ARBITRARY DETENTION; dobgail (2020); astorga (2004) (2003)
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 217972, February 17, 2020 ]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, V.
P/INSP. CLARENCE DONGAIL, SPO4 JIMMY FORTALEZA, AND SPO2 FREDDIE NATIVIDAD,
RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
CARANDANG,
J.:
This appeal. assails the Decision[1] dated July 31, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
CR-HC No. 05411, which affirmed the conviction of P/Insp. Clarence Dongail
(Dongail), SPO4 Jimmy Fortaleza (Fortaleza), and SPO2 Freddie Natividad
(Natividad; collectively accused-appellants), who were found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of three counts of Arbitrary Detention and three counts of Murder.
Facts of the Case
On
November 3, 2004, an Information for kidnapping with murder was filed with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), of Guihulngan, Negros Occidental, Branch 64,
against Ramonito Estanislao (Estanislao) and 15 John Does for the killing of
Eleuterio Salabas (Salabas).[2]
On
October 18, 2006, an amended Information for kidnapping with murder was filed
this time against accused-appellants, Estanislao, Manolo Escalante, Ronnie
Herrera (Herrera), July Flores (Flores), Carlo Delos Santos, POl Bernardo
Cimatu (Cimatu), PO2 Allen Hulleza (Hulleza), Insp. Jonathan Laurella, Lorraine
Abay, Mamerto Canete, Elma Canete, Jude Montilla (Montilla), and 15 John Does.
Two more amendments were filed but only to change the names of the accused.
Finally, on June 20, 2008, the prosecution filed a fourth amended Information
for arbitrary detention with murder
against those mentioned above and in addition, P/Insp. Dennis Belandres
(Belandres), Ruel Villacanas, P/Insp. Bonifer Gotas (Gotas), SPO1 Nelson
Grijaldo, Richard Salazar, P/Supt. Vicente Ponteras, P/Supt. George Bajelot,
Jr. (Bajelot) state witnesses Cecil Brillantes (Brillantes) and Flores and
seven John Does.[3]
The
fourth amended Information reads:
Criminal Case No. 08-260524
That
on or about the 31st day of August, 2003, the above-named
accused who are policemen, a public officer, conspiring and confederating and
mutually helping one another, some of which are private individuals, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, and without legal grounds
kidnap, and thereafter transport and detain or in any manner deprived of
liberty, in various places, including but not limited to the Municipality of
Guihulngan, a place which is within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
for more than fifteen (15) days, one Eleuterio Salabas and on occasion of said
detention, on or about the 15th day of September 2003 in Ajuy,
Iloilo, all said accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one
another, with intent to kill, qualified by treachery, use of a motor vehicle,
taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, with evident
premeditation and with cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the
suffering, one Eleuterio Salabas, did then and there willfully attack, assault
and employ violence on the person of said Eleuterio Salabas by then and there
beating, kicking and mauling him on different parts of his body and thereafter,
shooting him with a gun on the head and different parts of his body, thereby
inflicting upon him serious physical injuries, which was the direct and
immediate cause of his untimely death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs
of said Eleuterio Salabas.
The
commission of said complex crimes was likewise attended by the aggravating
circumstances of nighttime, committed by a band and that accused police
officers took advantage of their public positions.
Contrary
to law.[4]
Meanwhile,
the said case was transferred to the RTC of Manila, Branch 27 upon a request
for change of venue by the widow of Salabas which was favorably acted upon by
this Court.[5]
On
May 4, 2004, the prosecution also filed two Informations for murder against
Dongail and eight John Does for the killing of Ricardo Suganob (Suganob) and
Maximo Lomoljo, Jr. (Lomoljo). The two cases were also transferred to the RTC
of Manila and were consolidated with the first Information for arbitrary detention with murder
for the killing of Salabas for having the same parties, facts and incidents.[6]
The
two other Informations are as follows:
Criminal Case No. 09-269362
That
on or about the 31st day of August 2003, in Bacolod City, a
place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused
who are policemen, a public officer, conspiring and confederating and mutually
helping one another, some of which are private individuals, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, and without legal grounds, kidnap and
thereafter, transport and detain or in any manner deprived of liberty, in
various places, in Bacolod City, one Ricardo Suganob and on the occasion of
said detention, on or about the 1st day of September 2003 in
Bacolod City, all said accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping
one another, with intent to kill, qualified by treachery, use of a motor
vehicle, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, with
evident premeditation, and with cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting
the suffering, one Ricardo Suganob did then and there willfully attack,
assault, and employ violence on the person of said Ricardo Suganob by then and
there beating, kicking and mauling him on different parts of his body and
thereafter, shooting him with a gun on the head and different parts of his
body, thereby inflicting upon him serious physical injuries, which was the
direct and immediate cause of his untimely death, to the damage and prejudice
of the heirs of said Ricardo Suganob.
The
commission of said complex crimes was likewise attended by the aggravating
circumstances of nighttime, committed by a band and that the accused police
officers took advantage of their public positions.
Contrary
to law.[7]
Criminal Case No. 09-269363
That
on or about the 31st day of August 2003, in Bacolod City, a
place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused
who are policemen, a public officer, conspiring and confederating and mutually
helping one another, some of which are private individuals, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, and without legal grounds, kidnap and
thereafter, transport and detain or in any manner deprived of liberty, in
various places, in Bacolod City, one Maximo Lomoljo, Jr. and on occasion of said
detention, on or about the 1st day of September 2003 if Bacolod
City, all said accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one
another, with intent to kill, qualified by treachery, use of a motor vehicle,
taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, with evident
premeditation, and with cruelty, by deliberately and it humanly augmenting the
suffering, one Maximo Lomoljo, Jr., did then and there willfully attack,
assault and employ violence on the person of said Maximo Lomoljo, Jr. by then
and there beating, kicking and mauling him on different parts of his body and
thereafter, shooting him with a gun on the head and different parts of his
body, thereby immediate cause of his untimely death, to the damage and
prejudice of the heirs of said Maximo Lomoljo, Jr.
The
commission of said complex crimes was likewise attended by the aggravating
circumstances of nighttime, committed by a band and that the accused police
officers took advantage of their public positions.
