MODULE 2

I. Title Two: CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE

STATE

Under this title, the offenders are public officers, except as to the
last crime – offending the religious feelings under Article 133, which refers
to any person. The public officers who may be held liable are only those
acting under supposed exercise of official functions, albeit illegally. But
private persons may also be liable under this title as when a private
person conspires with a public officer. What is required is that the
principal offender must be a public officer. Thus, if a private person
conspires with a public officer, or becomes an accessory or accomplice,
the private person also becomes liable for the same crime. But a private
person acting alone cannot commit the crimes under Article 124 to 132 of
this title.

A. Chapter One: ARBITRARY DETENTION OR EXPULSION,

VIOLATION OF DWELLING, PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION, AND
DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL MEETINGS AND CRIMES AGAINST
RELIGIOUS WORSHIP

1. Section One. - Arbitrary detention and expulsion

Article 124. Arbitrary detention.

Any public officer or employee who, without legal grounds, detains a person,
shall suffer;

1. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional

in its minimum period, if the detention has not exceeded three days;
2. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if
the detention has continued more than three but not more than fifteen days;
3. The penalty of prision 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:
a. That the offender is a public officer or employee (whose
official duties include the authority to make an arrest and detain
persons; jurisdiction to maintain peace and order).

b. That he detains a person (actual restraint).

c. That the detention was without legal grounds (cannot be

committed if with warrant).

Detention: when a person is placed in confinement or there is a

restraint on his person.

Only those public officers whose official duties carry with it the authority to
make an arrest and detain persons can be guilty of this crime. So, if the
offender does not possess such authority, the crime committed by him is
illegal detention.
 Though the elements specify that the offender be a public officer or
employee, private individuals who conspire with public officers can also be
liable.

In a case decided by the Supreme Court a Barangay Chairman who

unlawfully detains another was held to be guilty of the crime of arbitrary
detention. This is because he is a person in authority vested with the
jurisdiction to maintain peace and order within his barangay. In the
maintenance of such peace and order, he may cause the arrest and
detention of troublemakers or those who disturb the peace and order
within his barangay. But if the legal basis for the apprehension and
detention does not exist, then the detention becomes arbitrary.

Legal grounds for the detention of any person:

a. commission of a crime
b. violent insanity or other ailment requiring compulsory confinement
of the patient in a hospital
c. escaped prisoner

When the peace officers acted in good faith even if the three (3) grounds
mentioned above are not obtaining, there is no Arbitrary Detention.

Without legal grounds:

a. he has not committed any crime or no reasonable ground of
suspicion that he has committed a crime
b. not suffering from violent insanity or any other ailment requiring
compulsory confinement in a hospital

Grounds for warrantless arrest:

a. Crime is about to be, is being, has been committed in his presence
b. Officer must have probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts and circumstances that the person probably
committed the crime

For escaped prisoner – no need for warrant

Example: Y was killed by unknown assailant. Officers got a tip and arrested
X. X voluntarily admitted to the officers that he did it although he was not
asked. X was detained immediately. According to the SC, there was NO
arbitrary detention. Why? Because once X made a confession, the officers
had a right to arrest him.

Arbitrary detention can be committed thru simple imprudence or

negligence. (People vs. Misa)

Distinction between arbitrary detention and illegal detention

1. In arbitrary detention --

The principal offender must be a public officer. Civilians cannot commit

the crime of arbitrary detention except when they conspire with a public
officer committing this crime, or become an accomplice or accessory to
the crime committed by the public officer; and

The offender who is a public officer has a duty which carries with it the
authority to detain a person.
 2. In illegal detention --

The principal offender is a private person. But a public officer can commit
the crime of illegal detention when he is acting in a private capacity or
beyond the scope of his official duty, or when he becomes an accomplice
or accessory to the crime committed by a private person.

The offender, even if he is a public officer, does not include as his function
the power to arrest and detain a person, unless he conspires with a public
officer committing arbitrary detention.

Whether the crime is arbitrary detention or illegal detention, it is

necessary that there must be an actual restraint of liberty of the offended
party. If there is no actual restraint, as the offended party may still go to
the place where he wants to go, even though there have been warnings,
the crime of arbitrary detention or illegal detention is not committed.
There is either grave or light threat.

