ARBITRARY DETENTION [G.R. No. 154130. October 1, 2003.] BENITO ASTORGA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS: On the 1st day of September, 1997, and for sometime subsequent thereto, at the Municipality of Daram, Province of Samar, petitioner, a public officer, being the Municipal Mayor of Daram, Samar unlawfully and feloniously detained Elpidio Simon, Moisesdela Cruz, WenifredoManiscan, Renato Militante and CrisantoPelias, DENR Employees, at the Municipality of Daram, by not allowing them to leave the place, without any legal and valid grounds thereby restraining and depriving them of their personal liberty for nine (9) hours, but without exceeding three (3) days. ISSUE: Whether or not Astorga committed arbitrary detention even if such does not involve physical restraint? HELD: The prevailing jurisprudence on kidnapping and illegal detention is that the curtailment of the victim's liberty need not involve any physical restraint upon the victim's person. If the acts and actuations of the accused can produce such fear in the mind of the victim sufficient to paralyze the latter, to the extent that the victim is compelled to limit his own actions and movements in accordance with the wishes of the accused, then the victim is, for all intents and purposes, detained against his will. In the case at bar, the restraint resulting from fear is evident. Inspite of their pleas, the witnesses and the complainants were not allowed by petitioner to go home. [A.M. No.MTJ-93-813. September 15, 1993.] FERNANDO CAYAO, complainant, vs. JUDGE JUSTINIANO A. DEL MUNDO

Facts: As a result of an almost head-on collision of the bus being driven by petitioner and the owner-type jeepney where respondent judge is a passenger, herein petitioner was made to choose between 3 different alternative punishment by the respondent judge. He chosed to be detained for 3 days with a waiver of detention. As a result, he was detained in the municipal jail for 3 days. Issue: Whether or not respondent judge is guilty of arbitrary detention although petitioner was not actually put behind bars? Held: While it is true that complainant was not put behind bars as respondent had intended, however, complainant was not allowed to leave the premises of the jail house. The idea of confinement is not synonymous only with incarceration inside a jail cell. It is enough to qualify as confinement that a man be restrained, either morally or physically, of his personal liberty (Black's Law Dictionary, 270 [1979]). Under the circumstances, respondent judge was in fact guilty of arbitrary detention when he, as a public officer, ordered the arrest and detention of complainant without legal grounds. [G.R. No.L-37007. July 20, 1987.] RAMON S. MILO, in his capacity as Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Pangasinan, and ARMANDO VALDEZ, petitioners, vs. ANGELITO C. SALANGA, in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan (Branch IV), and JUAN TUVERA, SR., respondents. That on or about the 21st day of April, 1973, at around 10:00 o'clock in the evening, in barrio Baguinay, Manaoag, Pangasinan, Juan Tuvera, Sr., a barrio captain, with the aid of some other private persons, namely Juan Tuvera, Jr., BertilloBataoil and one Dianong, maltreated one Armando Valdez by hitting with butts of their guns and fists blows and immediately thereafter, without legal grounds, with deliberate intent to deprive said Armando Valdez of his constitutional liberty, accused Barrio captain Juan Tuvera, Sr., Cpl. Tomas

Mendoza and Pat. Rodolfo Mangsat, members of the police force of MangsatPangasinan, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, lodge and lock said Armando Valdez inside the municipal jail of Manaoag, Pangasinan for about eleven (11) hours. ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT A BARRIO CAPTAIN MAY BE GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF ARBITRARY DETENTION? HELD: The public officers liable for Arbitrary Detention must be vested with authority to detain or order the detention of persons accused of a crime. Such public officers are the policemen and other agents of the law, the judges or mayors. Long before Presidential Decree 299 was signed into law, barrio lieutenants (who were later named barrio captains and now barangay captains) were recognized as persons in authority. In various cases, this Court deemed them as persons in authority, and convicted them of Arbitrary Detention. One need not be a police officer to be chargeable with Arbitrary Detention. It is accepted that other public officers like judges and mayors, who act with abuse of their functions, may be guilty of this crime. Milo vs. Salanga On Arbitrary Detention, Article 124 of the RPC G.R. No. L-37007 July 20, 1987 FACTS An information for Arbitrary Detention was filed against herein private respondent (accused Barrio Captain Tuvera, Sr.) and some other private persons for maltreating petitioner Valdez by hitting him with butts of their guns and fist blows. Immediately thereafter, without legal grounds and with deliberate intent to deprive the latter of his constitutional liberty, accused

