You are on page 1of 11

1

G.R. No. L-37007 officer to be chargeable with Arbitrary


Detention. It is accepted that other public
July 20, 1987 officers like judges and mayors, who act with
abuse of their functions, may be guilty of this
FACTS
crime. A perusal of the powers and function
An information for Arbitrary Detention was vested in mayors would show that they are
filed against herein private respondent similar to those of a barrio captain except that
(accused Barrio Captain Tuvera, Sr.) and in the case of the latter, his territorial
some other private persons for maltreating jurisdiction is smaller. Having the same duty
petitioner Valdez by hitting him with butts of of maintaining peace and order, both must be
their guns and fist blows. Immediately and are given the authority to detain or order
thereafter, without legal grounds and with detention. Noteworthy is the fact that even
deliberate intent to deprive the latter of his private respondent Tuvera himself admitted
constitutional liberty, accused respondent and that with the aid of his rural police, he as a
two members of the police force of Mangsat barrio captain, could have led the arrest of
conspired and helped one another in lodging petitioner Valdez.
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
2

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff- sec 2). As the Court held in Villanueva vs
appellee, Querubin, the state, however powerful,
vs. doesn’t have access to a man’s home, his
RUBEN BURGOS y TITO, defendant- haven of refuge where his individuality can
appellant. assert itself in his choice of welcome and in
the kind of objects he wants around him. In
Facts: Defendant is charged with illegal the traditional formulation, a man’s house,
possession of firearm in furtherance of however humble, is his castle, and thus is
subversion (tasks such as recruiting members outlawed any unwarranted intrusion by the
to the NPA and collection of contributions government.
from its members) and found guilty by the
RTC of Digos, Davao del Sur. From the The trial court justified the warrantless arrest
information filed by the police authorities upon under Rule 113 Sec 6 of the RoC:
the information given by Masamlok, allegedly
a man defendant tried to recruit into the NPA, a) When the person to be arrested has
the police authorities arrest defendant and committed, is actually committing, or is about
had his house searched. Subsequently, to commit an offense in his presence;
certain NPA-related documents and a firearm, b) When an offense has in fact been
allegedly issued and used by one Alias Cmdr. committed, and he has reasonable ground to
Pol of the NPA, are confiscated. Defendant believe that the person to be arrested has
denies being involved in any subversive committed it;
activities and claims that he has been tortured c) When the person to be arrested is a
in order to accept ownership of subject prisoner who has escaped from a penal
firearm and that his alleged extrajudicial establishment or place where he is serving
statements have been made only under fear, final judgment or temporarily confined while
threat and intimidation on his person and his his case is pending or has escaped while
family. He avers that his arrest is unlawful as being transferred from one confinement to
it is done without valid warrant, that the trial another and the confiscation of the firearm
court erred in holding the search warrant in under Rule 126, Sec 12:
his house for the firearm lawful, and that the
trial court erred in holding him guilty beyond A person charged with an offense may be
reasonable doubt for violation of PD 9 in searched for dangerous weapons or anything
relation to GOs 6and 7. which may be used as proof of the
commission of the offense.

Issue: If defendant’s arrest, the search of his However, the trial court has erred in its
home, and the subsequent confiscation of a conclusion that said warrantless arrest is
firearm and several NPA-related documents under the ambit of aforementioned RoC. At
are lawful. the time of defendant’s arrest, he wasn’t in
actual possession of any firearm or
Held: Records disclose that when the police subversive document, and was not
went to defendant’s house to arrest him upon committing any “subversive” act—he was
the information given by Masamlok, they had plowing his field. It is not enough that there is
neither search nor arrest warrant with them— reasonable ground to believe that the person
in wanton violation of ArtIV, Sec 3 (now Art III, to be arrested has committed a crime in a
3

warrantless arrest. An essential precondition communists, the subversives, the rebels, and
is that a crime must have beenin fact or the lawless with the means at its command, it
actually have been committed first; it isn’t should always be remembered that whatever
enough to suspect a crime may have been action is taken must always be within the
committed. The test of reasonable ground framework of our Constitution and our laws.”
applies only to the identity of the perpetrator.
The Court also finds no compelling reason for
the haste with which the arresting officers
sought to arrest the accused. We fail to see
why they failed to first go through the process
of obtaining a warrant of arrest, if indeed they
had reasonable ground to believe that the
accused had truly committed a crime. There is
no showing that there was a real
apprehension that the accused was on the
verge of flight or escape. Likewise, there is no
showing that the whereabouts of the accused
were unknown.

