Title Two accused acted without malice, but he should

CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF have verified the order of release before
THE STATE proceeding to make the re-arrest.

Arbitrary detention or expulsion, violation of The law doesnt fix a min period of
dwelling, prohibition, interruption and dissolution of detention. In US vs. Braganza, the detention
peaceful meetings and crimes against religious
was for less than half an hour; and in US vs.
worship
Agravante, the detention was only for one hour.
Section One. Arbitrary detention and expulsion
Article 124. Arbitrary detention Rule 112 Sec. 6
Article 125. Delay in the delivery of detained When warrant of arrest may issue -
persons to the proper judicial authorities
Article 126. Delaying release (a) By the RTC Within 10 days from the filing of the
Article 127. Expulsion complaint or information, the judge shall personally
evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its
Section Two. Violation of domicile supporting evidence. He may immediately dismiss
Article 128. Violation of domicile the case if the evidence on the record clearly fails to
Article 129. Search warrants maliciously establish probable cause. If he finds probable cause,
obtained and abuse in the service of he shall issue a warrant of arrest or a commitment
those legally obtained order if the accused has already been arrested
Article 130. Searching domicile without pursuant to a warrant issued by the judge who
witnesses conducted the PI or when the complaint or
information is filed pursuant to Sec. 7 of this Rule. In
Section Three. Prohibition, interruption and case of doubt on the existence of probable cause, the
dissolution of peaceful meetings judge may order the prosecutor to present additional
Article 131. Prohibition, interruption and evidence within 5 days from notice and the issue
dissolution of peaceful meetings must be resolved by the court within 30 days from
the filing of the complaint or information.
Section Four. Crimes against religious worship
Article 132. Interruption of religious worship (b) By the MTC When required pursuant to par.2
Article 133. Offending the religious feelings Sec. 1 of this Rule, the PI of cases falling under the
orig jurisdxn of the MTCs may be conducted by either
the judge or the prosecutor. When conducted by the
prosecutor, the procedure for the issuance of a
Article 124. Arbitrary Detention warrant of arrest by the judge shall be governed by
par. (a) of this section. When the investigation is
Elements: conducted by the judge himself, he shall follow the
procedure provided in sec. 3 of this Rule. If his
1. Offender is a public officer or findings and recommendations are affirmed by the
employee; provincial or city prosecutor, or by the Ombudsman
2. He detains a person; or his deputy, and the corresponding information is
filed, he shall issue a warrant of arrest. However,
3. The detention is without legal
without waiting for the conclusion of the
grounds. investigation, the judge may issue a warrant of arrest
if he finds after an examination in writing and under
Meaning of absence of legal grounds oath of the complainant and his witnesses in the
form of searching questions and answers, that a
1. No crime was committed by the probable cause exists and that there is a necessity of
detained; placing the respondent under immediate custody so
2. There is no violent insanity of the as not to frustrate the ends of justice.
detained person; and
(c) Where warrant of arrest not necessary A
3. The person detained has no warrant of arrest shall not issue if the accused is
ailment which requires compulsory already under detention pursuant to a warrant issued
confinement in a hospital. by the MTC in accordance with par. (b) of this section,
or if the complaint or information was filed pursuant
When is there detention? A person is detained to Sec. 7 of this rule or is for an offense penalized by
when he is placed in confinement or there is a fine only. The court shall then proceed in the exercise
restraint on his person. of its original jurisdiction.

The crime of arbitrary detention can be

committed through imprudence.

Illustration: The chief of police rearrested a

woman who had been released by means of a
verbal order of the justice of the peace. The

