[G.R. No. 154130. October 1, 2003.

] Held: While it is true that complainant was not put behind bars as
BENITO ASTORGA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent had intended, however, complainant was not allowed to
respondent. 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
FACTS: On the 1st day of September, 1997, and for sometime qualify as confinement that a man be restrained, either morally or
subsequent thereto, at the Municipality of Daram, Province of Samar, physically, of his personal liberty (Black's Law Dictionary, 270
petitioner, a public officer, being the Municipal Mayor of Daram, [1979]). Under the circumstances, respondent judge was in fact
Samar unlawfully and feloniously detained Elpidio Simon, Moises guilty of arbitrary detention when he, as a public officer, ordered the
dela Cruz, Wenifredo Maniscan, Renato Militante and Crisanto Pelias, arrest and detention of complainant without legal grounds.
DENR Employees, at the Municipality of Daram, by not allowing them
to leave the place, without any legal and valid grounds thereby [G.R. No. L-37007. July 20, 1987.]
restraining and depriving them of their personal liberty for nine (9) RAMON S. MILO, in his capacity as Assistant Provincial Fiscal of
hours, but without exceeding three (3) days. Pangasinan, and ARMANDO VALDEZ, petitioners, vs. ANGELITO C.
SALANGA, in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of
ISSUE: Whether or not Astorga committed arbitrary detention even if Pangasinan (Branch IV), and JUAN TUVERA, SR., respondents.
such does not involve physical restraint?
That on or about the 21st day of April, 1973, at around 10:00 o'clock
HELD: The prevailing jurisprudence on kidnapping and illegal in the evening, in barrio Baguinay, Manaoag, Pangasinan, Juan
detention is that the curtailment of the victim's liberty need not Tuvera, Sr., a barrio captain, with the aid of some other private
involve any physical restraint upon the victim's person. If the acts persons, namely Juan Tuvera, Jr., Bertillo Bataoil and one Dianong,
and actuations of the accused can produce such fear in the mind of maltreated one Armando Valdez by hitting with butts of their guns
the victim sufficient to paralyze the latter, to the extent that the and fists blows and immediately thereafter, without legal grounds,
victim is compelled to limit his own actions and movements in with deliberate intent to deprive said Armando Valdez of his
accordance with the wishes of the accused, then the victim is, for all constitutional liberty, accused Barrio captain Juan Tuvera, Sr., Cpl.
intents and purposes, detained against his will. Tomas Mendoza and Pat. Rodolfo Mangsat, members of the police
In the case at bar, the restraint resulting from fear is evident. Inspite force of Mangsat Pangasinan, conspiring, confederating and helping
of their pleas, the witnesses and the complainants were not allowed one another, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously,
by petitioner to go home. lodge and lock said Armando Valdez inside the municipal jail of
Manaoag, Pangasinan for about eleven (11) hours.
[A.M. No. MTJ-93-813. September 15, 1993.]
FERNANDO CAYAO, complainant, vs. JUDGE JUSTINIANO A. DEL ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT A BARRIO CAPTAIN MAY BE GUILTY OF THE
MUNDO CRIME OF ARBITRARY DETENTION?

Facts: As a result of an almost head-on collision of the bus being HELD:

