Umil vs. Ramos unreasonable exercise of power is imposed.

FACTS: This consolidated case of 8 petitions for habeas corpus assails the validity of
the arrests and searches made by the military on the petitioners. The arrests relied
on the confidential information that the authorities received. Except for one case
where inciting to sedition was charged, the rest are charged with subversion for
being a member of the New Peoples Army.
Corollarily, alleged violations against unreasonable search and seizure may only be
invoked against the State by an individual unjustly traduced by the exercise of
sovereign authority. To agree with appellant that an act of a private individual in
violation of the Bill of Rights should also be construed as an act of the State would
result in serious legal complications and an absurd interpretation of the constitution

RULING: The arrests were legal. Regarding the subversion cases, the arrests were
legal since subversion is a form of a continuing crime together with rebellion,
conspiracy or proposal to commit rebellion/subversion, and crimes committed in
furtherance thereof or in connection therewith. On the inciting to sedition case, the
arrest was legal since an information was filed prior to his arrest. Lastly, the arrests
were not fishing expeditions but a result of an in-depth surveillance of NPA safe
houses pinpointed by none other than members of the NPA.
The right to preliminary investigation should be exercised by the offender as soon
as possible. Otherwise, it would be considered as impliedly waived and the filing of
information can proceed. This sort of irregularity is not sufficient to set aside a valid
judgment upon a sufficient complaint and after a trial free from error.

DISSENT: (Sarmiento, J.) The confidential information was nothing but hearsay.
The searches and arrests made were bereft of probable cause and that the
petitioners were not caught in flagrante delicto or in any overt act. Utmost, the
authorities was lucky in their fishing expeditions.

2. The Bill of Rights can only be invoked only against the state. People vs. Marti
--Marti and his wife went to the booth of the "Manila Packing and Export
Forwarders" carrying with them four (4) gift-wrapped packages. Marti informed the
owner that the packages simply contained books, cigars and gloves as gifts to his
friends in Zurich and refused to allow the owner to examine and inspect the
packages. However, before the delivery of the box to the Bureau of Customs, the
owner's husband inspected the package and found marijuana which was later
turned over to the NBI. A case was filed against Marti. Marti invoked his right
against illegal searches and seizure. Held: The constitutional proscription against
unlawful searches and seizures therefore applies as a restraint directed only against
the government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. Thus, it
could only be invoked against the State to whom the restraint against arbitrary and
People vs. Burgos
The State (P) vs. Suspect NPA Rebel (D)
GR L-68955, September 4, 1986 (144 SCRA 1)
There is no such personal knowledge in this case. Whatever knowledge was
possessed by the arresting officers, it came in its entirety from the information
furnished by Cesar Masamlok. The location of the firearm was given by the wife of
Burgos (D).
[T]

Summary: An informant identified a certain person as a member of a subversive
group who forcibly recruited him and based on this information, the police went to
arrest the suspect. At the time of the arrest, the suspect was merely plowing his
field.
Rule of Law: In a warrantless arrest, the officer arresting a person who has just
committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense must have personal
knowledge of that fact.
Facts: Cesar Masamlok personally and voluntarily surrendered to the authorities
stating that he was forcibly recruited by accused Ruben Burgos (D) as member of
the NPA, threatening him with the use of firearm against his life, if he refused.
Pursuant to this information, PC-INP members went to the house of the Burgos (D)
and saw him plowing his field when they arrived. One of the arresting offices called
Burgos (D) and asked him about the firearm. At first, Burgos (D) denied having any
firearm, but later, Burgos's (D) wife pointed to a place below their house where a
gun was buried in the ground.
In arrests without a warrant under Section 6(b), however, it is not enough that
there is reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed
a crime. A crime must in fact or actually have been committed first. That a crime
has actually been committed is an essential precondition. It is not enough to
suspect that a crime may have been committed. The fact of the commission of the
offense must be undisputed. The test of reasonable ground applies only to the
identity of the perpetrator.
In this case, the Burgos (D) was arrested on the sole basis of Masamlok's verbal
report. Masamlok led the authorities to suspect that the accused had committed a
crime. They were still fishing for evidence of a crime not yet ascertained. The
subsequent recovery of the subject firearm on the basis of information from the
lips of a frightened wife cannot make the arrest lawful. If an arrest without warrant
is unlawful at the moment it is made, generally nothing that happened or is
discovered afterward can make it lawful. The fruit of a poisoned tree is necessarily
also tainted.

After recovery of said firearm, Burgos (D) pointed to a stock pile of cogon where the
officers recovered alleged subversive documents. Burgos (D) further admitted that
the firearm was issued to him by Nestor Jimenez, team leader of sparrow unit.

Issues: Is the warrantless arrest valid? Is the warrantless search valid?