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

8

Rule 113 Sec. 5
Arrest without warrant; when lawful
A peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested
has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he
has probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person
to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who
has escaped from a penal establishment or place
where he is service final judgment or is temporarily
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped
while being transferred from one confinement to
another.
In cases falling under pars. (a) and (b) above, the
person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith
delivered to the nearest police station or jail and
shall be proceeded against in accordance with Sec. 7
of Rule 112.
Umil vs. Ramos
These are eight (8) petitions praying for the issuance of the
writ of habeas corpus, ordering the respective respondents
to produce the bodies of the persons named and to explain
why they should not be set at liberty without further delay.
In their Returns, the respondents uniformly assert that the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is not available to the
petitioners as they have been legally arrested and are
detained by virtue of valid informations filed in court
against them.
HELD: No compelling reason exists to abandon the
pronouncement in Ilagan vs. Enrile, that a writ of habeas
corpus is no longer available after an information is filed
against the person detained and a warrant of arrest or an
order of commitment is issued by the court where said
information has been filed. However, the answer and the
better practice would be, not to limit the function of
habeas corpus to a mere inquiry as to whether or not the
court which issued the process, judgment or order of
commitment or before whom the detained person is
charged, had jurisdiction or not to issue the process,
judgment or order or to take cognizance of the case, but
rather, in all petitions for habeas corpus the court must
inquire into every phase and aspect of petitioner's
detention from the moment petitioner was taken into
custody up to the moment the court passes upon the merits
of the petition;" and "only after such a scrutiny can the
court satisfy itself that the due process clause of our
Constitution has in fact been satisfied."
People v. Burgos
Burgos was arrested by PC Officers while he was plowing
his field for being a member of the NPA as alleged by
Masamlok whom Burgos forcibly recruited. According to the
prosecution, he admitted possession of a firearm and
subversive documents which were found in his house.
Burgos denied the allegations.
HELD: Arrest and search by the PC officers were not lawful
where personal knowledge of the fact of the crime is
essential. Knowledge came from Masamloks information.
Burgos was not committing any criminal or subversive act
at the time of the arrest. Evidence adduced against him are
inadmissible, having been obtained in violation of his
constitutional rights.
Milo vs. Salonga
Barrio Captain Tuvera Sr., with some private persons,
maltreated Valdez by hitting him, and immediately
thereafter, without legal grounds and with deliberate
intent to deprive Valdez of his liberty, accused Tuvera with
Cpt. Mendoza and Pat. Mangsat lodged and locked Valdez in
side he municipal jail for about 11 hours. Judge Salonga
quashed the information.
HELD: Barrio captains are recognized persons in authority
long before PD299. Therefore, Tuvera had authority to
detain Valdez but such detainment for 11 hours was
without legal cause. The crime committed is arbitrary
detention.
Article 125. Delay in the Delivery of
Detained Persons to the Proper Judicial
Authorities
Elements (as amended by E.O. 272)
1. Offender is a public officer or
employee;
2. He detains a person for some legal
ground;
3. He fails to deliver such person to the
proper judicial authorities within
a. 12 hours for light penalties;
b. 18 hours for correctional
penalties; and
c. 36 hours for afflictive or capital
penalties.
If the offender is a private person, the crime
is Illegal Detention.
Under Art. 125, the public officer has
detained the offended party for some legal
ground. The detention is legal in the beginning
because the person detained was arrested
under any of the circumstances where arrest
without warrant is authorized by law. However,
his detention becomes illegal after a certain
period of time because he is not delivered to
the proper judicial authority. If the detention is
NOT for some legal ground, the crime is
Arbitrary Detention under Art. 124.
Art. 125 does NOT apply when the arrest is
by virtue of a warrant of arrest, in which case,
the person arrested can be detained
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
9
indefinitely until his case is decided by the
court or he posts bail for his temporary release.
Why? Because there is already a case filed
against him in court it is not necessary to
deliver the person to that court.
Delivery to the proper judicial authorities
doesnt consist in a physical delivery, but in
making an accusation or charge or filing of an
information against the person arrested with
the corresponding court or judge.
Proper judicial authorities means the
courts of justice or judges of said courts vested
with judicial power to order the temporary
detention or confinement of a person charged
with having committed a public offense.
Circumstances considered in determining
liability of officer detaining a person beyond
legal period:
- means of communication
- hour of arrest
- other circumstances such as
time of surrender and the
material possibility for the
fiscal to make the investigation
and file in time the necessary
information
Illustration: When A was arrested for direct
assault, punishable by a correctional penalty,
on the evening of June 17, the complaint could
not normally be filed earlier than 8 a.m. of June
18 because govt offices open for business
