Criminal Law 2 - Amurao Notes

8/20/2019 Criminal Law 2 - Amurao Notes

1/226

CRIMINAL LAW IIBLOCK 1-K

AY 2011-2012

RECITATION AND LECTURE NOTESFROM THE CLASSES OF PROFESSOR MAXIMO AMURAO

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAWMENDIOLA, MANILA

In Loving Memory ofMarvin ‘Marvs’ P. Reglos –

Block mate, Brother and Friend


2/226

CRIMINAL LAW II

K notes

2

H I R Y U

K I M

I K

O

O K U B O

ART. 114TREASON

Q: who may commit treason?Filipinos and aliens residing within the country

Q: if the offender is a Filipino Citizen, where may he commit treason? Anywhere

Q: So Filipinos who commit treason abroad may be held criminally liable under Philippine laws?Yes

Q: Does this not violate the principle of territoriality?It does

Q: What is the principle of territoriality?

The penal laws of a State extend only as far as its territoryPhilippine penal laws punish crimes committed only within Philippine territory

Q: Is there a conflict between the principle of territoriality and the fact that a Filipino who commitstreason abroad may be liable under Philippine laws?Yes, there is.

Q: How would you then resolve the conflict? State your legal bases.1.

Under par.5, art.2 of the RPC, treason is a crime against national security. It falls within theexceptions to the doctrine of territoriality.

2.

Art.114 uses the phrase ‘Any Filipino citizen who levies war against the Philippines or adheres

to her enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the Philippines or elsewhere’

Q: What’s the principle behind the fact that a Filipino Citizen, as opposed to an alien, may be he ld liablefor treason even if he happens to commit it outside Philippine shores?

1.

Because treason is a crime against national security and the State2.

and his CITIZENSHIP requires him to owe permanent allegiance to his State

Q: As far as the alien is concerned, where may he commit treason?Only within the Philippines

Q: Why is that?Because the ‘Treason’ he commits is treason against the host state, and he may only commit it

during his actual residence within that state.

Q: Doesn’t an alien residing in the Philippines owe the state his allegiance, too? Yes, he does. But the allegiance he owes to the state is temporary.

Q: What do you mean by ‘temporary’? He only owes it to the state during his actual residence there, in return for the protection hereceives from the state.

Q: How long does he (the alien) have to stay in the Philippines in order to be held liable for theCommission of treason?

Any length of time would suffice for the liability to attach.

Q: Even if he stays for only a day and commits treason within that day?Yes, even then.

Q: But doesn’t ‘residence’ entail a longer period of time?


3/226

CRIMINAL LAW II

K notes

3

H I R Y U

K I M

I K

O

O K U B O

Not in this case. ‘Residence’ as contemplated by the provision on treason is not synonymous to‘residence’ contemplated by civil law. The alien may be held liable even if his ‘residence’ withinthe country is only for a day.

*NB: ‘residence’ here does not connote any definite length of time. The raison de etre of the law

is to make any alien who betrays the state liable. Theoretically, even if he stays for an hour, andcommits treason within that hour, he may still be held liable. What is meant by ‘residence’ is thestay of the alien within the country, during which stay he shares our resources, and theprotection afforded to us by the State.

Q: What if the alien was a former Japanese citizen when he committed treason, and then he becomesNaturalized. May he still be held liable?

Yes.

Q: How is treason committed?1.

By levying war against the government2.

By adhering to her (the Philippines’) enemies, giving them aid and comfort

Q: Treason in the first mode (Levying war). How is this committed?Through the assembling of persons for the purpose of delivering the government to a foreigncountry

Q: What are the elements of committing treason by levying war against the government?1.

There is an assembling of persons2.

The purpose is to execute a treasonable design against the government

Q: In levying war, should there be an actual military encounter with the government forces?Not necessarily. The mere assembly of persons for the purpose of executing a treasonable

design is already made punishable.

Q: Can this be committed by a single person?No. The law speaks of ‘men’. There is a presupposition of the plurality of offenders.

Q: Is it necessary that this assembly of men be armed?No, the law does not qualify.

Q: Supposing the Philippine government was at war with Japan. We were all unarmed inside thisclassroom and were discussing ways and means of effectively delivering the government into the handsof a foreign power. May we be held liable for treason?

Yes. There is compliance with all the elements of levying war against the government.

Q: Treason in the 2nd mode (adhering to the enemies and giving them aid and comfort), does the‘adherence’ have to be a physical act?

Yes, it does.

Q: What do you mean by ‘adhere’? Favouring the enemy either mentally, psychologically, or emotionally.

Q: If that’s the case, then you mean that mere adherence – the favouring of the enemy mentally – ispunishable?

No. Mere mental adherence is not punishable. The adherence has to be coupled with a physical,

overt act. Adherence is qualified by the phrase ‘giving them aid and comfort’.

Q: What do you mean by ‘giving them aid’? The act of strengthening or aiding to strengthen the enemyThe act of weakening or aiding to weaken the Philippines

*NB: note the bipolar consequence. You aid the enemy, you weaken our defence.


4/226

CRIMINAL LAW II

K notes

4

H I R Y U

K I M

I K

O

O K U B O

Q: Supposing that during the Japanese occupation, certain Filipinos were moving around, convincing thepeople that the principles of the Japanese government were better than those of the Philippines. Isthis treasonous?

No. There is only adherence in this case. Adherence and giving aid or comfort must concur to

consummate the crime of treason in the second mode.

Q: Supposing during that same occupation you were a merchant engaged in the selling of weapons. Youhad transactions with the Japanese involving those weapons. Is this treasonous?

Yes. Arming them augments their capability for war and is analogous to adhering to them and giving them aid or comfort.

Q: How is ‘adherence’ proven? It may be implied by the nature of the act.

Q: Suppose that you were engaged in the transportation business. Japanese hired your buses totransport their troops to another province. Are you liable?

Yes. The act directly strengthens the enemy.

Q: Suppose you were a rice dealer and the Japanese bought rice from you. Are you liable?No. The purpose here is purely commercial.

*NB: unless I exclusively supply it to them.

Q: Why not? Won’t the sell ing of rice to them operate to strengthen them? It will, but there is no adherence on my part. Aid or comfort must be extended to the enemies intheir capacity as enemies, not as regular or paying customers or individuals.

Q: And if you were supplying the Japanese troops with comfort women?I will not be liable. This does not aid them in war.

Q: Supposing you performed an act of duty in favour of the enemy government (i.e.: serving as anofficial under their regime), will you be liable?

It depends. If the position is a highly-responsible one (think: policy-determining), I am liable.If the duty contemplated is purely a ministerial one, I am not liable.

Q: In the prosecution for treason, what is necessary to secure a conviction?1.

The testimony of AT LEAST TWO witnesses to the SAME overt act or2.

The confession of the accused of his guilt in the commission of the crime

Q: How is compliance with the with the 2-witness rule achieved?1.

By the presentation of at least 2 witnesses who testify to the same overt act AND2.

These 2 witnesses’ testimonies must be lent credence by the court

*NB: If you present 2 witnesses, but only one is believed, there is no compliance. The tworequirements must concur.

Q: Is it necessary that those 2 witnesses testify to the same overt act?Yes

Q: Why? (Ah, the killer question. 3 rounds of shotgun recits for us here, mates. Be careful)

Because… 1.

The law requires it2.

The seriousness of the offense of treason and its corresponding afflictive penalties need tobe proven by evidence greater than proof beyond reasonable doubt.

3.

The crime of treason is a continuing crime composed of many acts4.

Treason is committed in time of war and under abnormal circumstances5.

To prevent to miscarriage of justice


5/226


6/226

CRIMINAL LAW II

K notes

6

H I R Y U

K I M

I K

O

O K U B O

*The following circumstances are inherent in treason and are therefore not aggravating: evidentpremeditation, abuse of superior strength and treachery.

*Treason is a war crime. It cannot be committed during times of peace. It is, however, not necessarythat there be a formal declaration of war.

*Treason cannot be proved by circumstantial evidence or by extra-judicial confessions

*There is no such thing as ‘attempted treason’. The mere attempt to commit it is punishable.

*Treason absorbs other common crimes committed in furtherance of its goals. It may not be complexedwith them.

ART. 115CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT TREASON

Q: What are the elements?a.

In the time of warb.

2 or more persons come to an agreement to – 1.

Levy war against the government2.

Adhere to the enemies and give them aid or comfortc.

They decide to commit it

Q: Can a foreigner be held liable for conspiracy or proposal to commit treason?Yes.

Q: Elements of Proposal to commit treasona.