Ruling: No. Under Section 6(a) of Rule 113, the officer arresting a person who has
just committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense must have personal
knowledge of that fact. The offense must also be committed in his presence or
within his view. (Sayo vs. Chief of Police, 80 Phil. 859).
G.R. No. L-14639 March 25, 1919ZACARIAS VILLAVICENCIO, ET AL. vs. JUSTO
LUKBAN, ET AL.
Issue:
The writ of Habeas Corpus was filed by the petitioner, with the prayer that the
respondent produce around 170 women whom Justo Lukban et, al deported to
Davao. Liberty of abode was also raised versus the power of the executive of the
Municipality in deporting the women without their knowledge in his capacity as
Mayor.
Facts:
Justo Lukban as Manila City's Mayor together with Anton Hohmann, the city's Chief
of Police, took custody of about 170 women at the night of October 25 beyond the
latters consent and knowledge and thereafter were shipped to Mindanao
specifically in Davao where they were signed as laborers. Said women are inmates
of the houses of prostitution situated in Gardenia Street, in the district of Sampaloc.
That when the petitioner filed for habeas corpus, the respondent moved to dismiss
the case saying that those women were already out of their jurisdiction and that , it
should be filed in the city of Davao instead.
The court ruled in favor of the petitioner with the instructions;
For the respondents to have fulfilled the court's order, three optional courses were
open: (1) They could have produced the bodies of the persons according to the
command of the writ; or (2) they could have shown by affidavit that on account of
sickness or infirmity those persons could not safely be brought before the court; or
(3) they could have presented affidavits to show that the parties in question or their
attorney waived the right to be present.
Held:
The court concluded the case by granting the parties aggrieved the sum of 400
pesos each, plus 100 pesos for nominal damage due to contempt of court.
Reasoning further that if the chief executive of any municipality in the Philippines
could forcibly and illegally take a private citizen and place him beyond the
boundaries of the municipality, and then, when called upon to defend his official
action, could calmly fold his hands and claim that the person was under no restraint
and that he, the official, had no jurisdiction over this other municipality.
We believe the true principle should be that, if the respondent is within the
jurisdiction of the court and has it in his power to obey the order of the court and
thus to undo the wrong that he has inflicted, he should be compelled to do so. Even
if the party to whom the writ is addressed has illegally parted with the custody of a
person before the application for the writ is no reason why the writ should not
issue. If the mayor and the chief of police, acting under no authority of law, could
deport these women from the city of Manila to Davao, the same officials must
necessarily have the same means to return them from Davao to Manila. The
respondents, within the reach of process, may not be permitted to restrain a fellow
citizen of her liberty by forcing her to change her domicile and to avow the act with
impunity in the courts, while the person who has lost her birthright of liberty has
no effective recourse. The great writ of liberty may not thus be easily evaded.
Stonehill v. diokno c. Petitioners were not the proper party to question the validity and return
of those taken from the corporations for which they acted as officers as
they are treated as personality different from that of the corporation

Facts: Respondents issued, on different dates, 42 search warrants against

petitioners personally, and/or corporations for which they are officers directing
peace officers to search the persons of petitioners and premises of their offices,
warehouses and/or residences to search for personal properties books of
accounts, financial records, vouchers, correspondence, receipts, ledgers, journals,
portfolios, credit journals, typewriters, and other documents showing all business
transactions including disbursement receipts, balance sheets and profit and loss
statements and Bobbins(cigarettes) as the subject of the offense for violations of
Central Bank Act, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue Code, and Revised
Penal Code.

Upon effecting the search in the offices of the aforementioned corporations and on
the respective residences of the petitioners, there seized documents, papers,
money and other records. Petitioners then were subjected to deportation
proceedings and were constrained to question the legality of the searches and
seizures as well as the admissibility of those seized as evidence against them.

On March 20, 1962, the SC issued a writ of preliminary injunction and partially lifted
the same on June 29, 1962 with respect to some documents and papers.

Held:

a. Search warrants issued were violative of the Constitution and the Rules,
thus, illegal or being general warrants. There is no probable cause and
warrant did not particularly specify the things to be seized. The purpose
of the requirement is to avoid placing the sanctity of the domicile and the
privacy of communication and correspondence at the mercy of the
whims, caprice or passion of peace officers.

b. Document seized from an illegal search warrant is not admissible in court

as a fruit of a poisonous tee. However, they could not be returned, except
if warranted by the circumstances.
Jose Burgos vs. Chief of Staff As to the issue that the items seized were real properties, the court applied the
principle in the case of Davao Sawmill Co. v. Castillo, ruling that machinery which
G.R. No L-64261 is movable by nature becomes immobilized when placed by the owner of the
tenement, property or plant, but not so when placed by a tenant, usufructuary, or
December 26, 1984
any other person having only a temporary right, unless such person acted as the
agent of the owner. In the case at bar, petitioners did not claim to be the owners of
the land and/or building on which the machineries were placed. This being the
Facts: case, the machineries in question, while in fact bolted to the ground remain
movable property susceptible to seizure under a search warrant.

However, the Court declared the two warrants null and void.
Two warrants were issued against petitioners for the search on the premises of
Metropolitan Mail and We Forum newspapers and the seizure of items alleged
to have been used in subversive activities. Petitioners prayed that a writ of
Probable cause for a search is defined as such facts and circumstances which would
preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction be issued for the return of the
lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been
seized articles, and that respondents be enjoined from using the articles thus seized
committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the
as evidence against petitioner.
place sought to be searched.