respondent and two members of the police force of Mangsat conspired and helped one another in lodging and locking petitioner inside the municipal jail of Manaoag, Pangasinan for about eleven (11) hours. Accused-respondent then filed a motion to quash the information on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute the elements of said crime and that the proofs adduced at the investigation are not sufficient to support the filing of the information. Petitioner Asst. Provincial Fiscal Milo filed an opposition thereto. Consequently, averring that accusedrespondent was not a public officer who can be charged with Arbitrary Detention, respondent Judge Salanga granted the motion to quash in an order. Hence, this petition. ISSUE Whether or not accused-respondent, being a Barrio Captain, can be liable for the crime of Arbitrary Detention. HELD Yes. The public officers liable for Arbitrary Detention must be vested with authority to detain or order the detention of persons accused of a crime. One need not be a police officer to be chargeable with Arbitrary Detention. It is accepted that other public officers like judges and mayors, who act with abuse of their functions, may be guilty of this crime. A perusal of the powers and function vested in mayors would show that they are similar to those of a barrio captain except that in the case of the latter, his territorial jurisdiction is smaller. Having the same duty of maintaining peace and order, both must be and are given the authority to detain or order detention. Noteworthy is the fact that even private respondent Tuvera himself admitted that with the aid of his rural police, he as a barrio captain, could have led the arrest of petitioner Valdez.

People vsLovedioro People vsLovedioro G.R. No. 112235 November 29, 1995 Facts: Off-duty policeman SPO3 Jesus Lucilo was walking along Burgos St., away from the Daraga, Albay Public Market when a man suddenly walked beside him, pulled a .45 caliber gun from his waist, aimed the gun at the policeman's right ear and fired. The man who shot Lucilo had three other companions with him, one of whom shot the fallen policeman four times as he lay on the ground. After taking the latter's gun, the man and his companions boarded a tricycle and fled. The incident was witnessed from a distance of about nine meters by Nestor Armenta, a 25 year old welder from Pilar, Sorsogon, who claimed that he knew both the victim and the man who fired the fatal shot. Armenta identified the man who fired at the deceased as Elias Lovedioro y Castro, his nephew (appellant's father was his first cousin) and alleged that he knew the victim from the fact that the latter was a resident of Bagumbayan. Lucilo died on the same day of massive blood loss from multiple gunshot wounds on the face, the chest, and other parts of the body. On autopsy, the municipal health officer established the cause of death as hypovolemic shock. Issue: Whether or not accused-appellant committed Rebellion under Art. 134 and 135 or Murder under Article 248 of the RPC? Held: The court finds the accused ELIAS LOVEDIORO guilty beyond reasonable

doubt as principal, acting in conspiracy with his co-accused who are still at large, of the crime of murder, defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua with all the accessories provided by law; to pay the heirs of the deceased SPO3 Jesus Lucilo through the widow, Mrs. RemelineLucilo, the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos representing the civil indemnity for death; to pay the said widow the sum of Thirty Thousand (P30,000.00) Pesos representing reasonable moral damages; and to pay the said widow the sum of Eighteen Thousand Five Hundred Eighty-Eight (P18,588.00) Pesos, representing actual damages, without subsidiary imprisonment however, in case of insolvency on the part of the said accused. In his appeal, appellant cites the testimony of the prosecution's principal witness, Nestor Armenta, as supporting his claim that he should have been charged with the crime of rebellion, not murder. In his Brief, he asseverates that Armenta, a police informer, identified him as a member of the New People's Army. However, the appellant's claim regarding the political color attending the commission of the crime being a matter of defense, its viability depends on his sole and unsupported testimony. Finally, treachery was adequately proved in the court below. The attack delivered by appellant was sudden, and without warning of any kind. 41 The killing having been qualified by treachery, the crime committed is murder under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code. In the absence of any mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the trial court was correct in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua together with all the accessories provided by law. The trial court's decision dated September 14, 1993, sentencing the accused of Murder is hereby AFFIRMED.

DELAY INDELIVERY OF DETAINED PERSONS (Art. 125) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JESUS GARCIA y MANABAT, accused-appellant. Facts: In an information filed before the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, herein accused-appellant Jesus Garcia was charged with the crime of illegal possession of five kilos of marijuana. Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. After trial on the merits, the court a quo rendered a decision on February 20, 1996 finding the accused-appellant guilty of illegal possession of prohibited drugs and sentenced him. to suffer the maximum penalty of death. Issue: Whether or not the accused was detained more than what is required by law considering that it was a warrantless arrest? . Held: The police officers cannot be held liable for arbitrarily detaining appellant at the CIS office. Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, penalizes a public officer who shall detain another for some legal ground and fail to deliver him to the proper authorities for 36 hours for crimes punishable by afflictive or capital penalties. In the present case, the record bears that appellant was arrested for possession of five (5) kilos of marijuana on November 28, 1994 at 2 p.m., a crime pun[ishable with reclusion perpetua to death. He was detained for further investigation and delivered by the arresting officers to the court in the afternoon of the next day. Clearly, the detention of appellant for purposes of investigation did not exceed the duration allowed by law, i.e., 36 hours from the time of his arrest.

REBELLION PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ABDILA SILONGAN et al FACTS: For automatic review was the decision convicting appellants of the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom with Serious Illegal Detention and sentencing them to death. Records revealed that Alexander Saldana with three companions went to a town in Sultan Kudarat to meet MacapagalSilongan. The meeting, however, did not go well as Alexander and his companions were abducted. Ransom was demanded for their release but no agreement was reached. Eventually, only Alexander remained in detention by his abductors and for 5 months. He was later released in exchange of the person caught delivering the ransom note. ISSUE: Whether or not the crime committed was politically motivated as to warrant a charge of rebellion? HELD: As held in Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Zamboanga Del Norte vs. CA, 78 the political motivation for the crime must be shown in order to justify finding the crime committed to be rebellion. Merely because it is alleged that appellants were members of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front or of the Moro National Liberation Front does not necessarily mean that the crime of kidnapping was committed in furtherance of a rebellion. Here, the evidence adduced is insufficient for a finding that the crime committed was politically motivated. Neither have the appellants sufficiently proven their allegation that the present case was filed against them because they are rebel surrenderees. (1) PEOPLE vs. OLIVA Facts:

Appellants Oscar Oliva, Edgar Manlapaz, BocoySeachon, MetchelIbaya, Joel Cinco, Amy Inopia, Ka Nelly, John Doe And Peter Doe, KaYoli, KaGerson, NoliSalcedo, BogoyManlapaz, VirgilioPanguilinan, KaRiza, Ka Liza who represented themselves as NPA were charged with kidnapping with murder committed against Jacinto Magbojos. No eyewitness saw the actual killings of the victim, but appellants were convicted of murder on the basis of several circumstantial evidence deduced from the testimonies of three (3) prosecution witnesses. Issues: - Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the prosecution evidence and convicting appellants for the crime of murder instead of rebellion. - Whether there are no sufficient circumstances to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Oliva took part in the commission of the crime - Whether the killing is qualified by treachery. Held: The settled rule is that treachery cannot be presumed but must be proved by clear and convincing evidence or as conclusively as the killing itself. In the case at bar, although the fact of death and the identity of the victim and the identity of the perpetrators were established, there is no proof at all on how the killing was done. Thus, absent any particulars as to the manner in which the aggression commenced or how the act which resulted in the death of the victim unfolded, treachery cannot be appreciated. Since no qualifying circumstance was proved in this case, the crime committed is only homicide, not murder. Under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, the applicable penalty for homicide is only reclusion temporal. Appellants Oscar Oliva and NoliSalcedo are hereby found GUILTY of HOMICIDE.

[G.R. No. 112235. November 29, 1995.] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ELIAS LOVEDIORO y CASTRO, defendant-appellant. FACTS: Off-duty policeman SPO3 Jesus Lucilo was walking along Burgos St., away from the Daraga, Albay Public Market when accused suddenly walked beside him, pulled a .45 caliber gun from his waist, aimed the gun at the policeman's right ear and fired. The man who shot Lucilo had three other companions with him, one of whom shot the fallen policeman four times as he lay on the ground. After taking the latter's gun, the man and his companions boarded a tricycle and fled. Issue: Whether or not rebellion is the proper charge and not murder? Held: Divested of its common complexion therefore, any ordinary act, however grave, assumes a different color by being absorbed in the crime of rebellion, which carries a lighter penalty than the crime of murder. In deciding if the crime committed is rebellion, not murder, it becomes imperative for our courts to ascertain whether or not the act was done in furtherance of a political end. The political motive of the act should be conclusively demonstrated. It is not enough that the overt acts of rebellion are duly proven. Both purpose and overt acts are essential components of the crime. With either of these elements wanting, the crime of rebellion legally does not exist. In fact, even in cases where the act complained of were committed simultaneously with or in the course of the rebellion, if the killing, robbing, or etc., were accomplished for private purposes or profit, without any political motivation, it has been held that the crime would be separately punishable as a common crime and would not be absorbed by the crime rebellion.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RODRIGO DASIG et al FACTS: On the 4th day of August, 1987, in the city of Mandaue, accused, self-confessed rebels, conspiring and confederating together and helping one another, with intent to kill, treachery, evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength and use of motor vehicle, all armed with unlicensed firearms, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot one RedemptoManatad, a police officer on traffic duty, at his vital portion which caused his death soon thereafter, knowing beforehand that the victim was a policeman who was then in the performance of his official duties. ISSUE: Whether or not accused should be charged with rebellion instead of direct assault? Held: The crime of rebellion consists of many acts. It is a vast movement of men and a complex net of intrigues and plots. Acts committed in furtherance of rebellion though crimes in themselves are deemed absorbed in one single crime of rebellion. The act of killing a police officer, knowing too well that the victim is a person in authority is a mere component or ingredient of rebellion or an act done in furtherance of the rebellion. It cannot be made a basis of a separate charge.

