1/25/24, 12:35 AM
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 412
512
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Astorga vs. People
*
G.R. No. 154130. October 1, 2003.
BENITO ASTORGA, petitioner,
PHILIPPINES, respondent.
vs.
PEOPLE
OF
THE
Criminal Law; Arbitrary Detention; Elements of.—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.
Same; Same; Same; 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.—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.
Same; Same; Evidence; Desistance; An affidavit of desistance is merely
an additional ground to buttress the defenses of the accused, but not the sole
consideration that can result in acquittal.—Regarding the Joint Affidavit of
Desistance executed by the private complainants, suffice it to say that the
principles governing the use of such instruments in the adjudication of other
crimes can be applied here. Thus, in People v. Ballabare, it was held that an
affidavit of desistance is merely an additional ground to buttress the
defenses of the accused, not the sole consideration that can result in
acquittal. There must be other circumstances which, when coupled with the
retraction or desistance, create doubts as to the truth of the testimony given
by the witnesses at the trial and accepted by the judge. Here, there are no
such circumstances.
Same; Same; Same; Appeals; 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.—Petitioner also assails the weight given
by the trial court to the evidence, pointing out that the Sandiganbayan’s
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018d3c56f643b9ec0677000d00d40059004a/p/APB406/
1/13
1/25/24, 12:35 AM
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 412
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
_______________
*
FIRST DIVISION.
513
VOL. 412, OCTOBER 1, 2003
513
Astorga vs. People
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 timehonored 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.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the
Sandiganbayan.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Brillantes, Navarro, Jumamil, Arcilla, Escolin, Martinez &
Vivero Law Offices for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for the People.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
seeking the reversal of a Decision of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal
1
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018d3c56f643b9ec0677000d00d40059004a/p/APB406/
2/13
1/25/24, 12:35 AM
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 412
Case No. 24986, dated July 5, 2001, as well as its Resolutions dated
September 28, 2001 and July 10, 2002.
On October 28, 1998, the Office of the Ombudsman filed the
following Information against Benito Astorga, Mayor of Daram,
Samar, as well as a number of his men for Arbitrary Detention:
_______________
1
Records, p. 255; penned by Associate Justice Rodolfo G. Palattao, concurred in
by Associate Justices Narciso S. Nario and Nicodemo T. Ferrer.
514
514
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Astorga vs. People
“That on or about the 1st day of September, 1997, and for sometime
subsequent thereto, at the Municipality of Daram, Province of Samar,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, a public officer, being the Municipal Mayor of Daram,
Samar, in such capacity and committing the offense in relation to office,
conniving, confederating and mutually helping with unidentified persons,
who are herein referred to under fictitious names JOHN DOES, who were
armed with firearms of different calibers, with deliberate intent, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously detain Elpidio Simon, Moises
dela Cruz, Wenifredo Maniscan, Renato Militante and Crisanto Pelias,
DENR Employees, at the Municipality of Daram, by not allowing them to
leave the place, without any legal and valid grounds thereby restraining and
depriving them of their personal liberty for nine (9) hours, but without
exceeding three (3) days. 2
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
On September 1, 1997, Regional Special Operations Group (RSOG)
of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
Office No. 8, Tacloban City sent a team to the island of Daram,
Western Samar to conduct intelligence gathering and forest
protection operations in line with the government’s campaign
against illegal logging. The team was composed of Forester II
Moises dela Cruz, Scaler Wenifredo Maniscan, Forest Ranger
Renato Militante, and Tree Marker Crisanto Pelias, with Elpidio E.
Simon, Chief of the Forest Protection and Law Enforcement
Section, as team leader. The team was3 escorted by SPO3 Andres B.
Cinco, Jr. and SPO1 Rufo Capoquian.
The team stopped at Brgy. Bagacay, Daram, Western Samar at
2:00 p.m., where they saw two yacht-like boats being constructed.
After consulting with the local barangay officials, the team learned
that the boats belonged to a certain Michael Figueroa. However,
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018d3c56f643b9ec0677000d00d40059004a/p/APB406/
3/13
1/25/24, 12:35 AM
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 412
since Figueroa
was not around at the time, the team left Brgy.
