CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF THE STATE

I. ARBITRARY DETENTION ARTICLE 124

PEOPLE V. P/INSP CLARENCE DONGAIL, ET AL., G.R. NO. 217972, FEBRUARY 17, 2020

“Drug Trade Surveillance lang dapat pero dinampot yung mga biktima, yung dalawa (Suganob/Lumoljo) ni-detain less
than 3days at pinatay. Yung isa (Salabas) less than 15days, kung saan saan pa pinunta bago nila pinatay”

FACTS:

The victims were kidnapped (08/31/2003, Negros Occidental), detained and later on (Hog tied, gagged and blindfolded).
First to be killed were two of them by putting transparent plastic on their head and shot them thereafter.

Salabas was still alive at that time, and he was transferred to another place (Pili, Ajuy, Iloilo) where he was found dead in
his cargo shorts with deformed finger as his identification (09/15/2003).

Brillantes, who is a police asset was discharged a state witness. (No direct evidence available, not convicted of moral
turpitude, not the most guilty)

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondents are guilty of separate crimes of arbitrary detention and murder (Final amendment)

RULING:

Yes, because their elements are separate and distinct. The murder would have still been committed without the
arbitrary detention of the three victims.

ELEMENTS: The offender is a public officer or employee; He detains a person; Detention is without legal grounds.

Vs. Art 267. Kidnapping and illegal detention? Private individual.

DUROPAN AND COLOMA V. PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 230825, JUNE 10, 2020
“Inaresto si Pacis nila Kgd Duropan at Tanod Coloma dahil nagka cut siya ng Nipa, tapos dinala siya sa Maribohoc Bohol
Police Station. Si Pacis ay member ng AIMANGO, whose members are authorized to cut, gather and weave nipa palms”

Justice is better served often by tempering it with mercy and a humble dose of common sense.

FACTS:

Petitioners delivered the respondent to proper authorities after seeing (inflagrante delicto) him cutting down Nipa palms
in Lincud, Bohol, which they suspected him of stealing from the alleged property of Cabalit.

They also averred that Pacis punched Duropan while they were questioning him.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the arrest made by the Petitioners is lawful

RULING:

No, they are guilty of illegal arrest under Art. 269 of the RPC.

ELEMENTS: The offender arrests or detains a person; that is to deliver him to proper authorities; and the arrest or
detention is not authorized by law or there is no reasonable ground to.

JUNEL ALASKA V. SPO2 GIL GARCIA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 228298, JUNE 23, 2021
Crim Case sa RTC e yung Robbery with homicide sa gasolinahan. Tapos sa Ombudsman (Ni-quash, dapat suspension lang
pending the decision of omnibus motion) e yung misconduct at Arbitrary Detention

Meron ding 2 suspects na nahuli pa sa PP Palawan kaso nakatakas

FACTS:
The case is about robbery and homicide committed by four armed men at Josefina Gasoline station in Brooke’s point,
Palawan. (It is actually also a case questioning the act of the Ombudsman in dismissing the admin and crim case filed by
the petitioners)

Lilia and Jovy allegedly sent messages to one of the cps captured by the culprits where someone called backed uintil the
police were able to trace its exact location. Thereafter, the arrest of petitioners (Alaska who is talking with Jovy thru cp).

They were charged with robbery with homicide in the RTC. Prior to arraignment, they filed an omnibus motion the effect
of warrantless arrest and lack of probable cause in filing the information.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the conduct of warrantless arrest was legal

RULING:

No, the arrest and indictment of the accused was of no legal bases. It may even be implied that the evidence was
fabricated to support the arrest. Police officers were actually not sure of the personality of the perpetrators and even
their numbers.

Sec. 20 of RA 6670 – the office of the ombudsman may not conduct necessary investigation of ay administrative or
omission complained of if it believes that, (1) The complainant has an adequate remedy in another judicial or quasi-J
body.

Jurisprudence provides that prejudicial question may be applied without its two strict elements, where the resolution of
issue in one tribunal is determinative of the case before the other tribunal.