In time of warb.

A person who has decided to levy war against the government, or to adhere to the enemiesto give them aid and comfort proposes its execution to some other person/s

NOTES:

*Mere agreement and decision to commit ~ consummates the crime

*Mere proposal, even without acceptance, is punishable too. If the other person accepts, the crime isalready conspiracy to commit treason.

ART. 116MISPRISION OF TREASON

Q: Does mere silence make a person criminally l iable?Generally, No.

Q: Are there any exceptions to the rule?Yes. When the law specifically provides.

Q: Why then is failure to disclose knowledge of a conspiracy to commit treason punishable?1.

Because the very existence of the state itself threatened2.

Because conspiracy to commit treason is mired in secrecy, hence the need for disclosure(and a mechanism to ensure disclosure).

Q: Why is there no punishment for failure to disclose knowledge of actual treason?Because in full blown treason, the overt acts are plain for the government to see.


7/226

CRIMINAL LAW II

K notes

7

H I R Y U

K I M

I K

O

O K U B O

Q: Will the two-witness rule apply to the prosecution of this crime?No. This is a distinct offence from that of reason.

Q: May a foreigner be held liable for misprision of treason?No. The offender must be a Filipino citizen owing full and permanent allegiance to the Republic.

Q: Does this violate the principle of generality?Yes, it does.

Q: What is the principle of generality? All persons within a state’s criminal jurisdiction are equally liable for acts committed against That state’s laws.

Q: How then would you resolve the conflict?The principle of generality has certain exceptions:1.

Treaties2.

The law of nations (international law)3.

Express provisions to this effect in our own laws

Q: What is concealed in misprision in treason?Knowledge of the conspiracy to commit treason

Q: Who are the authorities to whom this knowledge should be disclosed?Mayors, Judges, City Fiscals/Prosecutors

Q: Supposing you have knowledge of a conspiracy to commit treason. You did not disclose it to theauthorities because to your mind, they are all corrupt. You disclosed the information instead to theChief of Staff. Are you liable?

No. There is no intention to keep the secret. No criminal intent

Q: How soon should the disclosure be made?Within a reasonable period. The actual time depends on the sound discretion of the court.

Q: The accused is prosecuted for MT, it was alleged in the information that, being a Filipino citizen, heowed permanent allegiance to the Philippines and yet, having knowledge of persons who were armedand who performed acts with the view of overthrowing the government, he did not disclose the same.May he be held liable?

No. The knowledge he had was knowledge of full-blown treason already, and not a mereconspiracy.

Q: The accused is a resident of a city, has knowledge of a conspiracy to commit treason, but refused todisclose the same to the proper authorities because they are among the most corrupt. He disclosed hisknowledge to the AFP. Is he liable?

No. There was no intent to NOT disclose the information he had.

NOTES:

*Art.116 does not apply when the crime of treason is already committed because Art.116 speaks of‘knowledge of conspiracy against… xxx’

*The offender in Art.116 is punished as an accessory (penalty: 2 degrees lower than that for principals intreason), although he is a principal in the crime of misprision of treason.

*Art.116 is an exception to the rule that mere silence does not make a person criminally liable.


8/226

CRIMINAL LAW II

K notes

8

H I R Y U

K I M

I K

O

O K U B O

Art. 117ESPIONAGE

Q: How is this committed?1.

By entering without authority therefor, any warship, fort or naval or military establishment orreservation to obtain any information, plans, photographs or other data of a confidential naturerelative to the defense of the Philippines; or

2.

By disclosing to the representatives of a foreign nation the contents of the articles, data, orinformation referred to in par.1, art.117, which the offender had in his possession by reason ofthe public office he holds

Q: Under the 1st mode of commission, who may be held liable? Any person

Q: You mean to say that in this first manner of commission, liability is not conditioned by citizenship?Yes

Q: When is the crime consummated?When the offender has entered any of the enumerated places in par.1, art.117 and has taken thearticles, data or information with intent to gain the same

Q: Is it necessary that the offender possess intent to gain?Yes, intent is necessary. Refer to the phrasing: ‘for the purpose of… xxx’.

Q: Is it necessary that he succeeds?No, it isn’t. Mere entrance with purpose to obtain classified information is enough for liability toattach

Q: Supposing the US donated armaments, etc. to the RP for us to use against Malaysia. These arms werestored in a warehouse in Nueva Ecija. A newspaper reporter, without permission from the government,entered the place in order to take pictures. On his way out, he was apprehended. Is he liable?

Yes. The elements of espionage in the first mode are complete.

Q: What if he chartered a private helicopter to take aerial pictures?Liable.

Q: Under the RPC?No, the law that governs in this case is CA 616

Q: What if he climbed a tree to get a better view?Liable. (CA 616)

Q: Suppose a journalist who was accosted told the authorities that he only wanted to take pictures ofmodern war machines he previously read about in the Manila Bulletin?

No. The information he intends to obtain is no longer confidential. It has been declassified.(think: publication in a newspaper)

Q: What is the second manner of commission?By disclosing to the representatives of a foreign nation the contents of the articles, data orinformation referred to in par.1, art.117, which the offender had in his possession by reason of

his public office.

Q: A high-ranking official has possession of classified information. In order to impress a foreign beautycandidate, he shared the information with her. May he be criminally liable under the second manner ofcommission?

Yes. The law speaks of ‘representatives’. It makes no distinction as to what kind ofrepresentative. A foreign beauty candidate is a representative of her nation.


9/226

CRIMINAL LAW II

K notes

9

H I R Y U

K I M

I K

O

O K U B O

Art. 118INCITING TO WAR OR GIVING MOTIVES FOR REPRISALS

Q: How is this committed?The offender performs unlawful or unauthorized acts, and such acts provoke or give occasionfor a war involving or liable to involve the Philippines or expose Filipino citizens to reprisals intheir persons and property.

Q: Can you give an exampleBurning another country’s flag, if the act results in a war that involves or is liable to involve thePhilippines

Q: The US is involved in a war. Suppose the Philippines trained a battalion of soldiers to be deployed inIraq; if the person training those soldiers has no authority to do so, will he be liable?

No. He becomes liable if he is authorized to train those soldiers.

Art. 119VIOLATION OF NEUTRALITY

Q: How is this committed?There is a war in which the Philippines is involved, there is a regulation issued by competentauthority for the purpose of enforcing neutrality, and the offender violates such regulation.

Q: Can you give an example

Q: What is neutrality?The state of taking no part in a contest of arms going on between others.

A condition of abstinence from armed hostilities.

Q: Is it necessary for there to be a government regulation?Yes.

Q: Are you saying it is the regulation that you actually violate?Yes.

Q: So you mean that without a regulation, a person will not be l iable under this provision?

Yes.

Q: Whose neutrality is violated when a person commits this crime?The Philippines’ neutrality.

Q: Who declares our neutrality?Congress.

Art. 120CORRESPONDENCE WITH HOSTILE COUNTRY

Q: How is this committed?It is in time of war in which the Philippines is involved, the offender makes correspondence withan enemy country or a territory occupied by enemy troops; and the correspondence is eithera)prohibited by Government; b)carried on in ciphers or conventional signs; or c)containingnotice or information which might be useful to the enemy


10/226

CRIMINAL LAW II

K notes

10

H I R Y U

K I M

I K

O

O K U B O

Q: Supposing the Phils is at war with Malaysia. Mindanao is under control of Malaysia. You left yourboyfriend in Davao, you wrote a letter to him and sent it. The government previously restricted all mailinto Mindanao. Will you be liable?

Yes.

Q: Supposing you wrote a letter with a heart and an arrow drawn on the paper. No words were used.Will you be liable?

Yes. ‘Ciphers and conventional signs’.

Q: Is intent material here?No.

Q: May a person be held liable even if the correspondence contains innocent matters?Even if the matters are innocent, so long as it is prohibited by the government and you send it orcommit the prohibited act, you are l iable.

Q: Why is intent immaterial when the government has expressly prohibited correspondence?Because of the possibility that some information that might prove useful to the enemy might beunwittingly revealed.

Q: So it is the possibility of revealing that information that is sought to be pre-empted?Yes.

NOTE:

*If ciphers were used, there is no need for prohibition

Art. 121FLIGHT TO ENEMY’S COUNTRY

Q: How is this committed?There is a war in which the Philippines is involved; the offender must be owing allegiance to theGovernment; the offender attempts to flee or to go to enemy country; that going is prohibitedby competent authority.


Q: What consummates the crime?

The mere attempt to flee

Q: Who may be held liable?Persons owing allegiance to the government

Q: May resident aliens be held liable?Yes. ‘Allegiance’ may be temporary or permanent. The law does not qualify.

