Title Three: CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER

Chapter One: REBELLION, COUP DETAT, SEDITION, AND DISLOYALTY

Crimes against the fundamental laws of the State (ADDEV-SSPIO):
134 1. Rebellion or insurrection
14
14.
8
134 2. Coup detat
14
15.
-A
9
136 3. Conspiracy and proposal
15
16.
to commit coup detat,
0
rebellion, or insurrection
137 4. Disloyalty of public
15
17.
officers or employees
1
138 5. Inciting to rebellion
15
18.
3
139 6.
15
19,
4
141 7.
15
20.
5
142 8.
15
21.
6
143 9.
15
22.
7
144 10.
15
23.
8
145 11.
15
24.
9
146 12.
16
25.
0
147 13.
Section One. Arbitrary detention and expulsion
Art. 124. Arbitrary detention. Any public officer or employee
who, without legal grounds, detains a person, shall suffer;
1. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its minimum period, if the detention has not exceeded
three days;
2. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods, if the detention has continued more than three but not more
than fifteen days;
3. The penalty of prision mayor, if the detention has continued for more
Criminal Law 2 - Odulio Block C 2018

than fifteen days but not more than six months; and
4. That of reclusion temporal, if the detention shall have exceeded six
months.
The commission of a crime, or violent insanity or any other ailment
requiring the compulsory confinement of the patient in a hospital, shall
be considered legal grounds for the detention of any person.
Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer or employee.
2. That he detains a person.
3. That the detention is without legal grounds.
Who is a public officer?
Those vested with authority to detain or order the detention of
persons accused of a crime. (Ex. Policemen and other agents of the
law judges, mayors, barangay captain, municipal councilor.)
If perpetrated by other public officers, crime may be illegal
detention (Art. 267 or 268) because acting in private capacity.
People v. Camerino: However, if a private individual conspired with
a public officer in detaining certain policemen, he will also be guilty
of arbitrary detention.
When is there detention?
Detention, defined: The actual confinement of a person in an
enclosure, or in any manner detaining and depriving him of his
liberty.
People v. Camerino: even if a person can move freely in and out of
the prison cell and could take their meals outside of the prison, if
they are under surveillance of guards and could not escape
because they would be apprehended, there is arbitrary detention.
Astorga v. People: In this case, the accused mayor refused to let
members of the DENR from leaving the Barangay, and surrounded
them with gunmen. Although they are able to move freely, the fear
instilled by the presence of gunmen constituted arbitrary
detention.
Without legal grounds
There is no legal ground, when:
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 a hospital

US v. Gellaga: Barrio lieutenant saw X quarreling with his daughter

and ordered for his detention from 5pm to 9am. It was arbitrary
detention because there was no legal reason for such.
Taruc v. Carlos: Taruc was arrested by the police because he was
suspected of plotting to kill the President. This is arbitrary
detention. Mere suspicion for a murderous plot is not a ground
recognized by law for restraining ones freedom.
Cayao v. Del Mundo: Complainant-driver who overtook the judges
car is not guilty of any crime therefore his detention was arbitrary.

Legal grounds for the detention of any person:

The commission of a crime
Violent insanity of any other ailment requiring the compulsory
confinement of the patient in a hospital (Art. 124)
Arrest without warrant
In order to justify an arrest, the court must properly issue a
warrant. If there is none, the arrest of a person by a public officer
may constitute arbitrary detention
Arrest without warrant by a peace officer or private person is lawful
in the following occasions:
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 person to be arrested has committed
it*
3. 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**
*- suspect is caught in flagrante delicto or immediately thereafter; ** escaping prisoners
In his presence
US v. Samonte: When officer sees the offense being committed
although at a distance, or hears the disturbance created thereby
and proceeds to the seen or when the offense is continuing or has
not being consummated at the time the arrest is made, the offense
is said to be committed in his presence.
Personal knowledge is required.
Criminal Law 2 - Odulio Block C 2018