4
Bagacay.
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 and Militante
disembarked from the DENR’s service pump boat and proceeded to
the site of
_______________
2
Records, p. 1 (italics and emphasis in the original).
3
TSN, August 14, 2000, p. 6; Exhibit “B”, p. 1.
4
Id., pp. 7-8; Exhibit “B”, p. 1.
515
VOL. 412, OCTOBER 1, 2003
515
Astorga vs. People
the boat construction. There, they met Mayor Astorga. After
conversing with the mayor, Militante returned to their boat5 for the
purpose of fetching Simon, at the request of Mayor Astorga.
When Simon, accompanied by dela Cruz, SPO3 Cinco, and
SPO1 Capoquian, approached Mayor Astorga to try and explain the
purpose of their mission, Simon was suddenly slapped hard twice on
the shoulder by Mayor Astorga, who exclaimed, “Puwede ko kamo
papaglanguyon pag-uli ha Tacloban. Ano, di ka maaram nga natupa
ako? Natupa baya ako. Diri kamo makauli yana kay puwede kame e
charge ha misencounter.” (I can make you swim back to Tacloban.
Don’t you know that I can box? I can
box. Don’t you know that I
6
can declare this a misencounter?) Mayor Astorga then ordered
someone to fetch “reinforcements,” and forty-five (45) minutes later,
or between 5:00-6:00 p.m., a banca arrived bearing ten (10) men,
some of them dressed in fatigue uniforms. The men were armed with
M-16 and M14 rifles, and they 7promptly surrounded the team, guns
pointed at the team members. At this, Simon
tried to explain to
8
Astorga the purpose of his team’s mission. He then took out his
handheld ICOM radio, saying that he was going to contact his
people at the DENR in Catbalogan to inform them of the team’s
whereabouts. Suddenly, Mayor Astorga forcibly grabbed Simon’s
radio, saying, “Maupay nga waray kamo radio bis diri somabut an
iyo opisina kon hain kamo, bis diri kamo maka aro hin bulig.” (It’s
better if you have no radio so that your office would
9 not know your
whereabouts and so that you cannot ask for help). Mayor Astorga
again slapped the right shoulder of Simon, adding, “Kong siga kamo
ha Leyte ayaw pagdad-a dinhi ha Samar kay diri kamo puwede ha
akon” (If you are tough guys in Leyte, do not bring it to Samar
10
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018d3c56f643b9ec0677000d00d40059004a/p/APB406/
4/13
1/25/24, 12:35 AM
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 412
because I will not tolerate it here.) Simon then asked Mayor
Astorga to allow the team to go home, at which Mayor Astorga
retorted that they would not be allowed
to go home and that they
11
would instead be brought to Daram. Mayor Astorga then addressed
the team, saying, “Kon magdakop man la kamo,
_______________
5
Id., pp. 8-9; Exhibit “B”, p. 1.
6
Id., pp. 10-12; Exhibit “B”, p. 1; TSN, August 15, 2000, p. 6.
7
Id., pp. 14-16; Exhibit “B”, p. 1.
8
Exhibit “B”, p. 2.
9
TSN, August 14, 2000, p. 13; Exhibit “B”, p. 2.
10
Exhibit “B”, p. 2.
11
TSN, August 14, 2000, p. 19.
516
516
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Astorga vs. People
unahon an mga dagko. Kon madakop niyo an mga dagko, an kan
Figueroa dida ha Bagacay puwede ko liwat ipadakop an akon.” (If
you really want to confiscate anything, you start with the big-time. If
you confiscate the
boats of Figueroa at Brgy. Bagacay, I will
12
surrender mine.) Simon then tried to reiterate his request for
permission to leave, which just succeeded in irking Mayor 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 will13bring 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
14 others at a long table, and the meal lasted between 7:008:00 p.m. After dinner, Militante, Maniscan and SPO1 Capoquian
were allowed
to go down from the house, but not to leave the
15
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
16
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,
17
wherein he pleaded not guilty to the offenses charged. At the trial,
the prosecution presented the testimonies of SPO118 Capoquian 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
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018d3c56f643b9ec0677000d00d40059004a/p/APB406/
5/13
1/25/24, 12:35 AM
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 412
members of the team sent
by the DENR RSOG executed a Joint
19
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
VOL. 412, OCTOBER 1, 2003
517
Astorga vs. People
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding
accused BENITO ASTORGA Y BOCATCAT guilty of Arbitrary Detention,
and in the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, applying
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is hereby sentenced to suffer
imprisonment of four (4) months of arresto mayor as minimum to one (1)
year and eight (8) months
of prision correccional as maximum.