However, if the victim is under guard in his movement such that there is
still restraint of liberty, then the crime of either arbitrary or illegal
detention is still committed.

Distinction between arbitrary detention and unlawful arrest

(1)As to offender

In arbitrary detention, the offender is a public officer possessed with

authority to make arrests.

In unlawful arrest, the offender may be any person.

(2)As to criminal intent

In arbitrary detention, the main reason for detaining the offended party is
to deny him of his liberty.

In unlawful arrest, the purpose is 1) to accuse the offended party of a

crime he did not commit; 2) to deliver the person to the proper authority;
and 3) to file the necessary charges in a way trying to incriminate him.

When a person is unlawfully arrested, his subsequent detention is without

legal grounds.

Article 125. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the

proper judicial authorities.

The penalties provided in the next preceding article shall be imposed upon the
public officer or employee who shall detain any person for some legal ground
and shall fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within
the period of; twelve (12) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by light
penalties, or their equivalent; eighteen (18) hours, for crimes or offenses
punishable by correctional penalties, or their equivalent and thirty-six (36)
hours, for crimes, or offenses punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or
their equivalent. In every case, the person detained shall be informed of the
cause of his detention and shall be allowed upon his request, to communicate
and confer at any time with his attorney or counsel. (As amended by E.O. Nos.
59 and 272, Nov. 7, 1986 and July 25, 1987, respectively).
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a public officer or employee
b. That he has detained a person for some legal grounds
c. That he fails to deliver such person to the proper judicial
authority within:
d.
1. 12 hours, if detained for crimes/offenses punishable by light
penalties, or their equivalent
2. 18 hours, for crimes/offenses punishable by correctional
penalties, or their equivalent or
3. 36 hours, for crimes/offenses punishable by capital
punishment or afflictive penalties, or their equivalent

Article 125 covers situations wherein the person detained has been
arrested without a warrant but his arrest is nonetheless lawful. It is a
felony committed by omission because of the failure of the offender to
deliver the detained person to the proper judicial authority within 12
hours, 18 hours and 36 hours as the case may be.

At the beginning, the detention is legal since it is in the pursuance of a

lawful arrest. However, the detention becomes arbitrary when the period
thereof exceeds 12, 18 or 36 hours, as the case may be, depending on
whether the crime is punished by light, correctional or afflictive penalty or
their equivalent.

Really means delay in filing necessary information or charging of

person detained in court.

May be waived if a preliminary investigation is asked for.

Under the Revised Rules of Court, when the person arrested is arrested for
a crime which gives him the right to preliminary investigation and he
wants to avail his right to a preliminary investigation, he would have to
waive in writing his rights under Article 125 so that the arresting officer
will not immediately file the case with the court that will exercise
jurisdiction over the case. If he does not want to waive this in writing, the
arresting officer will have to comply with Article 125 and file the case
immediately in court without preliminary investigation. In such case, the
arrested person, within five days after learning that the case has been
filed in court without preliminary investigation, may ask for preliminary
investigation. In this case, the public officer who made the arrest will no
longer be liable for violation of Article 125.

Does not contemplate actual physical delivery but at least there

must be a complaint filed. Duty complied with upon the filing of the
complaint with the judicial authority (courts, prosecutors – though
technically not a judicial authority, for purposes of this article, he’s
considered as one.)

Delivery of detained person consists in making charge of filing a compliant

against the prisoner with the proper judicial authority. It does not involve
the physical delivery of the prisoner before the judge (Sayo vs. Chief of
Police).
 The filing of the information in court does not cure illegality of
detention. Neither does it affect the legality of the confinement under
process issued by the court.

To escape from this, officers usually ask accused to execute a waiver

which should be under oath and with assistance of counsel. Such waiver is
not violative of the accused constitutional right.

What is length of waiver? Light offense – 5 days. Serious and less

serious offenses – 7 to 10 days. (Judge Pimentel)

Article does not apply when arrest is via a warrant of arrest

Q. Within what period should a police officer who has arrested a person
under a warrant of arrest turn over the arrested person to the judicial
authority?

A. There is no time limit specified except that the return must be made
within a reasonable time. The period fixed by law under Article 125 does
not apply because the arrest was made by virtue of a warrant of arrest.

