REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA

THIRD DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CA- G. R. No. 14207 -R
Plaintiff-Appellee,

-versus- Present:

DOMINADOR M. CAMERINO, Dizon

MIGUEL DIAZ, BENJAMIN Pena
TOPACIO, LUCIO YAMBAO Cabahug,
CRISANTO SARATAN, ARSE-
NIO CORCILLO alias ARTE-
MIO CORCILLO, BERNARDO
LACSON, CECILIO ESGUERRA
and MARCELINO ESGUERRA,
NICASIO CAMERINO, alias
NICASIO CAMINERO, JOHN
DOE alias ADRING, HENRY
DOE alias SERAFIN,
Defendants, Promulgated

DOMINADOR M. CAMERINO DEC. 14, 1956

MIGUEL DIAZ, BENJAMIN
TOPACIO, LUCIO YAMBAO
CRISANTO SARATAN, BER-
NARDO LACSON, CECILIO
ESGUERRA and MARCELINO
ESGUERRA.
Defendants-Appellants,

x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION
PENA, J

Upon complaint of policemen Juan del Rosario, Simon Balicudiong and Emilio Cabrera,
all of Bacoor, Cavite, Governor Dominador M. Camerino, Miguel Diaz, Crisanto Saratan,
Arsenio Corcillo alias Artemio Corcillo, Bernardo Lacson alias Andong, Lucio Yambao, Bejamin
Topacio alias Bengie, Marcelino Esguerra, Nicasio Camerino alias Nicasio Caminero, Cecilio
Esguerra, John Doe alias Auring, Henry Doe alias Serafin and others, whose names are still
unknown, were accused of the crime of arbitrary detention in the Court of First Instance of
Cavite , for having allegedly acted jointly and helping one another, willfully and unlawfully ,
ordered, induced and conspired the arrest of the complainants on the election day of November
10, 1953.
John Doe alias Auring, and Henry Doe alias Serafin, have not yet been identified by their
full names and are still at large, while Nicasio Camerino alias Nicasio Caminero, who pleaded
guilty upon arraignment and accordingly sentenced, was killed by a F. C. patrol who trailed him
after escaping from jail. Accused Arenio Corcillo alias Artemio Corcillo, a member of the police
force of Imus, Cavite, is a fugitive from justice.
After due trial decision was rendered the dispositive portion of which is as follows –

“FOR THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the Court hereby finds Gov. Dominador
M. Camerino, Chief of Police Miguel Diaz, Sgt. Crisanto Saratan, Sgt. Lucio Yambao,
Policeman Bernardo Lacson, Cecilio Esguerra, Marcelino Esguerra, and Benjamin Topacio
guilty beyond reasonable doubt, of the crime of arbitrary detention, defined in and penalized by
Article 124 of the Revised Penal Code, and sentences each of them to suffer an indeterminate
penalty of from six (6) months of arresto mayor as the minimum, to three (3) years, six (6)
months and twenty-one (21) day of prision correcional as the maximum, with the accessories of
the law, and to pay proportionally the cost of this action.”

From the aforesaid judgment, Dominador M. Camerino, Miguel Diaz, Crisanto Saratan,
Bernardo Lacson alias Andong, Lucio Yambao, Benjamin Topacio alias Bengie, Marcelino
Esguerra and Ceciio Esguerra appeals.
In his attempt to escape criminal liability, appellant Dominado M. Camerino assails the
trial court for having allegedly erred-

1. In not finding that the three complaining witnesses voluntarily sought refuge in the
jail at Imus, Cavite, and that they were not detained therein.
2. In finding the accused Dominador Camerino guilty of the crime of arbitrary
detention.