performing duties. Upon arraignment, appellant and Edwin Nues entered a plea of "not guilty." However, after the prosecution had presented its first witness, accused Nues changed his plea of "not guilty" to "guilty." Hence, the lower court held in abeyance the promulgation of a judgment against said accused until the prosecution had finished presenting its evidence. While trial was still ongoing, Nuez died on March 10, 1989, thereby extinguishing his criminal liability. At about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon, Pfc. Catamora noticed eight (8) persons, one of whom he identified as Edwin Nuez, acting suspiciously. He noticed one of them giving instructions to two of the men to approach Pfc. Manatad. On August 16, 1987, two teams of police officers were tasked to conduct surveillance on a suspected safehouse of members of the sparrow unit located in Peace Valley, Cebu City. Upon reaching the place, the group saw Rodrigo Dasig and Edwin Nues trying to escape. The team of Capt. Antonio Gorre captured Nues and confiscated a .45 caliber revolver with 3 magazines and ammunitions, while the group of Sgt. Ronald Arnejo pursued Dasig, who threw a grenade at his pursuers, but was shot on his left upper arm and subsequently apprehended while a .38 caliber revolver with 17 live ammunitions were confiscated from him. Thereafter, Dasig was brought to the hospital for treatment, while Nues was turned over to the Metrodiscom for investigation. Dasig confessed that he and the group of Edwin Nues killed Pfc. Manatad. He likewise admitted that he and Nues were members of the sparrow unit and the their aliases were "Armand" and "Mabi," respectively. The extra-judicial confession of appellant was signed by him on every page thereof with the first page containing a certification likewise signed by him. However, Dasig contends that the procedure by which his extra-judicial confession was taken was legally defective, and contrary to his Constitutional rights. He further contends that assuming he conspired in the killing of Pfc. Manatad, he should be convicted at most of simple

People vsDasig G.R. No. 100231 April 28, 1993 Facts: Appellants Rodrigo Dasig, Edwin Nuez and 6 others were charged together of shooting RedemptoManatad, a police officer, as he died while

rebellion and not murder with direct assault. Appellant also claims that the custodial interrogation was done while he was still very sick and consequently, he could not have fully appreciated the wisdom of admitting such a serious offense. Issue: Whether or not the accused-appellant is liable for extra-judicial killing of the deceased and participated in the act of rebellion? Held: Yes. Accused Rogelio Dasig is found guilty of participating in an act of rebellion beyond reasonable doubt and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of eight (8) years of prision mayor, and to pay the heirs of Pfc. RedemptoManatad, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. As to the proper imposable penalty, the Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable to persons convicted of rebellion (Sec. 2, R.A. 4203), contrary to the insinuation of the Solicitor General. Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code imposes the penalty of prision mayor and a fine not exceeding P20,000.00 to any person who promotes, maintains, or heads a rebellion. However, in the case at bar, there is no evidence to prove that appellant Dasig headed the crime committed. As a matter of fact he was not specifically pinpointed by Pfc. Catamora as the person giving instructions to the group which attacked Pfc. Manatad. Appellant merely participated in committing the act, or just executed the command of an unknown leader. Hence, he should be made to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of eight (8) years of prision mayor. For the resulting death, appellant is likewise ordered to pay the heirs of Pfc. Manatad FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity.