Contrary
to law.[8]
During
the arraignment of the consolidated cases, only Dongail, Fortaleza, Natividad,
Brillantes, Abay, and Flores pleaded not guilty while the others remained at
large.[9] Later, Brillantes and Flores were
discharged as state witnesses.[10] The prosecution
presented 18 witnesses while the defense only presented two.[11]
The
prosecution's version of the incident, as culled from the records, are as
follows:
On
August 31, 2003, at about 6:00 p.m., Remedios Salabas (Remedios) was with her
father when the latter told her that he was going out to treat Suganob who had
just arrived from Cagayan de Oro City. Salabas, Suganob, and Lomoljo left
onboard a Nissan Frontier. Later at about 10:00 p.m., Salabas went back home
and told Remedios that the Nissan Frontier they rode in had been sideswiped and
asked for P2,000.00 for grease money which he planned to bring to Police
Station 9 so that they will entertain his complaint. The next day, she found
out that his father did not come home.[12]
Between
9:30 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. of the same night, PO3 Rogelio Estevanez (Estevanez)
testified that while he and a fellow policeman were patrolling, a Nissan
Frontier driven by Salabas stopped and told them that his car had been
sideswiped. Estevanez told him that they should report the concern to the
Traffic Division. Salabas replied that he reported it to Police Station 8 but
they did not entertain his concern. Another policeman advised that Salabas file
a police blotter but he did not heed the same and proceeded to the kiosk in
front of Chicken Alley. At about 11:00 p.m., Fortaleza boarded Estevanez's car
and asked about the person he was talking to. He also instructed Estevanez to
tell Salabas to report the matter to the police, otherwise it would appear as
though they did not do anything about it. The latter refused. Fortaleza then
went back to his pick-up truck. On September 3, 2003, Estevanez saw on
television the two salvaged victims who he realized were the two companions of
Salabas. On January 24, 2009, Fortaleza called him to say that he will be
called to testify on these cases and instructed him to deny that there was an
operation on the evening of August 31, 2003.[13]
Brillantes
testified that he was a police asset and that in the first or second week of
August, a meeting was held at the Bacolod City Police Headquarters regarding
the conduct of surveillance operations against Salabas because he was suspected
to have been engaged in the illegal drugs trade. In the evening of August 31,
2003, Brillantes was at the Police Station 2 when Natividad, Fortaleza, and
Gotas arrived on board a red Revo van. Dongail and Lorilla also arrived. When
Brillantes opened the Revo intending to board it, he was surprised to see
Salabas, Suganob, and Lomoljo inside. They were blindfolded, gagged, and
handcuffed.[14]
Later,
the group left the precinct to go to Moonlight Lodge. On board the Revo van
were Cimatu, Fortaleza, Lorilla, Gotas, Natividad, Brillantes and the three
victims. On board the Feroza were Hulleza, Dongail, and Jackson Manalastas.
Inside the VIP room of Moonlight Lodge, accused-appellants and the others began
interrogating the three victims about their alleged involvement in the illegal
drugs trade and drug money. However, the three denied the same. They were then
kicked, boxed, and pistol-whipped.[15]
Fortaleza
decided to move the three to the Taculing Court apartelle. By then, the three
were complaining of pain, and had difficulty boarding the vehicle. At the
Taculing Court, Brillantes overheard Dongail speak on the phone with someone
whose voice he identified as that of Bajelot's. He heard Bajelot say
"Congratulations." Dongail answered with, "Nandito na, sir,"
"Thank you, sir," and "Okay, sir."[16]
Dongail
and Fortaleza again decided to move to Hacienda Motel. As they entered the
motel, Suganob fainted. Brillantes tried to revive him but to no avail.
Brillantes heard Fortaleza and Dongail's conversation and decided to finish off
the victims. Dongail ordered Cimatu and Natividad to put a transparent plastic
bag on the head of Suganob and Lomoljo. The two stopped moving.[17] Dongail ordered Lorilla to finish off Suganob and Lomoljo
and gave him a gun. Lorilla took the gun, placed it inside the plastic bag on
the head of Suganob and fired. Gotas was ordered by Fortaleza and Dongail to
shoot Lomoljo and he did.[18]
Dongail
also ordered Montilla to shoot Suganob again as baptism of fire.[19] Salabas was still alive at that time. Dongail ordered
Salabas to be transferred to another place. The group left the Hacienda Motel
but along the way, Brillantes asked to be dropped off at Police Station 2.
Thus, they dropped him off, rested and stayed until sunrise then he went home.[20]
Less
than two weeks after the said night, Brillantes was at the residence of Dongail
where a big party was held. During the party, Dongail and Fortaleza called him,
Montilla, Salazar and Herrera and warned them not to tell anybody about the
apprehension of Salabas, Suganob and Lomoljo.[21] Dongail and Fortaleza helped Brillantes in hiding when the
warrant of arrest was issued against him.[22]
A
witness from Palao Beach Resort testified that on September 7, 2003, he saw a
man (later identified as Salabas) buying coffee at the canteen of Palao Beach
Resort. Two men (later identified as Dongail and Natividad) stood behind
Salabas. Later, he saw Salabas proceed to one of the cottages near the beach.
Dongail and Natividad followed suit. On September 10, 2003, he saw the group
leave the resort.[23]
A
boatman testified that on September 15, 2003, he received instructions from the
owner of the pump boat to fetch passengers in Cadiz Viejo, Negros Occidental.
They arrived at about 3:30 p.m. where two vehicles were waiting. Later,
Dongail, Fortaleza, Elma, Belandres, and Salabas boarded the pump boat. At that
time, Salabas was wearing cargo shorts with six pockets. They arrived at Pili,
Ajuy, Iloilo City at 4:30 p.m. When the witness was at the house of his father,
he saw Salabas on board a trisikad while Dongail, Fortaleza, Belandres and Elma
were walking behind him.[24]
At
about 9:00 a.m. of September 19, 2003, a cadaver was recovered from the waters
of Punta Buri, Ajuy, Iloilo City. The cadaver was wearing cargo shorts with six
pockets and one of the thumbs of the cadaver had a deformed fingernail. The
Barangay Chairman of such place reported the recovery of the cadaver but the
police did not come. Hence, they covered it with a trapal and
dug a grave. On the next day, members of the police, media, and a funeral
parlor exhumed the cadaver and brought it to Ajuy, Iloilo City.[25]
Dr.
