The Office of the Ombudsman filed the following Information for Arbitrary Detention against

Benito Astorga, Mayor of Daram, Samar, and a number of his men on October 28, 1998, That
on or about September 1, 1997, and for some time thereafter, in the Municipality of Daram,
Province of Samar, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, BENITO
ASTORGA, a public officer, being the Municipal Mayor of Daram, Samar, in such capacity and
committing the offense in relation to office, conniving, confederating, and mutually helping with
unidentified persons, who are herein referred to under fictitious names, JOHN DOES, armed
with firearms of various calibers, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously detained Elpidio Simon,
Moises dela Cruz, Wenifredo Maniscan, Renato Militante, and Crisanto Pelias, DENR
Employees, at the Municipality of Daram, by refusing to let them leave without any legal or valid
grounds, restraining and depriving them of their personal liberty for nine (9) hours.

The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Office No. 8, Tacloban City,
dispatched a team to the island of Daram in Western Samar on September 1, 1997, to perform
information collection and forest preservation activities in support of the government's anti-illegal
logging campaign. Elpidio E. Simon, Chief of the Forest Protection and Law Enforcement
Section, led the team, which included Forester II Moises dela Cruz, Scaler Wenifredo Maniscan,
Forest Ranger Renato Militante, and Tree Marker Crisanto Pelias. SPO3 Andres B. Cinco, Jr.
and SPO1 Rufo Capoquian escorted the team.
G.R. No. 154130, October 1, 2003

FACTS:

Benito Astorga, Mayor of Daram, Samar, as well as a number of his men

were charged of Arbitrary Detention for detaining DENR employees sent
to the island of Daram to conduct intelligence gathering and forest
protection operations in line with the government’s campaign against
illegal logging. The complaint states that ten (10) men armed with M-16
and M14 rifles surrounded the team with guns pointed at them, upon the
order of Mayor Astorga. The team were then brought to a house and
were not allowed to leave until after nine (9) hours.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Mayor Astorga was guilty of Arbitrary Detention

RULING:

Yes, Mayor Astorga is guilty of Arbitrary Detention.

Arbitrary Detention is committed by any public officer or employee who,

without legal grounds, detains a person.
In this case, that the offender is a public officer is undeniably present.
Also, the records are bereft of any allegation on the part of petitioner that
his acts were spurred by some legal purpose. On the contrary, he
admitted that his acts were motivated by his “instinct for self-
preservation” and the feeling that he was being “singled out.” The
detention was thus without legal grounds.

What remains now is the determination of whether or not the team was
actually detained.

The prevailing jurisprudence on kidnapping and illegal detention is that

the curtailment of the victim’s liberty need not involve any physical
restraint upon the victim’s person. 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. 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.

Note: COURT’S RESOLUTION ON ASTORGA’S MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION, AUGUST 20, 2004

In August 20, 2004, the Special First Division of the Supreme Court
issued a resolution on the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Mayor
Astorga reversing its earlier ruling where it find the accused guilty of the
crime of arbitrary detention.
Here, the Court acquitted the accused based on reasonable doubt. The
Court’s resolution was penned in this wise:

The determinative factor in Arbitrary Detention, in the absence of actual

physical restraint, is fear. After a careful review of the evidence on
record, the court find no proof that petitioner instilled fear in the minds of
the private offended parties. The court fail to discern any element of fear
from the narration of SPO1 Rufo Capoquian, the police officer who
escorted the DENR Team during their 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 the team from leaving the
island because it was unsafe for them to travel by boat.

Verily, the circumstances brought out by SPO1 Capoquian created a

reasonable doubt as to whether petitioner detained the DENR Team
against their consent.

People vs. Ali, et. al (2017)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. USTADZ IBRAHIM ALI, ET. AL.
G.R. No. 222965, December 6, 2017 
MARTIRES, J.:
Facts: In an Information, Ali, together with other accused were charged with the crime
of kidnapping and serious illegal detention alleging that accused being then armed with
high powered firearm, conspiring with one another, by means of force and intimidation
feloniously, KIDNAP the person of CHRISTIA OLIZ y EUCOGCO, a young woman, 19
years old, particularly on the occasion when she was together with her employer named
Antonio Yu Lim Bo and the latter's wife and daughter, on board a Blue Nissan Vehicle
then driven by one Rene Igno, and thereafter through intimidation, commandeered and
drove said vehicle towards the area of Pitogo beach with the clear intention on the part
of the accused to extort ransom money from said victim or other person.
Appellant claimed that before the alleged incident, Hassan pushed Ali inside the motor
vehicle while he was holding a gun and told him to follow or he would be in trouble.
When all occupants arrived at the beach and alighted therefrom, Ali decided to walk
away and proceed to the main road to catch a ride. Ali argues that he could not be guilty
of the crime of Serious Illegal Detention because the alleged deprivation of liberty did
not last for more than three (3) days as the incident only lasted for about an hour or two
Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty of serious illegal detention.
Ruling: Yes. Deprivation of liberty is qualified to serious illegal detention if, among
others, the victim is a minor, female or public officer.
In the case at bar, the elements of serious illegal detention were duly proven by the
prosecution. First, Ali and his cohorts were clearly private individuals. Second, they
deprived Oliz of her liberty. This was manifested by the fact that they forcibly boarded
the vehicle and placed Igno and Antonio in handcuffs. Third, Oliz was a female victim. In
the case at bar, it is unquestionable that Ali was identified with moral certainty. Oliz was
able to distinguish and identify accused considering their proximity inside the vehicle
and the duration of the captivity.
Ratio Decidendi: The essence of serious illegal detention is the actual deprivation of
the victim's liberty, coupled with the indubitable proof of intent of the accused to effect
such deprivation-it is enough that the victim is restrained from going home.
Gist: This is an appeal from the Decision of the CA, which affirmed the Decision of the
RTC, finding appellant of the crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention.