Name: Ralph Earvin M.

Monsales HNU College of Law

Subject: Criminal Law II J.D. 1

Case Name:

People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee vs. PO1 Froilan L. Trestiza, P/S Insp.
Lorieman L. Manrique and Rodie J. Pineda @ “Buboy,”, accused.

PO1 Froilan L. Trestiza, accused-appellant

Supreme Court Second Division, Carpio, J.

G.R. No. 193833
November 16, 2011

Doctrine: Offending Public Officer is only guilty of Arbitrary Detention if it can be

proven that he acted within his duty under the law when he detained a
person without legal grounds. Otherwise, he is guilty of kidnapping.

Facts: PO1 Trestiza and P/S Insp. Manrique, both active members of the
Philippine National Police, with Pineda, a private individual, all armed with
firearms, allegedly deprived Lawrence Yu and Maria Irma Navarro of their
liberty for the purpose of extracting ransom money.

The defense claimed that complainants were allegedly divested of their

cash and personal belongings in the conduct of a police operation to
enforce the provision of R.A. 9165 (Dangerous Drug Law). Pineda knew
Lawrence Yu and Maria Irma Navarro as suppliers of prohibited drugs.
He decided to report their activities to the authorities. Trestiza, Manrique
and one PO2 Jose, active members of the Philippine National Police,
participated in the entrapment.

Initially, there was confusion whether Information for KIDNAPPING was

correct, for the reason that one of the essential elements for the crime of
Kidnapping for Ransom under Article 267 of the RPC, is that the
offender/s must be private individuals, which is not the case for the case
at bar.

The RTC found Trestiza, Manrique and Pineda guilty beyond reasonable
doubt as principals by direct participation of Kidnapping for Ransom.
Testimonies of the prosecution were found to be credible while defense’s
testimonies had a lot of inconsistencies. They filed a notice of appeal.

CA dismissed said appeal and affirmed trial court’s decision. Only

Trestiza filed a Motion for Reconsideration, claiming that he had limited
involvement in the crime. He alleged that he was merely a driver of the
 vehicle when the alleged crime took place, he never communicated with
the complainants and none of the items allegedly taken from the
complainants were recovered from his posession. CA denied his Motion
for Reconsideration. Trestiza filed an appeal from the Decision and
Resolution promulgated.

Issue/s: Whether or not

1) Trestiza is guilty of Arbitrary Detention instead of Kidnapping
2) Trestiza’s participation was merely that of a driver of the accused’s
vehicle.

Ruling: No, petition was found to be of no merit. The Decision of the CA is

AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Trestiza is guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of Kidnapping.

Court saw no reason to overrule the trial court’s finding that Trestiza is
guilty of kidnapping with ransom. Before the present case was tried by
the trial court, there was a significant amount of time spent in determining
whether kidnapping for ransom was the proper crime charged against the
accused, especially since Trestiza and Manrique were both police
officers. Trial court cited the ruling in People v Santiano to settle the
matter, which said that “it is quite clear that in abducting and taking away
the victim, appellants did so neither in furtherance of official functions nor
in the pursuit of authority vested in them.”

Court agrees with the trial court’s assessment of the submitted Pre-
Operation/Coordination Sheet presented by the defense, which should
support the defense’s testimony that they were conducting a legitimate
police operation. The sheet was not authenticated and the signatories
were not presented to attest to its existence and authenticity.

Trestiza’s claim that he merely acted as a driver was debunked by the

testimony of Lawrence Yu. The series of events that transpired before,
during, and after the kidnapping incident more than shows that Trestiza
acted in concert with his co-accused in committing the crime.