3/10/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 412 3/10/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 412

weight given by the trial court to the evidence, pointing out that
the Sandiganbayan’s reliance on the testimony of SPO1
Capoquian is misplaced, for the reason that SPO1 Capoquian is
not one of the private complainants in the case. He also makes
much of the fact that prosecution witness SPO1 Capoquian was

512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED _______________

Astorga vs. People * FIRST DIVISION.

*
G.R. No. 154130. October 1, 2003.  

BENITO ASTORGA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE 513

PHILIPPINES, respondent.

 
Criminal Law; Arbitrary Detention; Elements of.—Arbitrary
Detention is committed by any public officer or employee who, VOL. 412, OCTOBER 1, 2003 513
without legal grounds, detains a person. The elements of the
crime are: 1. That the offender is a public officer or employee. 2. Astorga vs. People
That he detains a person. 3. That the detention is without legal
grounds. allegedly “not exactly privy to, and knowledgeable of, what exactly
Same; Same; Same; The prevailing jurisprudence on transpired between herein accused and the DENR team leader
kidnapping and illegal detention is that the curtailment of the Mr. Elpidio E. Simon, from their alleged ‘confrontation,’ until they
victim’s liberty need not involve any physical restraint upon the left Barangay LucobLucob in the early morning of 2 September
victim’s person.—The prevailing jurisprudence on kidnapping and 1997.” It is a time-honored doctrine that the trial court’s factual
illegal detention is that the curtailment of the victim’s liberty findings are conclusive and binding upon appellate courts unless
need not involve any physical restraint upon the victim’s person. some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been
If the acts and actuations of the accused can produce such fear in overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted. Nothing in the
the mind of the victim sufficient to paralyze the latter, to the case at bar prompts us to deviate from this doctrine.
extent that the victim is compelled to limit his own actions and Same; Same; Same; The impartiality of the court cannot be
movements in accordance with the wishes of the accused, then the assailed on the ground that clarificatory questions were asked
victim is, for all intents and purposes, detained against his will. during the trial.—Petitioner argues that he was denied the “cold
Same; Same; Evidence; Desistance; An affidavit of desistance neutrality of an impartial judge”, because the ponente of the
is merely an additional ground to buttress the defenses of the assailed decision acted both as magistrate and advocate when he
accused, but not the sole consideration that can result in acquittal. propounded “very extensive clarificatory questions” on the
—Regarding the Joint Affidavit of Desistance executed by the witnesses. Surely, the Sandiganbayan, as a trial court, is not an
private complainants, suffice it to say that the principles idle arbiter during a trial. It can propound clarificatory questions
governing the use of such instruments in the adjudication of other to witnesses in order to ferret out the truth. The impartiality of
crimes can be applied here. Thus, in People v. Ballabare, it was the court cannot be assailed on the ground that clarificatory
held that an affidavit of desistance is merely an additional ground questions were asked during the trial.
to buttress the defenses of the accused, not the sole consideration
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the
that can result in acquittal. There must be other circumstances
Sandiganbayan.
which, when coupled with the retraction or desistance, create
doubts as to the truth of the testimony given by the witnesses at
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
the trial and accepted by the judge. Here, there are no such
          Brillantes, Navarro, Jumamil, Arcilla, Escolin,
circumstances.
Martinez & Vivero Law Offices for petitioner.
Same; Same; Same; Appeals; Trial court’s factual findings are      The Solicitor General for the People.
conclusive and binding upon appellate courts unless some facts or
circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
misapprehended or misinterpreted.—Petitioner also assails the

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001781c321b9acc85e0bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/14 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001781c321b9acc85e0bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/14

3/10/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 412 3/10/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 412

This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of escorted by3 SPO3 Andres B. Cinco, Jr. and SPO1 Rufo
Court, seeking the reversal of a Decision of the Capoquian.
Sandiganbayan
1
in Criminal Case No. 24986, dated July 5, The team stopped at Brgy. Bagacay, Daram, Western
2001, as well as its Resolutions dated September 28, 2001 Samar at 2:00 p.m., where they saw two yacht-like boats
and July 10, 2002. being constructed. After consulting with the local barangay
On October 28, 1998, the Office of the Ombudsman filed officials, the team learned that the boats belonged to a
the following Information against Benito Astorga, Mayor of certain Michael Figueroa. However, since Figueroa4
was not
Daram, Samar, as well as a number of his men for around at the time, the team left Brgy. Bagacay.
Arbitrary Detention: En route to Brgy. Manungca, Sta. Rita, Samar, the team
spotted two more boats being constructed in the vicinity of
_______________ Brgy. LucobLucob, Daram, Samar, between 4:30-5:00 p.m.,
prompting them to stop and investigate. Thus, Maniscan
1 Records, p. 255; penned by Associate Justice Rodolfo G. Palattao, and Militante disembarked from the DENR’s service pump
concurred in by Associate Justices Narciso S. Nario and Nicodemo T. boat and proceeded to the site of
Ferrer.

