ARTICLE 124: ARBITRARY DETENTION
When the officer sees the offense being committed, although at a distance or hears the disturbance created thereby and proceeds
- Arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period: detention has not exceeded 3
days
- Prision correctional in its medium and maximum periods: detention has continued more than 3 but not more than
15 days
- Prision mayor: detention has continued for more than 15 days but not more than 6 months
- Reclusion temporal: detention shall have exceeded 6 months
Requiring the compulsory confinement of the patient in a hospital, shall be considered legal grounds for the detention of any
person.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender if a public officer or employee
2. That he detains a person
3. That the detention is without legal grounds.
THE OFFENDER IN ARBITRARY DETENTION IS A PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE
The public officers liable for arbitrary detention must be vested with the authority to detain or order the detention of persons
accused of a crime, but when they detain a person they have no legal grounds thereof.
Such public officers are the policemen and other agents of the law, the judges or mayors. A barangay captain and a municipal
councilor are public officers.
If the detention is perpetrated by other public officer, the crime committed may be illegal detention, because they are acting in their
private capacity.
If the offender is a private individual, the act of detaining another is illegal detention under Article267 or Article268.
But private individuals who conspired with public officers in detaining certain policemen are guilty of arbitrary detention.
WHEN IS THERE A DETENTION?
Detention is the actual confinement of a person in an enclosure, or in any manner detaining and depriving him of his liberty. A
person is detained when he is placed in confinement or there is a restraint on his person.
Even if the person detained could move freely in and out of their prison cell and could take their meals outside the prison,
nevertheless, if they were under the surveillance of the guards and they could not escape for fear of being apprehended again, there
would still be arbitrary detention.
o RESTRAINT RESULTING FROM FEAR
WITHOUT LEGAL GROUNDS
- When he has not committed any crime or, at least, there is no reasonable ground for suspicion that he has committed
a crime.
- When he is not suffering from violent insanity or any other ailment requiring compulsory confinement in a hospital.
Note: Merely quarreling is not a crime
Held: Mere suspicion of his connection with any murderous plot is no ground recognized by law for restraining the freedom of any
individual.
LEGAL GROUNDS FOR THE DETENTION OF ANY PERSON
- Commission of a crime.
- Violent insanity or any other ailment requiring the compulsory confinement of the patient in a hospital.
ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT IS THE USUAL CAUSE OF ARBITRARY DETENTION
A peace officer must have a warrant of arrest properly issued by the court in order to justify the arrest. If there is no such warrant of
arrest, the arrest of a person by a public officer may constitute arbitrary detention.
A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
- When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
an offense.
- 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.
- When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place.
Acuna. Ardiente. Gomez. Karunungan. Matobato. Monje. Noval. Palacol. Santiago. Santuyo
IN HIS PRESENCE
at once to the scene thereof, or when the offense is continuing or has not been consummated at the time the arrest is made, the
offense is said to be committed in his presence.
Hit and run. It must be stressed at this point that “presence” does not only require that the arresting person sees the offense, but
also when he “hears the disturbance created thereby and proceeds at once to the scene.”
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE IS REQUIRED
Under Sec.5, Rule 113 of the revised rules of criminal procedure, an officer arresting person who has just committed an offense must
have probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts and circumstance that the person to be arrested has
committed it.
An actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion.
People v. Bati: that police officers have personal knowledge of the actual commission of the crime when it had earlier conducted
surveillance activities of the accused.
PROBABLE CAUSE
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.
Probable cause was found to be present in the following circumstances:
- Where the distinctive odor of marijuana emanated from the plastic bag carried by the accused.
- Where an informer positively identified the accused who was observed to be acting suspiciously.
A CRIME MUST IN FACT OR ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN COMMITTED FIRST
In arrests without a warrant under Sec.6(b), however, it is not enough that there is reasonable ground to believe that the person to
be arrested has committed a crime. A crime must in fact or actually have been committed first.
WHEN THE PERSON TO BE ARRESTED IS ATTEMPTING TO COMMIT AN OFFENSE
Seeing two persons in front of an uninhabited house who afterward entered an uninhabited camarin, arrested them without
warrant, although no crime had been commited.
Held: Prevention of crime is just as commendatory as the capture of criminals.
o WHEN AN OFFENSE HAS IN FACT JUST BEEN COMMITTED, AN HE HASPROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE BASED ON
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE PERSON TO BE ARRESTED HAS COMMITTED IT.
NO REASONABLE GROUND IF OFFICER ONLY WANTS TO KNOW THE COMMISSION OF CRIME.
Acting suspiciously. “I wanted to see if he had committed a crime.”
o THAT A POLICE OFFICER CAN MAKE AN ARREST ON MERE COMPLAINT OF THE OFFENDED PARTY IS A DEBATABLE
QUESTION
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUSTICE TUASONS IN THE CASE OF SAYO V. CHIEF OF POLICE
Section 6 of rule 109 of the rules of court and section 2463 of the revised administrative code, show the fallacy of the idea that the
arresting officer knows, or should know, all the facts about the offense for the perpetration, or supposed perpetration, of which he
has made the arrest.
o WHEN THE PERSON TO BE ARRESTED IS A PRISONER WHO HAS ESCAPED
ARBITRARY DETENTION THROUGH IMPRUDENCE
The crime of arbitrary detention can be committed through imprudence.
The chief of police rearrested a woman who had been released by means of verbal order of the justice of the peace. The accused
acted without malice, but he should have verified the order of release before proceeding to make the re-arrest.
Periods of detention penalized.
o THE LAW DOES NOT FIX ANY MINIMUM PERIOD OF DETENTION.
Page 1 | Chupapi Notes
ARTICLE 125: DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF DETAINED PERSONS TO THE PROPER JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES. FISCAL NOT LIABLE, UNLESS HE ORDERED DETENTION
If the city fiscal does not file the information within the period of 6 hours prescribed by law and the arresting officer continues
ELEMENTS holding the prisoner beyond 6 hour period, the fiscal will not be responsible for violation of said article 125, because he is not the
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee. one who has arrested and illegally detained the person arrested, unless he has ordered or induced the arresting officer to hold and
2. That he has detained a person for some legal ground. not release the prisoner after the expiration of said period.
3. That he fails to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within:
a) 12 hours punishable by light penalties If no charge is filed by the fiscal within the period fixed in article 125, the arresting officer must release the detainee; otherwise, he
b) 18 hours punishable by correctional penalties will be guilty under article 125.
c) 36 hours punishable by afflictive or capital penalties
REMEDU WHERE WARRANT IMPROPERLY ISSUED
IF THE OFFENDER IS A PRIVATE PERSON, THE CRIME IS ILLEGAL DETENTION If the accused was illegally detained because he was arrested without a preliminary examination, what should have been done was
A private individual who make a lawful arrest must also comply with the requirements prescribed in Art.125. If he fails to do so, he to set aside the warrant of arrest and order the discharge of the accused, but without enjoining the municipal judge form conducting
shall be guilty of illegal detention. a preliminary examination and afterwards properly issuing a warrant of arrest.

