TITLE TWO CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE CHAPTER ONE 1. Arbitrary detention by detaining a person without legal ground. (Art. 124) 2. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to proper judicial authorities. (Art. 125) 3. Delaying release. (Art. 126) ARBITRARY DETENTION OR EXPULSION, VIOLATION OF DWELLING, PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION, AND DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL MEETINGS AND CRIMES AGAISNT RELIGIOUS WORSHIP The penalties for the three classes of arbitrary detention are the same, as provided in Articles 124-126 do not provided penalties for their violation. They make reference to the penalties provided for in Article 124. Crimes against the fundamental laws of the state: Art. 124 Arbitrary detention – Any public officer or employee who, without legal grounds, detains a person, shall suffer: 1. Arbitrary detention. (Art. 124) 2. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities. (Art. 125) 3. Delaying abuse. (Art. 126) 4. Expulsion. (Art. 127) 5. Violation of domicile. (Art. 128) 6. Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those legally obtained. (Art. 129) 7. Searching domicile without witnesses. (Art. 130) 8. Prohibition, interruption, and dissolution of peaceful meetings. (Art. 131) 9. Interruption of religious worship. (Art. 132) 10. Offending the religious feelings. (Art. 133) They are called crimes against the fundamental laws of the state because they violate certain provisions of the Bill of Rights. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Article Article Article Article Article 3 3 3 3 3 Section Section Section Section Section 1 6 2 4 5 Section 1 – Arbitrary detention and expulsion Classes of arbitrary detention 1. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prison correccional in its minimum period, if the detention has not exceeded in three days; 2. The penalty of prison correccional in its medium and maximum periods if the detention has continued for more than three but not more than 15 days; 3. The penalty of prison mayor, if the detention has continued for more than fifteen days but not more than six months; and 4. That of reclusion temporal, if the detention shall have exceeded six months. The commission of a crime, or violent insanity or any other ailment 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 is a public officer or employee; 2. That he detains a person; 3. That the detention is without legal grounds. (US vs. Braganza) Offender – The public officers liable 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 therefor. - - - - 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 officers, 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 Art. 267-268. But if private individuals who conspired with public officers in detaining certain policemen are guilty of arbitrary detention. Detention – Actual confinement of a person in an enclosure, or in any manner detaining and depriving him of his liberty. (People vs. Gungon) - - A person is detained when he is placed in confinement or there is a restraint on his person. (US vs. Cabanag) Even if the persons 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. (People vs. Camerino) Restraint resulting from fear - It was not just the presence of the armed men, but also the evident effect these gunmen had on the actions of the team which proves that fear was indeed instilled in the minds of the team members, to the extent that they felt compelled to stay in the barangay. The intent to preserve the departure of the complainants and the witnesses against their will is clear. (Astorga vs. People) Detention without legal grounds: 1. Barrio lieutenant, seeing his servant quarreling with his daughter, seized the servant and an hour later sent him to the Justice of Peace. The servant was kept in detention from 5 pm to 9 am the next day when he was released by the Justice of Peace. a. HELD. The barrio lieutenant was guilty of arbitrary detention because he detained the offended party without any reason therefore, such as the commission of the crime and without having the authority to do so. (US vs. Gellaga) b. Note: Merely quarreling is not a crime. 2. A Manila detective sergeant arrested Aquilino Taruc because of the suspicion that he might be implicated in the plot to assassinate the President and that he was related to Luis Taruc, a Huk Supremo. a. HELD. Mere suspicion of his connection with any murderous plot is no ground recognized by law for restraining the freedom of any individual. Lawlessness from above can only lead to chaos and anarchy. (Taruc vs. Carlos) 3. In overtaking another vehicle, complainant-driver was not committing or had not actually committed a crime in the presence of respondent judge. Such being the case, the warrantless arrest and subsequent detention of complainant were illegal. (Cayao vs. Del Mundo) Legal grounds for detention of any person 1. Commission of a crime; 2. Violent insanity or 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 an arrest. If there is no such warrant of arrest, the arrest of a person by a public officer may constitute arbitrary detention. Arrest without warrant – when lawful 1. When in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; 2. 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; and 3. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgement or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. - Paragraphs a and b refer to cases when a suspect is caught in flagrante delicto or immediately thereafter, while paragraph c refers to escaping prisoners. (Ilagan vs. Enrile) - Probable cause was found in: a. Where the distinctive odor of marijuana emanated from the plastic bag carried by the accused. (People vs. Claudio) b. Where an informer positively identified the accused who was observed to be acting suspiciously. (People vs. Tangliben) c. Where the accused who were riding a jeepney were stopped and searched by policemen who had earlier received confidential reports that said accused would transport a quantity of marijuana. (People vs. Maspil) In his presence - 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. (US vs. Samonte) Crime must in fact or actually have been committed first - Personal knowledge is required - - An officer arresting a person who has just committed an offense must have probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it. Personal knowledge of facts in arrests without a warrant must be based upon probable cause, which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion. (US vs. Santos) Probable cause - Can be defined as such 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 to be searched. (Pendon vs. CA; Quintero vs. NBI; Burgos vs. Chief of Staff) It must be within the personal knowledge of the complainant or the witnesses he may produced and not based on mere hearsay. (Prudente vs. Judge Dayrit) - 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. That a crime has actually been committed is an essential precondition. The fact of the commission of the offense must be undisputed. (People vs. Burgos) When the person to be arrested attempting to commit offense - is Prevention of crime is just as commendatory as the capture of criminals. The rule is supported by the necessities of life. The same applicable principles rest upon the same foundation of reason and common sense. (US vs. Santos) Arbitrary detention through imprudence - The police rearrested a woman who had been released by means of a verbal order of the justice of peace. The accused acted without malice, but he should have verified the order of release before proceeding to make re-arrest. The crime committed by the police is arbitrary detention through simple imprudence and punished under Art. 365 of the RPC in connection with Art. 241 of the same code. (People vs. Misa) Periods of detention penalized a. If the detention has not exceeded 3 days b. If the detention has continued more than 3 days but not more than 15 days c. If the detention has continued more than 15 days but not more than 6 months d. If the detention has exceeded 6 months.