JOSE MIGUEL ARROYO V. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. NO. 210488, JANUARY 27, 2020
Bumili ng helicopter ang PNP sa Manila Aerospace corporation. Pero yung dalawa e hindi brand new at dating
pagmamay ari ni Arroyo. May conspiracy raw among Arroyo, De Vera and other officials of PNP

FACTS:

The case is about the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause and filing a charge against petitioner for violation of RA
3019 (Anti-graft and corrupt Practice Act)

Arroyo alleges that he is not the owner of the helicopters and that he as well, already divested himself of all shares
(assigned to Araneta) in Arroyo Inc. (Sa deed of assignment e proxy lang nakalagay. 2001 yun, 2010 ni-repurchase din
niya shares)

Po, owner of LIONAIR and Asian Spirit was the one who sold the helicopter to PNP, but alleged that he remitted the
proceeds to Arroyo. The consent of petitioner was also sought by Po with respect to the supply of helicopters for the
Philippine National Police.

Petitioner instructed him to register the helicopters under the name of Asian Spirit only for tax purposes.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Ombudsman committed GAD in finding probable cause against petitioner. (Case in Sandiganbayan)

RULING:

No, the determination was based on the evidence presented. The determination of probable cause during preliminary
investigation is summary and manner and the technicalities of rules of evidence is not applied.

A review of the records of the case shows that the findings of the Ombudsman, as affirmed by the Sandiganbayan, are
neither tainted with malice nor are they mere speculations and surmises.
 II. DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF DETAINED PERSONS T PROPER JUDICIAL
AUTHORITIES (ART. 125)
JASPER AGBAY V. HON. DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR MILITARY ET AL., GR NO. 134503, JULY 03, 1999
“Manipulated to finger Ms. Gicarayara while on board a tricy. Ni-detain ng mga pulis dahil may issue si MCTC judge na
“Detention during the pendency of the case”

“Wala rind daw karapatan ang Deputy Ombudsman for the military sa case dahil civilian ang PNP. Ombudsman is a
civilian office (may refer cases involving non-military personnel; it is the protector of the people”

FACTS:

Petitioner was arrested and detained at the Liloan Police Station on 7 September 1997 for an alleged violation of R.A.
7610 (Anti-Child Abuse) which carries an afflictive penalty (RT-RP). (36hours)

Mother of the private complainant filed complaint to the MCTC on Sept. 08, barely 20hours from the time petitioner was
arrested.

Petitioner now contends that the MCTC has no authority to issue the commitment order and thus, the period under Art.
125 of the RPC was not interrupted. RTC daw ang may jurisdiction.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the filing of the complaint with the MCTC constitutes delivery to a “proper judicial authority” as
contemplated by Art. 125 of the RPC.

RULING:

Yes. While a municipal court judge may conduct preliminary investigations (not judicial authority daw kasi) as an
exception to his normal judicial duties, he still retains the authority to issue an order of release or commitment.

As such, upon the filing of the complaint with the MCTC, there was already compliance with the very purpose and intent
of Art. 125.

REP. LAGMAN ET AL., V. HON. SALVADOR MEDIALDEA ET AL., GR NOS. 231658/231771/231774 | JULY, 04,
2017 | SEE SERENO DISSENTING OPINION
Nagdeclare ng Martial Law (suspended W of HC) sa buong Mindanao. Kaso: Maute (Marawi/Lanao Del Sur), BIFF sa
Maguindanao, Abu Sayyaf mostly from Sulu

Greater powers are needed only when less intrusive measures appear to be ineffective

Since the privilege of the writ of  habeas corpus  is suspended under Proclamation No. 216, Section 18, Article VII of the
Constitution mandates that all persons arrested or detained for rebellion or offenses directly connected with invasion
shall be judicially charged within three days; otherwise they shall be released.

FACTS:

Duterte declared ML in the whole of Mindanao on May 23, 2017 for a period not exceeding 60days. Proc. 216
DISSENT OF SERENO: Only Lanao Del sur, Sulu and Maguindano

RA 9372 (Human Security Act), detention should not exceed 3days from the time a person is taken into custody.
In case of warrantless arrest, may be more than 3days with written approval of proper authorities (CHR
commissioners/judges)

Other Crimes: Warrantless arrest (12/18/36) – Art II, Sec. 12, Par 1 & 2.. right to be informed… no torture…
RA 7438 – Rights of person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation; Duties of Public officers

ISSUE:

Whether or not, ML shall cover the whole area of Mindanao.

