Criminal Law Book 2 – Title Two




Classes of Arbitrary Detention:

  1. By detaining a person without legal ground
  2. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities
  3. Delaying release


Article 124


  1. That the offender is a public officer or employee (whose official duties include the authority to make an arrest and detain persons; jurisdiction to maintain peace and order).
  2. That he detains a person (actual restraint).
  3. That the detention was without legal grounds (cannot be committed if with warrant).
  • Detention: when a person is placed in confinement or there is a restraint on his person.
  • Though the elements specify that the offender be a public officer or employee, private individuals who conspire with public officers can also be liable.
  • Legal grounds for the detention of any person:
  • Without legal grounds:
  • Know grounds for warrantless arrest:
  • For escaped prisoner – no need for warrant
  • Rolito Go v. CA is an example of arbitrary detention (Judge Pimentel)
  • Example: Y was killed by unknown assailant. Officers got a tip and arrested X. X voluntarily admitted to the officers that he did it although he was not asked. X was detained immediately. According to the SC, there was NO arbitrary detention.  Why? Because once X made a confession, the officers had a right to arrest him.
  • Continuing crime is different from a continuous crime
  • Ramos v. Enrile: Rebels later on retire. According to the SC, once you have committed rebellion and have not been punished or amnestied, then the rebels continue to engage in rebellion, unless the rebels renounce his affiliation. Arrest can be made without a warrant because this is a continuing crime.
  1. commission of a crime
  2. violent insanity or other ailment requiring compulsory confinement of the patient in a hospital
  1. he has not committed any crime or no reasonable ground of suspicion that he has committed a crime
  2. not suffering from violent insanity or any other ailment requiring compulsory confinement in a hospital
  1. Crime is about to be, is being, has been committed
  2. Officer must have reasonable knowledge that the person probably committed the crime


Article 125


  1. That the offender is a public officer or employee
  2. That he has detained a person for some legal grounds
  3. That he fails to deliver such person to the proper judicial authority within:
  1. 12 hours, if detained for crimes/offenses punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent
  2. 18 hours, for crimes/offenses punishable by correctional penalties, or their equivalent or
  3. 36 hours, for crimes/offenses punishable by capital punishment or afflictive penalties, or their equivalent
  • Really means delay in filing necessary information or charging of person detained in court. May be waived if a preliminary investigation is asked for.
  • Does not contemplate actual physical delivery but at least there must be a complaint filed. Duty complied with upon the filing of the complaint with the judicial authority (courts, prosecutors – though technically not a judicial authority, for purposes of this article, he’s considered as one.)
  • The filing of the information in court does not cure illegality of detention. Neither does it affect the legality of the confinement under process issued by the court.
  • To escape from this, officers usually ask accused to execute a waiver which should be under oath and with assistance of counsel. Such waiver is not violative of the accused constitutional right.
  • What is length of waiver? Light offense – 5 days. Serious and less serious offenses – 7 to 10 days. (Judge Pimentel)
  • Article does not apply when arrest is via a warrant of arrest
  • If offender is a private person, crime is illegal detention

Arbitrary Detention (124)

Delay in Delivery of Detained (125)

Detention is illegal from the beginning. Detention is legal in the beginning, but illegality starts from the expiration of the specified periods without the persons detained having been delivered to the proper judicial authority.


Article 126



  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
  3. That the offender without good reason delays:
    1. the service of the notice of such order to the prisoner, or
    2. the performance of such judicial or executive order for the release of the prisoner, or
    3. the proceedings upon a petition for the release of such person
  • Three acts are punishable:
  • Wardens and jailers are the persons most likely to violate this provision
  • Provision does not include legislation
  1. delaying the performance of a judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner
  2. delaying the service of notice of such order to said prisoner
  3. delaying the proceedings upon any petition for the liberation of such person


Article 127



  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 to do so by law
  • 2 acts punishable:
  1. by expelling a person from the Philippines
  2. by compelling a person to change his residence

(The crime of expulsion absorbs that of grave coercion. If done by a private person, will amount to grave coercion)

i.e.,Villavicencio v. Lukban: prostitutes’ case

  • Does not include undesirable aliens; destierro; or when sent to prison
  • If X (Filipino) after he voluntarily left, is refused re-entry – is considered forcing him to change his address here
  • Threat to national security is not a ground to expel or change his address.


Article 128



  1. That the offender is a public officer or employee
  2. That he is not authorized by judicial order to enter the dwelling and/or to make a search  therein for papers or other effects
  3. That he commits any of the following acts:
    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
    3. refusing to leave the premises, after having surreptitiously entered said dwelling and after having been required to leave the same
  • Aggravating Circumstance (medium and maximum of penalty imposed):
  • If the offender who enters the dwelling against the will of the owner thereof is a private individual, the crime committed is trespass to dwelling (Art 280)
  • When a public officer searched a person “outside his dwelling” without a search warrant and such person is not legally arrested for an offense, the crime committed by the public officer is grave coercion, if violence or intimidation is used (Art 286), or unjust vexation, if there is no violence or intimidation (Art 287)
  • A public officer without a search warrant cannot lawfully enter the dwelling against the will of the owner, even if he knew that someone in that dwelling is having unlawful possession of opium
  • 3 acts punishable:
  • “Being authorized by law” – means with search warrant, save himself or do some things good for humanity
  • There must be expression that entry is denied or that he is asked to leave
  • Papers and effects need not be part of a crime.
  1. offense committed at nighttime
  2. papers or effects not constituting evidence of a crime be not returned immediately
  1. person enters dwelling w/o consent or against the will
  2. person enters and searches for papers and effects
  3. person entered secretly and refuses to leave after being asked to


Article 129



  1. That the offender is a public officer or employee
  2. That he procures a search warrant
  3. That there is no just cause



  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 executing the same
  • Search warrant is valid for 10 days from its date
  • Search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name of the People, signed by the judge and directed to a public officer, commanding him to search for personal property described therein and bring it before the court
  • No just cause – warrant is unjustified
  • Search – limited to what is described in the warrant, all details must be with particularity
  • Malicious warrant. Example. X was a respondent of a search warrant for illegal possession of firearms. A return was made. The gun did not belong to X and the witness had no personal knowledge that there is a gun in that place.
  • Abuse examples:
  1. X owner was handcuffed while search was going-on.
  2. Tank was used to ram gate prior to announcement that  a search will be made
  3. Persons who were not respondents were searched


Article 130

  1. That the offender is a public officer or employee
  2. That he is armed with a 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
  • Order of those who must witness the search:
  • Validity of the search warrant can be questioned only in 2 courts: where issued or where the case is pending. Latter is preferred for objective determination.
  1. Homeowner
  2. Members of the family of sufficient age and discretion
  3. Responsible members of the community (can’t be influenced by the searching party)


Article 131


  1. Offender is a public officer or employee
  2. He performs any of the ff. acts:
  1. prohibiting or interrupting, without legal ground the holding of a peaceful meeting, or dissolving the same (e.g. denial of permit in arbitrary manner).
  2. hindering any person from joining any lawful association or from attending any of its meetings
  • 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
  • If the offender is a private individual, the crime is disturbance of public order (Art 153)
  • Meeting must be peaceful and there is no legal ground for prohibiting, dissolving or interrupting that meeting
  • Meeting is subject to regulation
  • Offender must be a stranger, not a participant, in the peaceful meeting; otherwise, it’s unjust vexation
  • Interrupting and dissolving a meeting of the municipal council by a public officer is a crime against the legislative body, not punishable under this article
  • The person talking on a prohibited subject at a public meeting contrary to agreement that no speaker should touch on politics may be stopped
  • But stopping the speaker who was attacking certain churches in public meeting is a violation of this article
  • Prohibition must be without lawful cause or without lawful authority
  • Those holding peaceful meetings must comply with local ordinances. Example: Ordinance requires permits for meetings in public places. But if police stops a meeting in a private place because there’s no permit, officer is liable for stopping the meeting.


Article 132


  1. That the officer 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
  • Circumstance qualifying the offense: if committed with violence or threats
  • Reading of Bible and then attacking certain churches in a public plaza is not a ceremony or manifestation of religion, but only a meeting of a religious sect. But if done in a private home, it’s a religious service
  • Religious Worship: people in the act of performing religious rites for a religious ceremony; a manifestation of religion. Ex. Mass, baptism, marriage
  • X, a private person, boxed a priest while the priest was giving homily and while the latter was maligning a relative of X. Is X liable? X may be liable under Art 133 because X is a private person.
  • When priest is solemnizing marriage, he is a person in authority, although in other cases, he’s not.


Article 133


  1. That the acts complained of were performed –
  1. in a place devoted to religious feelings, or (for this element, no need of religious ceremony, only the place is material)
  2. during the celebration of any religious ceremony
  1. That the acts must be notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful (deliberate intent to hurt the feelings)
  2. The offender is any person
  3. There is a deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of  the faithful, directed against religious tenet
  • If in a place devoted to religious purpose, there is no need for an ongoing religious ceremony
  • Example of religious ceremony (acts performed outside the church). Processions and special prayers for burying dead persons but NOT prayer rallies
  • Acts must be directed against religious practice or dogma or ritual for the purpose of ridicule, as mocking or scoffing or attempting to damage an object of religious veneration
  • There must be deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the faithful, mere arrogance or rudeness is not enough.


Nature of Crime

Who are Liable

If Element Missing

Prohibition, Interruption and Dissolution of Peaceful Meeting (131) Crime against the fundamental law of the state Public officers, Outsiders If not by public officer = tumults
Interruption of Religious Worship (132) Crime against the fundamental law of the state Public officers, Outsiders If by insider = unjust vexation

If not religious = tumult or alarms

If not notoriously offensive = unjust vexation

Offending the Religious Feeling (133) Crime against public order Public officers, private persons, outsiders If not tumults = alarms and scandal

If meeting illegal at onset = inciting to sedition or rebellion



Criminal Law Book 2 Reviewer

Ateneo Central Bar Operations 2001


About Magz

First of all, I am not a lawyer. I'm a graduate of AB Political Science and went to the College of Law but stopped going to law school for some reasons. I'm a passionate teacher who has been teaching English to speakers of other languages and a person who likes writing and blogging. I lost some important files and software when my computer broke down so the reason I created this website is to preserve the notes, reviewers and digests I collected when I was at the law school and at the same time, I want to help out law students who do not have enough time to go and read books in the library.

Posted on January 25, 2012, in Criminal Law and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. 2 Comments.

  1. It is very helpful. Tnx ^_^

  2. Hello, is it true that Article 133 is under the title three of book two of RPC ? is it under the crimes of public order ? Thank You ma’am.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: