Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
*
G.R. No. 154130. October 1, 2003.
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001700d13f5cda3da0c48003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/14
2/4/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 412
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
513
allegedly “not exactly privy to, and knowledgeable of, what exactly
transpired between herein accused and the DENR team leader
Mr. Elpidio E. Simon, from their alleged ‘confrontation,’ until they
left Barangay LucobLucob in the early morning of 2 September
1997.” It is a time-honored doctrine that the trial court’s factual
findings are conclusive and binding upon appellate courts unless
some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been
overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted. Nothing in the
case at bar prompts us to deviate from this doctrine.
Same; Same; Same; The impartiality of the court cannot be
assailed on the ground that clarificatory questions were asked
during the trial.—Petitioner argues that he was denied the “cold
neutrality of an impartial judge”, because the ponente of the
assailed decision acted both as magistrate and advocate when he
propounded “very extensive clarificatory questions” on the
witnesses. Surely, the Sandiganbayan, as a trial court, is not an
idle arbiter during a trial. It can propound clarificatory questions
to witnesses in order to ferret out the truth. The impartiality of
the court cannot be assailed on the ground that clarificatory
questions were asked during the trial.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
_______________
514
_______________
515
_______________
516
Astorga, who angrily said, “Diri kamo maka uli yana kay
dad on ko kamo ha Daram, para didto kita mag uro
istorya.” (You cannot go home now because I will bring 13
you
to Daram. We will have many things to discuss there.)
The team was brought to a house where they were told
that they would be served dinner. The team had dinner
with Mayor Astorga and several others at a14 long table, and
the meal lasted between 7:00-8:00 p.m. After dinner,
Militante, Maniscan and SPO1 Capoquian were allowed 15
to
go down from the house, but not to leave the barangay. On
the other hand, SPO3 Cinco and the rest just sat in the
house16until 2:00 a.m. when the team was finally allowed to
leave.
Complainants filed a criminal complaint for arbitrary
detention against Mayor Astorga and his men, which led to
the filing of the above-quoted Information.
Mayor Astorga was subsequently arraigned on July 3,
2000, wherein
17
he pleaded not guilty to the offenses
charged. At the trial, the prosecution presented the
testimonies of SPO1 Capoquian
18
and SPO3 Cinco, as well as
their Joint Affidavit. However, the presentation of
Simon’s testimony was not completed, and none of his
fellow team members came forward to testify. Instead, the
members of the team sent by19 the DENR RSOG executed a
Joint Affidavit of Desistance.
On July 5, 2001, the Sandiganbayan promulgated its
Decision, disposing of the case as follows:
_______________
12 Exhibit “B”, p. 2.
13 Id.
14 TSN, August 15, 2000, pp. 7, 39.
15 Id., pp. 9, 22.
16 Id., pp. 25, 36.
17 Records, pp. 129,135.
18 TSN, August 14-15, 2000; Exhibit “B”.
19 Records, p. 158.
517
The accused
21
filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated July
11, 2001 which was denied by the Sandiganabayan
22
in a
Resolution dated September 28, 2001. A23Second Motion
for Reconsideration dated October 24, 2001 was also filed,
and this 24was similarly denied in a Resolution dated July
10, 2002.
Hence, the present petition, wherein the petitioner
assigns a sole error for review:
5.1. The trial court grievously erred in finding the accused guilty
of Arbitrary Detention as defined and penalized under Article 124
of the Revised Penal Code, based on mere speculations, surmises
and conjectures and, worse, notwithstanding the Affidavit of
Desistance executed by the five (5) complaining witnesses
wherein the latter25categorically declared petitioner’s innocence of
the crime charged.
_______________
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001700d13f5cda3da0c48003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/14
2/4/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 412
518
_______________
29 Id., p. 27.
30 REVISED PENAL CODE, art. 124.
31 II REYES, THE REVISED PENAL CODE 43 (14th ed. 1998); citing
U.S. v. Braganza, 10 Phil. 79 [1908] and Milo v. Salanga, G.R. No. 37007,
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001700d13f5cda3da0c48003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/14
2/4/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 412
519
35
In the case of People v. Cortez, we held that, in
establishing the intent to deprive the victim of his liberty,
it is not necessary that the offended party be kept within
an enclosure to restrict her freedom of locomotion. At the
time of her rescue, the offended party in said case was
found outside talking to the owner of the house where she
had been taken. She explained that she did not attempt to
leave the premises for fear that the kidnappers would
make good their threats to kill her should she do so. We
ruled therein that her fear was not baseless as the
kidnappers knew where she resided and they had earlier
announced that their intention in looking for her cousin
was to kill him on sight. Thus, we concluded that fear has
been known to render people immobile and that appeals to
the fears of an individual, such as by threats to kill or
similar threats,
36
are equivalent to the use of actual force or
violence.
The prevailing jurisprudence on kidnapping and illegal
detention is that the curtailment of the victim’s liberty
need not involve any physical restraint upon the victim’s
person. If the acts 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 and purposes, detained against his will.
In the case at bar, the restraint resulting from fear is
evident. Inspite of their pleas, the witnesses and the 37
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, 38
weapons pointed at the complainants and the witnesses.
Given such circumstances, we give credence to SPO1
Capoquian’s statement 39that it was not “safe” to refuse
Mayor Astorga’s orders. It was not just the presence of the
armed men, but also the evident effect these gunmen had
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001700d13f5cda3da0c48003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/14
2/4/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 412
_______________
35 381 Phil. 345; 324 SCRA 335 [2000]; citing People v. Dela Cruz, 342
Phil. 854; 277 SCRA 173 [1997] and People v. Ramos, 358 Phil. 261; 297
SCRA 618 [1998].
36 Id.; citing People v. Hope, 177 N.E. 402, 257 N.Y. 147.
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.
520
_______________
521
_______________
44 Id., p. 20.
45 People v. Torellos, G.R. No. 143084, 1 April 2003, 400 SCRA 243;
citing People v. Daramay, Jr., G.R. Nos. 140235 & 142748, 9 May 2002,
382 SCRA 119.
46 TSN, August 14, 2000, p. 10; Exhibit “B”, p. 1.
47 Id., pp, 10-14, Exhibit “B”, pp. 1-2.
48 Id., p. 15; Exhibit “B”, p. 1.
49 Rollo, pp. 24-25.
50 TSN, August 15, 2000, p. 36.
522
_______________
51 Id., p. 26.
52 People v. Pinuela, G.R. Nos. 140727-28, 31 January 2003, 396 SCRA 561.
523
——o0o——
_______________
524
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001700d13f5cda3da0c48003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/14