Arbitrary Detention

1. Benito Astorga vs People

We concluded that fear has been known to render people immobile and that appeals
to the fears of an individual, such as by threats to kill or similar threats, are
equivalent to the use of actual force or violence.36

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.37 This refusal was quickly followed by the call for and 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. 38 Given such
circumstances, we give credence to SPO1 Capoquian’s statement that it was not
"safe" to refuse Mayor Astorga’s orders. 39 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.

Mayor Astorga of Daram, Samar is found guilty of arbitrary detention after

detaining and threatening a team of DENR employees conducting operations
on the island, leading to his conviction and the affirmation of the importance of
prosecuting public officials who commit such acts.

Facts:

The case involves Benito Astorga, who was the Mayor of Daram, Samar. On
September 1, 1997, a team of DENR employees, led by Elpidio Simon, went to the
island of Daram to conduct operations against illegal logging. While investigating the
construction of boats in Brgy. Lucob-Lucob, they encountered Mayor Astorga. Mayor
Astorga detained the team for several hours, threatened them, and surrounded them
with armed men. The team was eventually released and filed a criminal complaint for
arbitrary detention against Mayor Astorga.

Issue:
WON the team was actually detained

Ruling: Yes
Arbitrary Detention

Elements Acts
Offender is public officer or employee Astorga was a Mayor
Detains a person the restraint resulting from fear is
evident. Inspite of their pleas, the
witnesses and the complainants were
not allowed by petitioner to go
home.37 This refusal was quickly
followed by the call for and 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.

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.

Detention is w/o legal grounds his acts were motivated by his "instinct
for self-preservation" and the feeling
that he was being "singled out."32 The
detention was thus without legal
grounds, thereby satisfying the third
element enumerated above.

2. Pascasio Duropan et al vs People of the Philippines

Facts:

1. Duropan and Coloma were Barangay Kagawad and Barangay Tanod,

respectively, of Lincod, Maribojoc, Bohol.

2. The Abatan Lincod Mangroves Nipa Growers Organization or simply,

"ALIMANGO" is a cooperative duly registered with the Cooperative
Development Authority. Since 1998, it was authorized to develop, utilize, and
protect the Mangrove-Nipa Area in Lincod, Maribojoc, Bohol. Its members cut,
gather, and weave nipa palms.11
Arbitrary Detention

3. On broad daylight, uropan, Coloma, and another barangay official saw

William Pacis (Pacis), Lino Baldoza Jr., Jeremias Moquila, Melvin Magbanua,
and Ronnel Zambra harvesting nipa palm in a plantation.12 Coloma
approached them and asked who gave them authority to harvest. Pacis
replied that they were ALIMANGO members.

4. Doubting Pacis' claim, Duropan and Coloma pushed Pacis and his
companions on board two (2) paddle boats. Pacis then protested and inquired
whether Duropan and Coloma can arrest them without a warrant. Despite
their objections, Pacis' group was brought to the Police Station of Maribojoc,
Bohol.

5. Upon investigation, Pacis and his companions were released. The Maribojoc
Chief of Police determined that the barangay officials had no legal basis to
arrest Pacis. They were convicted by the lower courts for UNLAWFUL
ARREST.

6. Petitioners narrated that they were conducting a surveillance operation when

they saw Pacis and his group cutting nipa leaves. Duropan believed that
Pacis was committing theft because he knew that the nipa plantation
belonged to Calvin Cabalit (Cabalit).

7. Petitioners said that Pacis was not arrested, but was merely invited to the
police station.

8. Petitioners maintain that complainant attacked them, which is why he was

invited to the police station.In the alternative, they argue that if he was indeed
arrested, there was a reasonable ground for it.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not petitioners Pascasio Duropan and Raymond Nixer Coloma

arrested William Pacis. Yes

2. Whether or not there was reasonable ground to arrest Pacis, which warrants
petitioners' acquittal from the charge of unlawful arrest. No.

Elements Acts
(1) that the offender arrests or it was evident that Pacis was taken into
detains another person; the barangay officials' custody based on
their belief that he committed a crime,
either because he was allegedly
committing theft, or because he became
violent. Their intent to arrest Pacis was
Arbitrary Detention

clearly established.

Ingon ang petitioners : wa daw gi

arrest, gi invite ra.

SC said:

(Application of actual force, manual

touching of the body, physical restraint
or a formal declaration of arrest
is not required. It is enough that there
be an intent on the part of one of the
parties to arrest the other and an intent
on the part of the other to submit, under
the belief and impression that
submission is necessary.

When the accused is in an environment

made hostile by the presence and
actuations of law enforcers where it can
be reasonably inferred that they had no
choice except to willingly go with them,
then there is an arrest. The subjective
view of the accused will be relevant—
which includes among others—their
station in life and degree of education.)