20
SO ORDERED.”
The 21accused filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated July 11,
2001 which was denied by
the Sandiganabayan in a Resolution
22
dated September 28, 2001.
A Second Motion for Reconsideration
23
dated October 24, 2001 was also filed,24 and this was 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 the25 latter categorically declared
petitioner’s innocence of the crime charged.
Petitioner contends that the prosecution failed to establish the
26
required quantum of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused,
especially in light of the fact that
27 the private complainants executed
a Joint Affidavit of Desistance. Petitioner asserts that nowhere in
the records of the case is there any competent evidence that could
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018d3c56f643b9ec0677000d00d40059004a/p/APB406/
6/13
1/25/24, 12:35 AM
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 412
sufficiently establish the fact 28that restraint was employed upon the
persons of the team members. Furthermore, he claims that the mere
presence of armed men at the scene does not
_______________
20
Id., p. 265 (emphasis in the original).
21
Id., p. 271.
22
Id., p. 306; penned by Associate Justice Rodolfo G. Palattao, 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, concurred in by
Associate Justices Narciso S. Nario and Nicodemo T. Ferrer.
25
Rollo, p. 18.
26
Id., pp. 18-19.
27
Id., p. 35; Records, p. 158.
28
Id., pp. 25-26.
518
518
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Astorga vs. People
qualify as competent evidence to prove that fear was in fact instilled
in the minds of the team members, to the29extent that they would feel
compelled to stay in Brgy. Lucob-Lucob.
Arbitrary Detention is committed by any public officer
or
30
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.
31
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
32
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.
33
In the case of People v. Acosta, which involved the illegal
detention of a child, we found the accused-appellant therein guilty of
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018d3c56f643b9ec0677000d00d40059004a/p/APB406/
7/13
1/25/24, 12:35 AM
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 412
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, the accused-appellant, had returned, he was
practically a captive in the sense that
he could not leave because of
34
his fear to violate such instruction.
_______________
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, 20 July 1987, 152
SCRA 113 (emphasis in the original).
32
Rollo, pp. 30-31.
33
107 Phil. 360 [1960].
34
Id., emphasis supplied.
519
VOL. 412, OCTOBER 1, 2003
519
Astorga vs. People
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
36 similar threats, 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
37 the complainants were not
allowed by petitioner to go home. This refusal was quickly
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018d3c56f643b9ec0677000d00d40059004a/p/APB406/
8/13
1/25/24, 12:35 AM
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 412
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
38
and the witnesses. Given such circumstances, we give credence to
SPO1 Capoquian’s
39 statement that 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 on the actions of the team
which proves that fear was indeed instilled in the minds of the
_______________
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
520
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Astorga vs. People
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.
Regarding the Joint Affidavit of Desistance executed by the
private “complainants, suffice it to say that the principles governing
the use of such instruments in the adjudication of other crimes can
be applied here. Thus, in People v. Ballabare, it was held that an
affidavit of desistance is merely an additional ground to buttress the
defenses of the accused, not the sole consideration that can result in
acquittal. There must be other circumstances which, when coupled
with the retraction or desistance, create doubts as to the truth of the
testimony given by the witnesses at the trial 40and accepted by the
judge. Here, there are no such circumstances. Indeed, the belated
claims made in the Joint Affidavit of Desistance, such as the
allegations that the incident was the result of a misunderstanding and
that the team acceded to Mayor Astorga’s orders “out of
41 respect,”
are belied by petitioner’s own admissions to the contrary. The Joint
Affidavit of Desistance of the private complainants is evidently not a
clear repudiation of the material points alleged in the information
and proven at the trial, but a mere expression of the lack of interest
of private complainants to pursue the case. This conclusion is
supported by one of its latter paragraphs, which reads:
11. That this affidavit was executed by us if only to prove our sincerity and
improving DENR relations with the local Chiefs Executive and other
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018d3c56f643b9ec0677000d00d40059004a/p/APB406/
9/13
1/25/24, 12:35 AM
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 412
official of Daram, Islands so that DENR programs and project can be
effectively implemented through the support of the local officials for the
betterment of the residence living conditions42who are facing difficulties and
are much 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, for the reason that
43
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 allegedly “not exactly privy to, and knowl_______________
40
People v. Ballabare, 332 Phil. 384; 264 SCRA 350 [1996].