Sec. 5, Rule 113 of Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (RRCP):

officer arresting a person who just committed an offense must have
probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts
and circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it.
US v. Santos: Personal knowledge of facts must be based upon
probable cause which means an actual belief or reasonable
grounds of suspicion.
People v. Bati: The police may not have been within hearing
distance but were near enough to observe the movements and say
that the arrest was based on personal knowledge.
Probable cause
Burgos v. Chief of Staff: such 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
People v. Claudio: where the distinctive odor of marijuana
emanated from the plastic bag carried accused
People v. Tangliben: where an informer positively identified the
accused who was observed to be acting suspiciously
People v. Maspil, Jr.: where the accused who were riding a jeepney
were stopped and searched by policemen who had earlier received
confidential reports that said accused would transport a quantity of
marijuna
Notes
People v. Burgos: A crime must in fact or actually have been
committed first. That a crime has been committed is an essential
precondition.
US v. Santos: Police arrested 2 people who he saw in front of an
uninhabited house. Not arbitrary detention; prevention of crime is
just as commendatory as capture of criminals.
People v. Ancheta: The police officer who had ordered the arrest of
a girl along with 2 assailants was not guilty of arbitrary detention.
The police had probable clause to believe that she participated as a
conspirator. The obligation to make an arrest by reason of crime
does not presuppose as a necessary requisite for fulfillment of such
the indubitable existence of a crime.
US v. Sanchez: The legality of a detention does not depend on an
actual commission of the crime, but upon the nature of his deed
when it may be reasonably inferred by the officer to whom the law
at the moment leaves the decision for the urgent purpose of
detaining him.

US v. Battalones: Thus, the 2 policemen who arrested 2 BIR secret

service agents upon asking for their cedulas and for suspecting
them of robbery, are not guilty of arbitrary detention. But the
justice of the peace who did not investigate the claims of the
detainees was held guilty of arbitrary detention through
negligence.
US v. Hachaw: There is no reasonable ground if officer only wants
to know the commission of crime. In this case where he just
thought of the accused as suspicious and thus was without
reasonable ground of suspicion that the accused committed an
offense.
US v. Sanchez: The policeman Sanchez who was directed to look for
X who was said to be the perpetrator of robberies in the village was
not charged with arbitrary detention because the arrest and
detention for the purpose of identifying his person were justified,
acting with reasonable grounds for believing in the existence of
crime.
Sayo v. Chief of Police: A policeman arrested suspects upon
complaint of Y for crime of robbery. Petitioners were detained while
petition for habeas corpus was on-going and the information was
still withheld by the courts. It was ruled that the detention was
arbitrary because the police officer had not authority to detain a
person until such officer is convinced that the person is guilty.
Dissenting opinion of Justice Tuason: It would cripple the forces of
the law to the point of enable criminals, against whom there is only
moral conviction or prima facie proof of guilt to escape. Examples
in the book (p. 51)
Salonga v. Holand: An escapee can be arrested without a warrant,
and not only by authorities but even by private persons.
US v. Braganza: There is no minimum period of detention. Even if it
was only for less than 30 minutes, it can constitute arbitrary
detention.
People v. Misa: The police ordered the rearrest of X even if X had
been released by means of a verbal order. While not accusing with
malice, the police should have verified the order of release before
rearresting. Thus, he was guilty of arbitrary detention through
simple imprudence, punished under Art. 365 par. 2 and Art. 124 of
the RPC.

Periods of detention
Not exceeded 3 days: AM max to PC med
More than 3 but not more than 15 days: PC med to PC max
Criminal Law 2 - Odulio Block C 2018