Petitioners questioned the warrants for the lack of probable cause and that the two
The Court ruled that the affidavits submitted for the application of the warrant did
warrants issued indicated only one and the same address. In addition, the items
not satisfy the requirement of probable cause, the statements of the witnesses
seized subject to the warrant were real properties.
having been mere generalizations.

Issue:
Furthermore, jurisprudence tells of the prohibition on the issuance of general
Whether or not the two warrants were valid to justify seizure of the items. warrants. (Stanford vs. State of Texas). The description and enumeration in the
warrant of the items to be searched and seized did not indicate with specification
the subversive nature of the said items.

Held:

The defect in the indication of the same address in the two warrants was held by
the court as a typographical error and immaterial in view of the correct
determination of the place sought to be searched set forth in the application. The
purpose and intent to search two distinct premises was evident in the issuance of
the two warrant.
People vs. Baes

FACTS: Baes, the parish priest of the Roman Catholic Church of Lumban, Laguna,
charged the accused with an offense against religion for causing the funeral of a
member of the Church of Christ to pass through the churchyard fronting the
Roman Catholic Church, belonging to said church and devoted to the religious
worship thereof. The parish priest opposed this, but through force and threats of
physical violence by the accused, was compelled to allow the funeral to pass
through the said churchyard.
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 ceremoncy, shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the
faithful.

ISSUE: Whether or not the act complained of is notoriously offensive to the

religious feelings of the Catholics, thereby violating Article 133 of the RPC.

HELD: The facts alleged in the complaint constitute the offense defined and
penalized in article 133 of the Revised Penal Code, and should the fiscal file an
information alleging the said facts and a trial be thereafter held at which the said
facts should be conclusively established, the court may find the accused guilty of
the offense complained of, or that of coercion, or that of trespass under article 281
of the Revised

Whether or not the act complained of is offensive to the religious feelings of the
Catholics, is a question of fact which must be judged only according to the feelings
of the Catholic and not those of other faithful

Laurel dissent: Offense to religious feelings should not be made to depend upon the
more or less broad or narrow conception of any given particular religion, but should
be gauged having in view the nature of the acts committed and after scrutiny of all
the facts and circumstance which should be viewed through the mirror of an
unbiased judicial criterion. Otherwise, the gravity or leniency of the offense would
hinge on the subjective characterization of the act from the point of view of a given
religious denomination or sect, and in such a case, the application of the law would
be partial and arbitrary, withal, dangerous, especially in a country said to be "once
the scene of religious intolerance and persecution.
RA10353 An act defining and penalizing enforced or involuntary disappearance

RA10353 An act defining and penalizing enforced or involuntary disappearance

Approved by the President on: December 21, 2012

[REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10353]

AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING ENFORCED OR INVOLUNTARY DISAPPEARANCE

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in

Congress assembled:

SECTION 1. Short Title. This Act shall be known as the Anti-Enforced or

Involuntary Disappearance Act of 2012.

SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. The State values the dignity of every human person
and guarantees full respect for human rights for which highest priority shall be
given to the enactment of measures for the enhancement of the right of all people
to human dignity, the prohibition against secret detention places, solitary
confinement, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention, the provision for
penal and civil sanctions for such violations, and compensation and rehabilitation
for the victims and their families, particularly with respect to the use of torture,
force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which vitiate the free will of
persons abducted, arrested, detained, disappeared or otherwise removed from the
effective protection of the law.