Q: Supposing you fly to enemy country. The act is not prohibited by the government. May you be liable?No. There must be prohibition by competent authority.

Q: So you mean the prohibition defines the crime?Yes.

Art. 122PIRACY IN GENERAL AND MUTINY ON THE HIGH SEASOR IN PHILIPPINE WATERS


11/226

CRIMINAL LAW II

K notes

11

H I R Y U

K I M

I K

O

O K U B O


By attacking or seizing a vessel on the high seas or in PH waters2.

By seizing in the vessel while on the high seas or in PH waters the whole or part of its cargo,its equivalent or the personal belongings of its complement or passengers

Q: What is piracy?Robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas or in PH waters without lawful authority, anddone with animo furandi and in the spirit of universal hostility.

Q: Where may piracy be committed?On the High Seas or in PH waters

Q: What are the 2 kinds of piracy punished by our laws?1.

Piracy under the RPC (art. 122)2.

Piracy under Presidential Decree 532

Q: Under the RPC, may piracy be committed by a stranger?Yes.

Q: Under the same law, may it be committed by a crew member of passenger?Yes.

Q: Define ‘high seas’ Any waters on the sea coast which are without the boundaries of the low-water marks althoughthose waters may be in the jurisdictional limits of a foreign country.

Q: Is the term synonymous with ‘international waters’? No.

Q: What are included in the definition of ‘Philippine waters’? All bodies of water such as but not limited to seas, bays, gulfs around, between and connectingeach of the islands of the Philippine archipelago, irrespective of their depth or breadth overwhich the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction

Q: What is a vessel? Any craft used for the transport of passengers and cargo from one place to another through PHwaters, including all kinds and types of vessels or boats used in fishing (sec.3, PD 532)

Q: May piracy be committed in the Pasig river?

Yes

Q: Suppose you were on board a banca in Burnham lake (Baguio City); you took out your phone and aperson suddenly seized it from you. What crime was committed?

Piracy under the RPC (because the offender was a stranger)

Q: Is the banca considered a vessel?Yes

Q: Is Burnham lake considered a body of water?Yes

Q: Even if it happens to be man-made?Yes

Q: Is the phone personal property?Yes

Q: The person who took your phone, was he a member of the complement or a passenger?


12/226

CRIMINAL LAW II

K notes

12

H I R Y U

K I M

I K

O

O K U B O

He was a stranger

Q: May piracy be committed in the Estero de San Miguel, beneath the Mendiola Bridge?Yes

Q: Suppose the estero was full of garbage, may piracy still be committed?No, the waters must at least be navigable

Q: On a banca from Mandaluyong to Makati, one of the passengers was a hold-upper, in the middle ofthe river, he announced a hold-up and demanded that you give your belongings to him. What crime didhe commit?

Piracy under PD 532

Q: On a ship from Manila to Cebu: while waiting for the departure of the ship, a person suddenlyboarded the ship, pointed a knife at you, demanded that you surrender your belongings, after which, he

got off. What crime was committed?Piracy under RPC

Q: Even if the ship was not sailing then?Yes

Q: What if it was a fellow passenger who took your belongings?The crime is piracy under the RPC

Q: Supposing you are in a floating casino in Manila Bay. While you were there, a person pointed arevolver at you and demanded that you give him your winnings. What crime was committed?

Piracy under the RPC and PD 532

Q: Who decides which crime is to be alleged in the information sheet?The prosecutor / fiscal

Q: So you file both and let the fiscal decide?Yes

Q: Supposing Indonesian pirates committed the crime in Malaysian waters. They fled and encounteredengine trouble. They were brought by the Philippine Coastguard to Manila. May they be prosecuted in aRegional Trial Court in Manila?

Yes

*NB: Piracy is a crime against the law of nations and pirates are hostes humani generis (enemiesof the human race)

Q: When is piracy qualified?1.

Whenever the pirates have seized a vessel by boarding or firing upon the same;2.

Whenever they have abandoned their victims without any means of saving themselves;3.

Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape


Q: Is there a complex crime of piracy with rape?None. Qualified piracy is a separate crime in itself

RA 6235THE ANTI-HIJACKING LAW

Q: What are the punishable acts, as far as an aircraft of Philippine registry is concerned?


13/226


14/226

CRIMINAL LAW II

K notes

14

H I R Y U

K I M

I K

O

O K U B O

Q: Under the same circumstances, except that the plane was one of PAL. Is the accused liable forhijacking?

No

Q: What are the other punishable acts under RA 6235?

Shipping, Loading, Carrying in any passenger aircraft operating as a public utility within thePhilippines any explosive, flammable, corrosive or poisonous substance or material

Q: May the offenders still be held liable for shipping/loading/carrying any explosive… material if they didso on a chartered plane?

Yes

Q: Why?The character of a public utility is NOT changed by a mere contract (i.e. the fact that it waschartered). It remains a public utility.

Q: Why won’t an offender be held l iable if the acts were to be committed on a private aircraft?Because there is no threat to innocent passengers, and this threat is what the law seeks toavoid. (if you do this on your own plane, go ahead. Pakamatay ka mag isa – Atty. A)

Q: What are the qualifying circumstances under this special law?-When the offender has fired upon the pilot, members of passengers-When the crime was accompanied by murder, homicide, serious physical injuries or rape

ART. 123QUALIFIED PIRACY

Q: What are the qualifying circumstances?1.

Whenever the offenders have seized a vessel by boarding or firing upon the same2.

Whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims without means of saving themselves3.

Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape

PEOPLE v. CATANTAN278 SCRA 761Bellosillo, J.

FACTS:Emiliano Catantan was found guilty of piracy for having attacked Eugene and Juan Pilapil, Jr.,who were then fishing. He allegedly boarded the Pilapils’ pump boat, levelled his gun at Eugene,struck the latter on the cheek and ordered Juan, Jr. to lie down. When they were far out intosea, the engine stalled and the brothers were directed to row the boat. They saw another boatand Catantan ordered them to approach it. He boarded the new boat, along with his co-accused,Ursal. The outrigger of the new boat caught the front part of the Pilapils’ boat and Catantankicked it hard, causing the prow to break. The Pilapil brothers ended in the sea, where theyswam together, clinging to their boat. Catantan argues that his actions merely constitutedGrave Coercion and not Piracy; and that in order for Piracy to be committed, it is essential thatthere is an attack and seizure of a vessel. He claims that he and Ursal merely boarded thePilapils’ boat and when aboard, used force to compel the brothers to take them to some otherplace. Catantan insists that he and Ursal had no intention of permanently taking possession or

depriving the Pilapils of their boat.

ISSUE:Did the actions of Catantan constitute Piracy as defined by Section 2, par.(d) of PresidentialDecree No. 532?

HELD:


15/226

CRIMINAL LAW II

K notes

15

H I R Y U

K I M

I K

O

O K U B O

YES. Sec.2, par.(d) of PD 532 defines piracy as ‘any attack upon or seizure of any vessel, or thetaking away of the whole or part thereof or its cargo, equipment, or the personal belongings ofthe complement or passengers, irrespective of the value thereof, by means of violence againstor intimidation of persons, including a passenger or member of the complement of said vessel inPhilippine waters.’ The compulsion on the Pilapils was obviously part of the act of seizing the

boat. Catantan and Ursal abandoned the Pilapils only because their pump boat broke down andit was necessary to transfer to another boat.

- oOo -

PEOPLE v. TULIN364 SCRA 10

Melo, J.

FACTS:‘M/T Tabangao’ was sailing of the coast of Mindoro, carrying a total value of Php 40.4 Million in

petroleum products. It was suddenly boarded by seven fully armed pirates led by EmilioChangco. The pirates detained the crew and took complete control of the vessel. The crew wasordered to paint over the name ‘M/T Tabangao’ on the front and rear portions of the vessel aswell as the logo on its chimney. They were then ordered to paint the name ‘Galilee’. The crewwas forced to sail to Singapore where, following a failed attempt to anchor, it returned toBatangas. A few days later, it sailed again to Singapore and anchored a few miles from theshoreline where another vessel named ‘Navi Pride’ anchored beside it, to which the captive crewwas ordered by Changco to transfer the petroleum products. ‘M/T Tabangao’ returned toBatangas, but remained at sea. 2 days later, the members of the crew were released in 3batches, the 1st and 2nd batches were fetched from the shoreline by Cecilio Changco, EmilioChangco’s brother. The crew called their employer and reported the incident. A series of arrestswere made and accused-appellants Tulin, Loyola, Changco, Infante and Hiong were apprehendedand charged with Qualified Piracy, to which they pleaded not guilty. Tulin, Infante and Loyolaclaimed that they were standing by the beach, conversing, when ‘M/T Tabangao’s Captain and2nd Mate approached them and asked if they wanted to work on the vessel, to which theyallegedly agreed even if they had no sea-going experience. The trial court found them guiltybeyond reasonable doubt and convicted them to Reclusion Perpetua.