driven by petitioner and the owner-type jeepney where respondent The public officers liable for Arbitrary Detention must be vested with
judge is a passenger, herein petitioner was made to choose between authority to detain or order the detention of persons accused of a
3 different alternative punishment by the respondent judge. He crime. Such public officers are the policemen and other agents of the
chosed to be detained for 3 days with a waiver of detention. As a law, the judges or mayors. Long before Presidential Decree 299 was
result, he was detained in the municipal jail for 3 days. signed into law, barrio lieutenants (who were later named barrio
captains and now barangay captains) were recognized as persons in
Issue: Whether or not respondent judge is guilty of arbitrary authority. In various cases, this Court deemed them as persons in
detention although petitioner was not actually put behind bars? 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 detained petitioner to the proper judicial authority within 36 hours
with abuse of their functions, may be guilty of this crime. from arrest. Said complaint was transferred to the Deputy
Ombudsman for the Military who recommended the dismissal of the
[G.R. No. 126252. August 30, 1999.] complaints.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JESUS GARCIA y Issue: Whether or not there was a delay in the delivery of Agbay, as
MANABAT, accused-appellant. prescribed by Article 125?
On the alleged violation of Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code,
Facts: In an information filed before the Regional Trial Court of petitioner contended that the proper judicial authority is the
Baguio City, herein accused-appellant Jesus Garcia was charged with Regional Trial Court, not the MCTC. The Court, however, ruled that
the crime of illegal possession of five kilos of marijuana. Upon upon the filing of the complaint with the MTC, the intent behind Art.
arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. After trial on the 125 is satisfied considering that the detained person is informed of
merits, the court a quo rendered a decision on February 20, 1996 the crime imputed against him. Hence, such filing interrupted the
finding the accused-appellant guilty of illegal possession of period prescribed in Art. 125.
prohibited drugs and sentenced him. to suffer the maximum penalty
of death. [G.R. No. 137182. April 24, 2003.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ABDILA SILONGAN et al
Issue: Whether or not the accused was detained more than what is
required by law considering that it was a warrantless arrest? FACTS:
. For automatic review was the decision convicting appellants of the
Held: The police officers cannot be held liable for arbitrarily detaining crime of Kidnapping for Ransom with Serious Illegal Detention and
appellant at the CIS office. Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as sentencing them to death. Records revealed that Alexander Saldana
amended, penalizes a public officer who shall detain another for with three companions went to a town in Sultan Kudarat to meet
some legal ground and fail to deliver him to the proper authorities Macapagal Silongan. The meeting, however, did not go well as
for 36 hours for crimes punishable by afflictive or capital penalties. In Alexander and his companions were abducted. Ransom was
the present case, the record bears that appellant was arrested for demanded for their release but no agreement was reached.
possession of five (5) kilos of marijuana on November 28, 1994 at 2 Eventually, only Alexander remained in detention by his abductors
p.m., a crime pun[ishable with reclusion perpetua to death. He was and for 5 months. He was later released in exchange of the person
detained for further investigation and delivered by the arresting caught delivering the ransom note.
officers to the court in the afternoon of the next day. Clearly, the
detention of appellant for purposes of investigation did not exceed ISSUE: Whether or not the crime committed was politically motivated
the duration allowed by law, i.e., 36 hours from the time of his as to warrant a charge of rebellion?
arrest.
HELD: As held in Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Zamboanga
[G.R. No. 134503. July 2, 1999.] Del Norte vs. CA, 78 the political motivation for the crime must be
JASPER AGBAY, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE DEPUTY shown in order to justify finding the crime committed to be rebellion.
OMBUDSMAN FOR THE MILITARY, SPO4 NEMESIO NATIVIDAD, JR. and Merely because it is alleged that appellants were members of the
SPO2 ELEAZAR M. SOLOMON, respondents. Moro Islamic Liberation Front or of the Moro National Liberation Front
does not necessarily mean that the crime of kidnapping was
Facts: On September 7, 1997, petitioner Agbay and a certain committed in furtherance of a rebellion. Here, the evidence adduced
Jugalbot were arrested and detained for the alleged violation of RA is insufficient for a finding that the crime committed was politically
7610. The next day, a case was filed against them in the MCTC. motivated. Neither have the appellants sufficiently proven their
Petitioner, however, filed a complaint against private respondents allegation that the present case was filed against them because they
before the Office of the Ombudsman for failure to deliver the are rebel surrenderees.
 man who shot Lucilo had three other companions with him, one of
[G.R. No. 106826. January 18, 2001.] whom shot the fallen policeman four times as he lay on the ground.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. OSCAR et al After taking the latter's gun, the man and his companions boarded a
tricycle and fled.
FACTS: Appellants, together with several other co-accused, in an
amended information were charged with kidnapping with murder Issue: Whether or not rebellion is the proper charge and not murder?
committed against Jacinto Magbojos. Appellants interposed the
defense of alibi who claimed that they were in Metro Manila at the Held: Divested of its common complexion therefore, any ordinary
time the crime was committed. No eyewitness saw the actual killing act, however grave, assumes a different color by being absorbed in
of the victim, but appellants were convicted of murder on the basis the crime of rebellion, which carries a lighter penalty than the crime
of several circumstantial evidence deduced from the testimonies of of murder. In deciding if the crime committed is rebellion, not
three (3) prosecution witnesses. Arturo Inopia testified that in the murder, it becomes imperative for our courts to ascertain whether or
early morning of the day of the incident, appellants, together with not the act was done in furtherance of a political end. The political
the other accused, armed with long firearms, represented motive of the act should be conclusively demonstrated. It is not
themselves to be NPA members and told him that their mission is to enough that the overt acts of rebellion are duly proven. Both
get the victim; that according to the deceased wife, Erlinda, four purpose and overt acts are essential components of the crime. With
armed men forcibly took her husband who was then wearing white either of these elements wanting, the crime of rebellion legally does
short pants with green lining and red Adidas shirts; that Elpidio not exist. In fact, even in cases where the act complained of were
Labajata saw the accused inside the house of Inopia and the victim committed simultaneously with or in the course of the rebellion, if
hogtied by coralon rope and appeared very weak and with abrasions the killing, robbing, or etc., were accomplished for private purposes
on his face. or profit, without any political motivation, it has been held that the
crime would be separately punishable as a common crime and would
ISSUE: Whether or not the other crimes committed should be treated not be absorbed by the crime rebellion.
as absorbed in rebellion?
[G.R. No. 100231. April 28, 1993.]
Held: It was held that in the absence of a showing that accused were THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RODRIGO
engaged in rebellion, the crime of kidnapping with murder must be DASIG et al
treated separately; that the totality of the circumstantial evidence
taken together constitute one unbroken chain leading to the fair and FACTS: On the 4th day of August, 1987, in the city of Mandaue,
reasonable conclusion that appellants, to the exclusion of others, are accused, self-confessed rebels, conspiring and confederating
responsible for the victim's death; that alibi is unavailing in the face together and helping one another, with intent to kill, treachery,
of positive identification; and that in the absence of evidence on how evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength and use of motor
the killing was executed, the crime committed is only homicide, not vehicle, all armed with unlicensed firearms, did then and there
murder. wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot one
Redempto Manatad, a police officer on traffic duty, at his vital
[G.R. No. 112235. November 29, 1995.] portion which caused his death soon thereafter, knowing beforehand
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ELIAS LOVEDIORO that the victim was a policeman who was then in the performance of
y CASTRO, defendant-appellant. his official duties.

