrest; and
3. Other circumstances such as:
a. The time of surrender;
b. The material possibility for the fiscal to make the investigation and file in time the necessary
information; and
c. The government office hours (Soria v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 153524-25, January 31, 2005)
 Arbitrary Detention Delay in the Delivery of Detained Persons
(Art. 124) to Proper Judicial Authority (Art. 125)
As to presence of There is no warrant of There is no warrant of arrest but with legal
a warrant arrest ground (Instances of lawful warrantless arrest
under Section 5, Rule 113, ROC)
As to nature of The detention is illegal The detention is legal in the beginning but
detention from the beginning the illegality of the detention starts from the
expiration of any of the periods of time
specified in Article 125, without the person
detained having been delivered to the proper
judicial authorities.
§ The following are the elements of delaying release:
1. That the offender is a Public officer or employee;
2. 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; and
3. That the offender without good reason delays either:
a. The Service of the notice of such order to the prisoner;
b. The Performance of such judicial or executive order for the
release of the prisoner; or
c. The Proceedings upon a petition for the release of such person
§ What are the punishable acts under Article 127?
§ The following are the punishable acts under Article 127:
1. Expelling a person from the Philippines; or
2. Compelling a person to change his/her residence

§ The following are the elements of expulsion: (PEN)

1. That the offender is a Public officer or employee;
2. That he/she Expels any person from the Philippines, or compels a
person to change his/her residence; and
3. That the offender is Not authorized to do so by law
§ When can one be legally compelled to change his/her residence?
§ One may be legally compelled to change his/her residence in the following:
1. Ejectment proceedings;
2. Expropriation proceedings;
3. Destierro;
4. In case of conviction for the commission of a crime involving deprivation of liberty;
5. Grant of Probation under the Probation Law of 1976 where change of residence is one
of the conditions therein imposed by the court (par. K, Sec. 10, P.D. 968);
6. Case of release on parole of a prisoner under the Indeterminate Sentence Law where
one of the conditions of his/her release is a change of residence (Sec. 6, Act No. 4103);
or
7. Grant of temporary or permanent protection under R.A. No. 9262 (Anti-Violence
Against Women and Their Children Act) where change of residence is one of the
conditions imposed (par. C, Sec. 8, R.A. No. 9262)
§ The following are the elements of violation of domicile:
1. That the offender is a Public officer or employee;
2. That he/she is Not authorized by judicial order to enter the dwelling and/or to make a
search for papers or other effects; and
3. That the offender shall:
a. Enter any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof;
b. Search papers or other effects found therein without the previous consent of such owner; or
c. Refuse to leave the premises, after having surreptitiously entered said dwelling and after having
been required to leave the same
§ What does the phrase “against the will of the owner” contemplate under Article
128?
§ To constitute a violation of domicile, the entrance by the public officer or employee must
be against the will of the owner of the dwelling, which presupposes opposition or
prohibition by said owner, whether express or implied (People v. Luis Sane, C.A., 40 O.G.,
Supp. 5, 113)
§ What is the effect if the offender is a private individual or a public officer not authorized
by judicial order?
§ A public officer or employee is not authorized by judicial order when he/she is not armed with
a search warrant duly issued by the court. If the offender is private individual/s or if the public
officer is one whose function does not include the duty to effect search and seizure, the crime
committed is trespass to dwelling under Article 180 of the RPC
§ When is Article 128 not applicable?
§ Article 128 is not applicable when a public officer searched a person outside his/her dwelling
without a search warrant and such person is not legally arrested for an offense, because the
papers or other effect mentioned in Article 128 must be found in the dwelling. In such case, the
crime committed by the public officer is grave coercion, if violence or intimidation is used (Art.
286, RPC), or unjust vexation, if there is no violence or intimidation (Art. 287, RPC)
§ The following are the qualifying circumstances in the crime of violation of domicile:
1. If committed at nighttime; or
2. If any papers or effects not constituting evidence of a crime are not returned immediately
after a search is made by the offender
§ The following are the punishable acts under Art. 129:
1. Procuring a search warrant without just cause; and
2. Exceeding his/her authority or by using unnecessary severity in executing a search
warrant legally procured
§ The following are the elements of procuring a search warrant without just cause:
1. That the offender is a Public officer or employee;
2. That he/she Procures a search warrant; and
3. That there is No just cause

§ When is a search warrant said to have been procured without just cause?
§ A search warrant is 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
§ The following are the punishable acts under Article 131:
1. Prohibiting or interrupting, without legal ground, the holding of peaceful
meeting, or by dissolving the same, requires:
a. The meeting must be peaceful; and
b. There is no legal ground for prohibiting, or interrupting or dissolving that
meeting.
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.
§ What are the common elements among the punishable acts under
Art. 131?
§ The common elements among the punishable acts under article
131 are:
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee; and
2. That he/she performs any of the acts enumerated in violation of
the right to association and peaceful assembly.
§ What is the effect is the crime is committed by a private individual?
§ 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 of the RPC.
§ The following are the elements of interruption of religious worship:
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; and
3. That the offender Prevents or disturbs the same

§ When is the crime qualified?

§ The crime is qualified if the same is committed with violence or
threats.
§ The elements of offending religious feelings are:
1. That the acts complained of were performed:
a. In a place Devoted to religious worship; or
b. During the celebration of any religious Ceremony going on; and
2. That the acts must be Notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful

Note: The offender may be a public officer or a private individual

§ When are acts considered notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful?
§ The acts must be 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. It must be abusive, insulting and obnoxious. Whether or not the acts
committed are notoriously offensive are viewed from the complainant’s standpoint and
not from that of the offender (People v. Baes, G.R. No. 46000, May 25, 1939).