Nicasio Botin (Dr. Botin), a medico-legal officer of the National Bureau of
Investigation testified that he received a request for autopsy for the cadaver
found floating on the waters of Barangay Punta Buri. He found that the cadaver
had a gunshot wound on the right cheek, that part of his left ribs were
fractured, and that the cause of death was the gunshot wound on the head.[26] Lastly, the wife, nephew, son and brother-in-law of Salabas
identified the cadaver as his because of the body built, the fingers and the
deformed thumb.[27]
As
to the cadaver of Suganob, Dr. Botin found two gunshot wounds which were fatal,
and fractures in the ribs caused by hard blunt object. As to Lomoljo, he found
injuries in the eyes caused by a blunt object and four gunshot wounds.[28]
The
wife of Salabas testified that he was 52 years old at the time of his death
with a basic salary of P30,000.00 and P10,000.00 honorarium monthly. They also
spent P4,007,666.02 for the funeral and other miscellaneous expenses. Other
expenses were also computed at P135,895.00.[29]
Lomoljo's
sister testified that his brother worked in the Salabas household earning
P2,000.00 per month and that they spent P45,000.00 for funeral expenses.[30] Suganob's sister testified that they spent a total of
P607,080.00 and that Suganob was a professor and the Dean of Discipline of
Capitol University and Commander of the Coast Guard earning P22,423.13 a month.[31]
The
defense merely presented two witnesses. Dr. Ernesto Gimenez, an expert in
forensic medicine who testified that the only conclusive evidence that can
prove the identity of a cadaver is a fingerprint which was not done in the case
of Salabas. He also said that the autopsy conducted in the cadaver was not
proper. The last witness was a police officer who merely testified on the true
rank of Fortaleza.[32]
RTC Ruling
On
April 13, 2011, the RTC convicted accused-appellants for three counts of murder
for the killing of Salabas, Suganob, and Lomoljo. They were also ordered to pay
P50,000.00 for each victim as indemnity for death, P50,000.00 each as moral
damages, P30,000.00 each as exemplary damages; P4,480,080.00 for the loss of
earning capacity of Salabas, P2,780,512.96 for Suganob and P400,000.00 for
Lomoljo; P3,599,031.82 for actual damages of Salabas, and P1,523,010.70 for
Suganob. Moreover, accused-appellants were sentenced to suffer two
indeterminate prison term of 6 months as minimum to 2 years and 4 months as
maximum for the Arbitrary Detention of Suganob
and Lomoljo and to an indeterminate prison term of 2 years and 4 months as
minimum to 6 years as maximum for the Arbitrary Detention of Salabas.[33]
The
RTC held that as to the charge of three counts of complex crimes of arbitrary detention with
murder, said charges do not fall under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC). Hence, the RTC convicted them of the separate crimes of arbitrary detention and murder
as the elements of the two crimes were established beyond reasonable doubt.[34]
With
respect to the charge of murder, the RTC held that the fact of death of
Salabas, Suganob, and Lomoljo was established by the prosecution through the
testimony of Dr. Botin. The killing of Suganob and Lomoljo and the perpetrators
thereof were clearly identified by the state witness, Brillantes. On the other
hand, the killing of Salabas was established by circumstantial evidence
beginning from the testimony of Brillantes, to Salabas' presence in Palao Beach
Resort to his transport to Pili, Ajuy, Iloilo. The requisites of circumstantial
evidence are: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which
the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all
circumstances is such as to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt, were
all present here. In this case, it was found that the fact that
accused-appellants were the last persons seen with the victim, coupled by the
combined testimonies of the witnesses as well as the motive to kill as proven
by the fact of surveillance, all point to the inevitable conclusion that
accused-appellants killed Salabas.[35]
The
RTC also found that treachery attended the killing of Suganob and Lomoljo
because they were hogtied, gagged, and blindfolded when they were shot to
death. The use of motor vehicle was also appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance as the red Revo and pump boat facilitated the commission of the
crime. Taking advantage of superior strength in the killing of Suganob and
Lomoljo was likewise determined to be present but was absorbed in treachery.
Lastly, the aggravating circumstance of cruelty was appreciated in the killing
of the three victims as evidenced by the unnecessary force used upon them
before ultimately killing them as shown by the fact that they had ruptured
ribs, Suganob with a missing eyeball and Lomoljo having sustained four gunshot
wounds.[36]
The
elements of arbitrary detention were also
proven beyond reasonable doubt as the three were detained without legal ground
by police officers.[37]
CA Ruling
Aggrieved,
accused-appellants filed an appeal to the CA, which affirmed their conviction.
The CA reiterated that the RTC correctly convicted the three to two separate
crimes of murder and arbitrary detention.[38]
The
elements of arbitrary detention are
present in this case because at the time of the incident, the
accused-appellants were all police officers, they detained the three victims,
and that the detention was without legal grounds.[39]
As
to the charge of murder, the fact of death of Suganob and Lomoljo was
straightforwardly established by the testimony of Brillantes. That of Salabas
was established by the testimony of Dr. Botin and corroborated by his wife,
son, nephew, and brother-in-law. The cadaver of Salabas, while already in a
state of decomposition, can still be identified because of distinct
identification marks and characteristics such as the deformed thumb.[40]
The
identification of the perpetrators of the crime was established by the
testimony of Brillantes as to Suganob and Lomoljo while circumstantial evidence
proved that accused-appellants killed Salabas. The narration of a handful of
witnesses as to how they saw Salabas from the three motels to his transfer to
the Palao Beach Resort and eventually the pump boat ride to Ajuy, Iloilo
amounted to the chain of evidence essential for conviction.[41]
As
to the aggravating circumstances, the CA agreed with the RTC that treachery
attended the killing of Suganob and Lomoljo by the way they were killed. The CA
also found that abuse of superior strength also accompanied the killing of the
three victims as there was notorious inequality of forces between the victim
and the aggressor considering that there were a handful of police officers who
injured and shot the victims. The last aggravating circumstance appreciated by
the CA was cruelty as Brillantes testified that they were boxed, kicked, and
pistol-whipped prior to getting shot.[42]
Still
aggrieved, accused-appellants elevated the case to this Court. In his
Supplemental Brief,[43] Dongail assailed his conviction for two
separate crimes of murder and arbitrary detention when
the charge was only the complex crime of arbitrary detention with murder. He also asserted
that Brillantes was improperly discharged as state witness and that
circumstantial evidence failed to prove the death of Salabas.[44] Fortaleza also submitted substantially the same allegation
as that of Dongail.[45] A Manifestation[46] was filed by Dongail stating that Natividad has died in
prison. The Office of the Solicitor General on the other hand, adopted their
brief filed to the CA and no longer filed a supplemental brief.[47]
The Court's Ruling
After
a perusal of the records of the case, this Court resolves to deny the appeal.
