TITLE II
Crimes Against the Fundamental
Law of the State
ARBITRARY DETENTION
Art 124; Arbitrary detention 1975 No,
XI
How is arbitrary detention committed?
What are the legal grounds for
detention?
Answer
Arbitrary detention is committed by a
public officer who deprives another of his
liberty without legal grounds. The legal
grounds for detention are: 1) commission
of a crime; 2) violent insanity; 3) any
illness requiring compulsory
confinement, (Art. 124, Revised Penal
Code).
Art 124; Arbitrary detention 1980 No.
XI
Patrolman Cruz, acting under orders
of the Municipal Mayor, who wanted to
put a stop to the frequent occurrence
of robbery in sitio Masukal, patrolled
the place. At about midnight, seeing
three persons acting suspiciously in
front of an uninhabited house and
entering the same, he arrested them
without warrant and took them to the
municipal building where they were
detained in jail for about five hours
before they were released.
Patrolman Cruz was accused of
arbitrary detention. If you were the
Judge, would you convict him of the
crime charged?
Answer
Patrolman Cruz cannot be accused of
arbitrary detention. Since the three
persons acted suspiciously in front of an
uninhabited house at midnight, and
entered the same, the policeman was
justified to arrest them even without a
warrant, considering the circumstances
of the case, mainly, since he was
patrolling the place upon orders of the
Mayor to put a stop to frequent
occurrences of robberies therein. The
three persons were arrested in a
suspicious place at midnight and under
suspicious circumstances that they were
about to commit a crime or breach of
peace. Good people do not ordinarily lurk
in uninhabited places at midnight. (U.S.
vs. Santos, 36 Phil. 853)
Art 124; Arbitrary Detention 1992 No.
12:
Major Menor, while patrolling Bago-
Bago community in a police car with
SPO3 Caloy Itliong, blew his whistle to
stop a Nissan Sentra car which
wrongly entered a one-way street.
After demanding from Linda Lo Hua,
the driver, her driver's license, Menor
asked her to follow them to the police
precinct. Upon arriving there, he gave
instructions to Itliong to guard Lo Hua
in one of the rooms and not to let her
out of sight until he returns; then got
the car key from Lo Hua. In the
meantime, the latter was not allowed
to make any phone calls but was given
food and access to a bathroom.
When Menor showed up after two
days, he brought Lo Hua to a private
house and told her that he would only
release her and return the car if she
made arrangements for the delivery of
P500,000 in a doctor's bag at a certain
place within the next twenty-four
hours. When Menor went to the
designated spot to pick up the bag of
money, he suddenly found himself
surrounded by several armed civilians
who introduced themselves as NBI
agents.
Suggested Answer:
a) What criminal offense has Menor
committed? Explain.
Menor is liable under Art. 124, RPC
(Arbitrary Detention) he being a public
officer who detained a person without
legal grounds. Violation of a traffic
ordinance by entering a one-way street is
not a valid reason to arrest and detain the
driver. Such only merits the issuance of a
traffic violation ticket. Hence, when Lo
Hua was ordered to follow the police
officers to the precinct (confiscating her
license to compel her to do so), and
confining her in a room for two days and
prohibiting her to make phone calls, is a
clear case of deprivation of personal
liberty. Giving her food and access to the
bathroom will not extinguish or mitigate
the criminal liability.
Menor is further liable for robbery,
because money or personal property was
taken, with intent to gain, and with
intimidation. The peculiar situation of Lo
Hua practically forced her to submit to the
monetary demands of the major.
b) May Itliong be held likewise
criminally liable?
Itliong is equally liable with Menor
the felony of arbitrary detention, either by
conspiracy or indispensable cooperation.
He cannot successfully put up the
defense of obedience to a superior order,
as the same was done for a lawful
purpose.
Art 124; Arbitrary Detention; Unlawful
Arrest; Extralegal Killing (2008)
No. I. a. After due hearing on a petition
for a writ of amparo founded on the
acts of enforced disappearance and
extralegal killing of the son of the
complainant allegedly done by the
respondent military officers, the court
granted the petition. May the military
officers be criminally charged in court
with enforced disappearance and
extralegal killing? Explain fully. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the respondent military officers may
be criminally charged in court
since“enforced disappearance”
constitutes arbitrary detention under Art.
124 or Unlawful Arrest under Art. 269 of
the RPC. Extralegal killing can also be
considered murder and/or homicide
under Art. 248/249, RPC.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The petition for the writ of amparo is
not a criminal proceeding and will not
determine the guilt of the respondents. If
the evidence so warrants, the amparo
court may refer the case to the
Department of Justice for criminal
prosecution (A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC) of the
military officers for the special complex
crime of kidnapping with murder or
homicide under Art. 267 of the Revised
Penal Code as amended by R.A. 7659.
DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF
DETAINED PERSONS
Art 125; Delay in the delivery of
detained persons 1990 No. 11;
Amy was apprehended and arrested
by Patrolman Bart for illegal parking.
