Tag Archives: Crimes within Barangay

authority
F.Y.I.
DECEMBER 18, 2012 6:42 AM / LEAVE A COMMENT
Some Things You Need to Know About the Barangay Justice System
Did you know?
1. The barangay conciliatory proceeding is a pre-requisite to filing of case at court.
In 1993, then Chief Justice Narvasa issued an Administrative Circular (SC Administrative Circular No. 14-93) instructing
all trial courts against entertaining suits which have not undergone through the barangay conciliatory proceedings. It is only
upon showing of a Certification to File Action from the barangay that a case will be entertained. Of course, cases falling
under the “exceptions” are not included.
2. The Barangay Justice System is NOT part of the Judicial System. The Lupong Tagapamayapa are not judges but
arbitrators. And although the word “Justice”, there is no such thing as Barangay Court. The Lupon or Pangkat acts like a
court (weighing evidence, hearing testimonies, deciding on the merits, etc.) only on the instances when the parties in dispute
agree to arbitration.
Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration: what’s the difference?
3. Lawyers (as counsel) are not allowed to appear in barangay hearings. Like in the Small Claims Court, lawyers, acting
as counsel/representative, are not allowed to appear in barangay hearings.
4. The following are the crimes within the authority of the lupon:
The crimes where the Lupon exercises authority are:
(1) Alarms and Scandals (Art. 155, Revised Penal Code (RPC);
(2) False medical certificates; false certificates of merit of service if committed by private person (Article 174, last par.,
RPC);
(3) Using false certificates (Article 175, RPC);
(4) Using fictitious and concealing true name (Article 178, RPC);
(5) False testimony against a defendant in criminal cases (Article 180, No. 4, RPC);
(6) Physical injuries inflicted in a tumultuous affray when injuries inflicted are of a less serious nature (Article 252, 2 nd par.,
RPC);
(7) Less Serious Physical Injuries (Article 265, RPC);
(8) Slight Physical Injuries (Article 266, RPC);
(9) Kidnapping and failure to return a minor committed by a parent (Article 270 in relation to the last par. of Article 271,
RPC);
(10) Inducing a minor to abandon his home (Article 271, 2nd par. RPC);
(11) Abandonment of persons in danger and abandonment of one’s own victim (Article 275, RPC)
(12) Abandoning a minor (Article 276, RPC);
(13) Abandonment of minor by person entrusted with his custody; indifference of parents (Article 277, RPC);
(14) Qualified Tresspass To Dwelling (Article 280, RPC);
(15) Other forms of Tresspass (Article 281, RPC);
(16) Grave Threat if the threat was not subject to condition (Article 282, No. 2, RPC);
(17) Light threats (Article 283, RPC);
(18) Other Light threats (Article 285, RPC)
(19) Grave Coercions (Article 286, RPC)
(20) Light Coercions (Article 287, RPC)
(21) Unjust Vexation (Article 287, last paragraph, RPC)
(22) Other similar coercions or compulsory purchase of merchandise and payment of wages by means of tokens (Article
288, RPC)
(23) Formation, maintenance and prohibition of combination of capital or labor through violence or threats (Article 289,
RPC)
(24) Discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence without revealing such secrets (Article 290, 2 nd paragraph,
RPC)
(25) Revealing secrets with abuse of office (Article 291, RPC)
(26) Theft if value of stolen goods does not exceed P50.00 (Article 309, nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8, RPC)
(27) Altering boundaries or landmarks (Article 313, RPC)
(28) Swindling or estafa if the amount of the fraud does not exceed P200.00 (Article 315, 4 th paragraph, RPC)
(29) Other forms of swindling (Article 316, RPC)
(30) Swindling a minor (Article 317, RPC)
(31) Other deceits (Article 318, RPC)
(32) Removal, sale or pledge of mortgaged property (Article 319, RPC)
(33) Special cases of malicious mischief where the value of the damaged property does not exceed one thousand pesos
(Article 328, Nos. 2 and 3, RPC)
(34) Other mischief (Article 329, RPC)
(35) Destroying or damaging useful or ornamental painting of a public nature (Article 331, 2 nd paragraph, RPC)
(36) Simple seduction (Article 338, RPC)
(37) Acts of lasciviousness with the consent of the offended party
(38) Premature marriage (Article 351, RPC)
(39) Threatening to publish and offer to prevent such publication for a compensation or blackmail (Article 356, RPC)
(40) Publication of facts connected with the private life of a person (Article 357, RPC)
(41) Slight Oral Defamation (Article 358, RPC)
(42) Slight Slander by Deed (Article 359, RPC)
(43) Incriminating Innocent Person (Article 363, RPC)
(44) Intriguing against person (Article 364, RPC)
(45) Reckless imprudence had it been intentional would constitute a less grave felony or a light felony (Article 365, RPC)
(46) Simple Imprudence (Article 365, RPC)
(47) Violation of BP 22
SEARCH WARRANT AND ISSUES
SURROUNDING ITS PROCUREMENT
AND IMPLEMENTATION
Posted on Saturday, December 26, 2009. Filed under: PHILIPPINE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE |
Tags: search warrant, search with warrant |

Parallel to the rule on warrant of arrest is the rule on search and seizure. These two warrants are
safeguards to the possible abuses that may be committed by public officers or employees against
the constitutional rights of every Filipino citizens or aliens who live permanently or temporarily
stay in the Philippines.

Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that “the right of the people to
be secure in their houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of
arrest shall issue except upon a probable cause 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 persons or things to be seized.

The said constitutional provision simply means that search and seizure to the house and property
of a person can only be made if there is a lawful reason and if the person conducting the search
and seizure is authorized to do so, that is, if he is armed with a search warrant.

The term “search” in relation to searches and seizures is an examination of a man’s dwelling or
his other premises, or an examination to the man himself with the purpose of discovering
property which is considered as contraband, illegal, or stolen or which can be used as an
evidence to prove his guilt in the prosecution of a criminal offense that which he was charged.
On the other hand, “seizure” is the physical taking of the property subject of a valid search into
the custody of the law.
Search warrant is defined as “an order 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” (Section 1).

The prime law in the Philippines in relation to search and seizure and search warrant is Rule 126
of the Rules of Court.

Section 4 provides for the requisites for issuing search warrant: 1) it must be based upon a
probable cause; 2) probable cause must be determined by the issuing judge personally; 3) the
judge must have personally examined, in the form of searching questions and answers, the
applicant and his witnesses and taken down their written depositions; 4) the search warrant
must particularly describe or identify the property to be seized as far as the circumstances will
ordinarily allow; 5) the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and
the persons or things to be seized; 6) it shall issue only for one specific purpose; and 7) it must
not have been issued more than 10 days prior to the search made pursuant thereto.

The law states that one search warrant shall only be issued for one specific purpose, that is one
single warrant for one single offense committed. It shall also describe with particularity the
personal properties to be seized. A search warrant which was issued for more than one offense is
called a scatter – shot warrant. A general warrant is a search warrant which vaguely
describes and does not particularize the personal properties to be seized. Both warrants are not
valid since they violate the constitutional and law provisions specifically the fifth and the sixth
requisites of a valid search warrant.

In the enforcement of the search warrant, officers implementing it must remember the “Knock
and Announce Principle”. They must announce their presence, identify themselves to the accused
or to the person who was given the authority to allow the officers search the premises, show the
warrant to be implemented, and explain to them said warrant in a language or dialect known and
understood by them.

The officer has the right to break door or window to effect search, if after executing the “knock
and announce principle”, he was refused admittance thereto (Section 7).

It is also required and mandated by law that the conduct of the search should be done in the
presence of any of the following: 1) lawful occupant of the place to be searched, or 2) any
member of his family; or 3) in their absence, in the presence of two witnesses of sufficient age
or discretion residing in the same locality. Officers conducting search without the said requisite
could be held liable for violating Article 130 of the Revised Penal Code that is (Searching
Domicile without Witnesses).

A public officer or employee who procured a search warrant without just cause or who exceeded
his authority or used unnecessary severity in executing a search warrant legally procured like
maliciously destroying or breaking of objects or things that do not hinder the implementation of
the search could be held liable for violating Article 129 of the Revised Penal Code (Search
Warrants Maliciously Obtained and Abuse in the Service of Those Legally Obtained).

A public officer or employee who entered without authority the dwelling and/or to make a search
for papers and for other effects could be held liable for violating Article 128 of the Revised Penal
Code (Violation of Domicile).

As a general rule, search warrants could only be served at day time (Section 7, Rule 113, Rules
of Court), except when it is positively asserted in the affidavit that the property is on the person
or in the place to be searched only at night (Alvares vs. CFI of Tayabas, 64 Phil. 33).

Unlike a warrant of arrest, search warrant is only valid 10 days from its date, and
could only be used once. Thereafter, it becomes void.