As
correctly concluded by the RTC and the CA, accused-appellants were properly
convicted of separate crimes of arbitrary detention and
murder. The final amendment to the Informations charged accused-appellants of
the complex crime of arbitrary detention with
murder. However, evidence failed to show that the incidents made out a case of
complex crime under Article 48 of the RPC. First, the single act of
accused-appellants did not constitute two or more grave or less grave felonies.
Second, arbitrary detention was not
used as a necessary means to commit murder.[48] In various cases
such as People of the Philippines v. Li Wai Cheung[49] and People of the Philippines v. Araneta,[50] the Court convicted the accused for the separate crimes even
if they were indicted of a complex crime in the Information because it was
improper for the prosecutor to have charged them of a complex crime as the
offenses were separate and distinct from each other and cannot be complexed.
In
this case, Salabas, Suganob, and Lomoljo, were taken by accused appellants
because they were the subject of surveillance for Salabas' alleged involvement
in the illegal drug trade. In examining the events that transpired prior to the
killing of the three, it was not proved that their arbitrary detention was used as a means of killing
them because they could have been killed even without abducting them
considering that accused-appellants were all police officers and have the means
to instantly kill Salabas, Suganob, and Lomoljo. Rather, what accused-appellants
did was to forcibly abduct the three, brought them to various motels and
interrogated them before finishing off Suganob and Lomoljo. Salabas on the
other hand, was even brought to a different province in a pump boat and stayed
with accused-appellants for fifteen days before getting killed. Hence, when the
three were abducted and placed in the custody of accused-appellants, the felony
of arbitrary detention had
already been consummated. Thereafter, when they were boxed, kicked,
pistol-whipped and ultimately shot at a close range while being handcuffed and
without means to defend themselves, another separate crime of murder was
committed. Therefore, a conviction for the separate crimes of arbitrary detention and murder
was in order.
Under
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the essential elements of murder are:
(1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the killing was
attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248; and
(4) the killing is neither parricide nor infanticide.[51]
As
to the killing of Suganob and Lomoljo, the above-mentioned elements were
clearly proven through the direct testimony of state witness Brillantes. The
testimony was found to be credible as Brillantes was with accused-appellants
the whole time - from the detention of the three victims to the order to shoot
Suganob and Lomoljo which caused their deaths. As to the killing of Salabas,
the RTC and CA resorted to circumstantial evidence to prove his murder beyond
reasonable doubt:
Circumstantial
evidence is sufficient for conviction if:
(a) There is more than one circumstances;
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt.[52]
Circumstantial
evidence may support a conviction if they afford as basis for a reasonable
inference of the existence of the fact thereby sought to be proved.[53] To sustain a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, it
is essential that the circumstantial evidence presented must constitute an
unbroken chain, which leads one to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to
the accused, to the exclusion of the others, as the guilty person. The
circumstantial evidence must exclude the possibility that some other person has
committed the crime.[54]
In
this case, the following circumstances were proved: (1) in August 2003, Salabas
was a subject of surveillance operations being conducted by accused-appellants
who were members of the Bacolod City Police; (2) On August 31, 2003, Salabas,
Suganob, and Lomoljo were all blindfolded, hogtied, and gagged inside a red
Revo van with accused-appellants; (3) accused-appellants moved the three
victims from Moonlight Lodge, to Taculing Court and finally to Hacienda Motel
where they decided to order the killing of Suganob and Lomoljo; (4)
accused-appellants left Hacienda Motel with Salabas; (5) On September 1, 2003
at the party in the house of Dongail, Salabas was seen in the red Revo van
gagged and hogtied; (5) accused-appellants warned Brillantes and other
witnesses not to disclose to anyone about the operation against Salabas; (6)
eye witnesses saw accused-appellants with Salabas at the Palao Beach Resort;
(7) eye witnesses saw accused-appellants with Salabas, who was then very weak,
boarding the pump boat to Pili, Ajuy, Iloilo; and (8) a cadaver was found
floating in the waters of Ajuy, Iloilo.
These
circumstances constitute a chain, which leads one to a fair and reasonable
conclusion that accused-appellants were guilty for the murder of Salabas. The
qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated in
the killings of Suganob and Lomoljo because when they were shot while being
hogtied and with plastic bags covering their heads, they had no opportunity to
defend themselves and such means was deliberately adopted. Abuse of superior
strength was also present in the case for the killing of the three victims as there
was a notorious inequality of forces between the accused-appellants as police
officers and the three who were already weak from the beatings they had
endured. Finally, cruelty was correctly appreciated for the three killings as
it was established that they were kicked, boxed, and pistol-whipped before
having been killed. Such acts constitute deliberate augmentation of a wrong by
causing another wrong not necessary for its commission.
All
three aggravating circumstances were designated as qualifying aggravating
circumstances in the Informations which categorized the killing as murder.
Arbitrary Detention is
committed by any public officer or employee who, without legal grounds, detains
a person. The elements of the crime are: (1) the offender is a public officer
or employee; (2) he detains a person; and (3) the detention is without legal
grounds.[55]
In
this case, the elements of arbitrary detention were
present because accused-appellants were police officers who deprived the three
victims of liberty on a mere surveillance and without legal grounds.