She was detained at the police
precinct, underwent investigation,
and released only after 48 hours.
a) Patrolman Bart liable for any
offense? Explain your answer.
b) Suppose Amy resisted the arrest
and grappled with patrolman Bart, is
she criminally liable thereby? State
your reasons.
Answer:
a) Patrolman Bart is liable for violation of
Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code -
Delay on the Delivery of Detained
Persons to the Proper Judicial
Authorities.
b) She is criminally liable for slight
disobedience under Article 151 of the
Revised Penal Code - Resistance and
disobedience to a person in authority or
the agents of such person.
VIOLATION OF DOMICILE
Art 128; Violation of Domicile (2009)
No. I. e. A policeman who, without a
judicial order, enters a private house
over the owner’s opposition is guilty
of trespass to
dwelling.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
False, the crime committed by the
policeman in this case is violation of
domicile because the official duties of a
policeman carry with it an authority to
make searches and seizure upon judicial
order. He is therefore acting under color
of his official authority (Art. 128, RPC).
Art 128; Violation of Domicile vs.
Trespass to Dwelling (2002)
What is the difference between
violation of domicile and trespass to
dwelling? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The differences between violation of
domicile and trespass to dwelling are;
1) The offender in violation of domicile is
a public officer acting under color of
authority; in trespass to dwelling, the
offender is a private person or public
officer acting in a private capacity.
2) Violation of domicile is committed in 3
different ways:
(1) by entering the dwelling of
another against the will of the
latter;
(2) searching papers and other
effects inside the dwelling without
the previous consent of the owner;
or
 (3) refusing to leave the premises
which he entered surreptitiously,
after being required to leave the
premises.
3) Trespass to dwelling is committed only
in one way; that is, by entering the
dwelling of another against the express
or implied will of the latter.
Art 128; Violation of domicile vs
trespass to dwelling 1989 No. 10:
Alberto, Bernado and Carlos were
looking for a person named Virgilio
whom Carlos suspected of stealing
his fighting cock. Alberto and
Bernardo were policemen, while
Carlos was a caretaker of fighting
cocks. Carlos requested Alberto and
Bernardo, then in uniform, to
accompany him to Virgilio's house to
look for the fighting cock. Alberto,
Bernardo and Carlos went to Virgilio's
house. When the policemen knocked
on the door, Virgilio's wife, Maria,
opened it. The policemen told Maria
that they came to inquire about a lost
fighting cock. Before Maria could utter
a word, the trio barged inside, the
house. Once inside, the policemen
told Maria that Carlos was suspecting
her husband, Virgilio, to havestolen
his fighting cock, Maria protested and
immediately required the three to
leave. The policemen refused. Instead,
they started searching the house for
the fighting cock over the objections
of Maria who said that she would file a
complaint against them after her
husband comes from work. As they
did not see any fighting cock, the
three left. What crimes, if any, did
Alberto, Bernardo and Carlos
commit?
Answer:
Alberto and Bernardo, being policemen,
committed the crime of VIOLATION OF
DOMICILE (Art. 128, RPC). There are
three ways by which a public officer or
employee may commit this crime,
namely;
1. By entering any dwelling against the
will of the owner, The door having been
opened by Maria, although Alberto,
Bernardo and Carlos barged inside the
house before Maria could utter a word,
they did not enter against Maria's will,
there being no opposition or prohibition
against entrance whether express or
implied. Without the consent is not
against the will (People vs. Sane, CA 40
OG Supp 5, 113),
2. By searching papers or other effects
found therein without the previous
consent of such owner. Maria, had
objected to the search for the fighting
cock inside her dwelling, but despite said
objection, the policemen searched the
house. This makes them criminally liable
for the second way of committing the
crime of VIOLATING OF DOMICILE.
3. By refusing to leave the premises, after
having surreptitiously entered said
dwelling and after having been required
to leave the same. Although the
policemen were ordered to leave the
house, they did not enter it
surreptitiously, meaning clandestinely or
secretly.
Insofar as Carlos is concerned, not being
a public officer or employee, he cannot
commit the crime of VIOLATION OF
DOMICILE. He is not guilty of trespass to
dwelling, either because he did not enter
the dwelling AGAINST THE WILL of the
owner, which is the essential element of
Trespass.
SEARCH WARRANTS MALICIOUSLY
OBTAINED AND ABUSE OF SERVICE
OF THOSE LEGALLY OBTAINED
Art 129; Unjust procurement of search
warrant 1975 No. XII
Under Article 129 of the Revised Penal
Code, any public officer who shall
procure a search warrant without "just
cause" shall be punished by fine and
imprisonment. What do you
understand by "just cause"?
Answer
"Just cause" means such reasons,
supported by facts and circumstances as
will warrant a cautious man in the belief
that his action, and the means taken in
presenting it, is legally just and proper,
(U.S. v. Vallison, 28 Phil. 580).