usually at 8:00 and close at 5:00 p.m.
The illegality of detention is not cured by the
filing of the information in court because a
violation of this article had already been
committed before the information was filed.
Rule 112 Sec. 7
When accused lawfully arrested without a warrant
Before the complaint or information is filed, the
person arrested [without a warrant] may ask for a
preliminary investigation in accordance with this
Rule, but he must sign a waiver of the provisions of
Art. 125 of the RPC, in the presence of his counsel.
Notwithstanding the waiver, he may apply for bail
and the investigation must be terminated within 15
days from its inception.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7438
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.
Who are punishable?
1. Any arresting public officer of employee, or any
investigating officer, who fails to inform any person
arrested, detained or under custodial investigation of
his right to remain silent and to have competent and
independent counsel preferably of his own choice
2. An 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.
3. Any person who obstruct, persons 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, of 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
Alberto vs. De la Cruz
Case where the accused was summoned at
the house of the governor to fix the fence.
In order to be guilty under 223
(connivance) and 224 (negligence), it is
necessary that the public officer had
consented to, or connived in, the escape of
a prisoner on the part of the person in
charge is an essential condition in the
commission of the crime of faithfulness in
the custody of the prisoner. If the public
officer charged with the duty of guarding
him does not connive with the fugitive, then
he has not violated the law and is not guilty
of the crime.
Negligence in the custody of a prisoner
under 224 of the RPC punishable if it is
definitely and deliberately committed.
Article 126. Delaying Release
Acts punished
1. Delaying the performance of a judicial
or executive order for the release of a
prisoner;
2. Unduly delaying the service of the
notice of such order to said prisoner;
3. Unduly delaying the proceedings upon
any petition for the liberation of such
person.
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer or
employee;
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
10
2. There is a judicial or executive order for and after having been required to leave the
the release of a prisoner or detention same
prisoner, or that there is a proceeding upon
a petition for the liberation of such person; Common elements
3. Offender without good reason delays -
a. the service of the notice of 1. Offender is a public officer or
such order to the prisoner; employee;
b. the performance of such 2. He is not authorized by judicial order to
judicial or executive order for the enter the dwelling or to make a search
release of the prisoner; or therein for papers or other effects.
c. the proceedings upon a petition
for the release of such person. Circumstances qualifying the offense
1. If committed at nighttime; or
Wardens and jailers are the public officers 2. If any papers or effects not
most likely to violate Art. 126. constituting evidence of a crime are not
returned immediately after the search
made by offender.
Article 127. Expulsion
A public officer is authorized by judicial
Acts punished order when he is armed with a search warrant
duly issued by the court.
1. Expelling a person from the Philippines;
2. Compelling a person to change his To constitute a violation of domicile, the
residence. entrance by the public officer must be against
the will of the owner, which presupposes
Elements opposition or prohibition of the owner, whether
express or implied. If the entrance is only
1. Offender is a public officer or without the consent of the owner, the crime is
employee; not committed. Besides, silence of the owner of
2. S/he either - the dwelling before and during the search, may
a. expels any person from the show implied waiver.
Philippines; or
b. compels a person to change If the public officer searches a person
residence; outside his dwelling without a search warrant,
3. Offender is not authorized to do so by the crime committed is grave coercion, if
law. violence or intimidation is used, or unjust
vexation, if there is no violence or
RE: Not being authorized by law Only the intimidation.
court by a final judgment can order a person to
change his residence. This is illustrated in
ejectment proceedings, expropriation
Bar Question
proceedings and in the penalty of destierro.
Violation of Domicile vs. Trespass to Dwelling
In Villavicencio vs. Lukban, the Court held (2002)
that the Mayor cannot force prostitutes residing What is the difference between violation of domicile
in Manila to live in Davao against their will, and trespass to dwelling? (2%)
there being no law that authorizes them to do SUGGESTED ANSWER:
so. The differences between violation of domicile and
trespass to dwelling are; 1) The offender in violation
of domicile is a public officer acting under color of
authority; in trespass to dwelling, the offender is a
Article 128. Violation of Domicile
private person or public officer acting in a private
capacity.
Acts punished 2) Violation of domicile is committed in 3 different
ways: (1) by entering the dwelling of another against
1. Entering any dwelling against the will the
of the owner thereof; will of the latter; (2) searching papers and other
2. Searching papers or other effects found effects
therein without the previous consent of inside the dwelling without the previous consent of
the
such owner; or
owner; or (3) refusing to leave the premises which he
3. Refusing to leave the premises, after entered surreptitiously, after being required to leave
having surreptitiously entered said dwelling the premises.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