As
to the discharge of an accused as state witness, the Rules of Criminal
Procedure provides that: (1) there is absolute necessity for the testimony of
the accused whose discharge is requested; (2) there is no other direct evidence
available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed, except the
testimony of said accused; (3) the testimony of said accused can be
substantially corroborated in its material points; (4) said accused does not
appear to be the most guilty; and (5) said accused has not at any time been
convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude.[56] In this case, the abovementioned requisites were complied
with as evidenced by the order of the RTC to discharge Brillantes as a state
witness. There was no impropriety on the part of the RTC in discharging
Brillantes as state witness as it was convinced that the latter's testimony
complied with the requirements of the Rules.
Going
into the penalties and award of damages, as to the charge of murder for the
killing of the three victims, the Court affirms the penalty of murder meted out
by the CA. The award of civil damages, moral damages and exemplary damages
shall be increased to P100,000.00 each to conform with latest jurisprudence.[57] The Court likewise affirms the award of the CA for
P4,480,080.00 for the loss of earning capacity of Salabas; P2,780,512.96 for
the loss of earning capacity of Suganob; and P400,000.00 for the loss of
earning capacity of Lomoljo. The award of actual damages amounting to
P3,599,031.82 for Salabas and P1,523,010.70 for Suganob were likewise affirmed.
The award of temperate damages in the amount of P50,000.00 for the killing of
Lomoljo is in order for failure to present documentary evidence of burial or
funeral expenses.
As
to the charges of arbitrary detention of Suganob
and Lomoljo whose detention did not exceed three days, the CA correctly imposed
two prison terms of 4 months as minimum to 1 year and 8 months as maximum. As
to the detention of Salabas which did not exceed 15 days, the prison term of 2
years and 4 months as minimum to 4 years and 9 months as maximum, is, likewise,
in order.
In
view of the death of Natividad, the case as to him is dismissed.
WHEREFORE,
the appeal is DENIED. We ADOPT the findings of the
trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The assailed Decision dated
July 31, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05411 finding
accused-appellants P/Insp. Clarence Dongail and SPO4 Jimmy Fortaleza GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of Murder penalized under Article 248 of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and three (3) counts of Arbitrary Detention penalized under Article 124 of
the Revised Penal Code is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in
that accused-appellants are sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua for each count and two (2) prison terms of four (4) months as
minimum to one (1) year and eight (8) months as maximum and one (1) prison term
of two (2) years and four (4) months as minimum to four (4) years and nine (9)
months as maximum. They are also ordered to pay jointly and severally the
amount of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity; the award of moral damages amounting
to P100,000.00; and the award of exemplary damages amounting to P100,000.00 for
each victim. Moreover, accused-appellants are ORDERED to pay
P4,480,080.00 for the loss of earning capacity of Eleuterio Salabas;
P2,780,512.96 for the loss of earning capacity of Ricardo Suganob; and
P400,00.00 for the loss of earning capacity of Maximo Lomoljo. As well as
actual damages amounting to P3,599,031.82 for Eleuterio Salabas and
P1,523,010.70 for Ricardo Suganob. Temperate damages amounting to P50,000.00
for Maximo Lomoljo shall also be paid. Lastly, an interest of six percent (6%)
per annum is imposed on all the damages awarded from the finality of this
Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Leonen (Chairperson), Gesmundo, Zalameda, and Gaerlan, JJ., concur.
October 6, 2020
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please
take notice that on February 17, 2020 a Decision, copy
attached hereto, was rendered by the Supreme Comi in the above-entitled case,
the original of which was received by this Office on October 6, 2020 at 8:50
a.m.
|
|
Very
truly yours, (Sgd.)
MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG III |
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, with
Associate Justices Vicente S.E. Veloso and Jane Aurora C. Lantion, concurring; rollo, pp. 2-54.
[2] CA rollo at p. 530.
[3] Id. at 531; rollo, p. 4.
[4] Id. at 285-286.
[5] Id. at 284.
[6] Id. at 532-533.
[7] Id. at 287.
[8] Id. at 287-288.
[9] Id. at 535.
[10] Id. at 536.
[11] Id.
[12] Rollo, p. 9.
[13] Id. at 9-10.
[14] Id. at 11.
[15] Id. at 11-12.
[16] Id. at 12.
[17] Id. at 12-13.
[18] Id. at 13.
[19] Id. at 14.
[20] Id.
[21] Id.
[22] Id. at 15.
[23] Id. at 16-17.
[24] Id. at 17.
[25] Id. at 18.
[26] Id.
[27] Id. at 20-21.
[28] CA rollo, pp. 53-55.
[29] Id. at 57-58.
[30] Id. at 62.
[31] Id. at 63-64.
[32] Rollo, p. 22.
[33] CA rollo, pp. 87-88.
[34] Id. at 70.
[35] Id. at 74-76.
[36] Id. at 76-78.
[37] Id. at 79.
[38] Rollo, at 34.
[39] Id. at 35-37.
[40] Id. at 39.
[41] Id. at 40-42.
[42] Id. at 45-48.
[43] Id. at 122-152.
[44] Id. at 128-129.
[45] Id. at 179-293.
[46] Id. at 702-703.
[47] Id. at 92-93.
[48] REVISED PENAL
CODE, Art. 48.
[49] 289 Phil. 105
(1992).
[50] 48 Phil. 650
(1926).
[51] People v. Sapigao,
Jr., 614 Phil. 589 (2009).
[52] RULES ON EVIDENCE,
Rule 133, Sec. 4.
[53] Zabala v.
People, 752 Phil. 59.
[54] Lozano v.
People, 638 Phil. 582 (2010).
[55] Astorga v.
People, 459 Phil. 140 (2003).
[56] RULES OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, Rule 119, Sec. 17.
[57] People v.
Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 154130, August 20, 2004 ]
BENITO ASTORGA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
RESOLUTION
YNARES-SATIAGO,
J.:
On October 1, 2003, we rendered a Decision in
this case affirming petitioner’s conviction by the Sandiganbayan of the crime
of Arbitrary Detention. Petitioner now seeks a
reconsideration of our Decision.