More than 15 days but not more than 6 months: prision mayor
Detention exceeded 6 months: reclusion temporal
Art. 125. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper
judicial authorities. The penalties provided in the next preceding
article shall be imposed upon the public officer or employee who shall
detain any person for some legal ground and shall fail to deliver such
person to the proper judicial authorities within the period of; twelve (12)
hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by light penalties, or their
equivalent; eighteen (18) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by
correctional penalties, or their equivalent and thirty-six (36) hours, for
crimes, or offenses punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or their
equivalent.
In every case, the person detained shall be informed of the cause of his
detention and shall be allowed upon his request, to communicate and
confer at any time with his attorney or counsel. (As amended by E.O.
Nos. 59 and 272, Nov. 7, 1986 and July 25, 1987, respectively).
Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee.
2. That he has detained a person for some legal ground.
3. That he fails to deliver such person to the proper judicial
authorities within:
a. 12 hours for crimes/offense punishable by light penalties
or their equivalent; or
b. 18 hours for crimes/offenses punishable by correctional
penalties or their equivalent; or
c. 36 hours for crimes or offense punishable by afflictive or
capital penalties or their equivalent.
Illegal detention
If the offender is a private person, the crime is illegal detention.
If a private person is to make a lawful arrest, he must be in
compliance with the requirements prescribed in Art. 125. If he fails,
he will be held guilty of Art. 267-268, illegal detention.
Shall detain any person for some legal ground
The detention is legal in the beginning because the person was
arrest under any of the circumstances where arrest without warrant
is authorized by law. But then it becomes illegal after a certain
period of time, beause the offeded party is not delivered to the
proper judicial authority within the period specified by Art. 125.
Lino v. Fuguso: X and Y were arrested without warrant for inciting
sedition and resisting arrest and disobedience to police orders

respectively, and were also detained for 3-4 days. There was
apparently no sufficient evidence to arrest them and thus it was
found that the arrest was illegal, and their continued detention
became illegal upon expiration of 6 hours.
Before E.O. 272 this was the schedule
o 6 hours for crimes/offense punishable by light penalties or
their equivalent; or
o 9 hours for crimes/offenses punishable by correctional
penalties or their equivalent; or
o 18 hours for crimes or offense punishable by afflictive or
capital penalties or their equivalent.
Art. 125 does not apply when the arrest is by virtue of warrant of
arrest. It only applies when an arrest is made, and there is no
warrant.
If the

Art. 126. Delaying release. The penalties provided for in Article 124
shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who delays for the
period of time specified therein the performance of any judicial or
executive order for the release of a prisoner or detention prisoner or
unduly delays the service of the notice of such order to said prisoner or
the proceedings upon any petition for the liberation of such person.
3 acts punishable under 126:
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:
1. That the offense 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
petition for the liberation of such person
3. That the offender without good reason delays
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
c. The proceedings upon a petition for the release of such
person
Criminal Law 2 - Odulio Block C 2018

Art. 127. Expulsion. The penalty of prision correccional shall

be imposed upon any public officer or employee who, not being
thereunto authorized by law, shall expel any person from the
Philippine Islands or shall compel such person to change his
residence.
2 acts punishable under Art. 127:
By expelling a person from the Philippines
By compelling a person to change his residence
Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee
2. That he expels any person from the Philippines, or compels a
person to change his residence
3. That the offender is not authorized by law to do so.
Notes:
Only the court by final judgment can order a person to change his
residence. (ex. Ejectment proceedings, expropriation proceedings,
destierro as penalty)
Villavicencio v. Lukban: case where prostitutes are being made to
leave Manila and go to Davao against their will by the police. Police
guilty of expulsion.
Section Two. Violation of domicile
Crimes known as violation of domicile:
12 Violation of domicile by entering a dwelling against the will of the
8
owner therof or making search without previous consent of the
owner.
12 Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of
9
those legally obtained
13 Searching domicile without witnesses
0
Art. 128. Violation of domicile. The penalty of prision
correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any
public officer or employee who, not being authorized by judicial
order, shall enter any dwelling against the will of the owner
thereof, search papers or other effects found therein without the
previous consent of such owner, or having surreptitiously entered
said dwelling, and being required to leave the premises, shall
refuse to do so.

If the offense be committed in the night-time, or if any papers or

effects not constituting evidence of a crime be not returned
immediately after the search made by the offender, the penalty
shall be prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
Acts punishable under 128:
By entering any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof;
By searching papers or other effects found therin without the
previous consent of such owner or
By refusing the leave the premises, after having surreptitiously
entered said dwelling and after having been required to leave the
same.
Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer or employee
2. That he is not authorized by judicial order to enter the dwelling
and/or to make search therein for papers or other effects
Notes
If the offender is a private individual, he will be guilty of trespass to
dwelling (Art. 280)
It must be against the will of the owner. So, such opposition or
prohibition must be express or implied. If only without consent, the
officer cannot be guilty of violation of domicile.
TBC
Art. 129. Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the
service of those legally obtained. In addition to the liability
attaching to the offender for the commission of any other offense, the
penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in
its minimum period and a fine not exceeding P1,000 pesos shall be
imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall procure a search
warrant without just cause, or, having legally procured the same, shall
exceed his authority or use unnecessary severity in executing the same.
Acts punishable in connection with search warrants:
By procuring a search warrant without just cause
By exceeding his authority or by using unneccesary severity in
executing a search warrant legally procured
Elements of procuring a search warrant without just cause:
Criminal Law 2 - Odulio Block C 2018