ISSUES:1.

Did Republic Act 7659, amending Art.122 of the Revised Penal Code, obliterate the crime ofPiracy under PD 532?

2.

Can Accused-Appellant Cheong be convicted as an accomplice despite the fact that the actionshe allegedly committed were executed outside Philippine waters and territory?

HELD:1.

NO. Art.122 of the RPC, before its amendment, provided that piracy must be committed on thehigh seas by any person not a member of a ship’s complement nor a passenger. Upon itsamendment by RA 7659, the coverage of the pertinent provision was widened to includeoffenses committed ‘in Philippine waters’. On the other hand, under PD 532, the coverage of thelaw on piracy embraces any person, ‘including a passenger or member of the complement.’ RA7659 neither superseded not amended the provisions on piracy under PD 532. Art.122, asamended; and PD 532 exist harmoniously as separate laws.

2.

YES. Although PD 532 requires that the attack and seizure of the vessel and its cargo be

committed in Philippine waters, the disposition by the pirates of the vessel and its cargo is stilldeemed part of the act of piracy, hence the same need not be committed in Philippine waters.Piracy falls under Title One, Book Two of the Revised Penal Code. As such, it is an exception tothe rule on territoriality in criminal law.


16/226

CRIMINAL LAW II

K notes

16

H I R Y U

K I M

I K

O

O K U B O

TITLE II CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS

ART. 124 ARBITRARY DETENTION

Q: What are the classes of arbitrary detention?1.

Detaining a person without legal ground2.

Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities3.

Delaying release

Q: Manner of commission (elements)1.

The offender is a public officer or employee2.

He detains a person3.

The detention is without legal grounds

Q: May this be committed by ANY public officer?No – only those vested with authority to detain a person

Q: And who are those public officers?Those who have a duty to make an arrest; or those who may recommend an arrest or detention;or those who may order an arrest or detention

Q: May a private individual be liable for arbitrary detention?Yes

Q: How?By proving him to be an accomplice, accessory or a principal (by inducement/indispensablecooperation)

Q: May a private person be held liable as a principal by direct participation?Yes

Q: How?By proving a conspiracy between the private individual and the public officer

Q: May this be committed by an officer who arrested and detained a person by virtue of a warrant

issued by court?No. The moment there is a warrant, no arbitrary detention can be committed. A warrant grantsthe authority to arrest a person.

Q: What are the instances when a warrantless arrest may be considered lawful?1.

When the offender has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit anoffense in the presence of the arresting officer

2.

When the arresting officer has personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances of thecommission of the crime

3.

When the person arrested is a prisoner who has escaped

Q: Give an example of the first instance

Q: May a crime be committed in the presence of an officer who is blind? Deaf? Both?Yes; Yes; and Yes.

Q: Explain.Said officer still has other senses with which to determine the commission of a crime.


17/226

CRIMINAL LAW II

K notes

17

H I R Y U

K I M

I K

O

O K U B O

Q: Under arbitrary detention, is it necessary that the arrest is without legal ground?Yes

Q: And if the arrest is with legal ground?There is no crime of arbitrary detention

Q: Give examples of ‘legal grounds’ 1.

Commission of a crime2.

Ailments requiring compulsory confinement3.

Violent insanityNB: violent insanity. Not plain insanity. The law specifies the degree of insanity required.

Q: Under the 1st manner, suppose you were walking home and you saw A,B,C entering the house of yourneighbor, carrying out their plan to rob the latter. May you as a private individual arrest them?

Yes. The crime is being committed in my presence.

Q: Supposing one night, while on your way home, you saw Pedro tinkering with the padlock of your gate. May you arrest him?

Yes. He is attempting to commit an offense.

Q: Are you sure that he is? Suppose he told you he was merely curious. May you still arrest him?Yes. I can link the overt act of tinkering with the gate to the commission of robbery or trespassto dwelling. It’s also illogical for him to be tinkering with a padlock at that time of the night. Thecircumstances tend to prove robbery.

Q: Under the first instance of a warrantless arrest (i.e: the offender has committed a crime). Give anexample

Q: Supposing on your way to San Beda, you saw a commotion. A was stabbed by B. They were 5 metersaway from you. B starts to run. You stopped him and proceeded to arrest him. Were your actionslawful?

Yes. A crime was just committed in my presence.

Q: One day you saw Juan stab Pedro. You failed to arrest him. After a month, you saw Juan walking nearyour house. May you arrest him?

Yes. The crime was committed in my presence

Q: Even if the crime was committed a month ago?Yes, the lapse of time is immaterial

Q: What is the second instance of a warrantless arrest?When an offense has in fact just been committed and the officer has probable cause to believethat the person was the one who committed it, and the officer has personal knowledge of thefacts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.

Q: There was a commotion in front of UE. While on your way there, you saw people running towardsyour direction. You asked them what happened. They told you that a person was stabbed in front of theuniversity. You reached UE and saw the victim. He pointed to a running figure and told you that the saidfigure was the stabber. You ran after the suspect but lost him in the crowd. When you reached Morayta,you saw a man wearing a bloody shirt. May you arrest him?

Yes. There is probable cause to believe that he was the one who committed the offense. I talked

to the victim and obtained personal knowledge of the facts of the crime. I can link the bloodyshirt to the facts. This gives me probable cause to believe that the man was indeed the stabber.

Q: Supposing you did not get to talk to the victim, you simply heard the shouts about the fleeingstabber. You saw a man with a knife somewhere along Morayta. He was cleaning his knife. May youarrest him?


18/226

CRIMINAL LAW II

K notes

18

H I R Y U

K I M

I K

O

O K U B O

No. I do not have personal knowledge of the facts of the crime. I may not unilaterally assumethat he committed the stabbing simply because I saw him cleaning a knife.

Q: Supposing the victim told you the man that stabbed him is tall, white, with a prominent chin anddressed in a white shirt. When you reached Morayta, you saw a man fitting the description. May you

arrest him?No. The facts are too general. They are not what the law contemplates by ‘personal knowledgeof facts’ – they aren’t enough to sustain a lawful warrantless arrest. They do not constituteprobable cause.

*NB: going by the above description, anybody can be the stabber. ‘Tall, white, with a prominentchin and wearing a white shirt’ – perhaps half the male population of metro manila can fit thedescription

Q: Ms. Palay is a victim of rape. Together with her parents, she proceeded to the NBI to report theincident. Due to the influence of the media, the case became well-known. A task force was organized,this task force was independent of the NBI. The task force learned that the rapist was in Bacolod. Theywent there, and found him. May the lawfully arrest him without a warrant?

No. There is no personal knowledge, merely hearsay knowledge.

Q: Under the same facts, you were in Bacolod airport and saw a man wearing a jacket with the name‘Mabelle Palay’ embroidered on it. May you arrest him?

No. I have no personal knowledge of the facts.

*NB: the jacket alone is not a sufficient basis for probable cause.

Q: 10 cars were carnapped from the Toyota showroom. The incident was reported to your office. Thefollowing morning, Manila PD received a call from a secret informant that the carnappers were on their

way to Binondo and will have dinner at one of the restaurants there. 5 officers were dispatched to thescene and at 8pm, the carnappers arrived. May the officers effect an arrest?

No. They merely have hearsay knowledge.

Q: Define ‘probable cause’

Q: Is probable cause the same as suspicion?No

Q: Can a person be arrested based on suspicion?No

Q: Why not?Because suspicion is not the same as probable cause.

Q: X stabbed someone and was chased by people as he fled. He was holding a knife and wearing a shirtstained with blood. From the opposite direction, a police officer saw the commotion. He arrested X. Isthe arrest a lawful one?

Yes

Q: Your house was robbed. You saw the robbers as they fled. You were able to give a description ofthem to the police. After 3 days, the officers saw a person who fitted the descriptions you gave. Is thewarrantless arrest lawful?

No. The officers had enough time to secure a warrant.

Q: Can arbitrary detention be committed through imprudence?Yes

Q: What are the periods of detention which the law penalizes?-Not exceeding 3 days


19/226

CRIMINAL LAW II

K notes

19

H I R Y U

K I M

I K

O

O K U B O

-More than 3 days but less than 15 days-More than 15 days but less than 6 months-More than 6 months

Q: In the case of an escaped prisoner, why is a warrantless arrest not unlawful?