11
3) Trespass to dwelling is committed only in one
way; that is, by entering the dwelling of another
against the express or implied will of the latter.
Article 129. Search Warrants Maliciously
Obtained, and Abuse in the Service of
Those Legally Obtained
Acts punished
1. Procuring a search warrant without just
cause;
Elements
(1) Offender is a public officer
employee;
(2) He procures a search warrant;
(3) There is no just cause.
2. Exceeding his authority or by using
unnecessary severity in executing a search
warrant legally procured.
Elements
(1) Offender is a public officer or
employee;
(2) He has legally procured a search
warrant;
(3) He exceeds his authority or uses
unnecessary severity in executing the
same.
Review requisites for issuing a search
warrant, manner of executing the warrant,
definition of probable cause in the Rules of
Court.
Q: When is a search warrant said to have been
procured without just cause?
A1: When it appears on the face of the
affidavits filed in support of the application, or
through other evidence, that the applicant had
every reason to believe that the search warrant
sought for was unjustified.
A2: The true test of lack of just cause is
whether the affidavit filed in support of the
application for search warrant has been drawn
in such a manner that perjury could be charged
thereon and affiant held liable for damages
caused.
Illustration: Pulis wanted to verify a report that
some corpse was unlawfully buried in a
monastery. Instead of stating to that effect, he
alleges in his affidavit that opium was hidden in
the premises.
The offender in this article may also be held
liable for perjury. In view of the phrase in
addition to the liability attaching to the
offender for the commission of any other
offense, even if the crime of perjury was a
necessary means of committing Art. 129, they
cannot form a complex crime.
Rule 126
Searches and Seizures
(Tignan na lang sa rules, mahaba saka alam na natin
to! )
Stonehill vs. Diokno
Upon application of some officers of the government,
or several judges issued 42 search warrants against the
petitioners and the corporations of which they were
officers.
HELD: The legality of the seizure can be contested only by
the party whose rights have been impaired thereby. The
objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely
personal and cannot be availed of by 3rd parties.
Consequently, the petitioners may not validly object to the
use in evidence against them of the things seized, since the
right to object to the admission of said papers in evidence
belongs exclusively to the corporations, to whom they
belong, and may not be invoked by the corporate officers
in proceedings against them in their individual capacity.
The warrants issued in this case state that the persons
named therein committed a violation of Central Bank
Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue Laws and
the Revised Penal Code. As such, no specific offense has
been alleged in said application. It was impossible for the
judges who issued the warrants to have found the existence
of probable cause, for the same presupposes the
introduction of competent proof that the party against
whom it is sought has performed particular acts or
omission, violating a given provision of criminal laws.
Finally, the warrants issued here were general warrants
that authorized the search and seizure of records
pertaining to all business transactions of petitioners,
regardless of whether the transactions were legal or illegal.
Burgos Sr., vs. Chief of Staff
The validity of two search warrants is assailed by the
petitioners in this case. Under these warrants, a house in
Project 6, QC and 2 units of the RMC building in Q.Ave., QC
were searched. Office and printing machines, equipment,
paraphernalia, motor vehicles and other articles used in
the printing, publication and distribution of the said
newspapers, as well as numerous papers, documents, books
and other written literature alleged to be in the possession
and control of petitioner Burgos.
HELD: The search warrants in this case were also in the
nature of general warrants, hence invalid.
Article 130. Searching Domicile without
Witnesses
Elements
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
12
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. He is armed with search warrant legally
procured;
3. He searches the domicile, papers or other
belongings of any person;
4. The owner, or any members of his family,
or two witnesses residing in the same
locality are not present.
Violation of Domicile Searching Domicile
without witnesses
Public officer has no Public officer has a
authority to make a search warrant
search
Art. 130 does NOT apply to searches of
vehicles or other means of transportation,
because the searches are not made in a
dwelling.
Article 131. Prohibition, Interruption, and
Dissolution of Peaceful Meetings
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. He performs any of the following acts:
a. prohibiting or by interrupting,
without legal ground, the holding of a
peaceful meeting, or by dissolving the
same;
b. hindering any person from joining
any lawful association, or attending
any of its meetings;
c. prohibiting or hindering any person
from addressing, either alone or
together with others, any petition to
the authorities for the correction of
abuses or redress of grievances.
Only a public officer or employee can
commit this crime. If the offender is a
private individual, the crime is
Disturbance of Public Order under Art.
153.
But the offender must be astranger, not a
participant, in the peaceful meeting. Where the
offender is a participant, the crime committed
is unjust vexation.
The right to peaceably assemble is not
absolute and may be regulated (i.e., with
respect to the streets or public places to be
used etc.)
Article 132. Interruption of Religious
Worship
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. Religious ceremonies or manifestations of
any religious are about to take place or are
going on;
3. Offender prevents or disturbs the same.
Qualified if committed by violence or threat.
Reading of Bible and then attacking certain
churches in a public plaza is not a ceremony or
manifestation of religion, but only a meeting of
a religious sect. In which case, the crime
committed is violation of Art. 131
But the reading of some verses our of the
Bible in a private house by a group of 10 to 20
persons, is a religious service. There is no
provisions of law which requires religious
service to be conducted in approved orthodox
style in order to merit protection against
interference.
Article 133. Offending the Religious
Feelings
Elements
1. Acts complained of were performed in
a place devoted to religious worship, OR
during the celebration of any religious
ceremony;
2. The acts must be notoriously offensive
to the feelings of the faithful.
There must be deliberate intent to hurt the
feelings of the faithful.
People vs. Mandoriao
The Iglesia ni Cristo held a religious rally at a public place
in Baguio. About 200 people attended the meeting, about
50 of whom were members of the INC but the rest were
outsiders and curious listeners. While Salvio, a minister of
INC, was expounding on his topic to the effect that Christ is
not God, but only man, the crowd became unruly. Some
people urged Mandoriao to go up the stage and have a
debate with Salvio. Mandoriao however, was not able to
speak before the microphone because the wire connecting
it was abruptly disconnected.
HELD: The meeting here was not a religious ceremony. A
religious meeting is an assemblage of people met for the
purpose of performing acts of adoration to the Supreme
Being, or to perform religious services in recognition of God
as an object of worship The meeting here was not
limited to the members of the INC. The supposed prayers
and singing of hymns were merely incidental because the
principal object of the rally was to persuade new converts
to their religion.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
13