In proving the ownership of the questioned


firearm and alleged subversive documents,
assuming they were really illegal, the
defendant was never informed of his
constitutional rights at the time of his arrest;
thus the admissions obtained are in violation
of the constitutional right against self-
incrimination under Sec 20 Art IV (now Sec
12, Art III) and thus inadmissible as evidence.

Furthermore, the defendant was not accorded


his constitutional right to be assisted by
counsel during the custodial interrogation. His
extra-judicial confession, the firearm, and the
alleged subversive documents are all
inadmissible as evidence. In light of the
aforementioned, defendant is acquitted on
grounds of reasonable doubt of the crime with
which he has been charged. Subject firearm
and alleged subversive documents have been
disposed of in accordance with law.

The Court also maintains that violations of


human rights do not help in overcoming a
rebellion. Reiterating Morales vs Enrile, “while
the government should continue to repel the
4

Umil vs. Ramos them four (4) gift-wrapped packages. Marti


informed the owner that the packages simply
FACTS: This consolidated case of 8 petitions contained books, cigars and gloves as gifts to
for habeas corpus assails the validity of the his friends in Zurich and refused to allow the
arrests and searches made by the military on owner to examine and inspect the packages.
the petitioners. The arrests relied on the However, before the delivery of the box to the
“confidential information” that the authorities Bureau of Customs, the owner's husband
received. Except for one case where inciting inspected the package and found marijuana
to sedition was charged, the rest are charged which was later turned over to the NBI. A
with subversion for being a member of the case was filed against Marti. Marti invoked his
New People’s Army. right against illegal searches and seizure.
Held: The constitutional proscription against
RULING: The arrests were legal. Regarding unlawful searches and seizures therefore
the subversion cases, the arrests were legal applies as a restraint directed only against the
since subversion is a form of a continuing government and its agencies tasked with the
crime – together with rebellion, conspiracy or enforcement of the law. Thus, it could only be
proposal to commit rebellion/subversion, and invoked against the State to whom the
crimes committed in furtherance thereof or in restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable
connection therewith. On the inciting to exercise of power is imposed.
sedition case, the arrest was legal since an Corollarily, alleged violations against
information was filed prior to his arrest. Lastly, unreasonable search and seizure may only be
the arrests were not fishing expeditions but a invoked against the State by an individual
result of an in-depth surveillance of NPA safe unjustly traduced by the exercise of sovereign
houses pinpointed by none other than authority. To agree with appellant that an act
members of the NPA. of a private individual in violation of the Bill of
The right to preliminary investigation should Rights should also be construed as an act of
be exercised by the offender as soon as the State would result in serious legal
possible. Otherwise, it would be considered complications and an absurd interpretation of
as impliedly waived and the filing of the constitution
information can proceed. This sort of
irregularity is not sufficient to set aside a valid
judgment upon a sufficient complaint and after
a trial free from error.

DISSENT: (Sarmiento, J.) The “confidential


information” was nothing but hearsay. The
searches and arrests made were bereft of
probable cause and that the petitioners were
not caught in flagrante delicto or in any overt
act. Utmost, the authorities was lucky in their
fishing expeditions.
2. The Bill of Rights can only be invoked only
against the state. People vs. Marti --Marti and
his wife went to the booth of the "Manila
Packing and Export Forwarders" carrying with
5

ASTORGA vs. PEOPLE OF THE the team from leaving the island because it
PHILIPPINES was unsafe for them to travel by boat.