Because the escapee is already in the act of committing a continuous crime: evasion of theservice of sentence

Q: What are the legal grounds for detaining a person?-commission of a crime-violent insanity-ailments requiring compulsory confinement (nb: not just any ailment)

Q: Y was killed by an unknown assailant. The officers got a tip that X was the offender. They arrestedhim. X voluntarily admitted that he did it although he was not asked by the officers to do so. He wasdetained. Was there arbitrary detention?

None. Once X made the confession, the officers had a right to arrest him.

NOTES:

*There is detention when a person is placed in confinement or there is restraint on his liberty

*The person detained need not be ‘restrained’ literally. He may even be able to walk around. Theessence of detention is that the person is not allowed to leave of his own volition and his liberty iscurtailed.

*Although the primary persons liable for this crime are public officers/employees, private individualswho conspire with public officers may also be liable

ART. 125DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF DETAINED PERSONS TO THE PROPER JUDICIAL

AUTHORITIES

Q: What are the elements?1.

The offender is a public officer/employee2.

He has detained a person for some legal ground3.

He fails to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within – a.

12 hrs, for crimes/offenses punishable by light penalties or their equivalentb.

18 hrs, for crimes/offenses punishable by correctional penalties/their equivalentc.

36hrs, for crimes/offenses punishable by capital punishment or afflictive penalties, ortheir equivalent

Q: What is meant by ‘delay in delivery’ here? The delay in delivery refers to the filing of the proper complaint/information or charge againstthe person detained before a court.

*NB: the filing of the information may be waived if a preliminary investigation is asked for

Q: So you’re saying that the delivery here does not pertain to actual physical delivery?

Yes. What is meant by delivery is the filing of the complaint/information/charge

Q: Why does the law punish the delay in filing?To protect the accused

Q: How is that?


20/226


21/226

CRIMINAL LAW II

K notes

21

H I R Y U

K I M

I K

O

O K U B O

Q: And if you were delivered within 48 hours, what crime did the officer commit?Violation of Art. 125

Q: Supposing the police officer could not deliver you within 36 hours, what should he do?

Release me.

Q: Assuming that the detention was illegal to begin with, does this affect the validity of your arrest?Not necessarily. The arrest may have been valid at its inception, notwithstanding that thesubsequent detention was illegal.

Q: As a police officer, you validly arrested a murderer. Instead of delivering him to the proper judicialauthorities, you proposed a different deal: he would serve as your manservant for a year. He agreed.What crime may you be charged with?

Art.125

Q: Why isn’t a public officer liable if he failed to deliver the accused to the judicial authorities beyond thespecified periods in Art. 125 when the arrest was effected by virtue of a valid warrant?

Because the accused is already within the sphere of judicial protection. The issuance of awarrant presupposes that a criminal information sheet was already filed before a competentcourt.

Q: Illustrate the ‘judicial protection’ contemplated by this article The accused, when placed under judicial protection may safely exercise his rights (i.e.: the rightto bail/ preliminary investigation/ speedy, impartial and public trial ++ ) and can be monitored bythe court. He is no longer vulnerable to abuse in the hands of the arresting officers.

Q: A police officer delivered a murderer to the public prosecutor on the 37th hour following the incident.

The prosecutor filed an information 3 days later. Is the police officer liable under this provision?Yes

Q: Is the prosecutor liable?No

Q: When an officer releases a person because he could not deliver that person to the proper judicialauthorities within the timeframe provided for in this provision, may he be held criminally liable?

No, but he may be held administratively liable

ART. 126DELAYING RELEASE

Q: Who are the public officers most likely to violate this provision?Wardens and jailers; bailiffs, sheriffs, and clerks of court as far as service of notice is concerned

Q: When is there a release in delay? (elements)1.

The offender is a public officer/employee2.

a. there is a judicial or executive order for the release of a prisonerb. there is a proceeding upon a petition for the liberation of such person

3. The offender without good reason delays

a. the service of notice of such order to the prisonerb. the performance of such judicial/executive order for the release of the prisonerc. the proceedings upon a petition for the liberation of such person

Q: Upon whom is the notice served?The jailer or warden

Q: Give an example of a proceeding for the liberation of a person contemplated by this provision


22/226

CRIMINAL LAW II

K notes

22

H I R Y U

K I M

I K

O

O K U B O

Proceedings for Habeas Corpus

*NB: It helps to know the definition of Habeas Corpus ;)

ART. 127EXPULSION

Q: What are the elements?1.

Offender = public officer/employee2.

He expels a person from the Philippines or compels a person to change his residence3.

The offender is not authorized by law to do so

Q: Who may be validly expelled from the PH? Aliens ONLY (a citizen may not be expelled)

Q: Who may order the expulsion?The President, as recommended by the Commission on Immigration and Deportation

Q: Suppose there is a convict who has already served the minimum of his sentence and was allowedparole. The condition of his parole fixes his residence in a different place, against his own will. Is thecondition valid?

Yes , the law on probation allows the court to fix conditions for a person’s parole. Thecompulsion is authorized by law.

Q: The Mayor of Manila ordered the arrest of prostitutes in order to clean up the city and to stopprostitution. He had them brought to Mindanao. Is he l iable?

Yes

*NB: Actual case: Villavicencio v. Lukban

Q: May an alien be deported by the Commission on Immigration and Deportation without violating thisprovision?

Yes, if the alien is an undesirable alien

Q: Suppose X, a Filipino citizen, was refused re-entry into the PH after he had voluntarily left the countrya year before. May the act of refusal be considered as forcing him to change his residence?

YesQ: Is a threat to national security a valid reason for expelling a citizen?

No

Q: Why can’t a Filipino citizen be expelled? Because it is his legal and natural right – conferred upon birth – to live and die in the Philippines

Q: Give instances when a person may be lawfully compelled to change his address-By virtue of a judicial order/final judgment-Expropriation proceedings-Ejectment proceedings-Destierro-As a condition for parole/probation/pardon

-By virtue of a barangay protection order, in relation to the Anti-Violence against Women andChildren Law (RA 9262)

SECTION TWO – VIOLATION OF DOMICILE


23/226


24/226

CRIMINAL LAW II

K notes

24

H I R Y U

K I M

I K

O

O K U B O

Q: How does the issuing judge determine probable cause?Through the use of searching questions

Q: May he delegate this task to somebody else?No, he must perform it personally

Q: Suppose the search warrant was not obtained lawfully, what is its effect on the personal propertyseized?

The things seized are inadmissible as evidence against the accused

*NB: Recall the Doctrine of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree (you can thank Justice Holmes for thecheesy label btw)

Q: The NBI conducted a surveillance operation for 2 weeks, after which the agents were convinced thatthere is indeed a shabu lab inside a certain compound. They applied for a search warrant for a violationof the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (CDDA) and for Illegal Possession of Firearms. Is the warrantissued by the court a valid one?

No, it was issued for 2 offenses. The agents should have applied for 2 separate warrants.

Q: A warrant was issued for a violation of the CDDA. When the agents entered the compound, they sawa warehouse whose door was open, through which they could see high-powered firearms. They seizedthe firearms. May those same firearms be used as evidence against the owners of the compound?

Yes. Although the warrant specified a search for illicit drugs only, the seizure of the firearmsmay be justified under the Plain View Doctrine

*NB: The Plain View Doctrine allows officers to seize incriminating evidence so long as the itemsseized were within their plain view. What is meant by ‘plain view’ however is that the itemsmust be (1)open to eye and hand and that (2)the incriminating nature of the items is obvious or

apparent to the officers seizing them. It does NOT allow the officers to SEARCH for the items ifthe same items are not included in the warrant and are not within plain view.

Q: Suppose the warrant issued was for the seizure of equipment etc for the production of shabu, andstated the location of the shabu lab as being ‘inside a compound, within a white house with a blue gate’.Is the warrant valid?

No. There is no particularity of description. Any compound or house could fit the description.

Q: A warrant was issued for Illegal Possession of Firearms. It ordered the peace officers to seize high-powered firearms in the condominium unit of the accused located on the 5 th floor of a building. Theagents saw that there were several other units on that floor, so they knocked on the door of the 1 st unit

there and inquired about the one they were searching for. The tenant pointed to the one on the far end.The agents raided that unit and seized the firearms. May the firearms be used as evidence?No. There was an intervention of a third person in conducting the search and seizure. Thewarrant did not fulfill the requirements for validity. It did not state with particularity the placeto be searched.

