Astorga v.
People
G.R. No. 154130, 1 October 2003
412 SCRA 512
FACTS:
On September 1, 1997, private offended parties together with SPO3 Andres B.
Cinco, Jr. and SPO1 Rufo Capoquian, were sent to the Island of Daram, Western Samar to
conduct intelligence operations on possible illegal logging activities. At around 4:30-5:00
p.m., the team found two boats measuring 18 meters in length and 5 meters in breadth being
constructed at Barangay Locob-Locob. There they met petitioner Benito Astorga, the Mayor
of Daram, who turned out to be the owner of the boats. Petitioner called for reinforcements
and, moments later, a boat bearing ten armed men, some wearing fatigues, arrived at the
scene.
Upon investigation of the group, a heated altercation ensued between petitioner and
the DENR team. The offended parties were then brought ti Mayor Astorga's house where the
y had dinner and drinks and left at 2:30 AM. SPO3 Capoquian were allowed to go down from
the house but not to leave the barangay. On the other hand, SPO3 Cinco and the rest just
sat in the house until 2:00 AM when the team was finally allowed to leave. With this, Astorga
was guilty of arbitrary detention.
The accused filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated July 11, 2001 which was
denied by the Sandiganabayan in a Resolution dated September 28, 2001. A Second Motion
for Reconsideration dated October 24, 2001 was also filed, and this was similarly denied in a
Resolution dated July 10, 2002
ISSUE:
Whether or not the court grievously erred in finding the accused guilty of Arbitrary Detention
HELD:
The court denied the petition. It is a time-honored doctrine that the trial court's factual
findings are conclusive and binding upon appellate courts unless some facts or
circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or
misinterpreted. 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. This
refusal was quickly followed by the call for the arrival of almost a dozen "reinforcements," all
armed with military-issue rifles, who proceeded to encircle the team, weapons pointed at the
complainants and the witnesses. Given such circumstances, the court gave credence to
SPO1 Capoquian's statement that it was not "safe" to refuse Mayor Astorga's orders. It was
not just the presence of the armed men, but also the evident effect these gunmen had on the
actions of the team which proves that fear was indeed instilled in the minds of the team
members, to the extent that they felt compelled to stay in Brgy. Lucob-Lucob. The intent to
prevent the departure of the complainants and witnesses against their will is thus clear.
The Decision of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 24986, dated July 5, 2001
finding petitioner BENITO ASTORGA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Arbitrary Detention and sentencing him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) months
of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional,
as maximum, is AFFIRMED.
Note: Arbitrary Detention is committed by any public officer or employee who, without legal
grounds, detains a person.. The elements of the crime are:
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee.
2. That he detains a person.
3. That the detention is without legal grounds.
Agbay v. Deputy Ombudsman for the Military
G.R. No. 134503, 2 July 1999
309 SCRA 726
FACTS:
Petition for certiorari seeks to nullify the Resolution of the Deputy Ombudsman for
the Military, which recommended the dismissal of the criminal complaint filed by petitioner
against respondent for violation of Art.125 of the RPC, which is delay in the delivery of
detained persons.
Agbay, together with a certain Jugalbot,was arrested and detained at the
LiloanPolice Station, Cebu for alleged violation of RA 7610 or the SpecialProtection of
Children against ChildAbuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act. The following day, a
complaint for violation of the said RA was filed against the two by one Gicaraya on behalf of
her daughter Gayle. The complaint states that Agbay and Jugalbot sexually abused Gayle
by fingering her vagina while the latter blocked the sight of her mother during a tricycle ride.
Jugalbot was released while Agbay is detained in Liloan Police Station Jail.
On September 10, petitioner’s counsel wrote to the Chief of Police, demanding
the immediate release of petitioner considering that the latter failed to deliver the
detained to the proper judicial authority within 36 hours from September 7. Respondent
did not act on this letter and detained petitioner. On September 12, the Municipal CircuitTrial
Court (MCTC) issued an order committing petitioner to the jail warden of Cebu City. On
September 17, petitioner was ordered released by the said court after posting bond.
On September 26, petitioner filed a complaint for delay in the delivery of detained
persons against respondents. Regarding the complaint for violation of RA 7610, petitioner
obtained the resolution of MCTC, which found probable cause for the crime and
recommended that information be filed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the authorities, specifically the respondents,committed delay in the delivery
of the detainedAgbay to the proper judicial authorities?
HELD:
NO. Filing of the complaint with the MCTC interrupted the period prescribed in Art.
125, hence, delay was not committed by the respondents in the case at bar.
Art. 125 – Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities:
12 hours for crimes punishable by light penalties; 18 hours for crimes punishable by
correctional penalties; 36 hours for crimes punishable by afflictive or capital
penalties.
