Lecture 2 defines his or her rights by limiting the

lawful powers of the State.  Thus, when

CRIMES AGAINST THE the rights of certain persons defined
FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE therein are violated, what is being
STATE committed is a crime against the
fundamental laws of the State guaranteeing
 Crimes under this title are those their civil rights and liberties, which are as
which violate the Bill of Rights follows:
accorded to the citizens under the
Constitution. Under this title, the Liberty. Liberty shall include the right to
offenders are public officers, except existence and to survive. Likewise, it shall
as to the last crime – offending encompass the right to be free from
against religious feelings under Art. arbitrary and whimsical personal restraint
133, which refers to any person. or servitude. The same incorporates, as
The public officers who may be well, the right of the citizen to be free to
held liable are only those acting lawfully use his faculties.  Its infringement
under supposed exercise of official incurs a liability for a crime of arbitrary
functions, albeit illegally. detention, delay in delivery of detained
persons to proper judicial authorities and
 In its counterpart in Title IX delaying release.
(Crimes Against Personal Liberty
and Security), the offenders are Liberty of abode. The fundamental and
private persons. But private constitutional right to the liberty of abode
persons may also be liable under and changing the same within the limits
Title II as when a private person prescribed by law shall be inviolable,
conspires with a public officer. except upon lawful order of the court. A
What is required is that the violation thereof can be considered as a
principal offender must be a pubic crime of expulsion.
officer. Thus, if private person
conspires with a public officer, or Right against unreasonable searches. The
becomes an accessory or an Constitution protects the right of every
accomplice, the private person also individual against unreasonable searches
becomes liable for the same crime. and seizures. This is also a consequence of
But a private person acting alone person’s right to privacy.  Indispensably,
cannot commit the crimes under the State recognizes the right of the people
Article 124 to article 132 of this to be as secure as possible in their houses,
title. papers and effects.
Breaches thereof may be deemed as
The fundamental law of the State is the violation of domicile, search warrants
Constitution of which is regarded as the maliciously obtained and abuse legally
supreme law of the land.  The provisions obtained, and/or searching domicile
in the fundamental law, specifically, being without witnesses.
referred to herein, is the Bill of Rights
under Article III of the Constitution. Freedom of expression.  Any and all
modes of expression shall be embraced in
It establishes the relationship of an the guarantee, unless there is a valid law
individual to, and with, the State and which accords due process and observe the
equal protection which may limit such Arrest without warrant is the usual cause
guarantee. of arbitrary detention.

Free expression shall also cover the right In every case, the person detained shall be
to peaceable assembly and to petition the informed of the cause of his detention and
government for redress of grievances. The shall be allowed upon his request, to
right to form associations is also an communicate and confer at any time with
adjunct of this constitutional right.  A his attorney or counsel. (As amended by
violation for such is chargeable of a crime E.O. Nos. 59 and 272, Nov. 7, 1986 and
prohibition, interruption, dissolution of July 25, 1987, respectively).
peaceful meetings.
What are the Differences among the
Freedom of religion. This freedom felonies of Arbitrary Detention (Art.
guarantees the free exercise of religious
124), Illegal Detention (Arts. 267 – 268),
beliefs. It prohibits the State from unduly
interfering with the outside manifestations and Unlawful Arrest (Art. 269)?
of one’s belief and faith.  Violation thereof
may subject the offender to be held liable In arbitrary detention, the differentiating
for interruption of religious worship and factor is that the public officer or
offending religious feelings. employee to be held liable under this
offense should be vested with authority to
ARBITRARY DETENTION detain or order the detention of persons
accused of a crime.
Elements:
 Offender is a public officer or Moreover, if the warrantless arrest is
employee; (Though the elements without any legal ground, the arresting
specify that the offender be a public officers become liable for arbitrary
officer or employee, private detention.  However, if the apprehending
individuals who conspire with individuals are not among those with
public officers can also be liable.) vested authority to arrest, they become
 He detains a person; liable for illegal detention.
 The detention is without legal
While for unlawful arrest, this may only
grounds.
apply if the arrest is for the purpose of
delivering the person arrested to the proper
A person is detained when he is placed in
authorities without any reasonable ground.
confinement or there is a restraint on her
person.
Otherwise, it is considered arbitrary
detention when the public officer or
Meaning of Absence of Legal Grounds:
employee merely detains a person without
 no crime was committed by the
any intention in bringing the person to the
detained;
proper authorities.
 there is no violent insanity of the
detained person; and
 the person detained has no ailment
which requires compulsory
confinement in a hospital.
 Illegal Detention –
Arbitrary Detention – Unlawful Arrest –
Particulars Art. 267, 268
Art. 124 Art. 269

Who can commit Public officer or Private individual, Any person, either
employee generally (Although public officers or
may also be committed private persons
by a public officer)

How committed Detains a person Unlawfully Arrest or detain a

without legal ground kidnaps, detains or person without legal or
otherwise deprives a reasonable ground
person of liberty

Type of crime Crime against the Crime is against Crime is against

fundamental law of personal liberty and personal liberty and
the State security security

