CRIMES AGAINST THE

FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF
THE STATE ARTS. 124-
133, RPC, TITLE II
 CRIMES AGAINST THE
FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE

1. Arbitrary detention; obtained;

2. Delay in the delivery of 7. Searching domicile without
detained persons to the proper witnesses;
judicial authorities; 8. Prohibition, interruption, and
3. Delaying release; dissolution of peaceful
4. Expulsion; meetings;
5. Violation of domicile; 9. Interruption of religious
worship; and
6. Search warrants maliciously
obtained and abuse in the 10. Offending the religious
service of those legally feelings
 OFFENDERS UNDER THIS TITLE

GR: Offenders under this title are public

officers or employees.
XPNs:
1. Under Art. 133 (Offending the Religious
Feelings), the offender may be any person;
2. When a private person conspires with a
public officer or acts as accomplice or
accessory in the commission of the crime.
 CLASSES OF ARBITRARY DETENTION

1. Detaining a person without legal ground (Art.

124, RPC);
2. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the
proper authorities (Art. 125, RPC); and
3. Delaying release. (Art. 126, RPC)
NOTE: The imposable penalties for violation of Arts.
125 and 126 are those provided for under Art. 124.
 ARBITRARY DETENTION
ART. 124, RPC

Elements of Arbitrary Detention

1. Offender is a Public officer or employee
vested with the authority and jurisdiction
to effect arrest and detain a person;
2. He Detains a person; and
3. Detention is Without legal grounds.
 DETENTION

The actual confinement of a person

in an enclosure, or in any manner
detaining and depriving him of his
liberty.
 QUESTION

Q: Who is the offender under Art.

124?
 ANSWER

A: A public officer or employee. However,

it is necessary that the public officer must
be vested with the authority to detain or
order the detention of persons accused of
a crime such as policemen and other
agents of law, judges or mayors, barangay
captain and a municipal councilor.
 LEGAL GROUNDS FOR THE
DETENTION OF PERSONS:
GR:
1. Commission of a crime;
a. Arrest with a warrant
b. Warrantless arrest
2. Violent insanity or other ailment requiring compulsory
confinement of the patient in a hospital;
XPN: When the peace officers acted in good faith even if the grounds
mentioned above are not obtained, there is no arbitrary detention.
ARBITRARY DETENTION VS. ILLEGAL
DETENTION
ARBITRARY DETENTION VS.
UNLAWFUL ARREST
 QUESTION

Q: X, a police officer, falsely imputes

a crime against A to be able to
arrest him but he appears to be not
determined to file a charge against
him. What crime, if any, did X
commit?
 ANSWER

The crime is arbitrary detention

through unlawful arrest.
 DEL AY IN TH E DELIVERY OF DETAINED PERS O NS
TO TH E PRO PER JUDICIAL AUTH O RITY - ART.
125, RPC

Elements of Delay in the Delivery of Detained Persons:

1. Offender is a Public Officer or employee;
2. He has detained a person for some legal ground
3. He fails to deliver such person to the proper judicial
authorities within:
a. 12hrs. – punishable by light penalties or its equivalent.
b. 18 hours - punishable by correctional penalties or its
equivalent.
c. 36 hours - punishable by afflictive penalties or its equivalent.
 QUESTION

Q: Is Art. 125 applicable to violation

of Special Penal Laws?
 ANSWER

A: YES. The phrase “or their equivalent”

means that it is applicable even in
violation of special laws.
 DELIVERY

The filing of correct information or

complaint with the proper judicial
authorities. It does not mean
physical delivery or turnover of
arrested person to the court.
 PROPER JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES

It refers to the courts of justice or judges

of said courts vested with judicial power
to order the temporary detention or
confinement of a person charged with
having committed a public offense.
DUTY OF THE OFFICER IF THE JUDGE
IS NOT AVAILABLE

If a judge is not available, the arresting

officer is duty-bound to release a
detained person, if the maximum hours
for detention had already expired. Failure
to cause the release may result in an
offense under Art. 125 of the RPC.
 DELAYING RELEASE - ART. 126, RPC

Punishable Acts under Art. 126, RPC

1. Delaying the performance of judicial or executive
order for the release of a prisoner;
2. Unduly delaying the service of the notice of such
order to said prisoner; and
3. Unduly delaying the proceedings upon any
petition for the liberation of such person.
 ELEMENTS OF DELAYING RELEASE

1. Offender is a Public officer or employee;

2. There is a judicial or executive Order for the release of the prisoner or detention
prisoner, or that there is a proceeding upon a petition for the liberation of such
person; and
3. Offender without good reason Delays:
a. Service of notice of such order to the prisoner; or
b. Performance of such judicial or executive order for the release of the prisoner; or
c. Proceedings upon a petition for the release of such person.
 EXPULSION - ART. 127, RPC

Punishable Acts under Art. 127, RPC

1. Expelling a person from the Philippines; and
2. Compelling a person to change his
residence.
This Article does NOT apply in cases of
ejectment, expropriation, or when the penalty
imposed is destierro.
 ELEMENTS OF EXPULSION

1. Offender is a Public officer or employee;

2. He either:
a. Expels any person from the Philippines
b. Compels a person to change residence; and
3. Offender is Not authorized to do so by law.
 VIOLATION OF DOMICILE
ART. 128, RPC