For according to him, while he was entertaining several newspaper reporters at a

restaurant in Imus, Cavite, some 70 meters from the provincial hail, he was apprised at about
7:00 o’clock in the evening of the election day on November 10, 1953, of the case of the three
Bacoor policemen, the herein complainants. He said, he even talked to them and inquired, “why
they were asking for protection a the provincial jail.” The reason allegedly given was that they
were prompted by the killing of Vice Mayor Eduardo of Bacoor, and that they were afraid that
his relatives might retaliate. At that juncture, Governor Camerino further claims that he even
rescinded Chief of Police Miguel Diaz of Imus to exercise more care as something untoward
may arise should the latter accommodate the three policemen. Assuring the Governor that
nothing would happen and that they were willing to sign a statement relieving him and his men
of any responsibility, the three policemen were accommodated in the provincial jail.
For the purpose of having the appealed judgment reversed, appellant Miguel Diaz wants
this Court to believe that he could not have been with the group that picked up the complainants
and forceably brought them to the provincial jail at Imus, because he was at a certain place
where, according to him, he was even seen by a certain attorney Evaristo Gabriel. He therefore,
maintains that it was erroneous for the lower court-

1. In not holding that the complainants voluntarily sought the sanctuary of the provincial
jail in Imus, Cavite, and that they were actually found haven therein,
2. In holding that the defendant-appellant Miguel Diaz was among those who allegedly
apprehended the complainants at Hambog, Bacoor, Cavite, and incarcerated them in
the Municipal jail in Imus, Cavite.
3. In making some other findings to which no evidence was adduced.
4. In convicting the defendant-appellant, Miguel Diaz of the crime of arbitrary
detention.

Appellants Benjamin Topacio, Lucio Yambao, C. Saratan, Bernardo Lacson, Cecilio and
Marcelino Esguerra also asked for their acquittal on the grounds that the lower court erred-

1. In not believing the testimonies of the accused and their witnesses to the effect that
there was no actual detention- muchless arbitrary detention- of the complaining three
policemen;
2. In not finding that what actually happened was that these three Bacoor policemen
overpowered by tremendous apprehension for their personal safety lest they might be
liquidated by the families and sympathizers of Vice-Mayor Ocampo and his 2
companions, who were massacred on the morning of November 10, 1953, in front of
a precinct in a Bacoor Barrio, had voluntarily gone to Imus for protection and safety;
3. In not finding that because of this excessive fear for their lives if these policemen
would stay in Mambog, they availed themselves of the fact that one of them,
policeman Cabrera, was the personal compadre of an influential Imus councilor,
Enrique Diaz, who is the brother of accused Chief of Police Diaz, in order to seek
protection and shelter under the latter’s personal case;
4. In not giving full weight and credit to Exh. 1 of the defense also marked Exh. “A” for
the prosecution;
5. In not finding that it was due to the personal preference of the 3 policemen to stay in
the municipal building premises - sleeping inside the cell at night and staying outside
at daytime – that these policemen complainants were there in the Imus municipal
building;
 6. In convicting these appellants of the crime of arbitrary detention when it has found as
a fact that these 3 complainants were free to roam around in the municipal hall
building; and
7. In convicting all these accused-appellants on an insinuated existence of conspiracy,
without evidence thereof, and this notwithstanding this fact that the writ of habeas
corpus was still suspended.

Sergeant Lucio Yambao of the police force of Imus, Cavite, adopts for his acquittal, a
version similar to that of Governor Camerino. He claims, that the three complaining policemen
voluntarily sheltered and took refuge in the provincial jail situated in Imus.

The rest of the appellants, Benjamin Topacio, Crisanto Saratan, a sergeant of the police
force of Imus, Bernardo Lacson, also of the same police force, Cecilio Esguerra, and Marcelino
Esguerra, like their co-appellant Miguel Diaz, want to prevail upon this Court that they could
have committed on the date in question the crime imputed against them.

Appellant Benjamin Topacio, who was only about 21 years of age at the trial of the case,
on the date in question, claims that it was physically impossible for him to be with the armed
group of men, who allegedly maltreated and detained the complainants, for he was then in the
office of his father with whom he had gone to the provincial capitol after having cast his vote in
Imus in the early hours of November 10, 1953.

According to Cristanto Saratan, he was on inspection at the hour and date in question,
while Bernardo Lacson asserts that he was busy maintaining peace and order in the election
precinct Nos. 22, 22-A and 53 of Imus when the acts complained of were allegedly committed on
the day of the election of November 10, 1953.

