ART.

124 (1) – Arbitrary Detention

Digest by: Pauline Macas

ASTORGA V. PEOPLE
G. R. No. 154130
October 1, 2003

Facts: Benito Astorga is the mayor of Daram, Western Samar. A group of people from Regional Special
Operations Group which includes Elpidio Simon, Moises dela Cruz, Wenefredo Maniscan, Renato
Militante and Crisanto Pelias from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources were sent to
conduct an investigation together with SPO3 Andres B. Cinco, Jr. and SPO1 Rufo Capoquian of the
Philippine National Police as their escort, regarding possible illegal logging activities. On September 1,
1997, at around 4:30 to 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon, the team found two boats measuring 18 meters in
length and 5 meters in breadth. They found out that those boats belong to Mayor Astorga, when Mayor
Astorga found out about this, he went to the place and had a heated altercation with the team that lead
to Mayor Astorga calling for back ups, when he saw that they were outnumbered by the DENR team, ten
armed men arrived.

Mayor Astorga asked the DENR team to come with him to his house to have dinner, and it was 2:00
o’clock in the morning when they let them leave his house.

Mayor Astorga was charged with Arbitrary Detention for illegally detaining the DENR team, where he
was found Guilty by the trial Court.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner Astorga is guilty of Arbitrary detention.

Held: Yes. Arbitrary Detention is committed by any public officer or employee who, without legal
grounds, detains a person. The elements of the crime are:

1. That the offender is a public officer or employee.

2. That he detains a person.
3. That the detention is without legal grounds.

That petitioner, at the time he committed the acts assailed herein, was then Mayor of Daram, Samar is
not disputed. Hence, the first element of Arbitrary Detention, that the offender is a public officer or
employee, 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, thereby satisfying the third element enumerated above.

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

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.38 Given such
circumstances, we give credence to SPO1 Capoquians statement that it was not "safe" to refuse Mayor
Astorgas orders.39 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.

Thus, the court affirms the judgment of the Sandiganbayan finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of Arbitrary Detention. Article 124 (1) of the Revised Penal Code provides that, where the
detention has not exceeded three days, the penalty shall be arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correccional in its minimum period, which has a range of four (4) months and one (1) day to two
(2) years and four (4) months. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, petitioner is entitled to a
minimum term to be taken from the penalty next lower in degree, or arresto mayor in its minimum and
medium periods, which has a range of one (1) month and one (1) day to four (4) months. Hence, the
Sandiganbayan was correct in imposing 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.