FACTS Verily, the circumstances brought out by


SPO1 Capoquian created a reasonable doubt
On September 1, 1997, private offended as to whether petitioner detained the DENR
parties together with SPO3 Andres B. Cinco, Team against their consent. The events that
Jr. and SPO1 Rufo Capoquian, were sent to transpired are, to be sure, capable to two
the Island of Daram, Western Samar to interpretations. While it may support the
conduct intelligence operations on possible proposition that the private offended parties
illegal logging activities. At around 4:30-5:00 were taken to petitioner’s house and
p.m., the team found two boats measuring 18 prevented from leaving until 2:00 a.m. the
meters in length and 5 meters in breadth next morning, it is equally plausible, if not
being constructed at Barangay Locob-Locob. more so, that petitioner extended his
There they met petitioner Benito Astorga, the hospitality and served dinner and drinks to the
Mayor of Daram, who turned out to be the team at his house. He could have advised
owner of the boats. A heated altercation them to stay on the island inasmuch as sea
ensued between petitioner and the DENR travel was rendered unsafe by the heavy rains
team. Petitioner called for reinforcements and, and ate together with the private offended
moments later, a boat bearing ten armed parties and even laughed with them while
men, some wearing fatigues, arrived at the conversing over dinner. This scenario is
scene. The DENR team was then brought to inconsistent with a hostile confrontation
petitioner’s house in Daram, where they had between the parties. Moreover, considering
dinner and drinks. The team left at 2:00 a.m. that the Mayor also served alcoholic drinks, it
is not at all unusual that his guests left the
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is guilty
house at 2:00 a.m. the following morning.
of Arbitrary Detention
As held in several cases, when the guilt of the
Held: Petitioner Benito Astorga is acquitted of
accused has not been proven with moral
the crime of Arbitrary Detention on the ground
certainty, the presumption of innocence of the
of reasonable doubt.
accused must be sustained and his
The determinative factor in Arbitrary exoneration be granted as a matter of right.
Detention, in the absence of actual physical When the circumstances are capable of two
restraint, is fear. After a careful review of the or more inferences, as in this case, one of
evidence on record, the court find no proof which is consistent with the presumption of
that petitioner instilled fear in the minds of the innocence while the other is compatible with
private offended parties. The court fail to guilt, the presumption of innocence must
discern any element of fear from the narration prevail and the court must acquit. It is better
of SPO1 Rufo Capoquian, the police officer to acquit a guilty man than to convict an
who escorted the DENR Team during their innocent man.
mission. SPO1 Capoquian in fact testified that
they were free to leave the house and roam
around the barangay. Furthermore, he
admitted that it was raining at that time.
Hence, it is possible that petitioner prevented
6

Sayo vs. Chief of Police municipalities and other political subdivisions.


A fortiori a police officer has no authority to
Detainee (D) vs. Arresting Authorities (P) arrest and detain a person charged with an
offense upon complaint of the offended party
GR L-2128, , May 12, 1948 (80 Phil. 859) [T]
or other persons even though, after
investigation, he becomes convinced that the
Summary: Two suspects of a robbery were accused is guilty of the offense charged.
arrested upon a complaint of another person.

Rule of Law: Under the constitution, no


person may be deprived of his liberty except
by warrant of arrest or commitment issued
upon probable cause by a judge after
examination of the complainant and his
witness.

Facts: Upon complaint of Bernardino Malinao,


charging Melencio Sayo (D) and Joaquin
Mostero (D) with having committed the crime
of robbery, Benjamin Dumlao, a policeman of
the City of Manila, arrested the Sayo (D) and
Mostero (D), and presented a complaint
against them with the fiscal's office of Manila.
When the petition for habeas corpuswas
heard, the Sayo (D) and Mostero (D) were still
detained or under arrest, and the city fiscal
had not yet released or filed charges against
them with the proper courts justice.

Issues: Is the warrantless arrest valid?

Ruling: No. Under the constitution, no person


may be deprived of his liberty except by
warrant of arrest or commitment issued upon
probable cause by a judge after examination
of the complainant and his witness.

A peace officer has no power or authority to


arrest a person without a warrant upon
complaint of the offended party or any other
person, except in those cases expressly
authorized by law. What he or the
complainant may do in such case is to file a
complaint with the city fiscal or directly with
the justice of the peace courts in
7

DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF DETAINED to court on the veryfirst office day following
PERSONS –Whether or not Respondent arrest
isliable for delay in the delivery of detained
persons under Art. 125

FACTS:-a) Petitioner’s Arguments (Medina -


Lost)- Filed a criminal case for delay in the
delivery of detained persons under Art. 125-
Argued that the crime — for which Petitioner
is detained — is murder, a capital offense.
TheRespondent arresting officer's duty under
the law1was either to deliver him to the proper
judicialauthorities within 18 hours, or
thereafter release him. The fact however is
that he was notreleased. From the time of
Petitioner's arrest at 12:00 o'clock p.m. on
November 7 to 3:40 p.m.on November 10
when the information against him for murder
actually was in court, over 75hours have
elapsedb) Respondent’s Arguments (Orozco -
Win)-