“SHALL DETAIN ANY PERSON FOR SOME LEGAL GROUND”
The detention is legal in the beginning , because the person detained was arrested under any of the circumstances where arrest
without warrant is authorized by law. The detention becomes illegal after a certain period of time, because the offended party is not
delivered to the proper judicial authority.
If the detention of a person is not for some legal ground, it will be a case under Art.124, not under Art.125.
Note: Before E.O. No. 272
ARTICLE 125 DOES NOT APPLY WHEN THE ARREST IS BY VIRTUE OF A WARRANT OF ARREST.
Article 125 applies only when the arrest is made without a warrant of arrest. But the arrest must be lawful.
If the arrest is made with a warrant of arrest, the person arrested can be detained indefinitely until his case is decided by the court
or he posts a bail for his temporary release.
RIGHTS OF THE PERSON DETAINED
- He shall be informed of the cause of his detention
- He shall be allowed to communicate and confer at anytime with his attorney or counsel.
PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE IS LIABLE FOR PREVENTING THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF ATTORNEYS TO VISIT AND CONFER WITH
PERSONS ARRESTED.
Any public officer or employee who shall obstruct, prohibit, or otherwise prevent an attorney entitled to practice in the courts of the
Philippines from visiting and conferring privately with a person arrested, at any hour of the day or, in urgent cases, of the night, said
visit and conference being requested by the person arrested or by another acting in his behalf, shall be punished by arresto mayor.
REASON FOR THE PROVISION OF ARTICLE 125
Intended to prevent any abuse resulting from confining a person without informing him of his offense and without permitting him to
go on bail.

Reason there is already a complaint or information filed against him with the court which issued the order or warrant of arrest and it In arbitrary detention under article 124, the detention is illegal from the beginning; in arbitrary detention under article 125 the
is not necessary to deliver the person thus arrested to that court. detention is legal in the beginning but the illegality of the detention starts from the expiration of any of the periods of time.

o DISPOSITION OF PERSON ARRESTED WITHOUT A WARRANT TIME FOR DELIVERY OF DETAINED PERSONS PRESCRIBED IN ARTICLE 125 DOES NOT APPLY TO SUSPECTED TERRORISTS WHO ARE
DETAINED UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9372
SHALL FAIL TO DELIVER SUCH PERSON TO THE PROPER JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES A person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism of the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism shall be delivered to
The delivery to the judicial authority of a person arrested without warrant by a peace officer, does not consist in a physical delivery, the proper judicial authority within a period of 3 days counted from the moment the said charged or suspected person has been
but in making an accusation or charge or filing of an information against the person arrested with the corresponding court or judge. apprehended or arrested, detained, and taken into custody by the said police or law enforcement personnel, without the police or
law enforcement personnel having said person in custody incurring any criminal liability for delay in the delivery of detained persons
o DUTY OF DETAINED OFFICER IS DEEMED COMPLIED WITH UPON THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT WITH THE JUDICIAL to the proper judicial authority .
AUTHORITY.
UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9372, A JUDGE MUST BE NOTIFIED BEFORE A SUSPECTED TERRORIST IS DETAINED
PROPER JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES Before detaining the person suspected of the crime of terrorism, the police or law enforcement personnel concerned must present
Judicial authorities means the courts of justice or judges of said courts vested with the judicial power to order the temporary him or her before any judge at the latter’s residence or office nearest the place where the arrest took place at any time of the day or
detention or confinement of a person charged with having committed a public offense, that is, the “supreme court and such inferior night.
courts as may be established by law”
It shall be the duty of the judge, to ascertain the identity of the police or law enforcement personnel and the person/s they have
Cannot be considered to include the fiscal of the city of manila or any other city. arrested and presented before him/her, to inquire of them the reasons why they have arrested the person and determine by
questioning and personal observation whether or the suspect has been subjected to any physical, moral and psychological torture
DETAINED PERSON SHOULD BE RELEASED WHEN A JUDGE IS NOT AVAILABLE by whom and why.
Where a judge is not available, the arresting officer id duty-bound to release a detained person, if the maximum hours for detention
provided under Art.125 of the revised penal code has already expired. The judge shall then submit a written report of what he/she had observed to the proper court that has jurisdiction over the case of
the person arrested. The report shall be submitted within 3 calendar days from the time the suspect was brought to his/her
WAIVER OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 125 residence or office.
Before the complaint or information is filed, the person arrested may ask for a preliminary investigation, but he must sign a waiver
of the provisions of Art.125, in the presence of counsel. Notwithstanding the waiver, he may apply for bail and the investigation o PERIOD OF DETENTION IN THE EVENT OF AN ACTUAL OR IMMINENT TERRORIST ATTACK
must be terminated within 15 days of inception.
o PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO DELIVER SUSPECT TO THE PROPER JUDICIAL AUTHORITY WITHIN 3 DAYS
CIRCUMSTANCES CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING LIABILITY OF OFFICER DETAINING A PERSON BEYOND LEGAL PERIOD
1) the means of communication ARTICLE 126: DELAYING RELEASE
2) the hour of arrest
3) other circumstances such as the time of surrender and the material possibility for the fiscal to make the investigation 3 ACTS PUNISHABLE UNDER ARTICLE 126
and file in time the necessary information, must be taken into consideration. - Delaying the performance of a judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner
- Delaying the service of the notice of such order to said prisoner.
o VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 125 DOES NOT AFFECT LEGALITY OF CONFINEMENT UNDER PROCESS ISSUED BY A COURT - Delaying the proceedings upon any petition for the liberation of such person.

Acuna. Ardiente. Gomez. Karunungan. Matobato. Monje. Noval. Palacol. Santiago. Santuyo Page 2 | Chupapi Notes
 SEARCH PAPERS, ETC. WITHOUT PREVIOUS CONSENT OF SUCH OWNER
ELEMENTS The right to be secure from unreasonable search may, like every right, be waived and such waiver may be made either expressly or
- The offender is a public officer or employee impliedly.
- There is a judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner
- The offender without good reason delays: PAPERS OR OTHER EFFECTS FOUND THEREIN
1) The service of the notice of such order to the prisoner Article 128 is not applicable when a public officer searched a person outside his dwelling without search warrant and such person is
2) The performance of such judicial or executive order for the release of the prisoner not legally arrested for an offense, because of papers or other effects mentioned in article 128 must be found in the dwelling.
3) The proceedings upon a petition for the release of such person
o HAVING SURREPTITIOUSLY ENTERED SAID DWELLING
o WARDENS AND JAILERS ARE THE PUBLIC OFFICERS MOST LIKELY TO VIOLATE ARTICLE 126
CIRCUMSTANCES QUALIFYING THE OFFENSE
ARTICLE 127: EXPLUSION - Offense is committed at nighttime
- Any papers or effects not constituting evidence of a crime are not returned immediately after the search made by the
2 ACTS ARE PUNISHABLE UNDER ARTICLE 127 offender
- Expelling
- Compelling a person to change his residence ARTICLE 129: SEARCH WARRANTS

ELEMENTS ACTS PUNISHABLE IN CONNECTION WITH WARRANTS

- The offender is a public officer or employee - Procuring a search warrant without just cause
- He expels any person from the Philippines, or compels a person to change his residence - Exceeding his authority or by using necessary severity in executing a search warrant legally procured.
- Offender is not authorized to do so by law
ELEMENTS OF PROCUROING A SEACH WARRANT WITHOUT JUST CAUSE
NOT BEING THEREUNTO AUTHORIZED BY LAW - Offender is public officer or employee
Only the court by a final judgement can order a person to change his residence. This is illustrated in ejectment proceedings, - Procures a search warrant
expropriation proceedings and in the penalty of destierro. - No just cause

ARTICLE 128: VIOLATION OF DOMICILE SEARCH WARRANT DEFINED

Search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name of the people of the Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace
ACTS PUNISHABLE UNDER ARTICLE 128 officer, commanding him to search for personal property described therein and bring it before the court.
- Entering any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof
- Searching papers or other effects found therein without the previous consent of such owner PERSONAL PROPERTY TO BE SEIZED
- Refusing to leave the premises, after having surreptitiously entered said dwelling and after having been required to - Subject of the offense
leave the same. - Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the offense
- Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense
ELEMENTS COMMON TO 3 ACTS
- Public officer or employee REQUISITES FOR ISSUING A SEARCH WARRANT
- Not authorized by judicial order to enter the dwelling and/or to make a search therein for papers or other effects. Probable cause determined personally by the judge after the examination under oath or affirmation of the complaint particularly
describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines.
THE OFFENDER MUST BE A UBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE
If the offender who enters the dwelling against the will of the owner thereof is a private individual the crime committed is trespass EXAMINATION OF COMPLAINT
to dwelling. The judge must, before issuing the warrant, personally examine in the form of searching question and answers, in writing and under
oath, the complainant and the witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn
NOT BEING AUTHORIZED BY JUDICIAL ORDER statements together with any affidavits submitted.
A public officer or employee is authorized by judicial order when he is armed with a search warrant duly issued by the court.
RIGHT TO BREAK DOOR OR WINDOW TO EFFECT SEARCH
AGAINST THE WILL OF THE OWNER The officer, if refused admittance to the place of directed search after giving notice of his purpose and authority, may break open
Must be against the will of the owner of the dwelling, which presupposes opposition or prohibition by said owner, whether express any outer or inner door or window of a house or any part of house or anything therein to execute the warrant or liberate himself or
or implied. If the entranceby the public officer or employee is only without the consent of the owner of the dwelling, the crime is not any person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained therein.
committed. Neither is the crime committed if the owner of the dwelling consented to such entrance.
SEARCH OF HOUSE, ROOM OR PREMISE TO BE MADE IN PRESENCE OF TWO WITNESSES
RIGHT OF OFFICER TO BREAK INTO BUILDING OR ENCLOSURE No search of a house, room or any other premises shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any
May break into a building or enclosure where the person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to be, if he is refused admittance member of his family or in the absence of the latter, in the presence of 2 witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the
thereto, after announcing his authority and purpose. same locality.