514 _______________

2 Records, p. 1 (italics and emphasis in the original).

514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 3 TSN, August 14, 2000, p. 6; Exhibit “B”, p. 1.
4 Id., pp. 7-8; Exhibit “B”, p. 1.
Astorga vs. People
515
“That on or about the 1st day of September, 1997, and for
sometime subsequent thereto, at the Municipality of Daram,
VOL. 412, OCTOBER 1, 2003 515
Province of Samar, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, a public officer, being Astorga vs. People
the Municipal Mayor of Daram, Samar, in such capacity and
committing the offense in relation to office, conniving, the boat construction. There, they met Mayor Astorga.
confederating and mutually helping with unidentified persons, After conversing with the mayor, Militante returned to
who are herein referred to under fictitious names JOHN DOES, their boat for the 5purpose of fetching Simon, at the request
who were armed with firearms of different calibers, with of Mayor Astorga.
deliberate intent, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and When Simon, accompanied by dela Cruz, SPO3 Cinco,
feloniously detain Elpidio Simon, Moises dela Cruz, Wenifredo and SPO1 Capoquian, approached Mayor Astorga to try
Maniscan, Renato Militante and Crisanto Pelias, DENR and explain the purpose of their mission, Simon was
Employees, at the Municipality of Daram, by not allowing them to suddenly slapped hard twice on the shoulder by Mayor
leave the place, without any legal and valid grounds thereby Astorga, who exclaimed, “Puwede ko kamo papaglanguyon
restraining and depriving them of their personal liberty for nine pag-uli ha Tacloban. Ano, di ka maaram nga natupa ako?
(9) hours, but without exceeding
2
three (3) days. Natupa baya ako. Diri kamo makauli yana kay puwede
CONTRARY TO LAW.” kame e charge ha misencounter.” (I can make you swim
back to Tacloban. Don’t you know that I can box? I can box.6
On September 1, 1997, Regional Special Operations Group Don’t you know that I can declare this a misencounter?)
(RSOG) of the Department of Environment and Natural Mayor Astorga then ordered someone to fetch
Resources (DENR) Office No. 8, Tacloban City sent a team “reinforcements,” and forty-five (45) minutes later, or
to the island of Daram, Western Samar to conduct between 5:00-6:00 p.m., a banca arrived bearing ten (10)
intelligence gathering and forest protection operations in men, some of them dressed in fatigue uniforms. The men
line with the government’s campaign against illegal were armed with M-16 and M14 rifles, and they promptly7
logging. The team was composed of Forester II Moises dela surrounded the team, guns pointed at the team members.
Cruz, Scaler Wenifredo Maniscan, Forest Ranger Renato At this, Simon tried to explain to Astorga the purpose of his
Militante, and Tree Marker Crisanto Pelias, with Elpidio 8
team’s mission. He then took out his handheld ICOM
E. Simon, Chief of the Forest Protection and Law radio, saying that he was going to contact his people at the
Enforcement Section, as team leader. The team was DENR in Catbalogan to inform them of the team’s
whereabouts. Suddenly, Mayor Astorga forcibly grabbed
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001781c321b9acc85e0bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/14 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001781c321b9acc85e0bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/14
3/10/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 412 3/10/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 412