Furthermore, the State adheres to the principles and standards on the absolute
condemnation of human rights violations set by the 1987 Philippine Constitution
and various international instruments such as, but not limited to, the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the Convention Against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), to which
the Philippines is a State party.
[REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10353]
AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING ENFORCED OR INVOLUNTARY
DISAPPEARANCE
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in
Congress assembled:
SECTION 1. Short Title. This Act shall be known as the Anti-Enforced or
Involuntary Disappearance Act of 2012.
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. The State values the dignity of every human person
and guarantees full respect for human rights for which highest priority shall be
given to the enactment of measures for the enhancement of the right of all people
to human dignity, the prohibition against secret detention places, solitary
confinement, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention, the provision for
penal and civil sanctions for such violations, and compensation and rehabilitation
for the victims and their families, particularly with respect to the use of torture,
force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which vitiate the free will of
persons abducted, arrested, detained, disappeared or otherwise removed from the
effective protection of the law.
Furthermore, the State adheres to the principles and standards on the absolute
condemnation of human rights violations set by the 1987 Philippine Constitution
and various international instruments such as, but not limited to, the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the Convention Against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), to which
the Philippines is a State party.
SEC. 3. Definitions. For purposes of this Act, the following terms shall be defined as
follows:
(a) Agents of the State refer to persons who, by direct provision of the law, popular
election or appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the performance
of public functions in the government, or shall perform in the government or in any
of its branches public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official, of any
rank or class.
(b) Enforced or involuntary disappearance refers to the arrest, detention, abduction
or any other form of deprivation of liberty committed by agents of the State or by
persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or
acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of
liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person,
which places such person outside the protection of the law.
(c) Order of Battle refers to a document made by the military, police or any law
enforcement agency of the government, listing the names of persons and
organizations that it perceives to be enemies of the State and which it considers as
legitimate targets as combatants that it could deal with, through the use of means
allowed by domestic and international law.
(d) Victim refers to the disappeared person and any individual who has suffered
harm as a direct result of an enforced or involuntary disappearance as defined in
letter (b) of this Section.
SEC. 4. Nonderogability of the Right Against Enforced or Involuntary
Disappearance. The right against enforced or involuntary disappearance and the
fundamental safeguards for its prevention shall not be suspended under any
circumstance including political instability, threat of war, state of war or other
public emergencies.
SEC. 5. Order of Battle or Any Order of Similar Nature, Not Legal Ground, for
Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance. An Order of Battle or any order of
similar nature, official or otherwise, from a superior officer or a public authority
causing the commission of enforced or involuntary disappearance is unlawful and
cannot be invoked as a justifying or exempting circumstance. Any person receiving
such an order shall have the right to disobey it.
SEC. 6. Right of Access to Communication. It shall be the absolute right of any
person deprived of liberty to have immediate access to any form of communication
available in order for him or her to inform his or her family, relative, friend, lawyer
or any human rights organization on his or her whereabouts and condition.
SEC. 7. Duty to Report Victims of Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance. Any
person, not being a principal, accomplice or accessory, who has an information of a
case of enforced or involuntary disappearance or who shall learn of such
information or that a person is a victim of enforced or involuntary disappearance,
shall immediately report in writing the circumstances and whereabouts of the
victim to any office, detachment or division of the Department of the Interior and
Local Government (DILG), the Department of National Defense (DND), the
Philippine National Police (PNP), the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the City or Provincial Prosecutor, the
Commission on Human Rights (CHR) or any human rights organization and, if
known, the victims family, relative, or lawyer.
SEC. 8. Duty to Certify in Writing on the Results of Inquiry into a Reported
Disappeared Persons Whereabouts. In case a family member, relative, lawyer,
representative of a human rights organization or a member of the media inquires
with a member or official of any police or military detention center, the PNP or any
of its agencies, the AFP or any of its agencies, the NBI or any other agency or
instrumentality of the government, as well as any hospital or morgue, public or
private, on the presence or whereabouts of a reported victim of enforced or
involuntary disappearance, such member or official shall immediately issue a
certification in writing to the inquiring person or entity on the presence or absence
and/or information on the whereabouts of such disappeared person, stating,
among others, in clear and unequivocal manner the date and time of inquiry,
details of the inquiry and the response to the inquiry.
SEC. 9. Duty of Inquest/Investigating Public Prosecutor or any Judicial or Quasi-
Judicial Official or Employee. Any inquest or investigating public prosecutor, or any
judicial or quasi-judicial official or employee who learns that the person delivered
for inquest or preliminary investigation or for any other judicial process is a victim
of enforced or involuntary disappearance shall have the duty to immediately
disclose the victims whereabouts to his or her immediate family, relatives, lawyer/s
or to a human rights organization by the most expedient means.
SEC. 10. Official Up-to-Date Register of All Persons Detained or Confined. All
persons detained or confined shall be placed solely in officially recognized and
controlled places of detention or confinement where an official up-to-date register
of such persons shall be maintained. Relatives, lawyers, judges, official bodies and
all persons who have legitimate interest in the whereabouts and condition of the
persons deprived of liberty shall have free access to the register.
The following details, among others, shall be recorded, in the register:
(a) The identity or name, description and address of the person deprived of liberty;
(b) The date, time and location where the person was deprived of liberty and the
identity of the person who made such deprivation of liberty;
(c) The authority who decided the deprivation of liberty and the reasons for the
deprivation of liberty or the crime or offense committed;
(d) The authority controlling the deprivation of liberty;
(e) The place of deprivation of liberty, the date and time of admission to the place
of deprivation of liberty and the authority responsible for the place of deprivation
of liberty;
(f) Records of physical, mental and psychological condition of the detained or
confined person before and after the deprivation of liberty and the name and
address of the physician who examined him or her physically, mentally and
medically;
(g) The date and time of release or transfer of the detained or confined person to
another place of detention, the destination and the authority responsible for the
transfer;