Whether or not there is a sufficiency of the factual basis…

RULING:

Majority. Yes, there are linkages among the acts committed in various places in Mindanao.

Sereno Dissenting: Yes, insofar as it covers only the provinces of Lanao Del Sur, Sulu and Maguindanao.
SORIA AND BISTA V. HON. DESIERTO, HEAD OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN |GR NO.
153524-25 | JANUARY 31, 2005 | CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Ni-aresto dahil sa illegal possession of fire arms a day before (8:30pm) May 14, 2001 election. Correctional ang penalty
(18hrs).

6:30pm ng May 14, na release si Soria, 22hrs lapsed. Na detain pa si Bista hanggang June 08 (26days) dahil sa may
pending siyang kaso BP Plg. 6 (possession of bladed, blunt, pinted..weapons)

FACTS:

Petitioners were arrested at 8:30pm of May 13, 2001. The informations were filed in court at 4:30pm of May 15, 2001.

May 15 at 2pm, nakapag post bail si Bista pero may pending case pa kasi siya.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Ombudsman erred in ruling to dismiss the complaint filed by the petitioner for violation of Art. 125
of the RPC

RULING:

No. Based on applicable laws and jurisprudence, an election day or a special holiday, should not be included in the
computation of the period prescribed by law for the filing of complaint/information in courts in cases of warrantless
arrests, it being a "no-office day." (Medina vs. Orosco)

The duty of the detaining officers is deemed complied with upon the filing of the complaints. Further action, like
issuance of a Release Order, then rests upon the judicial authority (People v. Acosta)

III. VIOLATION OF DOMICILE

GEROCHE ET AL., V. PEOPLE | GR NO. 179080 | NOVEMBER 26, 2014 | PERALTA, J.
Sila Kapitan at dalawang CAFGU pinasok bahay ni Mallon na tinitirhan ni Limbag. Sinira and pintuan at binugboig si
Limbag, pagkatapos kinuha pa airgun niya

FACTS.

Petitioners were convicted of Less Serious Injuries under Art. 265 of the RPC on a decision of RTC Kidapawan City,
Cotabato. (They failed to prove that the offenders are public officers.

Petitioners appealed to CA who set aside the decision of RTC and convicted them of Violation of Domicile under Art. 128
of the RPC. (They made a judicial admission that one is a Brgy. Captain and the other two are CAFGU members.

Petitioners’ MR was denied, hence, the petition. (They contend that their acquittal in the offense of Less Serious Injuries
and conviction of Violation of Domicile constitute double jeopardy which violated their constitutional right to due
process

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioners can be held liable under Art. 128 of the RPC, despite acquittal on the crime of LSI which
now constitute to double jeopardy

RULING:

Yes. An appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review on any question including one not raised by the
parties.

When an accused appeals from the sentence of the trial court, he or she waives the constitutional safeguard against
double jeopardy and throws the whole case open to the review of the appellate court, which is then called upon to
render such judgment as law and justice dictate.

ELEMENTS: Offender is a public officer or employee; he is not authorized by judicial order to enter the dwelling and/or
to make a search for papers and for other effects.

CARPIO V. PEOPLE | GR NO. L-64349 | May 27, 1988 | NARVASA, J.

Pinasok raw ni Kapitan Carpio bahay nila Corazon Abalos at hinahanap si Mundong na siyang nanira sa bahay nila
kapitan

FACTS:
That on March 13, 1982, petitioner allegedly conducted illegal search inside the dwelling of Corazon Abalos without any
justifiable order. He was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of such alleged intrusion.

SG brief: (March 14)Petitioner admonished Reyaldo Abalos for making a show out of his bolo. Unable to retaliate
physically after being reprimanded, Abalos and company abetted by Pat. Cruz, proceeded to the petitioner’s house and
destroyed his store with a crowbar and hacked his house, with petitionenr trembling in fear inside the house and was
even threatened to be killed by them.

Thereafter, petitioner and some residents sought the assistance of Sgt. Perez who accompanied them to the house of
complainant to arrest her husband, Reynaldo. Corazon refused them entry and even uttered defamatory words. Unable
to arrest him, they went to the police station and entered what happened in the police blotter.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner is guilty of the crime of Violation of Domicile under Art. 128 of the RPC.