Simon’s radio, saying, “Maupay nga waray kamo radio bis Complainants filed a criminal complaint for arbitrary
diri somabut an iyo opisina kon hain kamo, bis diri kamo detention against Mayor Astorga and his men, which led to
maka aro hin bulig.” (It’s better if you have no radio so that the filing of the above-quoted Information.
your office would not know9
your whereabouts and so that Mayor Astorga was subsequently arraigned on July 3,
you cannot ask for help). Mayor Astorga again slapped the 2000, wherein
17
he pleaded not guilty to the offenses
right shoulder of Simon, adding, “Kong siga kamo ha Leyte charged. At the trial, the prosecution presented the
ayaw pagdad-a dinhi ha Samar kay diri kamo puwede ha testimonies of SPO1 Capoquian
18
and SPO3 Cinco, as well as
akon” (If you are tough guys in Leyte, do not 10
bring it to their Joint Affidavit. However, the presentation of
Samar because I will not tolerate it here.) Simon then Simon’s testimony was not completed, and none of his
asked Mayor Astorga to allow the team to go home, at fellow team members came forward to testify. Instead, the
which Mayor Astorga retorted that they would not be members of the team sent by19 the DENR RSOG executed a
allowed to go
11
home and that they would instead be brought Joint Affidavit of Desistance.
to Daram. Mayor Astorga then addressed the team, On July 5, 2001, the Sandiganbayan promulgated its
saying, “Kon magdakop man la kamo, Decision, disposing of the case as follows:

_______________ _______________

5 Id., pp. 8-9; Exhibit “B”, p. 1. 12 Exhibit “B”, p. 2.

6 Id., pp. 10-12; Exhibit “B”, p. 1; TSN, August 15, 2000, p. 6. 13 Id.
7 Id., pp. 14-16; Exhibit “B”, p. 1. 14 TSN, August 15, 2000, pp. 7, 39.
8 Exhibit “B”, p. 2. 15 Id., pp. 9, 22.
9 TSN, August 14, 2000, p. 13; Exhibit “B”, p. 2. 16 Id., pp. 25, 36.
10 Exhibit “B”, p. 2. 17 Records, pp. 129,135.
11 TSN, August 14, 2000, p. 19. 18 TSN, August 14-15, 2000; Exhibit “B”.
19 Records, p. 158.
516
517

516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Astorga vs. People VOL. 412, OCTOBER 1, 2003 517
Astorga vs. People
unahon an mga dagko. Kon madakop niyo an mga dagko,
an kan Figueroa dida ha Bagacay puwede ko liwat “WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
ipadakop an akon.” (If you really want to confiscate rendered finding accused BENITO ASTORGA Y BOCATCAT
anything, you start with the big-time. If you confiscate the guilty of Arbitrary Detention, and in the absence of any
boats 12of Figueroa at Brgy. Bagacay, I will surrender mitigating or aggravating circumstances, applying the
mine.) Simon then tried to reiterate his request for Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is hereby sentenced to suffer
permission to leave, which just succeeded in irking Mayor imprisonment of four (4) months of arresto mayor as minimum to
Astorga, who angrily said, “Diri kamo maka uli yana kay one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional as
dad on ko kamo ha Daram, para didto kita mag uro maximum. 20
istorya.” (You cannot go home now because I will bring 13
you SO ORDERED.”
to Daram. We will have many things to discuss there.)
The team was brought to a house where they were told The accused
21
filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated July
that they would be served dinner. The team had dinner 11, 2001 which was denied by the Sandiganabayan
22
in a
with Mayor Astorga and several others at a14 long table, and Resolution dated September 28, 2001. A23Second Motion
the meal lasted between 7:00-8:00 p.m. After dinner, for Reconsideration dated October 24, 2001 was also filed,
Militante, Maniscan and SPO1 Capoquian were allowed to and this 24was similarly denied in a Resolution dated July
15
go down from the house, but not to leave the barangay. On 10, 2002.
the other hand, SPO3 Cinco and the rest just sat in the Hence, the present petition, wherein the petitioner
house16until 2:00 a.m. when the team was finally allowed to assigns a sole error for review:
leave.
5.1. The trial court grievously erred in finding the accused guilty
of Arbitrary Detention as defined and penalized under Article 124
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001781c321b9acc85e0bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/14 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001781c321b9acc85e0bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/14
3/10/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 412 3/10/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 412