Assuming that the rally was a religious ceremony, the
appellant cannot be said to have performed acts or uttered
words offensive to the feelings of the faithful. The act
complained of must be directed against a dogma or ritual,
or upon an object of veneration. There was no object of
veneration at the meeting.
People vs. Baes
A complaint was filed against certain individuals, who while
holding a funeral of a person in accordance with the rites
of the Church of Christ, caused the funeral to pass
throughout the churchyard of a Roman Catholic Church.
The fiscal moved for dismissal of the case, which the court
granted.
HELD: In his MTD, the fiscal denies that the unlawful act
committed by the accused had offended the religious
feelings of the Catholics of the municipality in which the
act took place. Such ground of the motion is indefensible.
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
Catholics and not those of other faithful ones, for it is
possible that certain acts may offend the feelings of those
who profess a certain religion, while not otherwise
offensive to the feelings of those profession another faith.
People vs. Tengson
HELD: The act of performing burial rites inside a Roman
Catholic cemetery, in accordance with the rules of
practices of the sect called Christ is the Answer, by
reading passages from the Bible, chanting the Alleluia,
singing religious hymns and praying for the repose of the
soul of the dead, is not notoriously offensive to the feelings
of religious persons, provided there was no intent to mock,
scoff, or to desecrate any religious sect or object
venerated by people of a particular religion. Such act may
have offended the Roman Catholic priest of the
municipality and some Catholic adherents, but since there
was a permit for the burial in question in the Roman
Catholic Cemetery of that municipality, the religious rights
of that sect, to which the members of the family of the
deceased belong, and performed upon request of the
bereaved husband, are not offensive to the feelings of
everybody who professes the Christian religion.
People vs. Nanoy
While the congregation of the Assembly of God was having
its afternoon services in its chapel, the accused who was
allegedly drunk entered with uplifted hands and attempted
to grab the song leader who ran away from him. The other
members of the sect also ran out of the church and the
religious services were discontinued.
HELD: The accused is only guilty of unjust vexation.
Republic Act 9372
Human Security Act of 2007
Procedure when a suspected terrorist is arrested
A. A suspected terrorist maybe arrested by any
law enforcement personnel provided:
1. The law enforcement agent was duly
authorized in writing by the Anti Terrorism
Council
2. The arrest was the result of a surveillance
or examination of bank deposits
B. Upon arrest and prior to actual detention, the
law enforcement agent must present the
suspected terrorist before any judge at the
latters residence or office nearest the place of
arrest, at any time of the day or night. The judge
shall, within three days, submit a written report of
the presentation to the court where the suspect
shall have been charged.
C. Immediately after taking custody of a person
charged or suspected as a terrorist, the police or
law enforcement personnel shall notify in writing
the judge of the nearest place of apprehension or
arrest, but if the arrest is made during non-office
days or after office hours, the written notice shall
be served at the nearest residence of the judge
nearest the place of arrest
D. Failure to notify in writing is punished by 10
years and one day to12 years of imprisonment
Period of Detention has been extended to three days
A. The three day period is counted from the
moment the person charged or suspected as
terrorist has been apprehended or arrested,
detained and taken into custody
B. In the event of an actual or imminent terrorist
attack, suspects may not be detained for more
than three days without the written approval of
the Human Rights Commission, or judge of the
MTC RTC, Sandiganbayan or Court of Appeals
nearest the place of arrest
C. If arrest was on a nonworking day or hour, the
person arrested shall be brought to the residence
of any of the above named officials nearest the