The facts are briefly restated as follows:
Private offended parties Elpidio Simon, Moises de la Cruz, Wenefredo Maniscan,
Renato Militante and Crisanto Pelias are members of the Regional Special
Operations Group (RSOG) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Tacloban City. On September 1, 1997, they, together with SPO3 Andres B. Cinco,
Jr. and SPO1 Rufo Capoquian of the Philippine National Police Regional
Intelligence Group, were sent to the Island of Daram, Western Samar to conduct
intelligence operations on possible illegal logging activities. At around
4:30-5:00 p.m., the team found two boats measuring 18 meters in length and 5
meters in breadth being constructed at Barangay Locob-Locob. There they met
petitioner Benito Astorga, the Mayor of Daram, who turned out to be the owner of
the boats. A heated altercation ensued between petitioner and the DENR team.
Petitioner called for reinforcements and, moments later, a boat bearing ten
armed men, some wearing fatigues, arrived at the scene. The DENR team was then
brought to petitioner’s house in Daram, where they had dinner and drinks. The
team left at 2:00 a.m.
On the basis of the foregoing facts, petitioner was charged with and convicted
of Arbitrary Detention by the Sandiganbayan in
Criminal Case No. 24986. On petition for review, we rendered judgment as
follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is hereby DENIED. The
Decision of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No., 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.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration,
which was denied with finality on January 12, 2004.[1] Petitioner then filed an “Urgent Motion for Leave to File
Second Motion for Reconsideration”[2] with attached
“Motion for Reconsideration,”[3] wherein he makes
the following submissions:
1.
THE ARMED MEN WERE NOT
SUMMONED BY PETITIONER FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETAINING THE PRIVATE OFFENDED
PARTIES;
2.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE
THAT THE SUPPOSED VICTIMS INSISTED ON LEAVING THE PLACE WHERE THEY WERE
SUPPOSED TO BE DETAINED;
3.
THE SUPPOSED VICTIMS
THEMSELVES HAVE DECLARED THE INNOCENCE OF THE PETITIONER;
4.
CRIMINAL INTENT ON THE
PART OF THE ACCUSED IS CLEARLY WANTING IN THE INSTANT CASE.[4]
Subsequently, petitioner filed a Supplement to
the Second Motion for Reconsideration.[5]
The prosecution was required to comment on petitioner’s second Motion for
Reconsideration and the Supplement thereto.
We find the grounds raised by the second Motion for Reconsideration well-taken.[6]
While a second motion for reconsideration is, as a general rule, a prohibited
pleading, it is within the sound discretion of the Court to admit the same,
provided it is filed with prior leave whenever substantive justice may be
better served thereby.
The rules of procedure are merely tools designed
to facilitate the attainment of justice. They were conceived and promulgated to
effectively aid the court in the dispensation of justice. Courts are not slaves
to or robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial discretion. In rendering
justice, courts have always been, as they ought to be, conscientiously guided
by the norm that on the balance, technicalities take a backseat against
substantive rights, and not the other way around. Thus, if the application of the
Rules would tend to frustrate rather than promote justice, it is always within
our power to suspend the rules, or except a particular case from its operation.[7]
The elements of the crime of Arbitrary Detention 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.[8]
The determinative factor in Arbitrary Detention,
in the absence of actual physical restraint, is fear. After a careful review of
the evidence on record, we find no proof that petitioner instilled fear in the
minds of the private offended parties.
Indeed, we fail to discern any element of fear from the narration of SPO1 Rufo
Capoquian, the police officer who escorted the DENR Team during their mission.
On the contrary, what appears is that petitioner, being then a municipal mayor,
merely extended his hospitality and entertained the DENR Team in his house.
SPO1 Capoquian testified thus:
|
ATTY. JUMAMIL: |
|
|
q |
After Bagacay you arrived in what barangay in Daram? |
|
a |
We were on our way to Barangay Sta. Rita in Daram but on
our way we saw a boat being constructed there so we proceeded to Barangay
Lucodlucod (sic). |
|
q |
And you arrived at 5:00 o’clock? |
|
a |
Yes sir. |
|
q |
And you left at 2:00 o’clock in the morning of September
2? |
|
a |
Yes sir. |
|
q |
And you ate dinner between 5:00 o’clock to 2:00 o’clock in
the morning of September 2, is that correct? |
|
a |
Yes sir. Mayor Astorga told us let us have dinner. |
|
q |
And Mayor Astorga brought you to a house where you had
dinner? |
|
a |
Yes sir. |
|
q |
And of course you also partook of wine? |
|
a |
I know they had wine but with respect to us we had no wine
sir. |
|
xxx xxx xxx |
|
|
AJ NARIO: |
|
|
q |
While you were taking your dinner from 7 to 8:00 o’clock
Mayor Astorga was with you having dinner? |
|
a |
Yes Your Honor. |
|
q |
You did not hear the conversation between the Mayor and
the foresters, the complainants here? |
|
a |
I could not hear anything important because they were just
laughing. |
|
xxx xxx xxx |
|
|
AJ PALATTAO: |
|
|
q |
And then according to you there was laughter what was the
cause of this laughter? |
|
a |
Probably they were talking of something humorous.[9] |
The testimonial evidence likewise shows that
there was no actual restraint imposed on the private offended parties. SPO1
Capoquian in fact testified that they were free to leave the house and roam
around the barangay. Furthermore, he admitted that it was raining at that time.
Hence, it is possible that petitioner prevented the team from leaving the
island because it was unsafe for them to travel by boat.