Q: A warrant was issued against 4 accused for violation of the internal revenue law. It ordered theseizure of ‘all documents contained inside 2 cabinets in the office of the accused’, the agentsimplemented the warrant and seized each piece of paper found within the cabinets. The prosecutorsifted through the papers and chose the relevant ones and then presented them as evidence. May thepapers be admitted as evidence against the accused, in view of their relevance to the offense charged?

No. They were illegally obtained. The warrant was in the nature of a general warrant, it did not

contain a particularity of description of things to be seized.

Q: NBI agents applied for a search warrant in order to search a house said to be a shabu lab. It wasalmost 5pm when they arrived at the sala of the judge. The judge was in a hurry and instructed the clerkof court to receive whatever evidence the agents were to present in support of their application for thewarrant, to draft the warrant, and to bring the same to the judge. Everything was done by the clerk,


25/226

CRIMINAL LAW II

K notes

25

H I R Y U

K I M

I K

O

O K U B O

who left a blank space for the signature of the judge. The clerk brought the order to the judge whosigned it. The NBI agents implemented the warrant. Is the warrant valid?

No, probable cause was not determined by the judge

Q: Suppose the judge was not in his sala. You were one of the NBI agents. You were pressed for time so

you asked the judge’s wife – who was present –to sign the warrant. The wife happened to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Is the search warrant valid?

No, the duty to determine probable cause is a personal one. The only person who could haveissued it was the judge, not his wife.

Q: But his wife was is a Supreme Court JusticeHer position is immaterial. Only her husband could have issued the warrant, even if he didhappen to occupy a lower position.

Q: In the course of a search for violation of the CDDA, NBI agents inadvertently came across unlicensedfirearms. May the seize the guns and use them as evidence?

No

Q: A SW was issued directing officers to seize firearms in a unit on the 3 rd floor of ABC Condominium.When the NBI agents got there, they found many units. They searched every room until they found theone containing the firearms. Was the search and subsequent seizure valid?

No, the fact that they had to search roomtoroom presupposes that the warrant did not containa sufficiently particular description of the place to be searched

Q: Suppose the accused owned the entire 3rd floor. Was the room-to-room search valid?Yes

Q: A SW was issued. The place described was a ‘2 -storey blue house within XYZ compound’. When the

officers arrived there, they found 3 two-storey houses. They entered each of the houses and served thewarrant. Were their actions lawful?

No

Q: Suppose then that when the officers arrived at XYZ compound, they found no 2-storey blue house.One officer asked the guard on duty and the guard told them the house they were looking for was onthe other street. They followed the guard’s instructions and found the house. They served the warrant.Was the service of warrant lawful?

No

Q: Suppose the warrant described the place to be searched as a ‘rainbow painted house – blue door,

pink roof, yellow windows’. When the officers arrived, they served the warrant. Was the service valid? Yes (‘hard to miss a house painted so garishly’ – Atty A.)

*NB: Why the outlandish hypotheticals, you ask. Simple enough: He’s drilling it into you: the NBIagent/ officers implementing the warrant should NOT need nor ask any help in identifying theplace to be searched because once they do;the warrant does not contain a sufficient descriptionof the locale to be searched.

Q: May vessels (i.e.: boats) be searched without a warrant? Aircraft?Yes to both. The nature of these vessels/aircraft makes them easy to move.

Q: Suppose the person who committed the punishable acts under this provision is a private individual,

what crime did he commit?Trespass to dwelling

Q: When may we say that there has been entry against the will of the owner?When the entry is effected against an express or implied prohibition


26/226

CRIMINAL LAW II

K notes

26

H I R Y U

K I M

I K

O

O K U B O

Q: A police officer who is your neighbour noticed that the front door to your house was slightly ajar. HEentered to investigate what was going on because it aroused his suspicion. Is this a violation?

No

Q: There was a sign on the door ‘DO NOT ENTER AT ALL TIMES’ but the door was slightly open. Would

entry be a violation?Yes, the sign constitutes an express prohibition

Q: Give an example of an implied prohibition A locked door

Q: Suppose the door was locked, and the police officer picked the lock in order to enter and investigate.Is he liable?

Yes

Q: A sign says ‘NO TRESPASSING’ and the officer entered. Is he liable? Yes

Q: Suppose the sign says ‘ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK’. Would entry make the officer l iable? No

Q: What if it said ‘BEWARE OF DOGS’? No. (‘The sign is merely a warning.. that there are.. dogs.’ :D – Jaika Dublado, 1k)

Q: An officer saw your younger brother enter your house with an unlicensed firearm. The door was half-open but a sign said ‘Strangers Keep Out’. The officer entered. Is he liable?

Yes – express prohibition

Q: Suppose there was no signThe officer is not liable

Q: Suppose the officer entered and sat on the sofa. The door was closed but not locked. Is he liable?Yes, closed door = implied prohibition

Q: Under the second manner of commission (searching papers and effects without the owner’s previousconsent), is it necessary that the entry be done without the consent of the owner?

No. What is punished here is an unconsented search, not entry.

*NB: It’s easy enough to imagine the scenario contemplated by the law. For instance, the officer

entered without the owner’s consent, but when the owner saw the officer, he did not complain.The officer then proceeded to conduct a search. Notice that the owner subsequently allowedthe entry, but did not give permission for a search.THATsearch is what the second mannerpunishes, not the earlier entry. The essence of the crime is searching without consent,regardless of whether or not the entry was done with or without permission.

Q: What if the owner consented to a search of the living room and the officer continued searching intothe hallways and the bedrooms, is he liable under the second manner?

Yes. The permission was only for the living room.

Q: A police officer entered your house with your consent. While waiting in the sala, he saw an unlicensedfirearm atop the TV. He seized the same. Were his actions valid?

Yes, under the plain view doctrine

Q: Suppose you allowed a police officer to enter the living room. You left to make him some coffee.When you returned, he was searching the room. You asked him what he was doing and he said ‘trying tolook for shabu’. You said ‘there’s no shabu here, if you want, you can search the other rooms of thehouse’. Was the search in the living room valid?

No, there was no previous consent


27/226

CRIMINAL LAW II

K notes

27

H I R Y U

K I M

I K

O

O K U B O

Q: So he is liable for the search in the living room, but not in the other rooms?Yes

Q: Suppose that while waiting for you, he opened several cabinets and drawers in your house, and was

able to seize an unlicensed gun and shabu. Was the search valid?No, the items were not in plain view and are consequently inadmissible as evidence

Q: Under the 3rd manner of commission (entering surreptitiously, refusing the leave the premises afterhaving been required to do so), what consummates the crime?

Refusal to leave the premises

Q: What do you mean by ‘surreptitiously entering’? Entering secretly, or without the knowledge of the owner

Q: Is the liability here for entry?No, it is for the refusal to leave after effecting entry

Q: Give an example

Q: If the entry was made through the main door which was closed but was not locked, and the ownerrequired the officer to leave, which the officer did, is the he still liable?

Yes, under the 1st manner of commission

ART.129MALICIOUSLY OBTAINED SEARCH WARRANT AND ABUSE IN THE SERVICE

OF A LEGALLY OBTAINED WARRANT


Procuring a search warrant without just cause; or2.

Exceeding authority by using unnecessary severity in executing a search warrant legallyobtained

Q: Who may commit this?Public officers/employees vested with authority to procure or execute a search warrant

Q: When may it be said that there is no ‘just cause’?

By applying the Test of Lack of Cause, when perjury can be imputed on the person who executedor applied for the warrant

Q: What do you mean by ‘perjury’? Executing a false affidavit or making a false statement under oath (‘simply stated, it is maliciousif the it based on false facts – Atty A.)

Q: Is perjury a necessary crime in committing the offense of maliciously obtaining a warrant?Yes

Q: Does that make it a complex crime under Art.48?No, they remain separate crimes

Q: What is your legal basis for saying that?By direct provision of law, Art.129 makes it a separate crime (‘In addition to… xxx’)

Q: Give examples of other crimes which, by direct provision of law, may not be complexed under Art.48?-Direct Bribery (Art. 210)-Maltreatment of Prisoners (Art. 235)


28/226

CRIMINAL LAW II

K notes

28

H I R Y U

K I M

I K

O

O K U B O

-Usurpation of Real Rights (Art. 312)

Q: What are the 2 kinds of complex crimes under Art. 48?1.

An offense is a necessary means for committing another offense;2.

A single act results in two or more grave or less grave offenses

Q: Suppose NBI agents, through a false affidavit, procured a search warrant. During the search, theydestroyed several furniture, committed acts of lasciviousness against the daughter of the owner andkicked the son. What crimes were committed?