FACTS: Off-duty policeman SPO3 Jesus Lucilo was walking along ISSUE: Whether or not accused should be charged with rebellion
Burgos St., away from the Daraga, Albay Public Market when instead of direct assault?
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
Held: The crime of rebellion consists of many acts. It is a vast FACTS: On the 20th day of March, 1983, at nighttime, in the
movement of men and a complex net of intrigues and plots. Acts Municipality of Catbalogan, Province of Samar accused, with
committed in furtherance of rebellion though crimes in themselves deliberate intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation
are deemed absorbed in one single crime of rebellion. The act of and knowing fully well that one Sofronio Labine was an agent of a
killing a police officer, knowing too well that the victim is a person in person in authority being a member of the Integrated National Police
authority is a mere component or ingredient of rebellion or an act with station at Catbalogan, Samar, willfully, unlawfully and
done in furtherance of the rebellion. It cannot be made a basis of a feloniously attacked, assaulted and struck said Sofronio Labine with
separate charge. a piece of wood, which said accused ha(d) conveniently provided
himself for the purpose while said P/Pfc. Sofronio Labine, a duly
appointed and qualified member of the said INP, was engaged in the
ENRIQUE "TOTOY" RIVERA Y DE GUZMAN, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF performance of his official duties or on the occasion of such
THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. performance, that is, maintaining peace and order during the
barangay fiesta of Canlapwas, of said municipality, thereby inflicting
FACTS:On the 20th day of March, 1993, at Tomay, Shilan, upon him 'Lacerated wound 2 inches parietal area right. Blood
Municipality of La Trinidad, Province of Benguet, Philippines, accused oozing from both ears and nose' which wound directly caused his
employed force and seriously resist one Lt. EDWARD M. LEYGO, death.
knowing him to be a policeman, by then and there challenging the
latter to a fistfight and thereafter grappling and hitting the said ISSUE: Wheter or not there was direct assault?
policeman on his face, thus injuring him in the process while the
latter was actually engaged in the performance of his official duties. Appellant committed the second form of assault, the elements of
which are that there must be an attack, use of force, or serious
ISSUE: Whether or not direct assault was committed? intimidation or resistance upon a person in authority or his agent;
the assault was made when the said person was performing his
Held: Direct assault, a crime against public order, may be committed duties or on the occasion of such performance, and the accused
in two ways: first, by any person or persons who, without a public knew that the victim is a person in authority or his agent, that is,
uprising, shall employ force or intimidation for the attainment of any that the accused must have the intention to offend, injure or assault
of the purposes enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and the offended party as a person in authority or an agent of a person in
sedition; and second, by any person or persons who, without a public authority
uprising, shall attack, employ force, or seriously intimidate or resist Here, Labine was a duly appointed member of the then INP in
any person in authority or any of his agents, while engaged in the Catbalogan, Samar and, thus, was an agent of a person in authority
performance of official duties, or on occasion of such performance. pursuant to Article 152 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
Unquestionably, petitioner's case falls under the second mode, which
is the more common form of assault and is aggravated when: (a) the
assault is committed with a weapon; or (b) when the offender is a [G.R. No. 84921. June 8, 1993.]
public officer or employee; or (c) when the offender lays hand upon a PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROLANDO DURAL et al
person in authority.
FACTS: On the 31st day of January, 1988 at Caloocan City, Metro-
[G.R. No. 88189. July 9, 1996.] Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TIBURCIO the above-named accused, attacked, assaulted and employed
ABALOS, accused-appellant. personal violence upon the persons of TSGT CARLOS PABON PC and
CIC RENATO MANGLIGOT PC, as duly appointed and qualified
. members of the Philippine Constabulary, CAPCOM, Camp Bagong
Diwa, Bicutan, Taguig, while the latter were engaged in the
performance of their official duties, knowing the said TSGT CARLOS persons in authority. (As amended by P.D. No. 299, September 19,1973 and Batas
PABON PC and CIC RENATO MANGLIGOT PC, to be agents of persons Pambansa Blg. 873, June 12,1985)."
in authority by then and there shooting TSGT. CARLOS PABON, PC Careful reading of the last paragraph of Article 152 will show that while a teacher or
and CIC RENATO MANGLIGOT PC, on the different parts of their professor of a public or recognized private school is deemed to be a "person in
bodies, thereby inflicting upon the latter serious physical injuries, authority," such teacher or professor is so deemed only for purposes of application of
which eventually caused their death. Articles 148 (direct assault upon a person in authority), and 151 (resistance and
disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such person) of the Revised
Issue: Whether or not the complex crime of murder with direct Penal Code.
assault was committed?