A PEACE OFFICER WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT CANNOT LAWFULLY ENTER THE DWELLING AGAINST THE WILL OF THE OWNER,
EVEN IF HE KNEW THAT SOMEONE IN THE DWELLING IS HAVING UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF OPIUM
The mere fact that a visitor of the house of another is suspected of having unlawful possession of opium, is no excuse for entry into
the house by a peace officer for the purpose of search against the will of its owner and without search warrant.
Yes. The peace officer is liable for violation of domicile. No amount of incriminating evidence, whatever its source, will supply the
place of search warrant.
VALIDITY OF SEARCH WARRANT
A search warrant shall be valid for 10 days from its date.
A RECEIPT FOR THE PROPERTY SEIZED
The officer seizing property under the warrant must give a detailed receipt for the same to the lawful occupant of the premises in
whose presence the search and seizure were made, or in the absence of such occupant, must, in the presence of at least 2 witnesses
of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality, leave a receipt in the place in which he found the seized property.

Acuna. Ardiente. Gomez. Karunungan. Matobato. Monje. Noval. Palacol. Santiago. Santuyo Page 3 | Chupapi Notes
PROBABLE CAUSE, DEFINED
Probable cause defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably 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.
WHEN IS A SEARCH WARRANT 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 to believe that the search warrant sought for was unjustified.
TEST OF LACK OF JUST CAUSE
Whether the affidavit filed in support of the application for search warrant has been drawn in such a manner that perjury could be
charged thereon and affiant be held liable for damages caused. The oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within the
personal knowledge of the applicant for search warrant or his witnesses, not the facts “reported to me by a person whom i consider
to be reliable”
IN ADDITION TO THE LIABILITY ATTACHING TO THE OFFENDER FOR THE COMMISSION OF ANY OTHER OFFENSE
The public officers procuring a search warrant without just cause may also be held liable for perjury if they made a wilful and
deliberate assertion of falsehood in the affidavits filed in support of the application for search warrant.
Even if the crime of perjury was a necessary means for committing the crime of search warrant maliciously obtained, they cannot
form a complex crime. They are separate and distinct crimes, to be punished with their respective penalties.
EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 2 AND 3 (FORMERLY SECTIONS 3 AND 4) OF ARTICLE3 (FORMERLY ARTICLE 4) OF
THE 1987 CONSTITUTION IS NOT ADMISSIBLE FOR ANY PURPOSE IN ANY PROCEEDING
Thus, when papers or effects are obtained during unreasonable searches and seizures, or under a search warrant issued without
probable cause and not in accordance with the procedure prescribed, or in violation of the privacy of communication and
correspondence, the papers or effects thus obtained are not admissible if presented as evidence.
SEARCH AND SEIZURES WITHOUT WARRANT AS AN INCIDENT TO A LAWFUL ARREST IS LEGAL
Section 12, rule 126, of the revised rules of criminal procedure provides that a person lawfully arrested may be searched for
dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without search warrant.
A lawful arrest may be made without warrant in certain cases and in any of those cases a search may lawfully be made to find and
seize things connected with the crime as its fruits or as the means by which it was committed.
PEACE OFFICER MAY ENTER THE HOUSE OF AN OFFENDER WHO COMMITTED AN OFFENSE IN THEIR PRESENCE
Peace officers are authorized to make arrests without warrant for breaches of the peace committed in their presence, and may
enter the house of an offender for such purpose, provided the unlawful conduct is such as to affect to public peace.
SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF VESSELS WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT LEGAL
Search and seizure without search warrant of vessels and aircraft for violations of the customs laws have been the traditional
exception to the constitutional requirement of a search warrant, because the vessel can be quickly moved out of the locality or
jurisdiction in which the search warrant could be secured
ELEMENTS EXCEEDING AUTHORITY OR USING UNECESSARY SEVERITY IN EXECUTING A SEARCH WARRANT LEGALLY PROCURED
- Offender is a public officer or employee
- He has legallu procured a search warrant
- He exceeds his authority or uses unnecessary severity in executing the same
EXAMPLE OF EXCEEDING AUTHORITY IN EXECUTING SEARCH WARRANT
Seized books, personal letters, and other property having a remote or no connection with opium, even if he believed or suspected
that they had some relation with opium, such public officer may be held liable