1.

Maliciously obtaining a search warrant2.

Perjury3.

Physical Injuries4.

Malicious Mischief (resulting in destruction of property)5.

Acts of lasciviousness*all separate crimes

Q: Suppose you had a persistent suitor whom you don’t like and so rejected. He turned out to be an NBIofficer. To get back at you, he caused an application for a search warrant against your brother forkeeping firearms in your house, which is not true. The warrant was issued. What crimes may he be liablefor?

1.

Maliciously obtained search warrant and2.

Perjury*separate crimes

Q: Suppose he came to you and told you that unless you answer him, he will implement the warrant. Inorder to save your brother, you answered him. Is he still liable for procuring a warrant without justcause?

Yes, the crime is already consummated. The warrant need not be implemented for liability to

attach.

Q: Suppose that when he applied for a search warrant, he had no legal cause, but when the warrant wasserved, an unlicensed firearm was found beneath the pillow of your brother. May the officer still beliable for procuring a search warrant without just cause?

No, not anymore

Q: NBI agents, after conducting a surveillance operation, applied for a warrant. The applicationcontained 2 offenses: violation of the CDDA and Illegal possession of firearms. The judge issued thesearch warrant. The agents raided the shabu lab and were able to seize several shabu paraphernalia and50 unlicensed firearms. The same were deposited in the custody of the NBI. The items were sought to be

used as evidence in court. Are they admissible?No, the warrant was not lawfully obtained, the application contained 2 offenses. ‘No warrantshall issue except for a single offense’ (Rule 126, Revised Rules of Court)

Q: Even if the evidence is vital to the case and would prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt? Yes, even if

*NB: The rule on the validity of a search warrant is strictly construed against the State. This isbecause a warrant is the state’s most potent weapon for intruding into the privacy of a person.When a warrant is illegally obtained, all evidence seized by virtue of that warrant are tainted(fruits of the poisonous tree) and may not be used as evidence against the accused, regardlessof their relevance or materiality to the case.

Q: A warrant was issued by the RTC for the search of a house suspected to be a shabu lab. The things tobe seized were particularly described and thereafter, the NBI agents conducted the search. They saw anunlicensed firearm which was not mentioned in the search warrant. They seized the same. Acorresponding case for illegal possession of firearm was filed. Is the evidence admissible?

Yes. The seizure of the unlicensed firearm was done because a crime was then being committedin the presence of the NBI agents and the object of the crime was the unlicensed firearm.


29/226


30/226

CRIMINAL LAW II

K notes

30

H I R Y U

K I M

I K

O

O K U B O

vehicle. Sinoc was arrested. 4 months after the arrest, Sinoc was brought to the Public Attorney’s Office where police asked Atty. Alfredo Jalad for permission to take Sinoc’sstatement in writing. Sinoc confessed to the occurrences leading up to his arrest after he wasinformed of his rights by Atty. Jalad. The former was then brought to the City Prosecutor thathe might take oath on his statement. After having ascertained the voluntariness of the affidavit,

the Prosecutor affixed his signature. During trial, Sinoc proferred an alibi and alleged furtherthat he was not informed of his constitutional rights during custodial interrogation and that hewas made to sign the affidavit of confession under duress.

ISSUE:Was there a valid warrantless arrest?

HELD:YES. An arrest without a warrant may be liawfully effected by a peace officer when an offensehas just been committed and he has personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the personto be arrested has committed it. There is no question that the police were aware that an offensehad just been committed, that an informant saw the Pajero and that Sinoc had the key to thevehicle. Sinoc’s link to the stolen vehicle was palpable and the officers had no alternative save toarrest him. It was their clear duty to do so, the omission of which would have been inexcusable.

- oOo –

PEOPLE v. SALVATIERRA276 SCRA 55Kapunan, J.

FACTS:Charlie Fernandez was walking towards the direction of Quiapo, along M. de la Fuente Streetwhen he was met by 4 persons, one of whom was David Salvatierra. Salvatierra lunged atFernandez with a bladed instrument, hitting him in the chest. Charlie Fernandez died of hiswound. The incident was witnessed by Milagros Martinez, who at the time, was afraid and toldno one save for her daughter. Meanwhile, Marciano Fernandez, Charlie’s father, reported thedeath of his son to the Western Police District (WPD) where an advance information wasprepared, indicating that 4 unidentified persons perpetrated the crime. 3 months after thestabbing, David Salvatierra was apprehended for causing a commotion along Miguelin Street,Sampaloc, Manila. The arresting officers found out that he was a suspect in the killing of CharlieFernandez and turned him over to the WPD. Salvatierra was charged with murder and hepleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented Milagros Martinez, who had been persuaded totestify by Marciano Fernandez, and the trial court found Salvatierra guilty as charged. On

appeal, Salvatierra assigns as error the trial court’s failure to find that the warrantless arrest forthe offense of malicious mischief – which led to his detention for the alleged murder of CharlieFernandez – was unconstitutional.

ISSUE:Were the irregularities in the warrantless arrestof David Salvatierra for the crime of murderdeemed waived by his failure to raise them before entering his plea?

HELD:YES. Accused-appellant Salvatierra is estopped from questioning his arrest considering that henever raised it before entering his plea. Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or in the

procedure in the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made beforehe enters his plea. Otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. Consequently, any irregularityattendant to his arrest, if any, had been cured by his voluntary submission to the jurisdiction ofthe trial court when he entered his plea and participated during trial.

- oOo –


31/226

CRIMINAL LAW II

K notes

31

H I R Y U

K I M

I K

O

O K U B O

PEOPLE v. FLORES358 SCRA 319

Ynares-Santiago, J.

FACTS:Samson Sayam was last seen drinking beer in the company of Sgt. Winnie Tampioc, and Citizens

Armed Force Geographical Unit (CAFGU) members Aaron Flores, Sulpecio Silpao and EdgarVilleran. They left the store where they were drinking and walked towards the direction of themilitary detachment headquarters, after which, witnesses heard gunshots. Despite diligentefforts by Sayam’s mother and relatives to locate him, he has not been found. The prosecutioncontends that Sayam was kidnapped and illegally detained pursuant to a conspiracy among theaccused. The trial court rendered a decision acquitting Sgt. Tampioc on the grounds ofreasonable doubt, and convicting Flores, Villeran and Silpao of the crime of kidnapping andserious illegal detention.

ISSUES:1.

Did the trial court err in ruling that the accused-appellants committed kidnapping and serious

illegal detention?2.

Are the accused guilty of arbitrary detention under Art.124?

HELD:1.

YES. The crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention has the following elements: (a) theoffender is a private individual; (b) he kidnaps or detains another, or in any other mannerdeprives the latter of his liberty; (c) the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and (d)inthe commission of the offense, the following circumstances are present: (i) the kidnapping ordetention lasts for more than 3 days; (ii) it is committed simulating public authority; (iii) anyserious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to killhim are made; or (iv) the person kidnapped is a minor, female, or public officer. Accused-appellants, being members of the local Citizen Armed Force Geographical Unit (CAFGU), are not

private individuals but public officers. As such, they can only be held liable for the crime ofarbitrary detention.

2.

NO. Detention is defined as the actual confinement of a person in an enclosure or in any mannerdepriving him of his liberty. The records show no evidence sufficient to prove that SamsonSayam was detained arbitrarily by accused-appellants. While the prosecution witness testifiedthat they were seen walking with Sayam toward the direction of the detachment headquarters,there is no evidence that he was actually confined there or anywhere else. The fact that Sayamhas not been seen or heard from since he was last seen with the accused-appellants does notprove that he was detained and deprived of his liberty. The fact of detention, whether illegal orarbitrary, was not clearly established by credible evidence. Likewise, there was no proof that

there was actual intent on the part of the accused-appellants to deprive Sayam of his liberty.That Sayam is missing up to this date cannot be a basis for the trial court to render conviction.Mere suspicion is insufficient to convict the accused-appellants.

NOTES

*On warrants. A question was once asked in Constitutional Law II (under the coverage of ‘Search andSeizure’) whether or not a warrant could in fact contain more than one offense. The class suffered ashotgun round, and was made to say ‘yes’ despite deep instincts to the contrary. It was said that awarrant could in fact contain more than one offense IF it was issued for (1) complex crimes; or (2) special

complex crimes. We asked Atty. A for clarification and he spent 30 whole minutes drilling it into us: awarrant CANNOT – EVER – contain more than A SINGLE offense.

