ARBITRARY DETENTION

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 accused-respondent 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 vs Lovedioro
People vs Lovedioro 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. Remeline Lucilo, 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 EightyEight (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.
People vs Dasig G.R. No. 100231 April 28, 1993 Facts: Appellants Rodrigo Dasig, Edwin Nuez and 6 others were charged together of shooting Redempto Manatad, a police officer, as he died while 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 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. Redempto Manatad, 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.