MILO VS.
SALANGA respondent Tuvera himself admitted that with the
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
aid of his rural police, he as a barrio captain,
could have led the arrest of petitioner Valdez.
BURGOS vs. CHIEF OF STAFF
FACTS:
On 7 December 1982, Judge Ernani Cruz-
Paño, Executive Judge of the then CFI Rizal,
issued 2 search warrants where the premises at
19, Road 3, Project 6, Quezon City, and 784
Units C & D, RMS Building, Quezon Avenue,
Quezon City, business addresses of the
"Metropolitan Mail" and "We Forum" newspapers,
respectively, were searched, and office and
printing machines, equipment, paraphernalia,
motor vehicles and other articles used in the
printing, publication and distribution of the said
newspapers, as well as numerous papers,
documents, books and other written literature
alleged to be in the possession and control of
Jose Burgos, Jr. publisher-editor of the "We
Forum" newspaper, were seized.
A petition for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus with preliminary mandatory and
prohibitory injunction was filed after 6 months
following the raid to question the validity of said
search warrants, and to enjoin the Judge
Advocate General of the AFP, the city fiscal of
Quezon City, et.al. from using the articles seized
as evidence in criminal case. The prayer of
preliminary prohibitory injunction was rendered
moot and academic when, on 7 July 1983, the
Solicitor General manifested that said articles
would not be used until final resolution of the
legality of the seizure of said articles.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the seized documents are
considered real property and were seized under
disputed warrants?
HELD:
Under Article 415[5] of the Civil Code of
the Philippines, "machinery, receptacles,
instruments or implements intended by the owner
of the tenement for an industry or works which
may be carried on in a building or on a piece of
land and which tend directly to meet the needs of
the said industry or works" are considered
immovable property. 
 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 d’etat was filed against
them with the RTC, at the same time that they
were tried at court martial for conduct
unbecoming an officer. They question the
jurisdiction of the court martial, contending that
the RTC ordered that their act was not service-
connected and that their violation of Art. 96 of the
Articles of War (RA 7055) was absorbed by the
crime of coup d’etat.
ISSUE:
Whether the act complained of was
service-connected and therefore
cognizable by court martial or
absorbed by the crime of coup d'etat
cognizable by regular courts
RULING:
The military justice system
is disciplinary in nature, aimed at achieving the
highest form of discipline in order to ensure the
highest degree of military efficiency. Military
law is established not merely to enforce discipline
in times of war, but also to preserve the tranquility
and security of the State in times of war, but also
to preserve the tranquility and security of the
State in time of peace; for there is nothing more
dangerous to the public peace and safety than a
licentious and undisciplined militarybody.
The administration of military justice has been
universally practiced. Since time immemorial, all
the armies in almost all countries of the world
look upon the power of military law and
itsadministration as the most effective means of
enforcing discipline. For this reason, the court
martial has become invariably an indispensable
part of any organized armed forces, it being the
most potent agency in enforcing discipline both in
peace and in war.
The Court held that the offense is service-
connected. xxx It bears stressing that the charge
against the petitioners concerns the alleged
violation of their solemn oath as officers to defend
the Constitution and the duly-constituted
authorities. Such violation allegedly caused
dishonor and disrespect to themilitary profession.
In short, the charge has a bearing on
their professional conduct or behavior asmilitary
officers. Equally indicative of the “service-
connected” nature of the offense is the penalty
prescribed for the same – dismissal from the
service – imposable only by the military court.
Such penalty is purely disciplinary in character,
evidently intended to cleanse
the military profession of misfits and to preserve
the stringent standard of military discipline.
PEOPLE VS. ABALOS
Facts:
Police Major Cecilio Abalos, father
of Tiburcio Abalos, was scolding an
employee for turning inPhP200 only for their
transportation business. Tiburcio Abalos, aked his
father to stop scoldingthem and just let them
attend barangay festivities. This infuriated the
elder and and caused aheated argument between the
two. Pfc. Sofronia Labine appeared on the scene and
asked CecilioAbalos if everything was all right,
Tiburcio got a piece of wood and struck
Labine on the rights i d e   o f   h i s
head. Labine collapsed and
later died due to sever skull fracture.
I n   Ti b u r c i o ’ s testimony, he admitted striking
Labine with the erroneous belief that Labine was
a member of the NPA.
Issues:
Whether Tiburcio ABalos is liable for
Murder- Whether Tiburcio Abalos is liable for
direct assault.
Held:
Decision of the Lower Court:
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
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
crime of direct assault with murder .
He was sentenced to life
i m p r i s o n m e n t w i t h accessories of the law,
he was toindemnify the heirs of the victim
in the sum of PhP30,000, actual and
compensatory damages of Php2663, with
PhP15,000 as moral damagaes and to paythe
cost.Decision of the Appellate Court: The
appellate court affirmed the decision that it
is a complexcrime of direct assault with
murder. Labine was a person in authority
and was performing hisduty when Tiburcio
struck him. The crime falls under the 2
nd
mode of direct assault – withoutpublic
uprising. The offense is a complex crime,
the penalty for which is that for the
graveroffense to be imposed in the maximum
period. In this case, murder is the more serious
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, Biñan,
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.