*Notwithstanding the presence of art.48, RPC on complex crimes, a warrant may still NOT contain twoor more offenses. The complexing is done by the PROSECUTOR, NOT the arresting officers; and it’s done

AFTER a warrant has been served because the Prosecutor looks at the evidence obtained through thatvery warrant and determines the degree of perversion – and hence, culpability – of the


32/226

CRIMINAL LAW II

K notes

32

H I R Y U

K I M

I K

O

O K U B O

accusedfollowing the formula: did one offense result in two or more grave or less grave offenses? Wasone a necessary means to commit the other? Beyond that, complexing cannot be assumed. Besides,what is the basis of the arresting officers to apply for a warrant in connection with a complex or specialcomplex crime? And what basis would the issuing Judge have to find probable cause for a complex orspecial complex crime? ‘If I were counsel for the defence, I would move for the nullification of your

warrant. The best remedy is to apply for TWO separate warrants’ – Atty. A

ART.130SEARCHING DOMICILE WITHOUT A WITNESS


The offender = public officer/employee2.

He is armed with a search warrant legally obtained3.

He searches the domicile, papers or other belongings of any person4.

The owner or any member of his family, or 2 witnesses residing in the same locality are not

present

Q: What is the order of the people who must witness the search?1.

Homeowner2.

Members of the family who are of sufficient age and discretion3.

Responsible members of the community (2)

Q: Who may commit this?Public officers/employees authorized to conduct a search


Q: Are 2 housemaids considered ‘witnesses’, in the event that the owner and blood relatives are notpresent?

Yes

Q: 2 Barangay tanods?Yes

Q: 2 members of the police team?No

Q: Suppose the owner was not present, but his 2 daughters aged 12 and 8 respectively were there. May

the search be made?No

Q: Why not?The members of the family must be of sufficient age or discretion

Q: What about 2 neighbors whom you were not in good terms with?They may be witnesses. The law does not require that the owner be on good terms with them.

SECTION THREE – PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION AND DISSOLUTION OF

PEACEFUL MEETINGS

ART.131PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION ANDDISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL MEETINGS


33/226

CRIMINAL LAW II

K notes

33

H I R Y U

K I M

I K

O

O K U B O


By prohibiting or interrupting without legal ground, the holding of a peaceful meeting; or bydissolving the same

2.

By hindering any person from joining any lawful association or from attending any of itsmeetings

3.

By prohibiting or hindering any person from addressing, either alone or together withothers, any petition to the authorities for the correction of abuses or redress of grievances

Q: Under the 1st mode of commission (prohibiting or interruption the holding of an assembly withoutlegal ground/dissolving the same), what constitutional right is safeguarded?

The right to peaceful assembly

Q: Is this right absolute?No

Q: May it be regulated? How?Yes, it may be regulated. The regulation may be done in exercise of police power.

Q: If the offender is a private individual, what crime does he commit?Disturbance of Public Order (Art. 153)

Q: If the meeting is no longer peaceful, may it be dissolved?Yes

Q: If the meeting that was interrupted or dissolved is a session of the city council, and the dissolution isdone by a public officer, is Art. 131 applicable?

No, the crime in this case is a crime against a legislative body, not punishable under this article

Q: If the officer stops a meeting because of a city ordinance, is he liable?No

Q: suppose he does so in a private residence?He is liable

Q: May a police officer stop a peaceful meeting taking place in a freedom park?No. By law (BP 880), meetings in freedom parks need not be conducted pursuant to a permit.The officer has no lawful cause to interrupt the peaceful meeting

Q: What is a freedom park?

An area established by law as such, where one can peaceably assemble at any time withouthaving to procure a permit from the government for that purpose

Q: Suppose you and your classmates are failing Criminal Law 2. You assembled in front of San Bedawithout a permit, demanding the removal of Atty. Amurao. Are you liable?

Yes

Q: Under what law?Batas Pambansa 880 – The Public Assembly Act of 1985

Q: In what manner are you liable?For conducting an assembly without a permit and in an area not designated as a freedom park

Q: What if you conducted your rally in Liwasang, Bonifacio?We are not liable – The area is a designated freedom park

Q: If you conducted it in front of the San Beda gate, may you be arrested without a warrant?Yes


34/226

CRIMINAL LAW II

K notes

34

H I R Y U

K I M

I K

O

O K U B O

Q: You decided to start the rally from España to Mendiola. It was a spontaneous decision. May you beintercepted anywhere between those areas and arrested?

Yes

Q: What is the reason for requiring a permit?

The state seeks to ensure the maintenance of public order and safety and does so in exercise ofits sovereign police power

Q: You conducted a rally at a freedom park. In the course of the rally, you uttered libellous speeches.May the rally be dispersed?

Yes, it has ceased to be peaceful

Q: But it was done in a freedom parkWhat is controlling as far as the dispersal goes is the nature of the rally. Even if it was done in afreedom park, it had ceased to be peaceful. A freedom park may be used subject to thequalification that the assembly must be a peaceful one

Q: So the right to a peaceful assembly in a freedom park is also not absolute?Yes, it is not absolute. The right to use a freedom park is also regulated

Q: Under the 2nd mode of commission (hindering a person from joining any lawful association/attendingany of its meetings), what constitutional right is safeguarded?

The right to association

Q: What are the 2 punishable acts under this manner of commission?1.

Hindering someone from joining a lawful association2.

Preventing him from attending any of its meetings

Q: Give an example of the 1st act

Q: Your distant relative, a police officer, prevented you from joining an unrecognized fraternity withinSan Beda College of Law. Is he liable?

Yes, the fraternity is not necessarily an unlawful association, notwithstanding the fact that SanBeda Law does not recognize it

Q: Same facts, except that the organization you wanted to join was the Abu Sayyaf. Is your relativeliabel?

No

Q: And if you wanted to join the National Democratic Front-New People’s Army (NDF-NPA)?He is not liable

Q: Give an example of the 2nd manner of commission

Q: Give an example of the 3rd manner of commission

Q: Under the 3rd manner, what constitutional right is safeguarded?The right to petition the government for redress of grievances

BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 880THE PUBLIC ASSEMBLY ACT OF 1985

Outline of Definitions

Public Assembly:

Public Place:Includes any highway, boulevard, avenue, road, street, bridge, or other thoroughfare,


35/226

CRIMINAL LAW II

K notes

35

H I R Y U

K I M

I K

O

O K U B O

park, plaza, square and/or any open space of public ownership where the people are allowed access

Freedom Parks: Parks duly established by every City or Municipality where demonstrations andmeetings may be held at any time without the need of any prior permit

Maximum Tolerance: The highest degree of restraint that the military, police and other peace-keeping authorities shall observe during a public assembly or in the dispersal of the same

When Permits are required: organization and holding of a public assembly in a public place

No permits required for the use of freedom parks duly established by law

When the assembly is to be held on private property , the consent of the owner is needed

Salient Provisions

Sec.5 – Application Requirements: The application shall be in writing, shall include the names of theleaders/organizers; the purpose of the assembly; date, time, duration thereof; the place/streets tobe used; and the probable number of persons participating; and the transport and public addresssystem to be used. The application shall be filed with the office of the Mayor of the city ofmunicipality in whose jurisdiction the intended activity is to be held, at least 5 working days beforethe scheduled activity.

Sec.6 – Action to be taken on the Application: The Mayor/any official acting in his behalf has theduty to issue or grant a permit unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the public assemblywill create a clear and present danger to public order, public safety, public convenience, publicmorals and public health. The Mayor/official acting in his behalf shall act on the application within 2working days from the date the application was filed, failing which, the permit shall be deemed

granted. Should for any reason, the Mayor/official refuse to accept the application for a permit, saidapplication shall be posted by the applicant on the premises of the office of the Mayor and it shall bedeemed to have been filed. If the mayor is of the view that there is imminent and grave danger of asubstantive evil warranting the denial/modification of the permit, he shall immediately inform theapplicant who must be heard on the matter. Action on the permit shall be in writing and served onthe applicant within 24hrs. If the mayor/acting official denies the application/modifies the termsthereof, the applicant may contest the decision in an appropriate court of law.

Sec.9 – Non-interference of law enforcement authorities:Law enforcement authorities shall notinterfere with the holding of a public assembly. To adequately ensure public safety, a contingent

under the command of a responsible police officer may be detailed and stationed at least 100meters away from the area of activity to maintain peace and order at all times.

Sec.10 – Police Assistance when requested:Members of the law enforcement contingent who dealw

Date post:	07-Aug-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	mino-genson
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Criminal Law 2 - Amurao Notes

Documents