of the Revised Penal Code, based on mere speculations, surmises Hence, the first element of Arbitrary Detention, that the
and conjectures and, worse, notwithstanding the Affidavit of offender is a public officer or employee, is undeniably
Desistance executed by the five (5) complaining witnesses present.
wherein the latter25categorically declared petitioner’s innocence of Also, the records are bereft of any allegation on the part
the crime charged. of petitioner that his acts were spurred by some legal
purpose. On the contrary, he admitted that his acts were
Petitioner contends that the prosecution failed to establish motivated by his “instinct for self-preservation” and the
the required
26
quantum of evidence to prove the guilt of the 32
feeling that he was being “singled out.” The detention was
accused, especially in light of the fact that the private 27 thus without legal grounds, thereby satisfying the third
complainants executed a Joint Affidavit of Desistance. element enumerated above.
Petitioner asserts that nowhere in the records of the case is What remains is the determination of whether or not the
there any competent evidence that could sufficiently team was actually detained.
establish the fact that restraint
28
was employed upon the 33
In the case of People v. Acosta, which involved the
persons of the team members. Furthermore, he claims illegal detention of a child, we found the accused-appellant
that the mere presence of armed men at the scene does not therein guilty of kidnapping despite the lack of evidence to
show that any physical restraint was employed upon the
_______________ victim. However, because the victim was a boy of tender
age and he was warned not to leave until his godmother,
20 Id., p. 265 (emphasis in the original).
the accused-appellant, had returned, he was practically a
21 Id., p. 271.
captive in the sense that he could34
not leave because of his
22 Id., p. 306; penned by Associate Justice Rodolfo G. Palattao, fear to violate such instruction.
concurred in by Associate Justices Narciso S. Nario and Nicodemo T.
Ferrer.
_______________
23 Id., p. 315.
24 Id., p. 370; penned by Associate Justice Rodolfo G. Palattao, 29 Id., p. 27.
concurred in by Associate Justices Narciso S. Nario and Nicodemo T. 30 REVISED PENAL CODE, art. 124.
Ferrer. 31 II REYES, THE REVISED PENAL CODE 43 (14th ed. 1998); citing
25 Rollo, p. 18. U.S. v. Braganza, 10 Phil. 79 [1908] and Milo v. Salanga, G.R. No. 37007,
26 Id., pp. 18-19. 20 July 1987, 152 SCRA 113 (emphasis in the original).
27 Id., p. 35; Records, p. 158. 32 Rollo, pp. 30-31.
28 Id., pp. 25-26. 33 107 Phil. 360 [1960].
34 Id., emphasis supplied.
518
519

518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Astorga vs. People VOL. 412, OCTOBER 1, 2003 519
Astorga vs. People
qualify as competent evidence to prove that fear was in fact 35
instilled in the minds of the team members, to the extent In the case of People v. Cortez, we held that, in
that they
29
would feel compelled to stay in Brgy. Lucob- establishing the intent to deprive the victim of his liberty,
Lucob. it is not necessary that the offended party be kept within
Arbitrary Detention is committed by any public officer or
30
an enclosure to restrict her freedom of locomotion. At the
employee who, without legal grounds, detains a person. time of her rescue, the offended party in said case was
The elements of the crime are: found outside talking to the owner of the house where she
had been taken. She explained that she did not attempt to
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee. leave the premises for fear that the kidnappers would
2. That he detains a person. make good their threats to kill her should she do so. We
31
3. That the detention is without legal grounds. ruled therein that her fear was not baseless as the
kidnappers knew where she resided and they had earlier
That petitioner, at the time he committed the acts assailed announced that their intention in looking for her cousin
herein, was then Mayor of Daram, Samar is not disputed. was to kill him on sight. Thus, we concluded that fear has
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001781c321b9acc85e0bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/14 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001781c321b9acc85e0bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/14
3/10/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 412 3/10/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 412

been known to render people immobile and that appeals to desistance is merely an additional ground to buttress the
the fears of an individual, such as by threats to kill or defenses of the accused, not the sole consideration that can
similar threats,
36
are equivalent to the use of actual force or result in acquittal. There must be other circumstances
violence. which, when coupled with the retraction or desistance,
The prevailing jurisprudence on kidnapping and illegal create doubts as to the truth of the testimony given by the
detention is that the curtailment of the victim’s liberty witnesses at the trial and accepted 40
by the judge. Here,
need not involve any physical restraint upon the victim’s there are no such circumstances. Indeed, the belated
person. If the acts and actuations of the accused can claims made in the Joint Affidavit of Desistance, such as
produce such fear in the mind of the victim sufficient to the allegations that the incident was the result of a
paralyze the latter, to the extent that the victim is misunderstanding and that the team acceded to Mayor
compelled to limit his own actions and movements in Astorga’s orders “out of respect,” 41are belied by petitioner’s
accordance with the wishes of the accused, then the victim own admissions to the contrary. The Joint Affidavit of
is, for all intents and purposes, detained against his will. Desistance of the private complainants is evidently not a
In the case at bar, the restraint resulting from fear is clear repudiation of the material points alleged in the
evident. Inspite of their pleas, the witnesses and the 37
information and proven at the trial, but a mere expression
complainants were not allowed by petitioner to go home. of the lack of interest of private complainants to pursue the
This refusal was quickly followed by the call for and arrival case. This conclusion is supported by one of its latter
of almost a dozen “reinforcements,” all armed with paragraphs, which reads:
military-issue rifles, who proceeded to encircle the team,
weapons pointed at the complainants and the witnesses.
38
11. That this affidavit was executed by us if only to prove our
Given such circumstances, we give credence to SPO1 sincerity and improving DENR relations with the local Chiefs
Capoquian’s statement 39that it was not “safe” to refuse Executive and other official of Daram, Islands so that DENR
Mayor Astorga’s orders. It was not just the presence of the programs and project can be effectively implemented through the
armed men, but also the evident effect these gunmen had support of the local officials for the betterment of the residence
on the actions of the team which proves that fear was living conditions who are facing 42
difficulties and are much
indeed instilled in the minds of the dependent on government support.