|
ATTY. JUMAMIL: |
|
|
q |
It was raining at that time, is that correct? |
|
a |
Yes sir it was raining. |
|
q |
And the weather was not good for motorized travel at that
particular time that you were in Lucoblucob, Daram? |
|
a |
I know it is raining but I could not say that you could
not travel. |
|
q |
What was the condition of the sea at that time when you
were in Lucoblucob? |
|
a |
The sea was good in fact we did not get wet and there were
no waves at that time. |
|
q |
But it was raining the whole day? |
|
a |
It was not raining at the day but after we ate in the
evening it rained. |
|
q |
It was raining hard in fact after 8:00 p.m. up to 1:00
o’clock in the morning is that correct? |
|
a |
A little bit hard I don’t know when the rain stopped, sir. |
|
q |
It is possible that it rain.. the rain stopped at 1:00
o’clock in the morning of September 2? |
|
a |
I don’t remember sir. |
|
xxx xxx xxx |
|
|
AJ PALATTAO: |
|
|
q |
Were you told not to go away from the place? |
|
a |
No Your Honor. |
|
q |
Up to what point did you reach when you were allegedly
prevented to go somewhere? |
|
a |
They did not say anything sir. |
|
q |
Where did you go after that? |
|
a |
Just down until it rained. |
|
q |
If you want to go, let us say, you want to leave that
place, on your part, was there somebody prevented you to go to another place? |
|
a |
I don’t know Your Honor. |
|
q |
But on your part can you just leave that place or somebody
will prevent you to go somewhere else? |
|
a |
What I felt I will not be able to leave because we were
already told not to leave the barangay. |
|
q |
In other words, you can go places in that barangay but you
are not supposed to leave that barangay, is this Barangay Daram? |
|
a |
Barangay Lucoblucob, Your Honor. |
|
q |
On your part according to you you can go places if you
want although in your impression you cannot leave the barangay. How about the
other companions like Mr. Simon, Cruz and Maniscan, can they leave the place? |
|
a |
No Your Honor. |
|
q |
Why are you very positive that in your case you can leave
but in the case of those I have enumerated they cannot, why? |
|
a |
If only in that barangay we can leave, Your Honor.[10] |
Mr. Elpidio Simon, one of the private offended
parties, took the witness stand on August 16, 2000 but did not complete his
testimony-in-chief due to lack of material time. His testimony only covered
preliminary matters and did not touch on the circumstances of the alleged
detention.[11]
On August 23, 2000, all the private offended parties, namely, Elpidio E. Simon,
Moises de la Cruz, Renato Militante, Crisanto Pelias and Wenefredo Maniscan,
executed a Joint Affidavit of Desistance stating, in pertinent part:
xxx xxx xxx;
6.
That what transpired may
have been caused by human limitation aggravated by the exhaustion of the team
in scouring the shores of the small islands of Samar for several days. Mayor
Benito Astorga may have also been confronted with the same predicament, hence
our confrontation resulted to a heated argument and the eventual
misunderstanding;
7.
Considering that he is
the local Chief Executive of the Municipality of Daram, Samar our respect for
him prevailed when he ordered us to take dinner with him and other local
residents thereat, so we capitulated whose invitation was misinterpreted by us;
8.
That thereafter, a
natural and spontaneous conversation between the team and the group of Mayor
Astorga during the dinner and we were eventually allowed to leave Daram, Samar;
9.
That upon our return to
our respective official stations we reported the incident to our supervisors
who required us to submit our affidavit;
10.
That at present our
differences had already been reconciled and both parties had already express
apologies and are personally no longer interested to pursue the case against
the Mayor, hence, this affidavit of desistance;
xxx xxx xxx.[12]
Thereafter, the private
offended parties did not appear anymore in court to testify. This
notwithstanding, the Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner of the crime of Arbitrary Detention on
the basis of the testimonies of SPO1 Capoquian and SPO3 Cinco, the police
escorts of the DENR Team.
The quoted portions of SPO1 Capoquian’s testimony negate the element of
detention. More importantly, fear is a state of mind and is necessarily
subjective.[13] Addressed to the mind of the victim, its
presence cannot be tested by any hard-and-fast rule but must instead be viewed
in the light of the perception and judgment of the victim at the time of the
crime.[14] As such, SPO1 Capoquian and SPO3 Cinco,
not being victims, were not competent to testify on whether or not fear existed
in the minds of the private offended parties herein. It was thus error for the
Sandiganbayan to have relied on their testimonies in convicting petitioner.
Verily, the circumstances brought out by SPO1 Capoquian created a reasonable
doubt as to whether petitioner detained the DENR Team against their consent.
The events that transpired are, to be sure, capable to two interpretations.
While it may support the proposition that the private offended parties were
taken to petitioner’s house and prevented from leaving until 2:00 a.m. the next
morning, it is equally plausible, if not more so, that petitioner extended his
hospitality and served dinner and drinks to the team at his house. He could
have advised them to stay on the island inasmuch as sea travel was rendered
unsafe by the heavy rains. He ate together with the private offended parties
and even laughed with them while conversing over dinner. This scenario is
inconsistent with a hostile confrontation between the parties. Moreover,
considering that the Mayor also served alcoholic drinks, it is not at all
unusual that his guests left the house at 2:00 a.m. the following morning.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proved.[15] He is entitled to an acquittal unless his
guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not
mean such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces
absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof
which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.[16]
As held in several cases, when the guilt of the accused has not been proven
with moral certainty, the presumption of innocence of the accused must be
sustained and his exoneration be granted as a matter of right. For the
prosecution’s evidence must stand or fall on its own merit and cannot be
allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[17] Furthermore, where the evidence for the prosecution is
concededly weak, even if the evidence for defense is also weak, the accused
must be duly accorded the benefit of the doubt in view of the constitutional
presumption of innocence that an accused enjoys. When the circumstances are
capable of two or more inferences, as in this case, one of which is consistent
with the presumption of innocence while the other is compatible with guilt, the
presumption of innocence must prevail and the court must acquit. It is better
to acquit a guilty man than to convict an innocent man.[18]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision dated October 1,
2003 is RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE. The appealed judgment of
the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 24986 is REVERSED. Petitioner
Benito Astorga is ACQUITTED of the crime of Arbitrary Detention on
the ground of reasonable doubt.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ.,
concur.
[1] Rollo, p. 197.
[2] Id., pp. 198-199.
[3] Id., pp. 202-216.
[4] Id., pp. 204-213.
[5] Id., pp. 217-223.
[6] The Court En Banc resolved to allow the
Special First Division to consider and resolve the Second Motion for
Reconsideration.
[7] Fulgencio, et al. v. NLRC, G.R. No.
141600, 12 September 2003.
[8] Astorga v. People, G.R. No. 154130, 1
October 2003.
[9] TSN, 15 August 2000, pp. 6-7, 9-10, 21.
[10] Id., pp. 8-9, 22-23.
[11] TSN, 16 August 2000, pp. 6-13.