Claiming that he was a substitute inspector of the Nacionalista Party in precinct No. 14,
of Imus, Cavite, having discharged his duties therein from 9:00 in the morning of November 10,
1953, up to 1:00 o’clock midnight of the same day, appellant Cecilio Esguerra claims innocence
of the crime with which he was charged.

Finally, Marcelino Esguerra, who is a native of Imus, Cavite, although on the date in
question he was living in Las Pinas, Rizal declared that at about 9:00 o’clock on the morning of
November 10, 1953, he went to barrio Libhoc of Batangas, Batangas, after casting his vote at
Imus.

On the other hand, according to police Corporal Anselmo Capili of Bacoor, Cavite, while
performing his duties as desk sergeant in the office of the chief of police located at the
presidencia, appellant Dominador M. Camerino, then incumbent provincial governor of Cavite,
accompanied by some unidentified companions in khaki uniform and civilian clothes and armed
with carbines and pistols dropped therein between 11:00 and 12:00 o’clock on the morning of
November 10, 1953, Governor Camerino proceeded to the office of the chief of police and
inquired from Sergeant Capili as to who were the policemen assigned in the various precincts or
outposts of Bacoor. While the sergeant was attending to the inquiries of Governor Camerino, the
latter’s deputy entered and talked to superior. While the two were engaged in the conversation,
Sergeant Capili stepped backward, but as he was standing near the door, somebody behind hit
him on the ear, and another pushed him into the room. In a split second, another grabbed
Sergeant Capili, threw him on the floor and kicked him on the face while lying down. Upon
regaining his conciousness when brought by the window, he was again hit on the face with a 45
Cal. Pistol, and another gave him a blow which Sergeant Capili was able to parry. Finally, held
by the shirt, Capili was dragged towards the door and a gun was aimed at him. It was then when
somebody said, “that is enough.”

After maltreating Sergeant Capili in the presence of Governor Camerino, the latter left
the former’s office and immediately ordered his companions to look for all Bacoor policemen
and lodge them in jail. Capili was left behind, locked in jail with another policeman by the name
of Lorenzo Constantino until released on the afternoon of the following day by constabulery
men. Sergeant Capili’s maltreatment is the subject of a separate criminal action. (Crim. Case No.
11653, C.F.I. of Cavite)

It further appears the policemen Juan del Rosario, Emilio Cabrera and Simon
Balicudiong of Bacoor, Cavite, were assigned to maintain peace and order around the premises
of precincts Nos. 23, and 23-A in the barrio of Mambog of said town in the morning of the
election day on November 10, 1953. While thus discharging their duties, two jeeps loaded with
about 20 armed men arrived at about 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon, According to policeman Juan
del Rosario, while he was on his beat between the two Mambog precincts, all of a sudden, two
armed men jumped out of a jeep, searched him, confiscated his 45 Ca. service pistol and pushed
him into the jeep. He further stated that one of the two armed men was Arsenio Corcillo, but
failed to recognize the latter’s companion. He also identified some Member of the raiding part,
namely, Crisanto Saratan, Cecilio Esguerra, Marcelino Esguerra, Benjamin Topacio, Miguel
Diaz, Bernardo Lacson, Nicasio Camerino alias Caminero and others who were not yet
apprehended. After he was picked ip, the raiders turned their attention to policeman Emilio
Cabrera, against whom a gun was leveled at his side and pushed him into the jeep. Thereafter, the
armed men, together with their captives, proceeded to the other precinct where accused Nicasio
Camerino alias Caminero, armed with a gun, approached policeman Simon Balicudiong and
shoved him into the waiting vehicle. The only question that the three policemen were able to ask
in the face of the unexpected and sudden action was, “why were they being arrested,” to which
the raiders replied that it was the order of Governor Dominador M. Camerino. At the provincial
jail in Imus, Cavite, where the three captives were brought were turned over to Sergeant Lucio
Yambao of the police force of said town and locked them behind bars.
 From the conflicting version of appellant Dominador M. Camerino and Lucio Yambao
and that of the complainants, we could not believe that the latter had voluntarily sought refuge in
the provincial jail of Cavite, located in Imus, even in the face of Exhibit “1” which is indicative
to that effect. From the very testimony of defense witness Elpidio Balicudiong, a brother of
complainant Simon Balicudiong, to the effect that he had plenty of relatives in the town of Imus,
and that he was requested by his sister-in-law, by the name of Tomasa Bautista of the same town,
to bring food to his brother Simon, we could that if said complainant had simply wanted to
escape any possible retaliation by the followers of the deceased Vice-Mayor Eduardo Ocampo of
Bacoor, Cavite, he could have sought shelter in any of the houses of the relatives of Elpidio and
Simon in Imus, instead of going to the provincial jail which, it was not unknown, was under the
control and influence of the then Governor Dominador Camerino and his followers. As
appropriately observed by the trial court, hospitality among us, especially relatives would have
been more conducive to Simon Balicudiong going to the homes of his relatives rather than the
provincial jail where he was always within the sight of the followers of the then Governor
Camerino.