Petitioner also assails the weight given by the trial court to

_______________ the evidence, pointing out that the Sandiganbayan’s
reliance on the testimony of SPO1 Capoquian is misplaced,
35 381 Phil. 345; 324 SCRA 335 [2000]; citing People v. Dela Cruz, 342
for the reason that SPO1 Capoquian is not one of the
Phil. 854; 277 SCRA 173 [1997] and People v. Ramos, 358 Phil. 261; 297 43
private complainants in the case. He also makes much of
SCRA 618 [1998].
the fact that prosecution witness SPO1 Capoquian was
36 Id.; citing People v. Hope, 177 N.E. 402, 257 N.Y. 147.
allegedly “not exactly privy to, and knowl-
37 TSN, August 14, 2000, pp. 19-20; TSN, August 15, 2000, p. 17.
38 Id., pp. 14-16; Exhibit “B”, p. 1.
_______________
39 TSN, August 15, 2000, pp. 19-20.
40 People v. Ballabare, 332 Phil. 384; 264 SCRA 350 [1996].
520
41 Records, p. 158; Rollo, pp. 27, 30-31, 32-33, 41.
42 Id., p. 159.
520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 43 Rollo, pp. 28-29.
Astorga vs. People
521

team members, to the extent that they felt compelled to

stay in Brgy. Lucob-Lucob. The intent to prevent the VOL. 412, OCTOBER 1, 2003 521
departure of the complainants and witnesses against their Astorga vs. People
will is thus clear.
Regarding the Joint Affidavit of Desistance executed by edgeable of, what exactly transpired between herein
the private “complainants, suffice it to say that the accused and the DENR team leader Mr. Elpidio E. Simon,
principles governing the use of such instruments in the from their alleged ‘confrontation,’ until they left Barangay
adjudication of other crimes can be applied here. Thus, in Lucob-Lucob in the early morning of 2 September 1997.”
44

People v. Ballabare, it was held that an affidavit of

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001781c321b9acc85e0bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/14 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001781c321b9acc85e0bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/14
3/10/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 412 3/10/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 412