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 personal property described therein and
bring it before the court
The following personal property may be seized:
Subject of the offense
Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the offense
Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an
offense
Notes:
Sec. 4, Rule 126 of RRCP: It is required that before issuing a
warrant, the judge has deemed that there is probably cause in
connection with an offense. A witness under oath describing the
place to be searched and thing to be seized which may be
anywhere in the Philippines.
Sec. 5: The judge must personally examine the questions and
answers made by the witnesses and the complainant.
Sec. 7: The officer may break the door or window if he is refused
admittance.
Sec. 8: The search must made in the presence of the lawful
occupant or any member of his family or in the absence of the
latter, the presence of 2 witnesses of sufficient age and discretion
residing in the same locality.
Sec. 10: Search warrants are only valid for 10 days from its date.
Sec. 11: The officer who seized the property must give a detailed
receipt to the lawful occupant in whose presence the search and
seizure was made and must leave a receipt in the place in which he
found the seized property.
A search warrant is said to have been procured without just cause
when it appears on the face of the affidavits filed in support thereof
or through evidence that the applicant had ever reason to believe
that the search warrant was unjustified.
Alvarez v. CFI: To test the lack of just: whether the affidavit filed has
been drawn in a manner that perjury could be charged and affiant
can be held liable for damages caused. The oath must refer to facts
within the personal knowledge of the applicant.
TBC

Elements of exceeding authority or using unnecessary severity in

executing a search warrant legally produced:
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee
2. That he has legally procured a search warrant
3. That he exceeds his authority or uses unnecessary severity in the
execution of the same
Art. 130. Searching domicile without witnesses. The penalty of
arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed
upon a public officer or employee who, in cases where a search is proper,
shall search the domicile, papers or other belongings of any person, in
the absence of the latter, any member of his family, or in their default,
without the presence of two witnesses residing in the same locality.
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 other belongings of any
person.
4. That the owner, or any member of his family, or two witnesses
residing in the same locality are not present.
Section Three. Prohibition, interruption and dissolution of peaceful
meetings
Art. 131. Prohibition, interruption and dissolution of peaceful
meetings. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period
shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who, without legal
ground, shall prohibit or interrupt the holding of a peaceful meeting, or
shall dissolve the same.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee
who shall hinder any person from joining any lawful association or from
attending any of its meetings.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee
who shall prohibit or hinder any person from addressing, either alone or
together with others, any petition to the authorities for the correction of
abuses or redress of grievances.
What are the acts punished in connection with peaceful meetings,
associations, and petitions?
By prohibiting or by interrupting, without legal ground, the holding
of a peaceful meeting, or by dissolving the same.
Criminal Law 2 - Odulio Block C 2018

By hindering any person from joining any lawful association or from

attending any of its meetings.
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.

Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee;
2. That he performs any of the acts mentioned above.
Section Four. Crimes against religious worship
Crimes against religious worship:
132
Interruption of religious worship
133
Offending the religious feelings
Art. 132. Interruption of religious worship. The penalty
of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed
upon any public officer or employee who shall prevent or
disturb the ceremonies or manifestations of any religion.
If the crime shall have been committed with violence or
threats, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its medium
and maximum periods.
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.
Art. 133. Offending the religious feelings. The penalty
of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional
in its minimum period shall be imposed upon anyone who, in a
place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of
any religious ceremony shall perform acts notoriously offensive
to the feelings of the faithful.
Elements:
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.
2. That the acts must be notoriously offensive to the feelings of the
faithful.

Criminal Law 2 - Odulio Block C 2018