If offender is a private person, crime is illegal detention

Before Article 125 may be applied, it is necessary that initially, the

detention of the arrested person must be lawful because the arrest is
based on legal grounds. If the arrest is made without a warrant, this
constitutes an unlawful arrest. Article 269(unlawful arrest), not Article
125, will apply. If the arrest is not based on legal grounds, the arrest is
pure and simple arbitrary detention. Article 125 contemplates a situation
where the arrest was made without warrant but based on legal grounds.
This is known as citizen’s arrest.

A police officer has no authority to arrest and detain a person on the

basis merely of the complaint of the offended party, even if after
investigation he becomes convinced that the accused is guilty of the
offense charged. What the complainant may do is to file a complaint with
the court and ask for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.

Arbitrary Detention (124) Delay in Delivery of Detained

(125)
Detention is illegal from the Detention is legal in the beginning,
beginning. but illegality starts from the
expiration of the specified periods
without the persons detained having
been delivered to the proper judicial
authority.

Article 126. Delaying release.

The penalties provided for in Article 124 shall be imposed upon any public
officer or employee who delays for the period of time specified therein the
performance of any judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner or
detention prisoner, or unduly delays the service of the notice of such order to
said prisoner or the proceedings upon any petition for the liberation of such
person.
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a public officer or employee
 b. That there is a judicial or executive order for the release of a
prisoner or detention prisoner, or that there is a proceeding upon
a petition for the liberation of such person
c. That the offender without good reason delays:
1. the service of the notice of such order to the prisoner, or
2. the performance of such judicial or executive order for the
release of the prisoner, or
3. the proceedings upon a petition for the release of such person

Three acts are punishable:

a. delaying the performance of a judicial or executive order for the
release of a prisoner
b. delaying the service of notice of such order to said prisoner
c. delaying the proceedings upon any petition for the liberation of such
person

Wardens and jailers are the persons most likely to violate this
provision

Article 127. Expulsion.

The penalty of prision correccional shall be imposed upon any public officer or
employee who, not being thereunto authorized by law, shall expel any person
from the Philippine Islands or shall compel such person to change his
residence.

ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a public officer or employee
b. That he expels any person from the Philippines, or compels a
person to change his residence
c. That the offender is not authorized to do so by law

2 acts punishable:
a. by expelling a person from the Philippines
b. by compelling a person to change his residence

The essence of this crime is coercion but the specific crime is “expulsion”
when committed by a public officer. If committed by a private person, the
crime is grave coercion.

In the Philippines, only the President of the Republic has the power to
deport aliens whose continued stay in the country constitutes a menace to
the peace and safety of the community.

In the case of Filipino citizens, only the court, by final judgment, can order
a person to change his residence.

In Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil 778, the mayor of the City of Manila

wanted to make the city free from prostitution. He ordered certain
prostitutes to be transferred to Davao, without observing due processes
since they have not been charged with any crime at all. It was held that
the crime committed was expulsion.

Does not include undesirable aliens; destierro; or when sent to

prison

Questions & Answers

1. Certain aliens were arrested and they were just put on the first
aircraft which brought them to the country so that they may be out
without due process of law. Was there a crime committed?

Yes. Expulsion.

2. If a Filipino citizen is sent out of the country, what crime is

committed?

Grave coercion, not expulsion, because a Filipino cannot be deported.

This crime refers only to aliens.

If X (Filipino) after he voluntarily left, is refused re-entry – is

considered forcing him to change his address here

Threat to national security is not a ground to expel or change his

address.

2. Section Two. - Violation of domicile

Article 128. Violation of domicile.

The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed
upon any public officer or employee who, not being authorized by judicial
order, shall enter any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof, search
papers or other effects found therein without the previous consent of such
owner, or having surreptitiously entered said dwelling, and being required to
leave the premises, shall refuse to do so.

If the offense be committed in the night-time, or if any papers or effects not

constituting evidence of a crime be not returned immediately after the search
made by the offender, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its medium
and maximum periods.

ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a public officer or employee
b. That he is not authorized by judicial order to enter the dwelling
and/or to make a search therein for papers or other effects
c. That he commits any of the following acts:
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
3. refusing to leave the premises, after having surreptitiously
entered said dwelling and after having been required to leave
the same

Aggravating Circumstance (medium and maximum of penalty

imposed):
a. Offense committed at nighttime
b. Papers or effects not constituting evidence of a crime be not
returned immediately

In order to commit this crime, the entry must be against the will of the
owner.