Enrile vs. Amin Enrile was charged with rebellion complexed with murder and a violation under PD 1829 Sec. 1(c) obstruction of justice bec he gave food and comfort to Honasan. Being in conspiracy with Honasan, petitioners alleged act of harboring or concealing was fo no other purpose but in furtherance of the crime of rebellion thus constituting a component thereof. It was motivated by the single intent or resolution to commit the crime of rebellion. The decisive factor is the intent or motive. All crimes whether punishable under a special law or general law which are mere components or ingredients or committed in furtherance thereof, become absorbed in the crime of rebellion and cannot be isolated and charged as separate crimes in themselves. So whether punishable by RPC or a special law, the Hernandez case still is the ruling that these common crimes are absorbed in rebellion. Enrile vs. Salazar Honasan charged with rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder. Hernandez doctrine prohibits complexing of rebellion with any other offense. The rejection of both options shapes and determines the primary ruling of the Court, which is that Hernandez remains binding doctrine operating to prohibit the complexing of rebellion with any other offense committed on the occasion thereof, either as a means necessary to its commission or as an unintended effect of an activity that constitutes rebellion. Gutierrez Jr Concurring: Rebellion consists of many acts; the crime of rebellion consists of many acts. The dropping of one bomb cannot be isolated as a separate crime. of rebellion. Neither should the dropping of one hundred bombs or the firing of thousands of machine gun bullets be broken up into a hundred or thousands of separate

offenses. The killing of civilians during a rebel attack on military facilities furthers the rebellion and is part of the rebellion. People vs Geronimo G.R. No. L-8936 October 23, 1956 Facts: In an information filed on June 24, 1954 by the provincial Fiscal in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, Appellant Federico Geronimo, together with Mariano P. Balgos alias Bakal alias Tony, alias Tony Collante alias Taoic, alias MangPacio, alias Bonny AbundioRomagosa alias David, Jesus Polita alias Rex, Jesus Lava alias Jessie alias NMT, alias Balbas, alias Noli, alias NoliMetangere, alias NKVD, Juan Ocompo alias Cmdr. Bundalian, alias Tagle, Rosendo Manuel alias Cmdr. Sendong, alias Ruiz, Ernesto Herrero alias Cmdr. Ed, alias Rene, alias Eddy, Santiago Rotas alias Cmdr. Jessie, Fernando Principe alias Cmdr. Manding, Alfredo Saguni alias Godo, alias Terry, alias Terpy, Andres Diapera alias Maclang, alias Berto, alias Teny, Lorenzo Saniel alias Wenny, Silvestre Sisno alias Tomo, alias Albert, Teodoro Primavera alias Nestor, Lorenzo Roxas alias Argos, Vivencio Pineda alias Marquez, Pedro Anino alias Fernandez, Mauro Llorera alias Justo, Richard Doe alias Cmdr. Danny and John Doe alias Cmdr. Berion, alias Mayo, alias Cmdr. Paulito and many others, were charged with the complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnapping committed. In Camarines Sur, the above-named accused being then ranking officers and/or members of, or otherwise affiliated with the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the HukbongMapagpalaya Ng Bayan (HMB) or otherwise known as the Hukbalahaps (HUKS) the latter being the armed force of said Communist Party of the Philippines (CCP) having come to an agreement and decide to commit the crime of Rebellion, and therefore,

conspiring together and confederating among themselves with all of the thirty-one accused. Issue: Whether or not accused-appellants committed the crime of rebellion? Held: Accused Federico Geronimo first entered a plea of not guilty to the information. When the case was called for trial on October 12, 1954, however, he asked the permission of the court to substitute his original plea with one of guilty, and was allowed to change his plea. On the basis of the plea of guilty, the fiscal recommended that the penalty of life imprisonment be imposed upon the accused, his voluntary plea of guilty being considered as a mitigating circumstance. Geronimos counsel, on the other hand, argued that the penalty imposable upon the accused was only prision mayor, for the reason that in his opinion, there is no such complex crime as rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnapping, because the crimes of murders robberies, and kidnapping being the natural consequences of the crime of rebellion, the crime charged against the accused should be considered only as simple rebellion. On October 18, 1954, the trial court rendered judgment finding the accused guilty of the complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnappings; and giving him the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to pay a fine of P10,000, to indemnify the heirs of the various persons killed, as listed in the information, in the sum of P6,000 each, and to pay the proportionate costs of the proceedings. From this judgment, accused Federico Geronimo appealed, raising the sole question of whether the crime committed by him is the complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnappings, or simple rebellion.

However, the decision appealed from is modified and the accused convicted for the simple (non-complex) crime of rebellion under article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and also for the crime of murder; and considering the mitigating effect of his plea of guilty, the accusedAppellant Federico Geronimo is hereby sentenced to suffer 8 years of prision mayor and to pay a fine of P10,000, (without subsidiary imprisonment pursuant to article 38 of the Penal Code) for the rebellion; and, as above explained, for the murder, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, to not less than 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor and not more than 18 years of reclusion temporal; to indemnify the heirs of PolicarpioTibay in the sum of P6,000; and to pay the costs.