place of arrest.
D. Failure to deliver the person charged or suspected
as terrorists to the proper judicial; authority within
three days is punished by 10 years and one day to 12
years.
Republic Act 9745
Anti-Torture Act of 2009
Punishable Acts:
1.] Torture
2.] Other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment
Sec 4: Acts of Torture. - For purposes of this Act,
torture shall include, but not be limited to, the
following:
(a) Physical torture is a form of treatment or
punishment inflicted by a person in authority or
agent of a person in authority upon another in his/her
custody that causes severe pain, exhaustion,
disability or dysfunction of one or more parts of the
body, such as:
(1) Systematic beating, headbanging, punching,
kicking, striking with truncheon or rifle butt or other
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
14
similar objects, and jumping on the stomach; by a person in authority or agent of a person in
(2) Food deprivation or forcible feeding with spoiled authority against another person in custody, which
food, animal or human excreta and other stuff or attains a level of severity sufficient to cause
substances not normally eaten; suffering, gross humiliation or debasement to the
(3) Electric shock; latter. The assessment of the level of severity shall
(4) Cigarette burning; burning by electrically heated depend on all the circumstances of the case,
rods, hot oil, acid; by the rubbing of pepper or other including the duration of the treatment or
chemical substances on mucous membranes, or punishment, its physical and mental effects and, in
acids or spices directly on the wound(s); some cases, the sex, religion, age and state of health
(5) The submersion of the head in water or water of the victim.
polluted with excrement, urine, vomit and/or blood
until the brink of suffocation;
(6) Being tied or forced to assume fixed and stressful
bodily position;
(7) Rape and sexual abuse, including the insertion of
foreign objects into the sex organ or rectum, or
electrical torture of the genitals;
(8) Mutilation or amputation of the essential parts of
the body such as the genitalia, ear, tongue, etc.;
(9) Dental torture or the forced extraction of the
teeth;
(10) Pulling out of fingernails;
(11) Harmful exposure to the elements such as
sunlight and extreme cold;
(12) The use of plastic bag and other materials
placed over the head to the point of asphyxiation;
(13) The use of psychoactive drugs to change the
perception, memory. alertness or will of a person,
such as:
(i) The administration or drugs to induce confession
and/or reduce mental competency; or
(ii) The use of drugs to induce extreme pain or
certain symptoms of a disease; and
(14) Other analogous acts of physical torture; and
(b) "Mental/Psychological Torture" refers to acts
committed by a person in authority or agent of a
person in authority which are calculated to affect or
confuse the mind and/or undermine a person's
dignity and morale, such as:
(1) Blindfolding;
(2) Threatening a person(s) or his/fher relative(s) with
bodily harm, execution or other wrongful acts;
(3) Confinement in solitary cells or secret detention
places;
(4) Prolonged interrogation;
(5) Preparing a prisoner for a "show trial", public
display or public humiliation of a detainee or
prisoner;
(6) Causing unscheduled transfer of a person
deprived of liberty from one place to another,
creating the belief that he/she shall be summarily
executed;
(7) Maltreating a member/s of a person's family;
(8) Causing the torture sessions to be witnessed by
the person's family, relatives or any third party;
(9) Denial of sleep/rest;
(10) Shame infliction such as stripping the person
naked, parading him/her in public places, shaving the
victim's head or putting marks on his/her body
against his/her will;
(11) Deliberately prohibiting the victim to
communicate with any member of his/her family; and
(12) Other analogous acts of mental/psychological
torture.
Sec. 5: Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading
Treatment or Punishment. - Other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment refers to a
deliberate and aggravated treatment or punishment
not enumerated under Section 4 of this Act, inflicted

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

15