But the possession of contraband articles, like firearm without license, is a flagrant violation of the law and the contraband can be
seized without a writ.
EXAMPLE OF USING UNECESSARY SEVERTY IN EXECUTING SEARCH WARRANT
If in searching a house, the public officer destroys furniture therein without any justification at all, he is guilty under article 129, as
having used unnecessary severity in executing the search warrant.
Acuna. Ardiente. Gomez. Karunungan. Matobato. Monje. Noval. Palacol. Santiago. Santuyo
ARTICLE 130: SEARCHING DOMICILE WITHOUT WITNESSES
ELEMENTS
- Offender s a public officer or employee
- Armed with a search warrant legally procured
- Searches the domicile, papers, or other belongings of any person
- Owner, or any member of his family, or 2 witnesses residing in the same locality are not present.
IN CASES WHERE SEARCH IS PROPER
That the public officer at the time of the search is armed with a search warrant legally procured.
SHALL SEARCH THE DOMICILE, PAPERS, OR OTHER BELONGINGS OF ANY PERSON
The word “search” means “to go over or look through for the purpose of finding something; to examine.” The public officers may
examine the papers for the purpose of finding in those papers something against their owner; or his other belongings for the same
purpose.
Article 130 does not apply to searches of vehicles or other means of transportation, because the searches are not made in the
dwelling.
SEARCH WITHOUT WARRANT UNDER THE TARIFF AND CUSTOMS CODE DOES NOT INCLUDE A DWELLING HOUSE
Section 2203 of the tariff and customs code to enter, pass through or search any land, inclosure, warehouse, store or building, not
being a dwelling house; and also to inspect, search and examine any vessel or aircraft and any trunk, package, box or envelope or
any person on board, or stop and search and examine any vehicle , beast or person suspected of holding coveying any dutiable or
prohibited article introduced into the Philippines contrary to law, without mentioning the need of a search warrant in said cases. But
in the search of a dwelling house, the code provides that said “dwelling house may be entered and searched only upon warrant
issued by a judge or justice of the peace”
SECTION 8, RULE 126 OF THE REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE REITERATES ARTICLE 131
Section 8, rule 126 of the revised rules of criminal procedure
“No search of a house, room or any other premises shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any
member of his family or in the absence of the latter, 2 witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.”
No search of a house shall be made except in the presence of at least 1 competent witness, a resident in the neighbourhood. This
particular amendment to the rules was made to conform the provision to the present article and was introduced to address the
confusion brought about by differences in the law as found in the rules of court and the revised penal code concerning witnesses to
a search.
ARTICLE 131: PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION, AND DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL MEETINGS
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
- 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 COMMONT TO THE 3 ACTS PUNISHABLE
- Offender is a public officer or employee
- He performs any of the acts mentioned above
A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL CANNOT COMMIT THIS CRIME
If the offender is a private individual, the crime is disturbance of public order defined in article 131.
TO COMMIT THE CRIME DEFINED IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 131, THE PUBLIC OFFICER MUST ACT WITHOUT LEGAL
GROUND
- Meeting must be peaceful
- There is no legal ground for prohibiting, or interrupting or dissolving that meeting
RIGHT TO PEACEFUL MEETING IS NOT ABSOLUTE
The right to freedom of speech and to peacefully assemble, though guaranteed by our constitution, is not absolute, for it may be
regulated in order that it may not be “injurious to the equal enjoyment of others having equal rights, nor injurious to the right of the
Page 4 | Chupapi Notes
community or society,” and this power may be exercised under the “police power” of the state, which is the power to prescribe ACTS NOTORIOUSLY OFFENSIVE TO THE FEELINGS OF THE FAITHFUL
regulations to promote the good order or safety and general welfare of the people. 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.
o WHEN THE MEETING TO BE HELD IS NOT PEACEFUL, THERE IS LEGAL GROUND FOR PROHIBITING IT.
EXAMPLE
o IS THE DENIAL OF THE PETITION A VIOLATION OF THIS ARTICLE? 1. Throwing stone at the minister of the iglesia ni cristo who was preaching or spreading his beliefs.

o THE RIGHT TO PEACEABLY ASSEMBLE IS NOT ABSOLUTE AND MAY BE REGULATED o THERE MUST BE DELIBEATE INTENT TO HURT THE FEELINGS OF THE FAITHFUL

