BenitoAstorgav.

PeopleofthePhilippines
GRNo.154130October1.2003
Ponente:YnaresSantiagoJ.
Principle:RPCArt124ArbitraryDetention
Facts: On September 1, 1997, Regional Special Operations Group (RSOG) of the
DepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResources(DENR)OfficeNo.8,TaclobanCitysent
a team to the island of Daram, Western Samar to conduct intelligence gathering and forest
protection operations in line with the governments campaign against illegal logging.The
team was composed of Forester II Moises dela Cruz, Scaler Wenifredo Maniscan, Forest
RangerRenatoMilitante,andTreeMarkerCrisantoPelias,withElpidioE.Simon,Chiefof
theForestProtectionandLawEnforcementSection,asteamleader.Theteamwasescorted
bySPO3AndresB.Cinco,Jr.andSPO1RufoCapoquian.
EnroutetoBrgy.Manungca,Sta.Rita,Samar,theteamspottedtwomoreboatswherethey
met Mayor Astorga. A heated altercation ensued and Mayor Astorga called for
reinforcements. Ten armed men arrived in the scene armed with M16 and M14 rifles, and
they promptly surrounded the team, guns pointed at the team members. Simon then asked
Mayor Astorga to allow the team to go home, at which Mayor Astorga retorted that they
wouldnotbeallowedtogohomeandthattheywouldinsteadbebroughttoDaram.Theteam
was brought to a house where they had dinner with the Mayor. After dinner, Militante,
ManiscanandSPO1Capoquianwereallowedtogodownfromthehouse,butnottoleavethe
barangay.On the other hand, SPO3 Cinco and the rest just sat in the house until 2:00 a.m.
when the team was finally allowed to leave. Complainants filed a criminal complaint for
arbitrarydetentionagainstMayorAstorgaandhismen.
DecisionoftheSandiganbayan:
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,judgmentisherebyrenderedfindingaccusedBENITO
ASTORGA Y BOCATCAT guilty of Arbitrary Detention, and in the absence of any
mitigating or aggravating circumstances, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is
herebysentencedtosufferimprisonmentoffour(4)monthsofarrestomayorasminimumto
one(1)yearandeight(8)monthsofprisioncorrectionalasmaximum.
Issue:WhetherornotMayorAstorgaisguiltyofarbitrarydetention.
Ruling:Yes.MayorAstorgaisguiltyofarbitrarydetention.
Arbitrary Detention is committed by any public officer or employee who, without legal
grounds,detainsaperson.Theelementsofthecrimeare:
1.Thattheoffenderisapublicofficeroremployee.
2.Thathedetainsaperson.
3.Thatthedetentioniswithoutlegalgrounds.

Petitioner, at the time he committed the acts assailed herein, was then Mayor of Daram,
Samarisnotdisputed.Hence,thefirstelementofArbitraryDetention,thattheoffenderisa
publicofficeroremployee,isundeniablypresent.
Also, the records are bereft of any allegation on the part of petitioner that his acts were
spurredbysomelegalpurpose.Onthecontrary,headmittedthathisactsweremotivatedby
his "instinct for selfpreservation" and the feeling that he was being "singled out."The
detention was thus without legal grounds, thereby satisfying the third element enumerated
above.
Theprevailingjurisprudenceonkidnappingandillegaldetentionisthatthecurtailmentofthe
victimslibertyneednotinvolveanyphysicalrestraintuponthevictimsperson.Iftheacts
and actuations of the accused can produce such fear in the mind of the victim sufficient to
paralyze the latter, to the extent that the victim is compelled to limit his own actions and
movements in accordance with the wishes of the accused, then the victim is, for all intents
andpurposes,detainedagainsthiswill.Inthecaseatbar,therestraintresultingfromfearis
evident. Inspite of their pleas, the witnesses and the complainants were not allowed by
petitionertogohome.Thisrefusalwasquicklyfollowedbythecallforandarrivalofalmost
adozen"reinforcements,"allarmedwithmilitaryissuerifles,whoproceededtoencirclethe
team, weapons pointed at the complainants and the witnesses.It was not "safe" to refuse
MayorAstorgasorders.Itwasnotjustthepresenceofthearmedmen,butalsotheevident
effect these gunmen had on the actions of the team which proves that fear was indeed
instilledinthemindsoftheteammembers,totheextentthattheyfeltcompelledtostayin
Brgy. LucobLucob. The intent to prevent the departure of the complainants and witnesses
againsttheirwillisclear.
RegardingtheJointAffidavitofDesistanceexecutedbytheprivatecomplainantsthebelated
claimsmadeintheJointAffidavitofDesistance,suchastheallegationsthattheincidentwas
theresultofamisunderstandingandthattheteamaccededtoMayorAstorgasorders"outof
respect," are belied by petitioners own admissions to the contrary, it is not a clear
repudiation of the material points alleged in the information and proven at the trial, but a
mereexpressionofthelackofinterestofprivatecomplainantstopursuethecase.
Penalty: Petitioner is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Arbitrary Detention. Article
124(1)oftheRevisedPenalCodeprovidesthat,wherethedetentionhasnotexceededthree
days,thepenaltyshallbearrestomayorinitsmaximumperiodtoprisioncorreccionalinits
minimumperiod,whichhasarangeoffour(4)monthsandone(1)daytotwo(2)yearsand
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
minimumandmediumperiods,whichhasarangeofone(1)monthandone(1)daytofour
(4)months.Hence,theSandiganbayanwascorrectinimposingtheindeterminatepenaltyof
four (4) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and eight (8) months of
prisioncorreccional,asmaximum.