(h) The date and time of each removal of the detained or confined person from his
or her cell, the reason or purpose for such removal and the date and time of his or
her return to his or her cell;
(i) A summary of the physical, mental and medical findings of the detained or
confined person after each interrogation;
(j) The names and addresses of the persons who visit the detained or confined
person and the date and time of such visits and the date and time of each
departure;
(k) In the event of death during the deprivation of liberty, the identity, the
circumstances and cause of death of the victim as well as the destination of the
human remains; and
(1) All other important events bearing on and all relevant details regarding the
treatment of the detained or confined person.
Provided, That the details required under letters (a) to (f) shall be entered
immediately in the register upon arrest and/or detention.
All information contained in the register shall be regularly or upon request reported
to the CHR or any other agency of government tasked to monitor and protect
human rights and shall be made available to the public.
SEC. 11. Submission of List of Government Detention Facilities. Within six (6)
months from the effectivity of this Act and as may be requested by the CHR
thereafter, all government agencies concerned shall submit an updated inventory or
list of all officially recognized and controlled detention or confinement facilities, and
the list of detainees or persons deprived of liberty under their respective
jurisdictions to the CHR.
SEC. 12. Immediate Issuance and Compliance of the Writs of Habeas Corpus,
Amparo and Habeas Data. All proceedings pertaining to the issuance of the writs
of habeas corpus, amparo and habeas data shall be dispensed with expeditiously.
As such, all courts and other concerned agencies of government shall give priority
to such proceedings.
Moreover, any order issued or promulgated pursuant to such writs or their
respective proceedings shall be executed and complied with immediately.
SEC. 13. Visitation /Inspection of Places of Detention and, Confinement. The CHR
or its duly authorized representatives are hereby mandated and authorized to
conduct regular, independent, unannounced and unrestricted visits to or inspection
of all places of detention and confinement.
SEC. 14. Liability of Commanding Officer or Superior. The immediate commanding
officer of the unit concerned of the AFP or the immediate senior official of the PNP
and other law enforcement agencies shall be held liable as a principal to the crime
of enforced or involuntary disappearance for acts committed by him or her that
shall have led, assisted, abetted or allowed, whether directly or indirectly, the
commission thereof by his or her subordinates. If such commanding officer has
knowledge of or, owing to the circumstances at the time, should have known that
an enforced or involuntary disappearance is being committed, or has been
committed by subordinates or by others within the officers area of responsibility
and, despite such knowledge, did not take preventive or coercive action either
before, during or immediately after its commission, when he or she has the
authority to prevent or investigate allegations of enforced or involuntary
disappearance but failed to prevent or investigate such allegations, whether
deliberately or due to negligence, shall also be held liable as principal.
SEC. 15. Penal Provisions. (a) The penalty of reclusion perpetua and its accessory
penalties shall be imposed upon the following persons:
(1) Those who directly committed the act of enforced or involuntary disappearance;
(2) Those who directly forced, instigated, encouraged or induced others to commit
the act of enforced or involuntary disappearance;
(3) Those who cooperated in the act of enforced or involuntary disappearance by
committing another act without which the act of enforced or involuntary
disappearance would not have been consummated;
(4) Those officials who allowed the act or abetted in the consummation of enforced
or involuntary disappearance when it is within their power to stop or uncover the
commission thereof; and
(5) Those who cooperated in the execution of the act of enforced or involuntary
disappearance by previous or simultaneous acts.
(b) The penalty of reclusion temporal and its accessory penalties shall be imposed
upon those who shall commit the act of enforced or involuntary disappearance in
the attempted stage as provided for and defined under Article 6 of the Revised
Penal Code.
(c) The penalty of reclusion temporal and its accessory penalties shall also be
imposed upon persons who, having knowledge of the act of enforced or involuntary
disappearance and without having participated therein, either as principals or
accomplices, took part subsequent to its commission in any of the following
manner:
(1) By themselves profiting from or assisting the offender to profit from the effects
of the act of enforced or involuntary disappearance;
(2) By concealing the act of enforced or involuntary disappearance and/or
destroying the effects or instruments thereof in order to prevent its discovery; or
(3) By harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal/s in the act of
enforced or involuntary disappearance, provided such accessory acts are done with
the abuse of official functions.
(d) The penalty of prision correctional and its accessory penalties shall be imposed
against persons who defy, ignore or unduly delay compliance with any order duly
issued or promulgated pursuant to the writs of habeas corpus, amparo and habeas
data or their respective proceedings.
(e) The penalty of arresto mayor and its accessory penalties shall be imposed
against any person who shall violate the provisions of Sections 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of
this Act.
SEC. 16. Preventive Suspension/Summary Dismissal. Government officials and
personnel who are found to be perpetrators of or participants in any manner in the
commission of enforced or involuntary disappearance as a result of a preliminary
investigation conducted for that purpose shall be preventively suspended or
summarily dismissed from the service, depending on the strength of the evidence
so presented and gathered in the said preliminary investigation or as may be
recommended by the investigating authority.
SEC. 17. Civil Liability. The act of enforced or involuntary disappearance shall
render its perpetrators and the State agencies which organized, acquiesced in or
tolerated such disappearance liable under civil law.
SEC. 18. Independent Liability. The criminal liability of the offender under this Act
shall be independent of or without prejudice to the prosecution and conviction of
the said offender for any violation of Republic Act No. 7438, otherwise known as
An Act Defining Certain Rights of Person Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial
Investigation as well as the Duties of the Arresting, Detaining, and Investigating
Officers, and Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof; Republic Act No. 9745,
otherwise known as An Act Penalizing Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and
Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Prescribing Penalties Therefor; and
applicable provisions of the Revised Penal Code.
SEC. 19. Nonexclusivity or Double Jeopardy Under International Law. Any
investigation, trial and decision in any Philippines court, or body for any violation of
this Act shall; be without prejudice to any investigation, trial, decision or any other
legal or administrative process before any appropriate international court or agency
under applicable international human rights and humanitarian law.
SEC. 20. Exemption from Prosecution. Any offender who volunteers information
that leads to the discovery of the victim of enforced or involuntary disappearance
or the prosecution of the offenders without the victim being found shall be exempt
from any criminal and/or civil liability under this Act: Provided, That said offender
does not appear to be the most guilty.
SEC. 21. Continuing Offense. An act constituting enforced or involuntary
disappearance shall be considered a continuing offense as long as the perpetrators
continue to conceal the fate and whereabouts of the disappeared person and such