RULING:

No. The alleged intrusion of Carpio on the day prior to the riot event is not conceivable. Corazon’s accusation is a
concocted one. Not only is her evidence belied by the proofs of the defense, inclusive of the testimony of impartial,
objective persons, it also makes no sense, since it describes a search for a friend of her husband and an illegal entry into
her house for that precise purpose by the barangay chairman, who had no conceivable reason for doing so on that day.

Sgt. Reyes testified that when they went to the house of Corazon to look for a certain Mundong, Pat. Cruz who is in front
of the house told them that Mundong already left the place. They did not enter the house of Corazon Abalos. Instead he
advised the accused to lodge a complaint in Station 2

ARTICLE 127 - EXPULSION

MARCOS V. MANGLAPUS| GR No. 88211| 10/27/1989| EN BANC
Di ni allow ni Pres. Aquino yung return ng Marcoses sa Pinas dahil daw may threat ng national security and safety

Whatever Power inherent to the gov’t is neither legislative not judicial has to be executive. (It is more than the sum of
specific powers enumerated in the consti)

FACTS:

This petition for mandamus and prohibition asks the Courts to order the respondents to issue travel documents to Mr.
Marcos and the immediate members of his family and to enjoin the implementation of the President's decision to bar
their return to the Philippines.

where the court held that Pres Aquino did not act arbitrarily or with GAD prohibiting the return of Marcos and his family
which would pose a threat to national interest and welfare.

On 09/28/1989, former Pres. Marcos died in Hawaii. Nagkaron ng MR which was also denied for lack of merit on
10/27/1989.

Petitioners invoke their right enshrined under the Art III, Sections 1 and 6 of the 1987 consti, as well under Art. II
(Doctrine of Incorporation) as pertains to UDHR and ICCP’s citation of right to travel and abode and to return to one’s
country of birth.

Respondents argue for the primacy of the right of the State to national security over individual rights under Art. II
Sections 4 and 5. (Serve and protect people; maintenance of peace and order)

Also, the right to return to one's country is not among the rights specifically guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, but it is our
well-considered view that the right to return may be considered, as a generally accepted principle of international law
and, under our Constitution, is part of the law of the land

ISSUE:

Whether or not in the exercise of the powers granted by the Constitution, the President may prohibit the Marcoses from
returning to the Philippines

RULING:

Yes. Although not expressly enumerated under the consti, but in order to promote public welfare and order, whatever
power is not legislative or judicial, is an executive power (Residual Power)
The President has determined that the destabilization caused by the return of the Marcoses would wipe away the gains
achieved during the past few years and lead to total economic collapse.

ARTICLE 128 – VIOLATION OF DOMICILE

REPUBLIC V. SANDIGANDBAYAN| GR NO. 104768| 07/21/2003| CARPIO, J.
Ni raid ng PCGG bahay ni Dimaano (mistress ni Ramas, retired AFP) at kinuha armalite at ammunitions, pati money,
jewelry, communication instruments at land titles na wala naman sa search warrant

FACTS:

After the success of EDSA revolution Feb 22-25, 1986, Pres. Aquino created PCGG thru EO 1 to recover all the ill-gotten
wealth of former Pres Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close associates.

Respondent Ramas is said to be a subordinate of Marcos and suspected to that the certain assets, properties (land,
house, comm equipment/facilities) and monies confiscated in the house of his alleged mistress, Dimaano are part of
those ill-gotten wealth as it is ot proportionate to his salary as commanding general of PhilArmy.

Respondent however failed to prove by evidence that Ramas was a subordinate of Marcos aside from his mere position
in the military.

There are only 2 situations in EO 1 where the PCGG can conduct investigation: 1) recovery of ill-gotten wealth by the
Marcos and cronies; 2) The Pres assigned the inves of cases of Graft and Corruption to the PCGG. (No showing it was
assigned by the Pres)

The interregnum that lasted until March 24, 1986 suspended the bill of rights in 1973. However, the ICCP and UDHR is
still applicable as part of the generally accepted principles of international law and therefore, binding on the State.
Sequestration orders are therefore not valid?

ISSUE:

Whether or not the search and seizure of things in Dimaano’s residence is valid during the interregnum?

RULING:

No. ICCP and UDHR is still binding. (Justice Puno Separate Opinion)