(2) that the arrest or detention is Second, they arrested him for the
to deliver the person to the purpose of bringing him to the proper
proper authorities; and authorities, in this case, the police
station in Maribojoc, Bohol

(3) that the arrest or detention is The acts of petitioners in maliciously

not authorized by law or that ignoring the claim of membership of the
there is no reasonable ground to. private complainant, arresting the latter
without reasonable ground, and forcibly
bringing the latter to the police station in
Maribojoc, Bohol, sufficiently constitutes
bad faith. All these factual
circumstances are enough to rebut the
presumption of good faith and regularity
in the performance of official duties in
petitioners' favor.92

There was no overt act within

petitioners' plain view which hinted that
Pacis was committing a crime. During
Arbitrary Detention

his apprehension, Pacis has not

committed, was not committing, nor was
he about to commit a crime. The
warrantless arrest in this case was
unlawful.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Court of

Appeals October 23, 2015 Decision and February 1, 2017 Resolution in CA-G.R. CR
No. 02182 are AFFIRMED.

Side notes:

There are several crimes defined in the Revised Penal Code pertaining to the
curtailment of a person's liberty. The crimes against the fundamental laws of the
state58 and the crimes against personal liberty59 are differentiated, thus:

Failure to judicially charge within the prescribed period renders the public officer
effecting the arrest liable for the crime of delay in the delivery of detained persons
under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.

Further, if the warrantless arrest was without any legal ground, the arresting officers
become liable for arbitrary detention under Article 124.

However, if the arresting officers are not among those whose official duty gives
them the authority to arrest, they become liable for illegal detention under Article 267
or 268.

If the arrest is for the purpose of delivering the person arrested to the proper
authorities, but it is done without any reasonable ground or any of the circumstances
for a valid warrantless arrest, the arresting persons become liable for unlawful arrest
under Article 269.

A public officer who has no duty to arrest or detain a person is deemed a

private individual, in contemplation of Articles 267 and 268 of the Revised Penal
Code. Even when a public officer has the legal duty to arrest or detain another, but
he or she fails to show legal grounds for detention, "the public officer is deemed to
have acted in a private capacity and is considered a 'private individual."

Even if a public officer has the legal duty to detain a person, the public officer
must be able to show the existence of legal grounds for the detention. Without these
legal grounds, the public officer is deemed to have acted in a private capacity and is
considered a "private individual." The public officer becomes liable for kidnapping
and serious illegal detention punishable by reclusion perpetua, not with arbitrary
detention punished with significantly lower penalties.
Arbitrary Detention

In the crime of unlawful arrest, the offender who arrested or detained another
intended to deliver the apprehended person to the proper authorities, considering he
or she does not have the authority. This act of conducting the apprehended persons
to the proper authorities takes the offense out of the crime of illegal detention.

For unlawful arrest, the added element to be proved is whether from the overt
facts of the case, there was a clear intent to submit the persons arrested or detained
for the purpose of prosecution. The prosecutor could have also charged illegal
detention, which means that the intent to present for legal detention and prosecution
need not be proven. However, in this case, the prosecutors decided to charge
unlawful arrest only, with a significantly lower penalty.

3. People of the Philippines vs Alipio Santiano et al

Facts:

1. The four accused individuals in the case are Alipio Santiano

(Volunteer/Assists of the NARCOM) , Jose( Sandigan (PNP) , Armenia
Pillueta(NARCOM officer), and Jose Vicente (Jovy) Chanco
(Volunteer/Assists of the NARCOM)

2. The accused individuals were convicted of the crime of kidnapping with

murder.

3. The victim in the case is Ramon John Dy Kow, Jr., who was a detention
prisoner at the Naga City Jail.

Issues: Ruling

( in relation sa Arbitrary The fact alone that appellant Pillueta

Detention nga topic: whether is "an organic member of the
ang public officer or NARCOM" and appellant Sandigan
employee, makasuhan bag "a regular member of the PNP"
illegal kidnapping) would not exempt them from the
criminal liability for kidnapping. 15 It
is quite clear that in abducting and
taking away the victim, appellants
did so neither in furtherance of
official function nor in the pursuit of
authority vested in them. It is not, in
fine, in relation to their office, but in
purely private capacity, that they
have acted in concert with their co-
appellants Santiano and Chanco.
Arbitrary Detention

Pero mao jud ni ang issue sa

case: The crime of kidnapping cannot be
here absorbed by the charge of
Whether the accused could murder since the detention of the
be separately convicted of victim is not shown to have been for
kidnapping when the the purpose of liquidating him.
evidence failed to support the Appellants themselves, in fact, all
charge of murder. deny having killed the victim. And
while the evidence may have thus
been found to be wanting by the trial
court so as to equally hold
appellants responsible for the death
of the victim, the Court is convinced
that the court a quo did not err in
making them account for
kidnapping. The circumstances
heretofore recited indicate the
attendance of conspiracy among the
appellants thereby making them
each liable for the offense.