You are on page 1of 4

3. MILO VS.

SALANGA respondent Tuvera himself admitted that with the


aid of his rural police, he as a barrio captain,
G.R. No. L-37007
could have led the arrest of petitioner Valdez.
July 20, 1987
BURGOS vs. CHIEF OF STAFF
FACTS:
An information for Arbitrary Detention was FACTS:
filed against herein private respondent (accused On 7 December 1982, Judge Ernani Cruz-
Barrio Captain Tuvera, Sr.) and some other Pao, Executive Judge of the then CFI Rizal,
private persons for maltreating petitioner Valdez issued 2 search warrants where the premises at
by hitting him with butts of their guns and fist 19, Road 3, Project 6, Quezon City, and 784
blows. Immediately thereafter, without legal Units C & D, RMS Building, Quezon Avenue,
grounds and with deliberate intent to deprive the Quezon City, business addresses of the
latter of his constitutional liberty, accused "Metropolitan Mail" and "We Forum" newspapers,
respondent and two members of the police force respectively, were searched, and office and
of Mangsat conspired and helped one another in printing machines, equipment, paraphernalia,
lodging and locking petitioner inside the motor vehicles and other articles used in the
municipal jail of Manaoag, Pangasinan for about printing, publication and distribution of the said
eleven (11) hours. newspapers, as well as numerous papers,
documents, books and other written literature
Accused-respondent then filed a motion to quash alleged to be in the possession and control of
the information on the ground that the facts Jose Burgos, Jr. publisher-editor of the "We
charged do not constitute the elements of said Forum" newspaper, were seized.
crime and that the proofs adduced at the
investigation are not sufficient to support the filing A petition for certiorari, prohibition and
of the information. Petitioner Asst. Provincial mandamus with preliminary mandatory and
Fiscal Milo filed an opposition thereto. prohibitory injunction was filed after 6 months
Consequently, averring that accused-respondent following the raid to question the validity of said
was not a public officer who can be charged with search warrants, and to enjoin the Judge
Arbitrary Detention, respondent Judge Salanga Advocate General of the AFP, the city fiscal of
granted the motion to quash in an order. Hence, Quezon City, et.al. from using the articles seized
this petition. as evidence in criminal case. The prayer of
ISSUE: preliminary prohibitory injunction was rendered
moot and academic when, on 7 July 1983, the
Whether or not accused-respondent, Solicitor General manifested that said articles
being a Barrio Captain, can be liable for the crime would not be used until final resolution of the
of Arbitrary Detention. legality of the seizure of said articles.
HELD:
ISSUE:
Yes. The public officers liable for Arbitrary Whether or not the seized documents are
Detention must be vested with authority to detain considered real property and were seized under
or order the detention of persons accused of a disputed warrants?
crime. One need not be a police officer to be
chargeable with Arbitrary Detention. It is HELD:
accepted that other public officers like judges and
mayors, who act with abuse of their functions, Under Article 415[5] of the Civil Code of
may be guilty of this crime. A perusal of the the Philippines, "machinery, receptacles,
powers and function vested in mayors would instruments or implements intended by the owner
show that they are similar to those of a barrio of the tenement for an industry or works which
captain except that in the case of the latter, his may be carried on in a building or on a piece of
territorial jurisdiction is smaller. Having the same land and which tend directly to meet the needs of
duty of maintaining peace and order, both must the said industry or works" are considered
be and are given the authority to detain or order immovable property.
detention. Noteworthy is the fact that even private
Article 134 inrelation to Article 135 of the
In Davao Sawmill Co. v. Castillo, it was said that Revised Penal Code.