ISSUE:- Whether or not Respondent is liable


for delay in the delivery of detained persons
under Art. 125

RULING:Conclusion:-Respondent is not
liable. The petition is dismissedRule:-
Application:- In this case, stock should be
taken of the fact that November 7 was a
Sunday; November 8 wasdeclared an official
holiday; and November 9 (election day) was
also an official holiday. In thesethree 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 courtto
open the courthouse, docket the case and
have the order of commitment prepared. And
then,where to locate and the certainty of
locating those officers and employees could
very wellcompound the fiscal's difficulties.
These are considerations sufficient enough to
deter us fromdeclaring that Arthur Medina
was arbitrarily detained. For, he was brought
8

Stonehill vs Diokno and of the seizures made in pursuance


thereof, for the simple reason that said
20 SCRA 383 corporations have their respective
personalities, separate and distinct from the
Facts:
personality of herein petitioners, regardless of
Respondents herein secured a total of 42 the amount of shares of stock or of the
search warrants against petitioners interest of each of them in said corporations,
herein and/or the corporations of which they and whatever the offices they hold therein
were officers, to search “books of accounts, may be. Indeed, it is well settled that the
financial records, vouchers, correspondence, legality of a seizure can be contested only by
receipts, ledgers, journals, portfolios, credit the party whose rights have been impaired
journals, typewriters, and other documents thereby, and that the objection to an unlawful
and/or papers showing all business search and seizure is purely personal and
transactions including disbursements receipts, cannot be availed of by third
balance sheets and profit and loss statements parties. Consequently, petitioners herein may
and Bobbins (cigarette wrappers),” as “the not validly object to the use in evidence
subject of the offense; stolen or embezzled against them of the documents, papers and
and proceeds or fruits of the offense,” or things seized from the offices and premises of
“used or intended to be used as the means of the corporations adverted to above, since the
committing the offense,” which is described in right to object to the admission of said papers
the applications adverted to above as in evidence belongs exclusively to the
“violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and corporations, to whom the seized effects
Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and belong, and may not be invoked by the
the Revised Penal Code.” corporate officers in proceedings against
them in their individual capacity.
The petitioner contended that the search
warrants are null and void as their issuance
violated the Constitution and the Rules of
Court for being general warrants.

The documents, papers, and things seized


under the alleged authority of the warrants in
question may be split into two (2) major
groups, namely: (a) those found and seized in
the offices of the aforementioned
corporations, and (b) those found and seized
in the residences of petitioners herein.

Issue: Whether petitioners can validly assail


the search warrant against the corporation.

Held: No.

As regards the first group, we hold that


petitioners herein have no cause of action to
assail the legality of the contested warrants
9

Jose Burgos vs. Chief of Staff person acted as the agent of the owner.” In
the case at bar, petitioners did not claim to be
Facts: the owners of the land and/or building on
which the machineries were placed. This
Two warrants were issued against petitioners
being the case, the machineries in question,
for the search on the premises of
while in fact bolted to the ground remain
“Metropolitan Mail” and “We Forum”
movable property susceptible to seizure under
newspapers and the seizure of items alleged
a search warrant.
to have been used in subversive activities.
Petitioners prayed that a writ of preliminary However, the Court declared the two warrants
mandatory and prohibitory injunction be null and void.
issued for the return of the seized articles,
and that respondents be enjoined from using Probable cause for a search is defined as
the articles thus seized as evidence against such facts and circumstances which would
petitioner. lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man
to believe that an offense has been committed
Petitioners questioned the warrants for the and that the objects sought in connection with
lack of probable cause and that the two the offense are in the place sought to be
warrants issued indicated only one and the searched.
same address. In addition, the items seized
subject to the warrant were real properties. The Court ruled that the affidavits submitted
for the application of the warrant did not
Issue: satisfy the requirement of probable cause, the
statements of the witnesses having been
Whether or not the two warrants were valid to
mere generalizations.
justify seizure of the items.
Furthermore, jurisprudence tells of the
Held:
prohibition on the issuance of general
The defect in the indication of the same warrants. (Stanford vs. State of Texas). The
address in the two warrants was held by the description and enumeration in the warrant of
court as a typographical error and immaterial the items to be searched and seized did not
in view of the correct determination of the indicate with specification the subversive
place sought to be searched set forth in the nature of the said items.
application. The purpose and intent to search
two distinct premises was evident in the
issuance of the two warrant.