Purpose Just to detain and deprive To deprive the person To deliver the arrested
the person arrested of his of his or her liberty for person to the proper
or her any unlawful purpose judicial authorities
liberty

 he detains a person for some legal

DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF ground;
DETAINED PERSONS  he fails to deliver such person to
the proper judicial authorities
Elements: within:
 offender: public officer or
employee;
 o 12 hours for crimes or without the
offenses punishable by light persons detained
penalties, or their equivalent having been
o 18 hours for crimes or delivered to the
offenses punishable by proper judicial
correctional penalties, or authority.
their equivalent
o 36 hours for crimes or
offenses punishable by
DELAYING RELEASE
afflictive or capital
penalties, or their equivalent
Acts punished:
 Delaying the performance of a
 Does not contemplate actual
judicial or executive order for the
physical delivery but at least there
release of a prisoner;
must be a complaint filed. Duty
 Unduly delaying the service of the
complied with upon the filing of
notice of such order to said
the complaint with the judicial
prisoner;
authority (courts, prosecutors –
 Unduly delaying the proceedings
though technically not a judicial
upon any petition for the liberation
authority, for purposes of this
of such person.
article, he’s considered as one.)
 To escape from this, officers
Elements:
usually ask accused to execute a
 Offender is a public officer or
waiver which should be under oath
employee (Wardens and jailers are
and with assistance of counsel.
the persons most likely to violate
Such waiver is not violative of the
this provision)
accused constitutional right.
 There is a judicial or executive
 What is length of waiver? Light
order for the release of a prisoner or
offense – 5 days. Serious and less
there is a proceeding upon any
serious offenses – 7 to 10 days.
petition for the liberation of such
(Judge Pimentel) person;
 Article does not apply when arrest
 Offender, without good reason,
is via a warrant of arrest delays –
 If offender is a private person, o the performance of a
crime is illegal detention judicial or executive order
for the release of a prisoner;
Delay in o the service of the notice of
Arbitrary Delivery of such order to said prisoner;
Detention (124) Detained (125) or
o the proceedings upon any
Detention is Detention is legal petition for the liberation of
illegal from the in the beginning, such person.
beginning. but illegality
starts from the EXPULSION
expiration of the
specified periods Elements:
  Offender: public officer or himself or do some things good
employee; for humanity.
 He either –
o expels a person from the Circumstances qualifying the offense:
Philippines; or Ø if the offense is committed at
o compels a person to change nighttime;
his residence. Ø if any papers or effects not
 The offender is not authorized to do constituting evidence of a crime
so by law. are not returned immediately
after the search made by the
The crime of expulsion absorbs that of offender.
grave coercion.
When committed by a private person, the o If the offender who enters
crime is grave coercion. the dwelling against the will
of the owner thereof is a
Only the competent court, as a private individual, the crime
consequence of a final judgment, shall committed is trespass to
have the power to order a person to change dwelling (Art 280)
his residence or even remove him o When a public officer
therefrom. This may be illustrated in cases searched a person “outside
such as but not limited to ejectment, his dwelling” without a
expropriation proceedings, and in the search warrant and such
service of the penalty of destierro. person is not legally arrested
for an offense, the crime
committed by the public
VIOLATION OF DOMICILE officer is grave coercion, if
violence or intimidation is
Acts punished: used (Art 286), or unjust
 Entering the dwelling against the vexation, if there is no
will of thereof; violence or intimidation (Art
 Searching papers or other effects 287)
found therein without the previous o A public officer without a
consent of such owner; or search warrant cannot
 Refusing to leave the premises, lawfully enter the dwelling
after having surreptitiously entered against the will of the
said dwelling and after having been owner, even if he knew that
required to leave the same. someone in that dwelling is
having unlawful possession
Common elements: of opium.
Ø Offender is a public officer or
employee; In the case of People vs Luis Sane (CA 40
Ø He is not authorized by judicial OG 113), it will be noted that to constitute
order to enter the dwelling a violation of domicile, the entrance by the
and/or make a search therein for public officer or employee must be against
papers or other effects. Being the will of the owner of the dwelling,
authorized by law” – means which presupposes opposition or
with search warrant, save prohibition by said owner, whether express
or implied. If the entrance by the public cause is whether the affidavit filed in
officer or employee is only without the support of the application for search
consent of the owner of the dwelling, the warrant has been drawn in such manner
crime is not committed. Neither is the that perjury could be charged thereon --
crime committed if the owner of the The oath required must refer to the truth of
dwelling consented to such entrance. the facts within the personal knowledge of
the petitioner or his witnesses, because the
SEARCH WARRANTS MALICIOUSLY purpose thereof is to convince the
OBTAINED committing magistrate, not the individual
making the affidavit and seeking the
Acts punished: issuance of the warrant, of the existence of
probable cause
Procuring a search warrant without
just cause
Elements: Can a public officer or employee
 Offender is a public officer commit a complex crime under Article
or employee;
48 of the Revised Penal Code when he
 He procures a search
maliciously procured a Search Warrant
warrant;
 There is no just cause. through Perjury?