41
Records, p. 158; Rollo, pp. 27, 30-31, 32-33, 41.
42
Id., p. 159.
43
Rollo, pp. 28-29.
521
VOL. 412, OCTOBER 1, 2003
521
Astorga vs. People
edgeable of, what exactly transpired between herein accused and the
DENR team leader Mr. Elpidio E. Simon, from their alleged
‘confrontation,’ until they left 44
Barangay Lucob-Lucob 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,
45
misapprehended or misinterpreted. Nothing in the case at bar
prompts us to deviate from this doctrine. Indeed, the fact that SPO1
Capoquian is not one of the private complainants is completely
irrelevant. Neither penal law nor the rules of evidence requires
damning testimony to be exclusively supplied by the private
complainants in cases of Arbitrary Detention. Furthermore, Mayor
Astorga’s claim that SPO1 Capoquian was “not exactly privy” to
what transpired between Simon and himself is belied by the
evidence. SPO1 Capoquian testified that46he accompanied Simon
when the latter went to talk to47 petitioner. He heard all of Mayor
Astorga’s threatening remarks. He was with Simon when they were
encircled48by the men dressed in fatigues and wielding M-16 and M14 rifles. In sum, SPO1 Capoquian witnessed all the circumstances
which led to the Arbitrary Detention of the team at the hands of
Mayor Astorga.
Petitioner submits that it is unclear whether the team was in fact
prevented from leaving Brgy. Lucob-Lucob or whether they had
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018d3c56f643b9ec0677000d00d40059004a/p/APB406/
10/13
1/25/24, 12:35 AM
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 412
simply decided to “while away the time”
and take advantage of the
49
purported hospitality of the accused. On the contrary, SPO3 Cinco
clearly and categorically denied that they were simply “whiling
away the time” between their dinner with50 Mayor Astorga and their
departure early the following morning. SPO1 Capoquian gave
similar testimony, saying that they did not use the time between their
dinner with Mayor Astorga and their departure
_______________
44
45
Id., p. 20.
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
522
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Astorga vs. People
early the following morning to “enjoy
the place” and that, given a
51
choice, they would have gone home.
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 52on the
ground that clarificatory questions were asked during the trial.
Thus, we affirm 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.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018d3c56f643b9ec0677000d00d40059004a/p/APB406/
11/13
1/25/24, 12:35 AM
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 412
Before closing, it may not be amiss to quote the words of Justice
Perfecto in his concurring opinion in Lino v. Fugoso, wherein he
decried the impunity enjoyed by public officials in committing
arbitrary or illegal detention, and called for the intensification of
efforts towards bringing them to justice:
The provisions of law punishing arbitrary or illegal detention committed by
government officers form part of our statute books even before the advent of
American sovereignty in our country. Those provisions were already in
effect during the Spanish regime; they remained in effect under American
rule; continued in effect under the Commonwealth. Even under the Japanese
regime they were not repealed. The same provisions con_______________
51
Id., p. 26.
52
People v. Pinuela, G.R. Nos. 140727-28, 31 January 2003, 396 SCRA 561.
523
VOL. 412, OCTOBER 1, 2003
523
Astorga vs. People
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 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
53 may be entitled 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.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018d3c56f643b9ec0677000d00d40059004a/p/APB406/
12/13
1/25/24, 12:35 AM
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 412
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
© Copyright 2024 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018d3c56f643b9ec0677000d00d40059004a/p/APB406/
13/13