o THERE IS NO LEGAL GROUND TO PROHIBIT THE HOLDING OF A MEETING WHEN THE DANGER APPREHENDED IS NOT NOT OFFENSIVE TO RELIGIOUS FEELINGS
IMMINENT AND THE EVIL TO BE PREVENTED IS NOT A SERIOUS ONE The construction of a fence in front of the chapel, even though irritating and vexatious to those present in the “pagbasa,” is not
“notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful”
o INTERRUPTING AND DISSOLVING A MEETING WHICH IS NOT PEACEFUL
The act of performing burial rites inside a roman catholic cemetery, in accordance with the rules of practices of the sect called
o THE OFFENDER MUST BE A STRANGER, NOT A PARTICIPANT, IN THE PEACEFUL MEETING “Christ is the answer” by reading passages from the bible, chanting the “alleluia” singing religious hymns and praying for the repose
of the soul of the dead, is not notoriously offensive to the feelings of religious persons, provided there was no intent to mock
INTERRUPTING AND DISSOLVING THE MEETING OF MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BY A PUBLIC OFFICER IS A CRIME AGAINST A LEGISLATIVE
BODY, NOT PUNISHED UNDER ARTICLE 131 o OFFENSIVE TO FEELINGS IS JUDGED FROM COMPLAINANT’S POINT OF VIEW
Nobody has the right to dissolve through violence, the meeting of a municipal council under the pretext of lack of notice to some
members of the council, which was not apparent. Any stranger, even if he be the municipal president himself or the chief of police ARTICLE 134: REBELLION OR INSURRECTION
must respect that meeting. The disturbance or interruption and the consequent dissolution of the meeting of the municipal council
is a violation of sec.1 of act no. 1755, which is similar to articles 143 and 144 of the revised penal code. ELEMENTS
1. A) Public uprising
o THE PERSON TALKING IN PROHIBITED SUBJECT AT PUBLIC MEETING CONTRARY TO AGREEMENT THAT NO SPEAKER B) Taking arms against the government
SHOULD TOUCH ON POLITICS MAY BE STOPPED 2. The purpose of the uprising or movement is either
a. To remove from allegiance to said government or its laws:
o BTU STOPPING THE SPEAKER WHO WAS ATTACKING CERTAIN CHURCHES IN PUBLIC MEETING IS A VIOLATION OF (1) The territory of the Philippines or any part thereof
ARTICLE 131 (2) Any body of land, naval or other armed forces
b. To deprive the chief executive or congress, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives.
ARTICLE 132: INTERRUPTION OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP
REBELLION AND INSURRECTION ARE NO SYNONYMOUS
ELEMENTS “Rebellion” where the object of the movement is completely to overthrow and supersede the existing government; “Insurrection”
- Offender is a public officer or employee more commonly employed in reference to a movement which seeks merely to effect some change of minor importance, or to
- Religious ceremonies or manifestations of any religion are about to take place or are going on prevent the exercise of governmental authority with respect to particular matters or subjects.
- Offender prevents or disturbs the same
NATURE OF THE CRIME OF REBELLION
CIRCUMSTANCES QUALIFYING THE OFFENSE The crime of rebellion or of inciting it is by nature a crime of masses, of a multitude. It is a vast movement of men and a complex net
Crime is committed with violence or threats of intrigues and plots.

PREVENTING A RELIGIOUS CEREMONY THAT IS TO TAKE PLACE In rebellion or insurrection, the revised penal code expressly declares that there must be a public uprising and the taking up of arms.
A priest was ready to say mass and a number barrio folks were there to hear mass. The barrio lieutenant made an actual threat on
the life of the priest ACTUAL CLASH OF ARMS WITH THE FORCES OF GOVERNMENT, NOT NECESSARY TO CONVICT THE ACCUSED WHO IS IN CONSPIRACY
WITH OTHERS ACTUALLY TAKING ARMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT
READING THE BIBLE AND THEN ATTACKING CERTAIN CHURCHES IN A PUBLIC PLAZA IS NOT A CEREMONY OR MANIFESTATION OF A Thus, the mere fact that the accused knowingly identified himself with the Huk organization that was openly fighting to overthrow
RELIGION, BUT ONLY A MEETING OF A RELIGIOUS SECT the government was enough to make him guilty of the crime of rebellion.
But the reading of some verses out of the bible in a private house by a group of 10 to 20 persons , adherents of the Methodist
church, is a religious service. Note: Those merely acting as couriers or spies for the rebels are also guilty of rebellion.

ARTICLE 133: OFFENDING THE RELIGIOUS FEELINGS PURPOSE OF THE UPRISING MUST BE SHOWN
Kidnapped does not constitute rebellion.
ELEMENTS
- The acts complained were performed It is not necessary that the purpose of rebellion be accomplished.
a) In a place devoted to religious worship
b) During the celebration of any religious ceremony The crime of rebellion is complete the very moment a group of rebels rise publicly and take arms against the government, for the
- Acts must be notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful purpose of overthrowing the same by force. It is not necessary, to consummate rebellion, that the rebels succeed in overthrowing
the government. Rising publicly and taking arms against the government is the normative element of the offense, while the intent or
IN A PLACE DEVOTED TO RELIGIOUS WORSHIP purpose to overthrow the government is the subjective element.
It is not necessary that there is a religious ceremony going on when the offender performs acts notoriously offensive to the feelings
of the faithful. The “religious ceremony” need not be celebrated in a place of worship. REBELLION DISTINGUISHED FROM TREASON
MEANING OF RELIGIOUS CEREMONIES Rebellion always involves taking up arms against the government; treason may be committed by mere adherence to the enemy
Religious ceremonies are those religious acts performed outside of a church, such as processions and special prayers for burying giving him aid or comfort.
dead persons.

Acuna. Ardiente. Gomez. Karunungan. Matobato. Monje. Noval. Palacol. Santiago. Santuyo Page 5 | Chupapi Notes
GIVING AID AND COMFORT IS NOT CRIMINAL IN REBELLION The crime of coup d’etat may be committed with or without civilian participation
Held: unlike in the crime of treason, the act of giving comfort or moral aid is not criminal in the case of rebellion or insurrection,
where the revised penal code expressly declares that there must be a public uprising and the taking up of arms. COUP D’ETAT, WHEN CONSIDERED AS TERRORISM
Including acts committed by private persons, thereby sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and
o REBELLION DISTINGUISHED FROM SUBVERSION panic among the populace, in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand shall be guilty of the crime of
terrorism.
o REBELLION OR INSURRECTION, WHEN CONSIDERED AS TERRORISM

o ACTS PUNISHABLE AS TERRORISM UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9372