machinery which is movable by nature becomes RULING:
immobilized when placed by the owner of the In resolving the issue on probable cause,
tenement, property or plant, but not so when the Supreme Court ruled in the negative. It is
placed by a tenant, usufructuary, or any other clear from the facts of the case that the elements
person having only a temporary right, unless of committing rebellion are not present. There
such person acted as the agent of the owner. was no showing that there was a public arising
and taking of arms against
In the present case, petitioners do not claim to be the government. Probable cause is the existence
the owners of the land and/or building on which of such facts and circumstances as would excite
the machineries were placed. The machineries, the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the
while in fact bolted to the ground, remain facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that
movable property susceptible to seizure under a the person charged was guilty of the crime for
search warrant. which he was prosecuted. These circumstances
BELTRAN VS. PEOPLE were not taken into account by the prosecutor
(G. R. No. 175013, June 1, 2007) when it filed an information of rebellion against
petitioners. Clearly, the prosecutor was remiss of
FACTS: his authority. In addition to that,
This case is a consolidated case. mere membership in the communist party does
However, the facts of the case will be focused on not constitute the commission of rebellion.
the Beltran petition, for which the Supreme Court Although as a rule, the Supreme Court does not
premised its decision. On the other hand, the interfere with the prosecutor's determination of
ruling is applicable to all three cases, that probable cause, this rule however is not without
is, Ladlad vs. Velasco,Maza vs. Gonzalez and exception. The Supreme Court however has the
this petition of Beltran. power to review under Rule 65 in cases where
The facts of the case are as follows: the prosecutor abused his discretion by ignoring
Petitioners were all prosecuted for the crime of a clear insufficiency of evidence to support a
Rebellion. They were alleged as leaders and finding of probable cause which is what
promoters of the plan to overthrow transpired in the instance case.
the Arroyo Government. In the case of Beltran, Gonzales vs. Abaya
he was arrested without a warrant and without G.R. No. 164007, Aug. 10, 2006
being informed of the crime for which he was The nature of the military justice system
charged. The basis of his arrest was based on his Coup d'etat vis-a-vis violation of the
speech conducted in a rally on the occasion of Articles of War
the 20th Anniversary of the EDSA Revolution.
Other than this, there are no proofs of specific
acts of promoting, maintaining or heading a FACTS:
rebellion. An inquest proceeding was conducted On July 27, 2003 at around 1:00 a.m.,
leading to a finding of probable cause on the more than 300 heavily armed
basis of the affidavits of junior officers and enlisted men of the AFP
arresting officers and lettersaccusing Beltran to entered the premises of the Oakwood
have conspired with the petitioners in the other Premier Luxury Apartments on Ayala Avenue,
two cases as well as with the members of the Makati City, where they disarmed
Communist Party of the Philippines and the the security guards and planted explosive
Makabayang Kawal ng Pilipinas of having formed devices around the building. They then declared
a "tactical alliance." The lower court ruled that their withdrawal of support from their
there was probable cause. Hence, the present Commander-in-Chief and demanded that she
petition to enjoin petitioners' prosecution for resign as President of the Republic.
rebellion.
ISSUE: After much negotiation, the group finally
Whether or not there is probable cause to laid down their arms. Subsequently,
indict petitioners for the crime of Rebellion under an Information for coup detat was filed against
them with the RTC, at the same time that they prescribed for the same dismissal from the
were tried at court martial for conduct service imposable only by the military court.
unbecoming an officer. They question the Such penalty is purely disciplinary in character,
jurisdiction of the court martial, contending that evidently intended to cleanse
the RTC ordered that their act was not service- the military profession of misfits and to preserve
connected and that their violation of Art. 96 of the the stringent standard of military discipline.
Articles of War (RA 7055) was absorbed by the
PEOPLE VS. ABALOS
crime of coup detat.
Facts:
ISSUE: Police Major Cecilio Abalos, father
of Tiburcio Abalos, was scolding an
Whether the act complained of was employee for turning inPhP200 only for their
service-connected and therefore transportation business. Tiburcio Abalos, aked his
cognizable by court martial or father to stop scoldingthem and just let them
absorbed by the crime of coup d'etat attend barangay festivities. This infuriated the
cognizable by regular courts elder and and caused aheated argument between the
two. Pfc. Sofronia Labine appeared on the scene and
asked CecilioAbalos if everything was all right,
RULING: Tiburcio got a piece of wood and struck
Labine on the rights i d e o f h i s
The military justice system head. Labine collapsed and
is disciplinary in nature, aimed at achieving the later died due to sever skull fracture.