Similarly, the pretension of defense witnesses Lamberto Nolasco and Dominador

Camana, two youths of about 22 years old of barrio Mambog, that they were invited by the three
complaining policemen to take a ride in a hired jeep to contact a certain Enrique, brother of
appellant Miguel Diaz, for the purpose of making an arrangement for the accommodation of said
complainants in the provincial jail, can not be given much credence either. It is quite surprising
that these complaining witnesses should have invited two youngsters who could have no use for
the stated purpose. Lamberto Nolasco even admitted that he was not a friend of appellant Miguel
Diaz. While witness Dominador Camana declared that among those in the jeep, one of them was
Ananas del Rosario, brother of policeman Juan del Rosario who, testifying as a rebuttal witness,
flatly denied the imputation made by this defense witness. As a matter of fact, according to
Ananas del Rosario he was an inspector of the Nacionalista Party in Precinct No. 23 of Bacoor,
and under this circumstance he could not have been in the hired jeep as testified to by defense
witness Dominador Camana.

The defense, in its attempt to lend a semblance of freedom to the arbitrary detention of
the herein complainants, introduced evidence showing that the former had freely moved in and
out of the prison cell. Defense witness Clemente Edejer declared that he met them near the stamp
counter of the post-office of where he was the postmaster, while another witness, Dalmacio
Peleo, testified that they were even allowed to take their meals outside the prison. According to
the record, however, the bench where the three Bacoor policemen were seen by Clemente Edejer
at about 11:00 o’clock in the morning of November 11, 1953, was only three meters from the jail
cell. If these policemen were allowed to move in and about their cell, their movement under an
ominous atmosphere could not have rendered their detention nugatory, for anyway that freedom
was restricted by fear and they remained under the survillance of those who had control and
influence over them. If this was not the case, it is quite surprising why appellant Lucio Yambao,
to whom the complainants were entrusted by Governor Camerino and his men, failed to release
them in the afternoon of November 13 upon order of Col. Laureta, then acting provincial
commander of Cavite, and when questioned on the following day, why he failed to carry out the
order, appellant Yambao was mum and offered no explanation. On the other hand, when the three
policemen were asked by the colonel whether it was true that they sought shelter in the
provincial jail, they looked with terrorized glances at Lucio Yambao. From the tight lips of the
complainants and from the language of their eyes, Col. Laureta sensed that they were in a serious
and arbitrary situation, that is why he brought them to P.C. headquarters at Imus. On their way,
they confessed to him that their hesitation to answer his question at the provincial jail was
generated by their fear of appellant Lucio Yambao and other Imus policemen.

As repeatedly observed, the most abused of all defenses is alibi. Where, however, like in
the instant case, appellants Miguel Diaz, Benjamin Topacio, Crisanto Saratan, Bernardo Lacson,
Cecilio Esguerra and Marcelino Esguerra were positively identified by the complainants, who do
not appear to have been motivated by grudge, their defense of alibi can not be entertained.
Appellant Miguel Diaz’ pretension that he was seen at a certain place by one Atty. Evaristo
Gabriel at the time and date in question was belied by the latter on the witness stand. Aside from
the denial of this witness and the positive identification of said appellant by complainant Juan del
Rosario, another factor that makes us doubt the claim of Miguel Diaz is that he was a die-hard
follower of Governor Camerino. Such circumstance alone is enough to make him go with his
“boss” for good or for worse.