The prohibition may be expressed or implied. If the signs “Do not enter”
and “Strangers keep out” are posted in front of the house or dwelling, then
the prohibition is express. If the door is locked, or even if it is open but
these are barriers to indicate the manifest intention of the owner to bar
strangers from entering, there is implied prohibition.

The primary object of the law is to preserve the privacy of abode of the
offended party. Hence, if the privacy is already lost, as when the offender
has been allowed by the owner to enter the dwelling together with other
persons, any subsequent change of attitude will not restore the privacy
which was already lost. When privacy is waived, trespass to dwelling or
violation of domicile cannot be committed.

If the offender who enters the dwelling against the will of the owner
thereof is a private individual, the crime committed is trespass to dwelling
(Art 280)

When a public officer searched a person “outside his dwelling”

without a search warrant and such person is not legally arrested for an
offense, the crime committed by the public officer is grave coercion, if
violence or intimidation is used (Art 286), or unjust vexation, if there is no
violence or intimidation (Art 287)

A public officer without a search warrant cannot lawfully enter the

dwelling against the will of the owner, even if he knew that someone in
that dwelling is having unlawful possession of opium

Under Rule 113(sec. 11) of the Revised Rules of Court, when a

person to be arrested enters a premise and closes it thereafter, the public
officer, after giving notice of an arrest, can break into the premise. He
shall not be liable for violation of domicile.

3 acts punishable:
a. person enters dwelling w/o consent or against the will

In the plain view doctrine, public officer should be legally entitled to be in

the place where the effects were found. If he entered the place illegally
and he saw the effects, doctrine inapplicable; thus, he is liable for violation
of domicile.

b. person enters and searches for papers and effects

Public officer who enters with consent searches for paper and effects
without the consent of the owner. Even if he is welcome in the dwelling, it
does not mean he has permission to search.

c. person entered secretly and refuses to leave after being asked to

The act punished is not the entry but the refusal to leave. If the offender
upon being directed to leave, followed and left, there is no crime of
violation of domicile. Entry must be done surreptitiously; without this,
crime may be unjust vexation. But if entering was done against the will of
the occupant of the house, meaning there was express or implied
prohibition from entering the same, even if the occupant does not direct
him to leave, the crime of violation of domicile is already committed
because it would fall in number 1.
 “Being authorized by law” – means with search warrant, to save
himself or do some things good for humanity

There are only three recognized instances when search without a warrant
is considered valid, and, therefore, the seizure of any evidence done is
also valid. Outside of these, search would be invalid and the objects
seized would not be admissible in evidence.
(1)Search made incidental to a valid arrest;
(2)Where the search was made on a moving vehicle or vessel such
that the exigency of he situation prevents the searching officer
from securing a search warrant;
(3)When the article seized is within plain view of the officer making
the seizure without making a search therefore.

Article 129. Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse

in the service of those legally obtained.

In addition to the liability attaching to the offender for the commission of any
other offense, the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding P1,000 pesos
shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall procure a
search warrant without just cause, or, having legally procured the same, shall
exceed his authority or use unnecessary severity in executing the same.

ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a public officer or employee
b. That he procures a search warrant
c. That there is no just cause

In order that a search warrant may be issued, it must be based on

probable cause in connection with one offense, to be determined by a
judge after examination under oath of the complainant and the witnesses
he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and
the persons or things to be seized.

Although void, the search warrant is entitled to respect because of

presumption of regularity. One remedy is a motion to quash the search
warrant, not refusal to abide by it. The public officer may also be
prosecuted for perjury, because for him to succeed in obtaining a search
warrant without a probable cause, he must have perjured himself or
induced someone to commit perjury to convince the court.

The true test of lack of just cause is whether the sworn statement filed in
support of the application for search warrant has been done in such a
manner that perjury could be charged and the affiant can be held liable for
making such false statement. The oath required refers to the truth of the
facts within the personal knowledge of the applicant and his witnesses.

ABUSE IN THE SERVICE OF WARRANT OR EXCEEDING AUTHORITY

OR USING UNNECESSARY 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
c. That he exceeds his authority or uses unnecessary severity in
executing the same
 Search warrant is valid for 10 days from its date

Search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name of the

People, signed by the judge and directed to a public officer, commanding
him to search for personal property described therein and bring it before
the court

No just cause – warrant is unjustified

Search – limited to what is described in the warrant, all details must

be with particularity

The officer exceeded his authority under the warrant – To illustrate, let us
say that there was a pusher in a condo unit. The PNP Narcotics Group
obtained a search warrant but the name of person in the search warrant
did not tally with the address stated. Eventually, the person with the
same name was found but in a different address. The occupant resisted
but the public officer insisted on the search. Drugs were found and seized
and occupant was prosecuted and convicted by the trial court. The
Supreme Court acquitted him because the public officers are required to
follow the search warrant to the letter. They have no discretion on the
matter. Plain view doctrine is inapplicable since it presupposes that the
officer was legally entitled to be in the place where the effects where
found. Since the entry was illegal, plain view doctrine does not apply.

Malicious warrant. Example. X was a respondent of a search warrant

for illegal possession of firearms. A return was made. The gun did not
belong to X and the witness had no personal knowledge that there is a gun
in that place.

Abuse examples:
a. X owner was handcuffed while search was going-on.
b. Tank was used to ram gate prior to announcement that a search
will be made. The search warrant is not a license to commit
destruction.
c. Persons who were not respondents were searched

Article 130. Searching domicile without witnesses.

The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods shall be
imposed upon a public officer or employee who, in cases where a search is
proper, shall search the domicile, papers or other belongings of any person, in
the absence of the latter, any member of his family, or in their default,
without the presence of two witnesses residing in the same locality.

ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a public officer or employee
b. That he is armed with a search warrant legally procured
c. That he searches the domicile, papers or other belongings of any
person
d. That the owner, or any member of his family, or two witnesses
residing in the same locality are not present

Order of those who must witness the search:

a. Homeowner
b. Members of the family of sufficient age and discretion
 c. Responsible members of the community (can’t be influenced by the
searching party)

Validity of the search warrant can be questioned only in 2 courts: 1)

where issued or 2) where the case is pending. Latter is preferred for
objective determination.

Article 130 has no application to search and seizure made on moving

vehicles because the application of this law is limited to dwelling and
personal properties such as papers and effects found therein.

There are searches and seizures which are authorized by law and which
can be done without the attendance of witnesses. For instance, the Tariff
and Customs Code authorizes persons with police authority under Sec.
2203, to enter; pass through or search any land, enclosure, warehouse,
store or building, not being used as a dwelling house; and to inspect,
search and examine any vessel or aircraft, and any trunk, package, box or
envelope, or any person on board, or to stop and search and examine any
vehicle, beast or person suspected of holding or conveying any dutiable or
prohibited article introduced into the Philippines contrary to law.

3. Section Three. - Prohibition, interruption and dissolution of

peaceful meetings

Article 131. Prohibition, interruption and dissolution of

peaceful meetings.

The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed

upon any public officer or employee who, without legal ground, shall prohibit
or interrupt the holding of a peaceful meeting, or shall dissolve the same.

The same penalty shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee who
shall hinder any person from joining any lawful association or from attending
any of its meetings.

The same penalty shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who
shall prohibit or hinder 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:
a. Offender is a public officer or employee
b. He performs any of the ff. acts:
1. prohibiting or interrupting, without legal ground the holding of a
peaceful meeting, or dissolving the same (e.g. denial of permit in arbitrary
manner).
2. hindering any person from joining any lawful association or from
attending any of its meetings.
3. 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

Two criteria to determine whether Article 131 would be violated:

(1)Dangerous tendency rule – applicable in times of national

unrest such as to prevent coup d’etat.
(2)Clear and present danger rule – applied in times of peace.
Stricter rule.
 If the offender is a private individual, the crime is disturbance of
public order (Art 153)

Meeting must be peaceful and there is no legal ground for

prohibiting, dissolving or interrupting that meeting

If in the course of the assembly the participants commit illegal acts

like oral defamation or inciting to sedition, a public officer or law enforcer
can stop or dissolve the meeting. The permit given is not a license to
commit a crime.

Meeting is subject to regulation

If the permit is denied arbitrarily, Article 131 is violated. If the officer

would not give the permit unless the meeting is held in a particular place
which he dictates defeats the exercise of the right to peaceably assemble,
Article 131 is violated.