Exceeding authority or using While Article 48 of the Revised Penal

unnecessary severity in executing a Code may seem, on its face, in point and
search warrant legally procured: applicable, there are crimes which cannot
Elements: be complexed. As you read Article 129 of
 Offender is a public officer the RPC you will note the phrase “In
or employee; addition to the liability attaching to the
 He has legally procured a offender for the commission of any other
search warrant; offense“.
 He exceeds his authority or
uses unnecessary severity in This phrase in the aforesaid provision
executing the same. effectively withdraws it from the
application of complex crime proper found
in Article 48 of the RPC. Consequently,
How does a public officer violate the
even if the perjury is a necessary means to
provision of Article 129 of the Revised violate Article 129 [RPC], still, the former
Penal Code? crime will be treated as separate offense in
view of the above phrase.
The law provides that public officers may
as well violate one’s domicile when the
former has maliciously obtained search SEARCHING DOMICILE WITHOUT
warrants or procured the same without just WITNESSES
cause.
Elements:
In Alvarez vs. CFI G.R. No. L-45358,  Offender is a public officer or
January 29, 1937), the Supreme Court employee;
decreed that the true test of lack of just
  He is armed with search warrant  Offender prevents or disturbs the
legally procured; same.
 He searches the domicile,
papers or other belongings of Qualified if committed by violence or
any person; threat.
 The owner, or any members of
his family, or two witnesses OFFENDING RELIGIOUS FEELINGS:
residing in the same locality are
not present. Elements:
 Acts complained of were
PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION, AND performed in the place devoted to
DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL religious worship, or during the
MEETINGS: celebration of any religious
ceremony;
Elements:  The acts must be notoriously
 Offender is a public officer or offensive to the feelings of the
employee; faithful;
 He performs any of the following  There must be deliberate intent to
acts: hurt the feelings of the faithful.
o prohibiting or interrupting,
without legal ground, the Distinguish Arts. 131, 132, and 133 of
holding of a peaceful the Revised Penal Code
meeting, or dissolving the
same; Article 131 is all about the prohibition,
o hindering any person from interruption, & dissolution of peaceful
joining any lawful meetings. This felony punished the
association, or from following acts:
attending any of its
meetings;
o prohibiting or hindering any 1. Prohibiting, interrupting or
person from addressing, dissolving without legal ground
either alone or together with
the holding of a peaceful
others, any petition to the
authorities for the correction meeting;
of abuses or redress of
2. Hindering any person from
grievances.
joining any lawful association
INTERRUPTION OF RELIGIOUS or from attending any of its
WORSHIP
meetings; and
Elements: 3. Prohibiting or hindering any
 Offender is a public officer or
employee; person from addressing, either
 Religious ceremonies or alone or together with others,
manifestations of any religion are
any petition to the authorities
about to take place or are going on;
 for the correction of abuses or there is a religious
redress of grievances. worship); or
 During the
To constitute this felony, the common
elements are as follows: celebration of any
religious ceremony;
1. That the offender is a public and[87]
officer; and  That the acts must be
2. That he performs any of the acts notoriously offensive
mentioned above. to the feelings of the
faithful.
While, Article 132 speaks of interruption
of religious worship where the requisites
to constitute this are:

1. That the offender is a public

officer or employee;
2. Those 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. It is qualified
by violence or threats.

On the other hand, Article 133 is offending

religious feelings. To constitute this
felony, the following requisites must be
present, to wit:

1. That the acts complained of

were performed:


 In a place devoted to
religious worship
(not necessary that
 Prohibition,
interruption, and Interruption of
Offending the religious
Particulars dissolution of religious worship –
feelings – Art. 133
peaceful meetings – Art. 132
Art. 131

Who can commit Public officer or Public officer or Any person

employee employee

As to subject of acts Any peaceful meeting Interruption of Offending the religious

religious worship feelings

Manner of Prohibiting, Committed with Acts notoriously offensive

commission interrupting or violence or threats to the feelings of the
dissolving without faithful
legal ground the
holding of a peaceful
meeting
In People vs. Reyes, et. Al ( G. R. No.
13633-R, July 27, 1955), the Chief of
Police had directed the speaker in a public
meeting of the Iglesia ni Cristo, who was
then attacking the Catholic and Aglipayan
churches, to stop the latter’s speech. This
Chief of Police, thereupon, fired two shots
in the air which had caused the dispersal of
the crowd, who scampered for their safety,
and the meeting to a halt, is liable under
Article 131.

In People vs. Baes, (G.R. No. L-46000,

May 25, 1939) the High Court has made a
pronouncement relative to the acts deemed
to be notoriously offensive to the feelings
of the faithful. If and when these so called
acts are 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, then they may be
considered as notoriously offensive. Thus:

“In the second place, whether or of

the act complained of is offensive
to the religious feelings of the
Catholics, is a question of fact
which must be judged only
according to the feelings of the
Catholics and not those of other
faithful ones, for it is possible that
certain acts may offend the feelings
of those who profess a certain
religion, while not otherwise
offensive to the feelings of those
professing another faith.”