Held: There is no doubt in Our minds that appellant Dural and the [G.R. No. 113218. November 22, 2001.]
two (2) other gunmen knew that the victims, Babon and Mangligot, ALEJANDRO TECSON, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE
were members of the Philippine Constabulary detailed with the OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
CAPCOM as they were then in uniform and riding an official CAPCOM
car. The victims, who were agents of persons in authority, were in FACTS: Alejandro Tecson, herein petitioner, was arrested and charged with the crime
the performance of official duty as peace officers and law enforcers. of illegal possession and use of counterfeit US dollar notes, as defined and penalized
For having assaulted and killed the said victims, in conspiracy with under Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code. The prosecution's case was founded on
the other two (2) gunmen, appellant Dural also committed direct the testimonies of the arresting officers, Pedro C. Labita and Johnny Marqueta, who
assault under Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code. The crimes he both acted as poseur buyers, that a buy-bust operation was conducted by the combined
committed, therefore, are two (2) complex crimes of murder with agents of the Central Bank of the Philippines and the US Secret Service, and that the
direct assault upon an agent of a person in authority. petitioner was therein caught in flagrante delicto in the possession of and in the act of
offering to sell counterfeit 10 pieces of 100 US dollar notes.
[G.R. Nos. 76338-39. February 26, 1990.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RENATO TAC-AN Y ISSUE: Whether or not there was counterfeiting considering that there was no
HIPOS, accused-appellant. haggling as to the price of the fake dollar notes?