Offender must be a stranger, not a participant, in the peaceful

meeting; otherwise, it’s unjust vexation

Interrupting and dissolving a meeting of the municipal council by a

public officer is a crime against the legislative body, not punishable under
this article

The person talking on a prohibited subject at a public meeting

contrary to agreement that no speaker should touch on politics may be
stopped

But stopping the speaker who was attacking certain churches in

public meeting is a violation of this article

Prohibition must be without lawful cause or without lawful authority

Those holding peaceful meetings must comply with local ordinances.

Example: Ordinance requires permits for meetings in public places. But if
police stops a meeting in a private place because there’s no permit, officer
is liable for stopping the meeting.

Distinctions between prohibition, interruption, or dissolution of peaceful

meetings under Article 131, and tumults and other disturbances, under
Article 153

(1)As to the participation

(2)of the public officer

In Article 131, the public officer is not a participant. As far as the

gathering is concerned, the public officer is a third party.

If the public officer is a participant of the assembly and he prohibits,

interrupts, or dissolves the same, Article 153 is violated if the same is
conducted in a public place.

(2)As to the essence of the crime

In Article 131, the offender must be a public officer and, without any legal
ground, he prohibits, interrupts, or dissolves a peaceful meeting or
assembly to prevent the offended party from exercising his freedom of
speech and that of the assembly to petition a grievance against the
government.

In Article 153, the offender need not be a public officer. The essence of
the crime is that of creating a serious disturbance of any sort in a public
office, public building or even a private place where a public function is
being held.

a. Section Four. - Crimes against religious worship

Article 132. Interruption of religious worship.

The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed

upon any public officer or employee who shall prevent or disturb the
ceremonies or manifestations of any religion.

If the crime shall have been committed with violence or threats, the penalty
shall be prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.

ELEMENTS:
a. That the officer is a public officer or employee
b. That religious ceremonies or manifestations of any religion are
about to take place or are going on
c. That the offender prevents or disturbs the same

Circumstance qualifying the offense: if committed with violence or

threats

Reading of Bible and then attacking certain churches in a public

plaza is not a ceremony or manifestation of religion, but only a meeting of
a religious sect. But if done in a private home, it’s a religious service

Religious Worship: people in the act of performing religious rites for

a religious ceremony; a manifestation of religion. Ex. Mass, baptism,
marriage

X, a private person, boxed a priest while the priest was giving homily
and while the latter was maligning a relative of X. Is X liable? X may be
liable under Art 133 because X is a private person.

When priest is solemnizing marriage, he is a person in authority,

although in other cases, he’s not.

Article 133. Offending the religious feelings.

The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in

its minimum period shall be imposed upon anyone who, in a place devoted to
religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony shall
perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.

ELEMENTS:
a. That the acts complained of were performed –
1. in a place devoted to religious worship, or (for this element, no
need of religious ceremony, only the place is material)
2. during the celebration of any religious ceremony
b. That the acts must be notoriously offensive to the feelings of the
faithful (deliberate intent to hurt the feelings)
c. The offender is any person
d. There is a deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the faithful,
directed against religious tenet

If in a place devoted to religious purpose, there is no need for an

ongoing religious ceremony

Example of religious ceremony (acts performed outside the

church). Processions and special prayers for burying dead persons but NOT
prayer rallies

Acts must be directed against religious practice or dogma or ritual

for the purpose of ridicule, as mocking or scoffing or attempting to
damage an object of religious veneration

There must be deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the faithful,

mere arrogance or rudeness is not enough

In determining whether an act is offensive to the feelings of the faithful,

the same must be viewed or judged from the standpoint of the offended
religion and not from the point of view of the offender (People vs. Baes,
68 Phil. 203).

Nature of Who are

CRIME If Element Missing
Crime Liable
Prohibition,
Interruption
Crime against
and Public
the If not by public officer =
Dissolution officers,
fundamental tumults
of Peaceful Outsiders
law of the state
Meeting
(131)
If by insider = unjust
vexation
Interruption Crime against
Public If not religious = tumult
of Religious the
officers, or alarms
Worship fundamental
Outsiders
(132) law of the state If not notoriously
offensive = unjust
vexation

Offending Public If not tumults = alarms

the officers, and scandal
Crime against
Religious private If meeting illegal at onset
public order
Feeling psersons, = inciting to sedition or
(133) outsiders rebellion