CASE DIGEST

Case #20 Galvante vs. Casimiro

FACTS:

Respondents had confiscated from the petitioner one colt pistol super .38 automatic
with serial no.67973, one short magazine, and nine super .38 live ammunitions on May
14, 2001 at Sitio Cahi-an,Kapatungan, Trento, Agusan del Sur, private respondents
confiscated, which are covered by expired memorandum receipt. The Assistant
Provincial Prosecutor charged him with Illegal Possession of Firearms and ammunitions
in Relation to Commission on Elections (Comelec) Resolution No.3258. Pending
resolution, Petitioner filed administrative case against respondents for Grave
Misconduct, before the Internal Affairs Service (IAS) of DILG and a criminal case for
Arbitrary Detention, Illegal Search and Grave Threats, before the Ombudsman. On June
21, 2001 petitioner filed an Affidavit-Complaint he filed in both cases, petitioner
narrated how, on May 14, 2001, private respondents aimed their long firearms at him,
arbitrarily searched his vehicle and put him in detention. Private Respondents conde
filed counter-affidavit that contradicts the counter-affidavit of private
respondents Avenido, Degran, Rufano and Balolot. Consequently, petitioner filed an
Affidavit of Desistance dated March 25, 2002 with both the IAS and Ombudsman,
absolving private respondents Avenido, Degran, Rufano and Balolot, but maintaining
that private respondent Conde alone be prosecuted in both administrative and criminal
cases. IAS decided that private respondents be punished for suspension as they have
been found guilty of misconduct, but they are being just enthusiastic in their duty. The
RTC ruled that the action of the policemen who conducted the warrantless search in
spite of the absence of any circumstances justifying the same intruded into the privacy
of the accused and the security of his property. Unaware of the RTC decision,
Ombudsman Investigation & Prosecution Officer Dennis L. Garcia issued a
resolution that found the petition no probable cause and that the incident stemmed
from a valid warrantless arrest. Petitioner filed motion for reconsideration for the
contradicted decision of the RTC and Ombudsman. It was then denied on the ground
that the latter offered "no new evidence or errors of law which would warrant the
reversal or modification.
In 1955, in the barrio of Rizal, Mabong stab one Cipriano Tabel with a bolo. After
pursuing and attacking
his victim, Mabong faced Verano who told him to drop his bolo, and when he refused,
Verano clubbed
him on the face which caused him to stumble to the ground. Thereupon, Verano
grabbed the bolo of the
accused, tied him with a rope and brought him on a small boat to Lianga where he
delivered him to the
chief of police.
Mabong was charged with murder and pleaded guilty. However, accused filed a motion
to quash and a
petition for habeas corpus alleging as main ground that his detention by the local
authorities became
illegal upon the expiration of the period of eighteen (18) hours without having been
proceeded with in
accordance with law, and that the filing later on of the two criminal complaints against
him by the chief
of police did not have the effect of validating his detention. From the denial of said and
petition, the
accused took the present appeal

ISSUE:

1. Are the respondents liable for violation of Article 129 and 130 of the RPC for
warrantless searching the petitioner’s car?

2. Are the respondent’s liable for arbitrary detention?

1. Are the respondents liable for violation of Article 129 and 130 of the RPC for
warrantless
searching the petitioner’s car?
2. Are the respondent’s liable for arbitrary detention?

HELD:

1. No, respondents are not liable for violation of Article 129 and 130 of the RPC for
warrantless searching the petitioner’s car because the act of searching the car of the
petitioner is not an offense under the RPC. It does not fall under Art. 129 and 130. The
SC ruled that the Court need not resolve the issue of whether or not public respondents
erred in their finding on the validity of the search for that issue is completely
hypothetical under the circumstance.

2. No, the respondents are not liable for arbitrary detention. The SC ruled that to
sustain a criminal charge for arbitrary detention, it must be shown that (a) the offender
is a public officer or employee, (b) the offender detained the complainant, and (c) the
detention is without legal grounds. The second element was not alleged by petitioner in
his Affidavit-Complaint. As pointed out by private respondent Conde in his
Comment and Memorandum, petitioner himself identified in his Affidavit-Complaint that
it was Police Chief Rocacorba who caused his detention. Nowhere in said affidavit did
petitioner allege that private respondents effected his detention, or were in any other
way involved in it. There was, therefore, no factual or legal basis to sustain
the criminal charge for arbitrary detention against private respondents.