TERRORISM IS MORE SEVERELY PUNISHED THAN HEINOUS CRIMES UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7659 ARTICLE 135: PENALTY FOR REBELLION, INSURRECTION OR COUP D’ETAT
Terrorism is punished by the penalty of 40 years of imprisonment, without the benefit of parole.
WHO ARE LIABLE FOR REBELLION, INSURRECTION AND/OR COUP D’ETAT?
Some offenses considered as heinous crimes under republic act no. 7659 such as kidnapping for ransom and rape with homicide are
punished by death. However, R.A. No. 9346 prohibited the imposition of the penalty of death, and imposed the penalty of reclusion A. The leaders
perpetua without eligibility for parole in lieu of the death penalty. Since the duration of reclusion perpetua is 20 years and 1 day to i) Any person who promotes a rebellion or insurrection
40 years (sec 27, RPC) and the crime of terrorism is punished by a fixed penalty of 40 years, terrorism is now the most severely ii) Any person who leads other to undertake a coup d’etat
punished crime. B. The participants
i) Any person who executes the commands of others in rebellion
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TERRORISM ii) Any person in the government service
Persons who conspire to commit the crime of terrorism shall suffer the penalty of 40 years of imprisonment. iii) Any person not in the government service

CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TERRORISM AS A CRIME o PUBLIC OFFICER MUST TAKE ACTIVE PART, TO BE LIABLE; MERE SILENCE OR OMISSION NOT PUNISHABLE IN
Conspiracy to commit terrorism is punishable under sec. 4 of R.A. No. 9372. Other crimes where mere conspiracy is punishable are REBELLION
conspiracy to commit treason (art. 115), conspiracy to commit coup d’ etat, rebellion or insurrection (art. 136) and conspiracy to
commit sedition. (art.141) o WHO SHALL BE DEEMED THE LEADER OF THE REBELLION, INSURRECTION OR COUP D’ETAT IN CASE HE IS UNKNOWN?

The conspirators, to commit terrorism, should not actually commit terrorism. It is sufficient that 2 or more persons agree and decide o APPLICATION OF THE PENALTY FOR REBELLION
to commit the crime of terrorism. If they actually commit the crime of terrorism, they will be held liable for terrorism and the
conspiracy they had before committing terrorism in only a manner of incurring criminal liability. It is not a separate offense. o IT IS NOT A DEFENSE IN REBELLION THAT THE ACCUSED NEVER TOOK THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE TO, OR THAT THEY
NEVER RECOGNIZED THE GOVERNMENT
PENALTY IMPOSED ON AN ACCOMPLICE IN TERRORISM
Shall suffer the penalty of from 17 years, 4 months 1 day to 20 years of imprisonment. o IS THERE A COMPLEX CRIME OF REBELLION WITH MURDER AND OTHER COMMON CRIMES?

PENALTY IMPOSED ON AN ACCESSORY IN TERRORISM

o THE HERNANDEZ RULING APPLIED
Shall suffer the penalty of 10 years and 1 day to 12 years of imprisonment.

The penalties provided for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants,
descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sister, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees, with the single
exception of accessories falling within the provisions.
PROSCRIPTION OF TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS, ASSOCIATION ON GROUP OF PERSONS
Any organization, association, or group of persons organized for the purpose of engaging in terrorism, or which, although not
organized for that purpose, actually uses the acts to terrorize mentioned in this act or to sow and create a condition of widespread
and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand shall,
upon application of the department of justice before a competent regional trial court, with due notice and opportunity to be heard
given to the organization, association, or group of persons concerned, be declared a terrorist and outlawed organization,
association, or group of persons by the said regional trial court.
o ACTS COMMITED IN FURTHERANCE OF REBELLION ARE ABSORBED IN REBELLION
o MEMBERSHIP IN A REBEL ORGANIZATION DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY QUALIFY CRIMINAL ACTS AS ABSORBED IN
REBELLION
o REBELLION, AND NOT MURDER, WHERE KILLINGS ARE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED
o KILLING, ROBBING, ETC. FOR PRIVATE PURPOSES OR PROFIT, WITHOUT ANY POLITICAL MOTIVATION, WOULD BE
SEPARATELY PUNISHED AND WOULD NOT BE ABSORBED IN THE REBELLION.
o POLITICAL CRIMES AND COMMON CRIMES, DISTINGUISHED

o PROSECUTION UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9372 SHALL BE A BAR TO ANOTHER PROSECUTION UNDER THE REVISED
PENAL CODE OR ANY SPECIAL PENAL LAWS
ARTICLE 136: CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT COUP D’ETAT, REBELLION OR INSURRECTION
ARTICLE 134-A: COUP D’ETAT
o 2 CRIMES ARE DEFINED AND PENALIZED IN THIS ARTICLE
ELEMENTS
1. The offender is a person or persons belonging to the military or police or holding any public office or employment o MERELY AGREEING AND DECIDING TO RISE PUBLICLY AND TAKE ARMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE
2. It is committed by means of a swift attack accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth PURPOSES OF REBELLION OR MERELY PROPOSING THE COMMISSION OF SAID ACTS IS ALREADY SUBJECT TO
3. The attack is directed against duly constituted authorities of the republic of the Philippines, or any military camp or PUNISHMENT
installation, communication networks, public utilities or other facilities needed for the exercise and continued
possession of power o NO CONSPIRACY WHEN THERE IS NO AGREEMENT AND NO DECISION TO COMMIT REBELLION
4. Purpose of the attack is to seize or diminish state power
o ORGANIZING A GROUP OF SOLDIERS, SOLICITING MEMBERSHIP IN, AND SOLICITING FUNDS FROM THE PEOPLE FOR,
WITH OR WITHOUT CIVILIAN PARTICIPATION THE ORGANIZATION, SHOW CONSPIRACY TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT

Acuna. Ardiente. Gomez. Karunungan. Matobato. Monje. Noval. Palacol. Santiago. Santuyo Page 6 | Chupapi Notes
 o THERE WAS NO CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT REBELLION IN THE FOLLOWING CASES ARTICLE 140: PENALTY FOR SEDITION

ARTICLE 137: DISLOYALTY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES o PERSONS LIABLE FOR SEDITION

OFFENDER MUST BE A PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE ARTICLE 141: CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SEDITION
1. By failing to resist a rebellion by all the means in their power
2. By continuing to discharge the duties of their offices under the control of the rebels o THERE MUST BE AN AGREEMENT AND A DECISION TO RISE PUBLICLY AND TUMULTUOSLY TO ATTAIN ANY OF THE
3. By accepting appointment to office under them OBJECTS OF SEDITION

o THE CRIME OF DISLOYALTY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS PRESUPPOSES THE EXISTENCE OF REBELLION BY OTHER PERSONS o THERE IS NO PROPOSAL TO COMMIT SEDITION

o THE OFFENDER UNDER ARTICLE 137 MUST NOT BE IN CONSPIRACY WITH THE REBELS
ARTICLE 142: INCITING TO SEDITION

ARTICLE 138: INCTING TO REBELLION OR INSURRECTION o DIFFERENT ACTS OF INCITING TO SEDITION

ELEMENTS INCITING TO SEDITION TO ACCOMPLISH ANY OF ITS OBJECTS

1. Offender does not take arms or is not in open hostility against the government
2. He incites others to the execution of any of the acts of rebellion ELEMENTS
3. Inciting is done by means of speeches 1. Offender does not take direct part in the crime of sedition
2. He incites others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute sedition
o SHALL INCITE OTHERS TO THE EXECUTION OF ANY OF THE ACTS SPECIFIED IN ARTICLE 134 OF THIS CODE 3. Inciting is done by means of speeches

o INCITING TO EBELLION DISTINGUISHED FROM PROPOSAL TO COMMIT REBELLION o SHOULD INCITE OTHERS TO THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ANY OF THE ACTS WHICH CONSTITUTE SEDITION

o REBELLION SHOULD NOT BE COMMITTED o UTTERING SEDITIOUS WORDS OR SPEECHES

o MEANING OF THE WORD SCURRILOUS

ARTICLE 139: SEDITION

o ILLUSTRATION OF SCURRILOUS LIBEL
ELEMENTS
1. Offenders rise publicly and tumultuously o UTTERING SEDITIOUS WORDS OR SPEECHES AND WRITING, PUBLISHING OR CIRCULATING SCURRILOUS LIBELS ARE
2. They employ force, intimidation PUNISHABLE, WHEN –
3.
- To prevent promulgation or execution of any law or the holding of any popular election o THEATRICAL PLAY OR DRAMA WHERE THE WORDS UTTERED OR SPEECHES DELIVERED ARE SEDITIOUS MAY BE
- To prevent the national government, or any provincial or municipal government, or any public officer thereof from PUNISHED UNDER ARTICLE 142
freely exercising its or his functions, or prevent the execution of any administrative the execution of any
administrative order o PROOSAL TO THROW HAND GRENADES IN A PUBLIC PLACE, INTENDED TO CAUSE COMMOTION AND DISTURBANCE,
- To inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of any public officer or employee AS AN ACT OF HATE AND REVENGE AGAINST THE POLICE FORCE, IS INCITING TO SEDITION
- To commit, for any political or social end, any act of hate or revenge against private persons or any social class
- To despoil, for any political or social end, any person municipality or province, or the national government of all its o KNOWINGLY CONCEALING SUCH EVIL PRACTICES
property or any art thereof
o THE USE OF WORDS, EMBLEMS, ETC., NOT PERFORMANCE OF ACT, IS PUNISHED IN INCITING TO SEDITION
o NATURE OF CRIME
o DISTURBANCE OR DISORDER, NOT NECESSARY IN INCITING TO SEDITION
o WHAT DISTINGUISHES SEDITION FROM REBELLION IS THE OBJECT OR PURPOSE OF THE UPRISING
o THERE ARE 2 RULES REALTIVE TO SEDITIOUS WORDS
o SEDITION DISTINGUISHED FROM TREASON
o REASON WHY SEDITIOUS UTTERANCES ARE PROHIBITED
o CAN SEDITION BE COMMITTED BY ONE PERSON?
o UNLAWFUL RUMOR-MONGERING AND SPREADING FALSE INFORMATION
o PREVENTING PUBLIC OFFICERS FRO FREELY EXERCISING THEIR FUNCTIONS

o INFLICTING AN ACT OF GATE OR REVENGE UPON PUBLIC OFFICERS

o AGAINST PRIVATRE PERSONS OR ANY SOCIAL CLASS

o PUBLIC UPRISING AND AN OBJECT OF SEDITION MUST CONCUR

o ARE COMMON CRIMES ABSORBED IN SEDITION?

Acuna. Ardiente. Gomez. Karunungan. Matobato. Monje. Noval. Palacol. Santiago. Santuyo Page 7 | Chupapi Notes