In the case at bar, Agbay violated RA 7610, Sec.5(b). This crime carries a penalty of
reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua; hence, a criminal complaint
or information should be filed with the proper judicial authorities within 36 hours. Petitioner
contends that the act or complainant filing the complaint before the MCTC was for purposes
of preliminary investigation since it has no jurisdiction to try the offense, thus, it did not
interrupt the period prescribed in Art. 125. As Such, the arresting officers were now guilty of
violating the law due to the expiration of the 36-hour time limit. Additionally, the MCTC was
acting contrary to law since there was no basis for continued detention.
The Court moved to address the issue of answering whether the filing of the
complaint with the MTC constitutes delivery to a proper judicial authority. Art. 125 is intended
to prevent any abuse resulting from confining a person without informing him of his
offense and without permitting him to go on bail. It punishes public officials who shall
detain any person for some legal ground and shall fail to deliver such person to proper
judicial authorities within the prescribed periods. Continued detention becomes illegal
when the period expires.
Petitioner argues that when a MTC judge conducts a preliminary
investigation, he is not acting as a judge but as fiscal. Citing different jurisprudence,
however, the Court denies his argument since his reliance on the cases he cited is
misplaced. The Court explains that the delivery of a detained person is a legal one and
consists in making a charge or filing a complaint against the prisoner with the proper justice
of the peace in provinces and in filing by the city fiscal of an information with the
corresponding city court after an investigation if the evidence against said person warrants.
A MTC judge, even in the performance of conducting preliminary investigations, retains the
power to issue an order of release or commitment. The intent behind Art. 125 is
satisfied upon filing of the complaint with theMTC. Petitioner acknowledged this when he
applied for bail. Art. 125 has been duly served.The period prescribed in Art. 125 has been
interrupted after the filing of the complaint in the MTC.
Soria v. Desierto
G.R. No. 153524, 31 January 2005
450 SCRA 339
FACTS:
Respondent police officers arrested petitioners Soria and Bista without a warrant for
alleged illegal possession of firearms at 8:30PM of May 13, 2001, a Sunday that immediately
precedes the May 14, 2001 Elections. Petitioners were brought to Prosecutor Viloria a day
after at 4:30PM was released at 6:30PM of the same day or after 22 hours of detention,
while Bista was released after 26 days as he has a standing warrant of arrest for another
offense.
Petitioners, invoking Article 125, filed a complaint before the Ombudsman. The latter
dismissed the same for lack of merit, ruling that Sundays, holidays, and election days are
excluded in the computation periods as contemplated in Article 125.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Sundays, holidays, and election days are excluded in the computation of
periods under Article 125.
HELD:
No, an election day or a special holiday, should not be included in the computation of
the period prescribed by law for the filing of complaint/information in courts in cases of
warrantless arrests, it being a “no-office day.”
The Court, citing Medina v. Orozco, Jr., reasoned that –
In these three no-office days, it was not an easy matter for a fiscal to look for
his clerk and stenographer, draft the information and search for the Judge to have
him act thereon, and get the clerk of court to open the courthouse, docket the case
and have the order of commitment prepared. And then, where to locate and the
uncertainty of locating those officers and employees could very well compound the
fiscal’s difficulties. These are considerations sufficient enough to deter us from
declaring that Arthur Medina was arbitrarily detained.
Geroche v. People
G.R. No. 179080, 26 November 2014
742 SCRA 514
FACTS:
In the evening of the 14th of May 1989, Edigardo Geroche, a barangay captain, and
Roberto Garde and Generoso Marfil, both CAFGU members, without a search warrant,
suddenly entered the residence of one Baleriano Limbag by breaking its main door and
attacked him using their fists andrifles. The assailants then searched for any firearms but
instead found and seized his airgun.
As a defense, the petitioners asserted that they were in their respective houses on
the alleged date of commission of the said crime. In addition, they stated that on May 13,
1989, they were busy patrolling in the vicinity of Barangay Greenhills, Municipality of Pres.
Roxas, Cotabato due to the incidents of stealing of cattles.
The Court ruled that the group of Geroche are only guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Less Serious Physical Injuries under Article 265 of the Revised Penal Code as
the prosecution failed to prove that the petitioners are indeed public officers which is an
important element for one offender to qualify for the Violation of Domicile under Article 128 of
the RPC. Thus, the private offended party elevated the case before the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE:
Whether the offenders are guilty of Violation of Domicile.
HELD:
Yes, the offenders are guilty of Violation of Domicile. Pursuant to Article 128 of the
RPC, the elements of Violation of Domicile are: (1) that the offender is a public officer or
employee; (2) that he is not authorized by judicial order to enter the dwelling and/or to make
a search therein for papers or other effects; and (3) that he commits any of the following
acts: (a) entering the dwelling against the will of the owner thereof; (b) searching papers or
other effects found therein without the previous consent of such owner; or (c) refusing to
leave the premises, after having surreptitiously entered said dwelling and after having been
required to leave the same.
In the present case, the CA set aside the decision of the Regional Trial Court as
Geroche, being a barangay captain, and the other two members, as CAFGU members, were
indeed public officers who entered the dwelling of Limbag without obtaining a judicial order
or a search warrant. It is also observed that they entered the place against the will of the
owner of the house.