circumstances have not been determined with certainty.
SEC. 22. Statue of Limitations Exemption. The prosecution of persons responsible
for enforced or involuntary disappearance shall not prescribe unless the victim
surfaces alive. In which case, the prescriptive period shall be twenty-five (25) years
from the date of such reappearance.
SEC. 23. Special Amnesty Law Exclusion. Persons who are changed with and/or
guilty of the act of enforced or involuntary disappearance shall not benefit from any
special amnesty law or other similar executive measures that shall exempt them
from any penal proceedings or sanctions.
SEC. 24. State Protection The State, through its appropriate agencies, shall ensure
the safety of all persons involved in the search, investigation and prosecution of
enforced or involuntary disappearance including, but not limited to, the victims,
their families, complainants, witnesses, legal counsel and representatives of human
rights organizations and media. They shall likewise be protected from any
intimidation or reprisal.
SEC. 25. Applicability of Refouler. No person shall be expelled, returned or Development (DSWD) and the concerned nongovernment organization/s, shall
extradited to another State where there are substantial grounds to believe that provide them with appropriate medical care and rehabilitation free of charge.
such person shall be in danger of being subjected to enforced or involuntary
disappearance. For purposes of determining whether such grounds exist, the Toward the attainment of restorative justice, a parallel rehabilitation program for
Secretary of the Department, of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and the Secretary of the persons who have committed enforced or involuntary disappearance shall likewise
Department of Justice (DOJ) in coordination with the Chairperson of the CHR, shall be implemented without cost to such offenders.
take into account all relevant considerations including where applicable and not
SEC. 28. Implementing Rules and Regulations. Within thirty (30) days from the
limited to, the existence in the requesting State of a consistent pattern of gross,
effectivity of this Act, the DOJ, the DSWD, the CHR, the Families of Victims of
flagrant or mass violations of human rights.
Involuntary Disappearance (FIND) and the Families of Desaparecidos for
SEC. 26. Restitution and Compensation to Victims of Enforced or Involuntary Justice (Desaparecidos), in consultation with other human rights organizations, shall
Disappearance and/or Their Immediate Relatives. The victims of enforced or jointly promulgate the rules and regulations for the effective implementation of this
involuntary disappearance who surface alive shall be entitled to monetary Act and shall ensure the full dissemination of the same to the public.
compensation, rehabilitation and restitution of honor and reputation. Such
SEC. 29. Suppletory Applications. The applicable provisions of the Revised Penal
restitution of honor and reputation shall include immediate expunging or
Code shall have suppletory application insofar as they are consistent with the
rectification of any derogatory record, information or public declaration/statement
provisions of this Act.
on his or her person, personal circumstances, status, and/or organizational
affiliation by the appropriate government or private agency or agencies concerned.
SEC. 30. Appropriations. The amount of Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) is
hereby appropriated for the initial implementation of this Act by the CHR.
The immediate relatives of a victim of enforced or involuntary disappearance,
Subsequent fluids for the continuing implementation of this Act shall be included in
within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, may also claim for
the respective budgets of the CHR and the DOJ in the annual General
compensation as provided for under Republic Act No. 7309, entitled An Act
Appropriations Act.
Creating a Board of Claims under the Department of Justice for Victims of Unjust
Imprisonment or Detention and Victims of Violent Crimes and For Other Purposes,
SEC. 31. Separability Clause. If for any reason, any section or provision of this Act is
and other relief programs of the government.
declared unconstitutional or invalid, such other sections or provisions not affected
thereby shall remain in full force and effect.
The package of indemnification for both the victims and the immediate relatives
within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity shall be without prejudice
SEC. 32. Repealing Clause. All laws, decrees, executive orders, rules and
to other legal remedies that may be available to them.
regulations and other issuances or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of
this Act are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly.
SEC. 27. Rehabilitation of Victims and/or Their Immediate Relatives, and Offenders.
In order that the victims of enforced or involuntary disappearance who surfaced
SEC. 33. Effectivity Clause. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its
alive and/or their immediate relatives within the fourth civil degree of
publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation or the Official
consanguinity or affinity, may be effectively reintegrated into the mainstream of
Gazette, which shall not be later than seven (7) days after the approval thereof.
society and in the process of development, the State, through the CHR, in
coordination with the Department of Health, the Department of Social Welfare and
Rule 112, Section 6. When warrant of arrest may issue. (a) By the Regional Trial Rule 113, Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a
Court. Within ten (10) days from the filing of the complaint or information, the private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
judge shall personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting
evidence. He may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
fails to establish probable cause. If he finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
of arrest, or a commitment order if the accused has already been arrested pursuant
(b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe
to a warrant issued by the judge who conducted the preliminary investigation or
based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be
when the complaint or information was filed pursuant to section 7 of this Rule. In
arrested has committed it; and
case of doubt on the existence of probable cause, the judge may order the
prosecutor to present additional evidence within five (5) days from notice and the
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
issue must be resolved by the court within thirty (30) days from the filing of the
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily
complaint of information.
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.
(b) By the Municipal Trial Court. When required pursuant to the second
paragraph of section 1 of this Rule, the preliminary investigation of cases falling
In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a
under the original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court
warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be
in Cities, Municipal Trial Court, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court may be conducted by
proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112. (5a)
either the judge or the prosecutor. When conducted by the prosecutor, the
procedure for the issuance of a warrant or arrest by the judge shall be governed by
paragraph (a) of this section. When the investigation is conducted by the judge
himself, he shall follow the procedure provided in section 3 of this Rule. If the
findings and recommendations are affirmed by the provincial or city prosecutor, or
by the Ombudsman or his deputy, and the corresponding information is filed, he
shall issue a warrant of arrest. However, without waiting for the conclusion of the
investigation, the judge may issue a warrant of arrest if he finds after an
examination in writing and under oath of the complainant and his witnesses in the
form of searching question and answers, that a probable cause exists and that there
is a necessity of placing the respondent under immediate custody in order not to
frustrate the ends of justice.