highest form of discipline in order to ensure the I n Ti b u r c i o s testimony, he admitted striking
highest degree of military efficiency. Military Labine with the erroneous belief that Labine was
law is established not merely to enforce discipline a member of the NPA.
in times of war, but also to preserve the tranquility Issues:
and security of the State in times of war, but also Whether Tiburcio ABalos is liable for
to preserve the tranquility and security of the Murder- Whether Tiburcio Abalos is liable for
State in time of peace; for there is nothing more direct assault.
dangerous to the public peace and safety than a Held:
licentious and undisciplined militarybody. Decision of the Lower Court:
The administration of military justice has been T h e R e g i o n a l Tr i a l C o u r t c h a r g e
universally practiced. Since time immemorial, all Ti b u r c i o A B a l o s g u i l t y o f t h e c o m p l e x
the armies in almost all countries of the world crime of direct assault with murder .
look upon the power of military law and He was sentenced to life
itsadministration as the most effective means of i m p r i s o n m e n t w i t h accessories of the law,
enforcing discipline. For this reason, the court he was toindemnify the heirs of the victim
martial has become invariably an indispensable in the sum of PhP30,000, actual and
part of any organized armed forces, it being the compensatory damages of Php2663, with
most potent agency in enforcing discipline both in PhP15,000 as moral damagaes and to paythe
peace and in war. cost.Decision of the Appellate Court: The
appellate court affirmed the decision that it
The Court held that the offense is service- is a complexcrime of direct assault with
connected. xxx It bears stressing that the charge murder. Labine was a person in authority
against the petitioners concerns the alleged and was performing hisduty when Tiburcio
violation of their solemn oath as officers to defend struck him. The crime falls under the 2
the Constitution and the duly-constituted nd
authorities. Such violation allegedly caused mode of direct assault withoutpublic
dishonor and disrespect to themilitary profession. uprising. The offense is a complex crime,
In short, the charge has a bearing on the penalty for which is that for the
their professional conduct or behavior asmilitary graveroffense to be imposed in the maximum
officers. Equally indicative of the service- period. In this case, murder is the more serious
connected nature of the offense is the penalty crime, itcarries the penalty of reclusion perpetua
to death. Death should be the penalty but
since,thereis existing proscription for the penalty
of death, the sentence is reduced to reclusion
perpetua.The indemnity payable to the heirs
is PhP 50,000. The decision affirmed with
modifications to sentence. Cost against the
accused-appellant
UMIL VS. RAMOS
Facts:
On 1 February 1988, military agents were
dispatched to the St. Agnes Hospital, Roosevelt
Avenue, Quezon City, to verify a
confidential information which was received by
their office, about a "sparrow man" (NPA
member) who had been admitted to the
saidhospital with a gunshot wound. That the
wounded man in the saidhospital was among the
five (5) male "sparrows" who murdered two (2)
Capcom mobile patrols the day before, or on 31
January 1988 at about 12:00 o'clock noon, before
a road hump along Macanining St., Bagong
Barrio, Caloocan City. The wounded man's name
was listed by thehospital management as
"Ronnie Javellon," twenty-two (22) years old of
Block 10, Lot 4, South City Homes, Bian,
Laguna however it was disclosed later that the
true name of the wounded man was Rolando
Dural. In view of this verification, Rolando Dural
was transferred to the
Regional Medical Servicesof the CAPCOM,
for security reasons. While confined thereat, he
was positively identified by the eyewitnesses as
the one who murdered the 2 CAPCOM mobile
patrols.
Issue:
Whether or Not Rolando was lawfully
arrested.
Held:
Rolando Dural was arrested for being a
member of the NPA, an outlawed
subversive organization. Subversion being a
continuing offense, the arrest without warrant is
justified as it can be said that he was committing
as offense when arrested. The crimes rebellion,
subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit
such crimes, and crimes or offenses committed in
furtherance therefore in connection therewith
constitute direct assaults against the state and
are in the nature of continuing crimes.