It is a time-honored doctrine that the trial court’s factual Petitioner argues that he was denied the “cold neutrality
findings are conclusive and binding upon appellate courts of an impartial judge”, because the ponente of the assailed
unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance 45
decision acted both as magistrate and advocate when he
have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted. propounded “very extensive clarificatory questions” on the
Nothing in the case at bar prompts us to deviate from this witnesses. Surely, the Sandiganbayan, as a trial court, is
doctrine. Indeed, the fact that SPO1 Capoquian is not one not an idle arbiter during a trial. It can propound
of the private complainants is completely irrelevant. clarificatory questions to witnesses in order to ferret out
Neither penal law nor the rules of evidence requires the truth. The impartiality of the court cannot be assailed
damning testimony to be exclusively supplied by the on the ground 52that clarificatory questions were asked
private complainants in cases of Arbitrary Detention. during the trial.
Furthermore, Mayor Astorga’s claim that SPO1 Capoquian Thus, we affirm the judgment of the Sandiganbayan
was “not exactly privy” to what transpired between Simon finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
and himself is belied by the evidence. SPO1 Capoquian Arbitrary Detention. Article 124 (1) of the Revised Penal
testified that he accompanied
46
Simon when the latter went Code provides that, where the detention has not exceeded
to talk to petitioner.47 He heard all of Mayor Astorga’s three days, the penalty shall be arresto mayor in its
threatening remarks. He was with Simon when they were maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum
encircled by the men
48
dressed in fatigues and wielding M-16 period, which has a range of four (4) months and one (1)
and M-14 rifles. In sum, SPO1 Capoquian witnessed all day to two (2) years and four (4) months. Applying the
the circumstances which led to the Arbitrary Detention of Indeterminate Sentence Law, petitioner is entitled to a
the team at the hands of Mayor Astorga. minimum term to be taken from the penalty next lower in
Petitioner submits that it is unclear whether the team degree, or arresto mayor in its minimum and medium
was in fact prevented from leaving Brgy. Lucob-Lucob or periods, which has a range of one (1) month and one (1) day
whether they had simply decided to “while away the time” to four (4) months. Hence, the Sandiganbayan was correct
and take 49
advantage of the purported hospitality of the in imposing the indeterminate penalty of four (4) months of
accused. On the contrary, SPO3 Cinco clearly and arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and eight (8)
categorically denied that they were simply “whiling away months of prision correccional, as maximum.
the time” between their dinner with Mayor Astorga 50
and Before closing, it may not be amiss to quote the words of
their departure early the following morning. SPO1 Justice Perfecto in his concurring opinion in Lino v. Fugoso,
Capoquian gave similar testimony, saying that they did not wherein he decried the impunity enjoyed by public officials
use the time between their dinner with Mayor Astorga and in committing arbitrary or illegal detention, and called for
their departure the intensification of efforts towards bringing them to
justice:
_______________
The provisions of law punishing arbitrary or illegal detention
44 Id., p. 20. committed by government officers form part of our statute books
45 People v. Torellos, G.R. No. 143084, 1 April 2003, 400 SCRA 243; even before the advent of American sovereignty in our country.
citing People v. Daramay, Jr., G.R. Nos. 140235 & 142748, 9 May 2002, Those provisions were already in effect during the Spanish
382 SCRA 119.
regime; they remained in effect under American rule; continued in
46 TSN, August 14, 2000, p. 10; Exhibit “B”, p. 1.
effect under the Commonwealth. Even under the Japanese regime
47 Id., pp, 10-14, Exhibit “B”, pp. 1-2.
they were not repealed. The same provisions con-
48 Id., p. 15; Exhibit “B”, p. 1.
_______________
49 Rollo, pp. 24-25.
50 TSN, August 15, 2000, p. 36. 51 Id., p. 26.
52 People v. Pinuela, G.R. Nos. 140727-28, 31 January 2003, 396 SCRA 561.
522

523
522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Astorga vs. People VOL. 412, OCTOBER 1, 2003 523
Astorga vs. People
early the following morning to “enjoy the 51
place” and that,
given a choice, they would have gone home.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001781c321b9acc85e0bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/14 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001781c321b9acc85e0bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/14
3/10/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 412 3/10/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 412

tinue in the statute books of the free and sovereign Republic of

the Philippines. This notwithstanding, and the complaints often
heard of violations of said provisions, it is very seldom that © Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
prosecutions under them have been instituted due to the fact that
the erring individuals happened to belong to the same
government to which the prosecuting officers belong. It is high
time that every one must do his duty, without fear or favor, and
that prosecuting officers should not answer with cold shrugging of
the shoulders the complaints of the victims of arbitrary or illegal
detention.
Only by an earnest enforcement of the provisions of articles
124 and 125 of the Revised Penal Code will it be possible to
reduce to its minimum such wanton trampling of personal
freedom as depicted in this case. The responsible officials should
be prosecuted, without prejudice to the detainees’ right to the
indemnity to which they may be 53entitled for the unjustified
violation of their fundamental rights.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is

hereby DENIED. The Decision of the Sandiganbayan in
Criminal Case No. 24986, dated July 5, 2001 finding
petitioner BENITO ASTORGA guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Arbitrary Detention and sentencing
him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) months
of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and eight (8)
months of prision correccional, as maximum, is
AFFIRMED in toto.
Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.

     Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Vitug and Carpio, JJ.,

concur.
     Azcuna, J., On leave.

Petition denied, judgment affirmed in toto.

Note.—It is essential in the crime of illegal detention

that there be an actual confinement or restriction of the
person of the offended party. (People vs. Fajardo, 315 SCRA
283 [1999])

——o0o——

_______________

53 Lino v. Fugoso, 77 Phil. 983 [1947]; concurring opinion of Justice

Perfecto.

524

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001781c321b9acc85e0bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/14 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001781c321b9acc85e0bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/14