(c) When warrant of arrest not necessary. A warrant of arrest shall not issue if
the accused is already under detention pursuant to a warrant issued by the
municipal trial court in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, or if the
complaint or information was filed pursuant to section 7 of this Rule or is for an
offense penalized by fine only. The court shall then proceed in the exercise of its
original jurisdiction. (6a)
RULE 126
Search and Seizure
Section 1. Search warrant defined. A search warrant is an order in writing issued
in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a
peace officer, commanding him to search for personal property described therein
and bring it before the court. (1)
Section 2. Court where application for search warrant shall be filed. An
application for search warrant shall be filed with the following:
a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed.
b) For compelling reasons stated in the application, any court within the judicial
region where the crime was committed if the place of the commission of the crime
is known, or any court within the judicial region where the warrant shall be
enforced.
However, if the criminal action has already been filed, the application shall only be
made in the court where the criminal action is pending. (n)
Section 3. Personal property to be seized. A search warrant may be issued for the
search and seizure of personal property:
(a) Subject of the offense;
(b) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the offense; or
(c) Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense. (2a)
Section 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. A search warrant shall not issue
except upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be
determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of
the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the
place to be searched and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the
Philippines. (3a)
Section 5. Examination of complainant; record. The judge must, before issuing
the warrant, personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers, in
writing and under oath, the complainant and the witnesses he may produce on
facts personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn statements,
together with the affidavits submitted. (4a)
Section 6. Issuance and form of search warrant. If the judge is satisfied of the
existence of facts upon which the application is based or that there is probable
cause to believe that they exist, he shall issue the warrant, which must be
substantially in the form prescribed by these Rules. (5a)
Section 7. Right to break door or window to effect search. The officer, if refused
admittance to the place of directed search after giving notice of his purpose and
authority, may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house or any
part of a house or anything therein to execute the warrant or liberate himself or
any person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained therein. (6)
Section 8. Search of house, room, or premise to be made in presence of two
witnesses. No search of a house, room, or any other premise shall be made
except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family
or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion
residing in the same locality. (7a)
Section 9. Time of making search. The warrant must direct that it be served in
the day time, unless the affidavit asserts that the property is on the person or in the
place ordered to be searched, in which case a direction may be inserted that it be
served at any time of the day or night. (8)
Section 10. Validity of search warrant. A search warrant shall be valid for ten (10)
days from its date. Thereafter it shall be void. (9a)
Section 11. Receipt for the property seized. The officer seizing property under
the warrant must give a detailed receipt for the same to the lawful occupant of the
premises in whose presence the search and seizure were made, or in the absence
of such occupant, must, in the presence of at least two witnesses of sufficient age
and discretion residing in the same locality, leave a receipt in the place in which he
found the seized property. (10a)
Section 12. Delivery of property and inventory thereof to court; return and
proceedings thereon. (a) The officer must forthwith deliver the property seized
to the judge who issued the warrant, together with a true inventory thereof duly
verified under oath.