FACTS: That, on or about the 14th day of December, 1984 in the City of Tagbilaran, HELD: The Court further held that the absence of haggling as to the price of the
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named subject fake US dollar notes between the petitioner and the poseur buyers did not
accused, without any justifiable cause and with intent to kill, evident premeditation, negate the fact of the buy-bust operation. Mere possession, coupled with intent to use
treachery, while acting under the influence of drugs, with cruelty and deliberately the counterfeit US dollar notes, as proven in the case at bar, was sufficient to constitute
augmenting the suffering of the victim, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and the crime. Moreover, the Court did not give credit to petitioner's allegation that he was
feloniously attack, assault and shot one Francis Ernest Escaño, a teacher, with the use framed-up by the Central Bank agents. This hackneyed defense of alleged frame-up of
of an unlicensed SMITH & WESSON Airweight caliber .38 revolver with Serial the accused caught in flagrante delicto during a buy-bust operation had been viewed
Number 359323 hitting and inflicting upon the latter the following gunshot wounds or with disdain by the courts for it is easy to concoct and difficult to prove. Besides, the
injuries. arresting officers were legally presumed to have regularly performed their official
duties. Petitioner failed to overcome by any credible evidence to the contrary this legal
ISSUE; Whether a teacher is considered a public officer so as to appreciate it as a presumption.
generic aggravating circumstance?

HELD: In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 of this Code, teachers, SECOND DIVISION
professors and persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized [G.R. No. 150910. February 6, 2006.]
private schools, colleges and universities, and lawyers in the actual performance of BIENVENIDO GONZALUDO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
their professional duties or on the occasion of such performance, shall be deemed respondent.
 ISSUE: Whether or not the charge of falsification of a private
FACTS: On the 20th day of January, 1993 in the City of Bacolod accused, conspiring, document is proper?
confederating and acting in concert, with intent to gain, defrauded the herein offended
party, Anita Manlangit Vda. de Villaflor in the following manner, to wit: that accused HELD: Given the admissions of Avella that she altered the receipt, and without
Rosemarie Gelogo alias Rosemarie G. commitedacts of falsification by preparing convincing evidence that the alteration was with the consent of private complainant,
and/or causing to be prepared a public document denominated as a Deed of Sale dated the Court holds that all four (4) elements have been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
January 20, 1993 entered as Doc. No. 402, Page No. 81, Book No. XVII, Series of As to the requirement of damage, this is readily apparent as it was made to appear that
1993 of the Notarial Register of Atty. Ramon B. Clapiz, to the effect that she is the Alberto had received P50,000 when in fact he did not. Hence, Avella's conviction.
lawful owner of the said house and affixing or causing to be affixed thereon her name
and signature.

ISSUE: Whether the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public documents
is the right offense considering an element is missing in the crime of estafa?

HELD: We find no cogent reason to depart from this settled principle that the deceit,
which must be prior to or simultaneously committed with the act of defraudation, must
be the efficient cause or primary consideration which induced the offended party to
part with his money or property and rule differently in the present case.
While it may be said that there was fraud or deceit committed by Rosemarie in this
case, when she used the surname "Villaflor" to give her semblance of authority to sell
the subject 2-storey house, such fraud or deceit was employed upon the Canlas spouses
who were the ones who parted with their money when they bought the house.
However, the Information charging Rosemarie of estafa in the present case, alleged
damage or injury not upon the Canlas spouses, but upon private complainant, Anita
Manlangit. Since the deceit or fraud was not the efficient cause and did not induce
Anita Manlangit to part with her property in this case, Rosemarie cannot be held liable
for estafa. With all the more reason must this be for herein petitioner.

[G.R. No. 128213. December 13, 2005.]

AVELLA GARCIA, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS: On or about the month of January, 1991 in Pasay City Abella Garcia, being
then in possession of a receipt for Five Thousand Pesos dated January 21, 1991 issued
by one Alberto Quijada, Jr. as partial down payment of the sale of a house and lot
situated at No. 46 P. Gomez St., Mandaluyong, Metro Manila by Albert Quijada, Jr. to
accused, made alterations and wrote words, figures and phrases to the original receipt
which completely changed its meaning by making appear thereon that it was issued on
January 24, 1991 in the amount of Fifty Five Thousand Pesos (P55,000.00) when in
truth and in fact, the said accused fully well knew that the receipt was only for the
amount of Five Thousand Pesos.