Benjamin Topacio did not offer any satisfactory explanation why he had to stay up to a
late hour in the office of his father in the provincial capitol on the election day on November 10,
1953.

Aside from the fact that appellant Cecilio Esguerra was positively identified by the
complaining witness that he was one of the raiders that forceably took them to the provincial jail
in Imus, Cavite, his claim that he was appointed as a substitute inspector, as corroborated by
defense witness Honorata Sarinas, is not convincing. It is too much a coincidence that Honorata
Sarinas in her capacity as chairman of the board of election inspectors of Precinct No. 14 in
Medicion, Imus, would have appointed Cecilio Esguerra to substitute the regular election
inspector by the name of Gonzales, when she did not even know said appellant previous to the
election day. It is not unknown that a board of election inspectors has a list of substitutes from
which, upon consultation with the president of the local chapter of the party concerned, a
substitute has to be selected. Such procedure was not observed by Honorata Sarinas, a
circumstance that makes us doubt the credibility of her testimony and that of Cecilio Esguerra.

Like the trial court, what makes us doubt the claim of appellant Marcelino Esguerra, who
was also positively identified by the herein complainants, that after casting his vote in the first
hours on the morning of November 10, 1953, he proceeded to Batangas, Batangas, is the
circumstance that he was closely identified with he political faction of his co-appellant Governor
Camerino. For this reason, it is unbelievable that he would have gone to Batangas on the election
day without knowing yet the results of the elections.

The duties upon which appellants Crisanto Saratan and Bernardo Lacson are clinging for
their salvation in this appeal, do not preclude them from joining the armed party that picked up
the complainants who, by the way, unmistakably figure them out.

Now, coming to the legal pint raised by appellants to the effect that inasmuch as the
suspension of the writ of habeas corpus was still in force from November 10 to 14, 1953, no
crime of arbitrary detention could have been committed then. Appellants must be referring to
Proclamation No. 210 issued by former President Elpidio Quirino, the last paragraph of which is
as follows-

“Now, therefore, I, Elpidio Quirino, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers
vested upon me by Article VII, section 10, paragraph (2) of the Constitution, do hereby suspend
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus for the persons presently detained, as well as all others
who may be hereafter similarly detained for the crimes of sedition, insurrection or rebellion, and
all other crimes and offenses committed by them in furtherance or on the occasion thereof, or
incident thereto, or in connection therewith.”

It is patent from the aforequoted portion of Proclamation No. 210 that it was limited to
the crimes of sedition, insurrection, rebellion and all other crimes and offenses in furtherance or
on the occasion thereof or incident thereto, or in connection therewith. In the instant case, the
complaining witnesses were not detained or arrested for any of the crimes underscored above,
and for this reason their constitutional privilege of habeas corpus cannot be deemed as having
been suspended. The legal question raised by appellant Dominador M. Camerino and some of his
co-accused, except Miguel Diaz, cannot therefore be sustained.

Another legal question posed by counsel for Benjamin Topacio, Marcelino Esguerra and
Cecilio Esguerra is that there is no legal ground for their conviction for the crime of arbitrary
detention, because they were civilians at the time they participated in the commission thereof.
But, as these appellants, Benjamin Topacio, Marcelino and Cecilio Esguerra, had helped and
conspired with their co-accused in maltreating and detaining the complaining witnesses in the
provincial jail at Imus, Cavite, their participation in the commission of the crime in question may
be considered as having absorbed their civilian status. Therefore, and following by analogy the
doctrine laid down in the case of US vs. Ponte, 20 Phil., 379, we hereby hold Benjamin Topacio,
Marcelino and Cecilio Esguerra also guilty of the crime of arbitrary detention as defined and
penalized in Article 124 of the Revised Penal Code.
 For the foregoing consideration, the appealed judgment is hereby affirmed at appellants’
costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

(signed)
EMILIO PENA
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

(signed) (signed)
ARSENIO F. DIZON SOTERO CABAHUG
Associate Justice Associate Justice