[12] Record, p. 158.
[13] People v. Servano, G.R. Nos. 143002-03, 17
July 2003.
[14] People v. Lustre, G.R. No. 134562, 6 April
2000, 330 SCRA 189, 196.
[15] Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 14 (2).
[16] Rules of Court, Rule 133, Sec. 2.
[17] People v. Sodsod, G.R. Nos. 141280-81, 16
June 2003.
[18] People v. Batoctoy, G.R. Nos. 137458-59,
24 April 2003.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 154130, October 01, 2003 ]
BENITO ASTORGA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
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 Case No. 24986, dated July 5, 2001,[1] 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:
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 above-named 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.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]
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 was escorted by SPO3 Andres B. Cinco, Jr. and SPO1 Rufo
Capoquian.[3]
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, since Figueroa was not around
at the time, the team left Brgy. Bagacay.[4]
En route to Brgy. Manungca, Sta. Rita, Samar, the team spotted two more boats
being constructed in the vicinity of Brgy. Lucob-Lucob, 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 the boat construction. There, they met Mayor Astorga. After conversing
with the mayor, Militante returned to their boat for the purpose of fetching
Simon, at the request of Mayor Astorga.[5]
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 can declare
this a misencounter?)[6] 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 promptly surrounded the team, guns pointed at the team members.[7] At this, Simon tried to explain to Astorga the purpose of
his team's mission.[8] 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 not know your whereabouts
and so that you cannot ask for help).[9] 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 because I will not
tolerate it here.)[10] 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 would instead be brought to Daram.[11] Mayor Astorga then addressed the team, saying, "Kon
magdakop man la kamo, 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 surrender mine.)[12] 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 will bring you to Daram. We will have many
things to discuss there.)[13]
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 a long
table, and the meal lasted between 7:00-8:00 p.m.[14] After dinner, Militante, Maniscan and SPO1 Capoquian were
allowed to go down from the house, but not to leave the barangay.[15] 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.[16]
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 he pleaded
not guilty to the offenses charged.[17] At the trial, the
prosecution presented the testimonies of SPO1 Capoquian and SPO3 Cinco, as well
as their Joint Affidavit.[18] 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 by the DENR RSOG executed a
Joint Affidavit of Desistance.[19]
On July 5, 2001, the Sandiganbayan promulgated its Decision, disposing of the
case as follows:
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 correctional as maximum.
SO ORDERED.[20]
The accused filed a Motion for Reconsideration
dated July 11, 2001[21] which was denied by the Sandiganabayan in
a Resolution dated September 28, 2001.[22] A Second Motion
for Reconsideration dated October 24, 2001[23] was also filed,
and this was similarly denied in a Resolution dated July 10, 2002.[24]
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 latter categorically declared
petitioner's innocence of the crime charged.[25]
Petitioner contends that the prosecution failed
to establish the required quantum of evidence to prove the guilt of the
accused,[26] especially in light of the fact that the
private complainants executed a Joint Affidavit of Desistance.[27] Petitioner asserts that nowhere in the records of the case
is there any competent evidence that could sufficiently establish the fact that
restraint was employed upon the persons of the team members.[28] Furthermore, he claims that the mere presence of armed men
at the scene does not qualify as competent evidence to prove that fear was in
fact instilled in the minds of the team members, to the extent that they would
feel compelled to stay in Brgy. Lucob-Lucob.[29]
Arbitrary Detention is committed by any public officer or employee
who, without legal grounds, detains a person.[30] 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.[31]
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."[32] 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 of People v. Acosta,[33] which involved the
illegal detention of a child, we found the accused-appellant 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, the accused-appellant, had
returned, he was practically a captive in the sense that he could not leave
because of his fear to violate such instruction.[34]
In the case of People v. Cortez,[35] 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, are equivalent to the use of actual force
or violence.[36]
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 complainants were not allowed by petitioner
to go home.[37] 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 Capoquian's statement that it was not
"safe" to refuse Mayor Astorga's 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.
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.[40] 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 respect," are belied by petitioner's own admissions to the contrary.[41] 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 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 conditions who are
facing difficulties and are much dependent on government support.[42]
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 SPO1
Capoquian is not one of the private complainants in the case.[43] He also makes much of the fact that prosecution witness SPO1
Capoquian was 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
Lucob-Lucob in the early morning of 2 September 1997."[44]
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.[45] 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
that he accompanied Simon when the latter went to talk to petitioner.[46] He heard all of Mayor Astorga's threatening remarks.[47] He was with Simon when they were encircled by the men
dressed in fatigues and wielding M-16 and M-14 rifles.[48] 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 simply decided to
"while away the time" and take advantage of the purported hospitality
of the accused.[49] On the contrary, SPO3 Cinco clearly and
categorically denied that they were simply "whiling away the time"
between their dinner with Mayor Astorga and their departure early the following
morning.[50] SPO1 Capoquian gave similar testimony,
saying that they did not use the time between their dinner with Mayor Astorga
and their departure early the following morning to "enjoy the place"
and that, given a choice, they would have gone home.[51]
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.[52]
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.
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 continue
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 may be entitled for the unjustified violation of
their fundamental rights.[53]
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.
[1] Records, p. 255; penned by Associate Justice Rodolfo G.
Palattao, concurred in by Associate Justices Narciso S. Nario and Nicodemo T.
Ferrer.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[35] 381 Phil. 345 [2000]; citing People v. Dela
Cruz, 342 Phil. 854 [1997] and People v. Ramos, 358 Phil. 261 [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.
[40] People v. Ballabare, 332
Phil. 384 [1996].
[41] Records, p. 158; Rollo, pp.
27, 30-31, 32-33, 41.
[42] Id., p. 159.
[43] Rollo, pp. 28-29.
[44] Id., p. 20.
[45] People v. Torellos, G.R. No.
143084, 1 April 2003; citing People v. Daramay, G.R. Nos. 140235
& 142748, 9 May 2002.
[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.
[51] Id., p. 26.
[52] People v. Pinuela, G.R. Nos.
140727-28, 31 January 2003.
[53] Lino v. Fugoso, 77 Phil.
983 [1947]; concurring opinion of Justice Perfecto.
Comments
Post a Comment