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; and
3. Refusing to leave the premises after having
surreptitiously entered said dwelling and after
having been required to leave the same.
“AGAINST THE WILL OF THE OWNER”

It presupposes opposition or prohibition

by the owner, whether express or implied,
and not merely the absence of consent.
 ELEMENTS OF VIOLATION OF
DOMICILE

1. Offender is Public officer or b. Searches papers or other

employee; effects found therein without the
2. He is Not authorized by judicial previous consent of such owner;
order to enter the dwelling and/or and
to make a search for papers and c. Refuses to leave the premises
for other effects; and after having surreptitiously
3. He either: entered said dwelling and after
having been required to leave
a. Enters any dwelling against the same.
the will of the owner thereof;
 TRESPASS TO DWELLING

The crime committed is trespass to

dwelling when the punishable acts
under Art. 128 are committed by a
private person.
 ART. 128, WHEN NOT APPLICABLE

If a public officer, not armed with a search

warrant or a warrant of arrest, searches a
person outside his dwelling, the crime
committed is grave coercion, if violence
and intimidation are used (Art. 286); or
unjust vexation, if there is no violence or
intimidation. (Art. 287)
 QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
UNDER ART. 128

1. If committed at nighttime; and

2. If any papers or effects not
constituting evidence of a crime are
not returned immediately after the
search is made by the offender.
S E ARC H WAR RAN T S M A L I C I OU S LY OB TA IN E D AN D
AB U S E IN T H E S E RV IC E OF T H OS E L E GA L LY
OB TA IN E D
A RT. 12 9 , R P C

1. Procuring a search warrant without just

cause;
2. Exceeding his authority or by using
unnecessary severity in executing a
search warrant legally procured.
 PROCURING A SEARCH WARRANT
WITHOUT JUST CAUSE;

Elements:
a. That the offender is a public officer or
employee;
b. That he procures a search warrant; and
c. That there is no just cause.
 2. EXCEEDING HIS AUTHORITY OR BY
USING UNNECESS ARY SEVERITY IN
EXECUTING A SEARCH WARRANT LEGALLY
PROCURED.

Elements:
a. That the offender is a public officer or employee;
b. That he has legally procured a search warrant;
and
c. That he exceeds his authority or uses
unnecessary severity in executing the same.
 SEARCHING DOMICILE WITHOUT WITNESSES
ART. 130

Elements :
1. Offender is a Public officer or employee;
2. He is Armed with search warrant legally procured;
3. He Searches the domicile, papers or other
belongings of any person; and
4. Owner or any member of his family, or two
witnesses residing in the same locality are not
present.
 QUESTION

Q: Suppose, X, a suspected pusher lives in a

condominium unit. Agents of the PDEA obtained a
search warrant but the name of the person in the
search warrant did not tally with the address indicated
therein.
Eventually, X was found but at a different address. X
resisted but the agents insisted on the search. Drugs
were found and seized and X was prosecuted and
convicted by the trial court. Is the search valid?
 ANSWER

A: NO, because the public officers are

required to follow the search warrant by
its letter. They have no discretion on the
matter. Their remedy is to ask the judge
to change the address indicated in the
search warrant.
 PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION, AND
DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL MEETINGS - ART.
131, RPC

Punishable Acts under Art. 131, RPC

1. Prohibiting or interrupting, without legal ground, the
holding of a peaceful meeting, or by dissolving the same;
2. Hindering any person from joining any lawful association
or from attending any of its meetings; and
3. Prohibiting or hindering any person from addressing,
either alone or together with others, any petition to the
authorities for correction of abuses or redress of grievances.
ELEMENTS OF PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION,
AND DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL MEETINGS

In all three cases, the following elements

must concur:
1. Offender is a public officer; and
2. He performs any of the acts mentioned
above.
 INTERRUPTION OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP
ART. 132, RPC

Elements
1. Public officer or employee;
2. Religious ceremonies, or manifestations
of any religious ceremonies are about to
take place or are going on; and
3. Offender Prevents or Disturbs the same.
 OFFENDING THE RELIGIOUS FEELINGS
ART. 133, RPC

Elements:
1. The offender is Any person;
2. The acts complained of were performed:
a. In a Place devoted to religious worship; or
b. During the celebration of any religious ceremony
3. Acts must be Notoriously offensive to the feelings of the
faithful.
 QUESTION

Q: Baes, while holding the funeral of

Macabigtas, in accordance with the rites of a
religious sect known as “Church of Christ,”
caused the funeral to pass through the
churchyard belonging to the Roman Catholic
Church. The parish priest filed a complaint
against Baes for the violation of Art. 133. Is
Baes liable?
 ANSWER

A: NO. The SC held that the act imputed to the accused does not
constitute the offense complained of. At most, they might be
chargeable with having threatened the parish priest or with having
passed through private property without the consent of the owner.
An act is said to be notoriously offensive to the religious feelings of
the faithful when a person ridicules or makes light of anything
constituting a religious dogma; works or scoffs at anything devoted
to religious ceremonies; plays with or damages or destroys any
object of veneration by the faithful. The mere act of causing the
passage through the churchyard belonging to the Church, of the
funeral of one who in life belonged to the Church of Christ, neither
offends nor ridicules the religious feelings of those who belong to
TO BE CONTINUED..