As to the issue that the items seized were


real properties, the court applied the principle
in the case of Davao Sawmill Co. v.
Castillo, ruling “that machinery which is
movable by nature becomes immobilized
when placed by the owner of the tenement,
property or plant, but not so when placed by a
tenant, usufructuary, or any other person
having only a temporary right, unless such
10

People vs. Mandoriao, Jr. C.A., 51 O.G. 4619 preaching (†œthat Jesus Christ was not
FACTS: God but only a man†•). The rally was
attended by persons who are not members of
The Iglesia ni Cristo held a religious rally at a the sect. Reyes Book II, page 81: Remarks
public place in Baguio. About 200 people that those who believed that Christ is God are
attended the meeting, about 50 of whom were anti-Christ, that all the members of the Roman
members of the Iglesia ni Cristo but the rest Catholic Church are marked by the demon,
were outsiders and curious listeners. While and that the Pope is the Commander of Satan
Salvio, a minister of Iglesia ni Cristo, was are notoriously offensive to the feelings of the
expounding on his topic to the effect that faithful.
Christ is not God, but only man, the crowd
became unruly. Some people urged
Mandoriao to go up the stage and have a
debate with Salvio. Mandoriao however, was
not able to speak before the microphone
because the wire connecting it was abruptly
disconnected.

ISSUE: Whether or not the meeting was a


religious ceremony.

HELD: The meeting here was not a religious


ceremony. A religious meeting is an
†œassemblage of people meeting for the
purpose of performing acts of adoration to the
Supreme Being, or to perform religious
services in recognition of God as an object of
worship†¦â€ • The meeting here was not
limited to the members of the Iglesia ni Cristo.
The supposed prayers and singing of hymns
were merely incidental because the principal
object of the rally was to persuade new
converts to their religion. Assuming that the
rally was a religious ceremony, the appellant
cannot be said to have performed acts or
uttered words offensive to the feelings of the
faithful. The act complained of must be
directed against a dogma or ritual, or upon an
object of veneration. There was no object of
veneration at the meeting. Reyes Book II,
page 80: When the application of the Iglesia
ni Cristo was to hold the meeting at a public
place and the permit expressly stated that the
purpose was to hold a religious rally, what
was held on that occasion was not a religious
ceremony, even if a minister was then
11

1. People vs. Baes Catholic and not those of other


faithfulones.Laurel dissent: Offense to
68 Phil. 203 religious feelings should not be made to
depend upon the more or less broador narrow
FACTS:
conception of any given particular religion, but
Baes, the parish priest of the Roman Catholic should be gauged having in view the nature
Church of Lumban, Laguna, charged the ofthe acts committed and after scrutiny of all
accused the facts and circumstance which should be
viewed throughthe mirror of an unbiased
with an offense against religion for causing judicial criterion. Otherwise, the gravity or
the funeral of a member of the “Church of leniency of the offense would hingeon the
Christ” to pass subjective characterization of the act from the
point of view of a given religious denomination
through the churchyard fronting the Roman
orsect, and in such a case, the application of
Catholic Church, belonging to said church and
the law would be partial and arbitrary, withal,
devoted to thereligious worship thereof. The
dangerous,
parish priest opposed this, but through force
and threats of physicalviolence by the especially in a country said to be "once the
accused, was compelled to allow the funeral scene of religious intolerance and
to pass through the said churchyard. persecution.”
ISSUE:

Whether or not the act complained of is


notoriously offensive to the religious feelings
of theCatholics, thereby violating Article 133
of the RPC.

HELD:

The facts alleged in the complaint constitute


the offense defined and penalized in article
133 ofthe Revised Penal Code, and should
the fiscal file an information alleging the said
facts and a trial bethereafter held at which the
said facts should be conclusively established,
the court may find the accusedguilty of the
offense complained of, or that of coercion, or
that of trespass under article 281 of the
RevisedPenal Code.

Whether or not the act complained of is


offensive to the religious feelings of the
Catholics, is a question offact which must be
judged only according to the feelings of the