(b) Ten (10) days after issuance of the search warrant, the issuing judge shall
ascertain if the return has been made, and if none, shall summon the person to
whom the warrant was issued and require him to explain why no return was made.
If the return has been made, the judge shall ascertain whether section 11 of this
Rule has been complained with and shall require that the property seized be
delivered to him. The judge shall see to it that subsection (a) hereof has been
complied with.

(c) The return on the search warrant shall be filed and kept by the custodian of the
log book on search warrants who shall enter therein the date of the return, the
result, and other actions of the judge.

A violation of this section shall constitute contempt of court.(11a)

Section 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. A person lawfully arrested may be
searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or
constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant. (12a)

Section 14. Motion to quash a search warrant or to suppress evidence; where to

file. A motion to quash a search warrant and/or to suppress evidence obtained
thereby may be filed in and acted upon only by the court where the action has
been instituted. If no criminal action has been instituted, the motion may be filed in
and resolved by the court that issued the search warrant. However, if such court
failed to resolve the motion and a criminal case is subsequent filed in another
court, the motion shall be resolved by the latter court. (n)
Republic Act No. 7438 April 27, 1992
AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF PERSON ARRESTED, DETAINED OR UNDER
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS THE DUTIES OF THE ARRESTING,
DETAINING AND INVESTIGATING OFFICERS, AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR
VIOLATIONS THEREOF
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in
Congress assembled::
Section 1. Statement of Policy. It is the policy of the Senate to value the dignity of
every human being and guarantee full respect for human rights.
Section 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation;
Duties of Public Officers.
(a) Any person arrested detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times
be assisted by counsel.
(b) Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his order or his place,
who arrests, detains or investigates any person for the commission of an offense
shall inform the latter, in a language known to and understood by him, of his rights
to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his
own choice, who shall at all times be allowed to confer privately with the person
arrested, detained or under custodial investigation. If such person cannot afford the
services of his own counsel, he must be provided with a competent and
independent counsel by the investigating officer.lawphi1
(c) The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to writing by the investigating
officer, provided that before such report is signed, or thumbmarked if the person
arrested or detained does not know how to read and write, it shall be read and
adequately explained to him by his counsel or by the assisting counsel provided by
the investigating officer in the language or dialect known to such arrested or
detained person, otherwise, such investigation report shall be null and void and of
no effect whatsoever.
(d) Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under
custodial investigation shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence
of his counsel or in the latter's absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of
any of the parents, elder brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the
municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as
chosen by him; otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as
evidence in any proceeding.
(e) Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the provisions of Article 125
of the Revised Penal Code, or under custodial investigation, shall be in writing and
signed by such person in the presence of his counsel; otherwise the waiver shall be
null and void and of no effect.
(f) Any person arrested or detained or under custodial investigation shall be allowed
visits by or conferences with any member of his immediate family, or any medical
doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by him or by any member of his
immediate family or by his counsel, or by any national non-governmental
organization duly accredited by the Commission on Human Rights of by any
international non-governmental organization duly accredited by the Office of the
President. The person's "immediate family" shall include his or her spouse, fianc
or fiance, parent or child, brother or sister, grandparent or grandchild, uncle or
aunt, nephew or niece, and guardian or ward.
As used in this Act, "custodial investigation" shall include the practice of issuing an
"invitation" to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is
suspected to have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the "inviting"
officer for any violation of law.
Section 3. Assisting Counsel. Assisting counsel is any lawyer, except those directly
affected by the case, those charged with conducting preliminary investigation or
those charged with the prosecution of crimes.
The assisting counsel other than the government lawyers shall be entitled to the
following fees;
(a) The amount of One hundred fifty pesos (P150.00) if the suspected person is
chargeable with light felonies;lawphi1alf
(b) The amount of Two hundred fifty pesos (P250.00) if the suspected person is
chargeable with less grave or grave felonies;
(c) The amount of Three hundred fifty pesos (P350.00) if the suspected person is The provisions of the above Section notwithstanding, any security officer with
chargeable with a capital offense. custodial responsibility over any detainee or prisoner may undertake such
reasonable measures as may be necessary to secure his safety and prevent his
The fee for the assisting counsel shall be paid by the city or municipality where the escape.
custodial investigation is conducted, provided that if the municipality of city cannot
pay such fee, the province comprising such municipality or city shall pay the fee: Section 5. Repealing Clause. Republic Act No. No. 857, as amended, is hereby
Provided, That the Municipal or City Treasurer must certify that no funds are repealed. Other laws, presidential decrees, executive orders or rules and
available to pay the fees of assisting counsel before the province pays said fees. regulations, or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are
repealed or modified accordingly.
In the absence of any lawyer, no custodial investigation shall be conducted and the
suspected person can only be detained by the investigating officer in accordance Section 6. Effectivity. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days following its
with the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. publication in the Official Gazette or in any daily newspapers of general circulation
in the Philippines.
Section 4. Penalty Clause. (a) Any arresting public officer or employee, or any
investigating officer, who fails to inform any person arrested, detained or under Approved: April 27, 1992.lawphi1
custodial investigation of his right to remain silent and to have competent and
independent counsel preferably of his own choice, shall suffer a fine of Six thousand
pesos (P6,000.00) or a penalty of imprisonment of not less than eight (8) years but
not more than ten (10) years, or both. The penalty of perpetual absolute
disqualification shall also be imposed upon the investigating officer who has been
previously convicted of a similar offense.

The same penalties shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee, or anyone
acting upon orders of such investigating officer or in his place, who fails to provide a
competent and independent counsel to a person arrested, detained or under
custodial investigation for the commission of an offense if the latter cannot afford
the services of his own counsel.

(b) Any person who obstructs, prevents or prohibits any lawyer, any member of the
immediate family of a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation, or
any medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by him or by any member
of his immediate family or by his counsel, from visiting and conferring privately with
him, or from examining and treating him, or from ministering to his spiritual needs,
at any hour of the day or, in urgent cases, of the night shall suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of not less than four (4) years nor more than six (6) years, and a fine
of four thousand pesos (P4,000.00).lawphi1