You are on page 1of 4

Milo vs.

Salanga
By: Krissy Tullo
On Arbitrary Detention, Article 124 of the RPC
G.R. No. L-37007
July 20, 1987
FACTS
An information for Arbitrary Detention was filed against herein private respondent (accused Barrio
Captain Tuvera, Sr.) and some other private persons for maltreating petitioner Valdez by hitting him
with butts of their guns and fist blows. Immediately thereafter, without legal grounds and with
deliberate intent to deprive the latter of his constitutional liberty, accused respondent and two
members of the police force of Mangsat conspired and helped one another in lodging and locking
petitioner inside the municipal jail of Manaoag, Pangasinan for about eleven (11) hours.
Accused-respondent then filed a motion to quash the information on the ground that the facts
charged do not constitute the elements of said crime and that the proofs adduced at the investigation
are not sufficient to support the filing of the information. Petitioner Asst. Provincial Fiscal Milo filed an
opposition thereto. Consequently, averring that accused-respondent was not a public officer who can
be charged with Arbitrary Detention, respondent Judge Salanga granted the motion to quash in an
order. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE
Whether or not accused-respondent, being a Barrio Captain, can be liable for the crime of Arbitrary
Detention.
HELD
Yes. The public officers liable for Arbitrary Detention must be vested with authority to detain or order
the detention of persons accused of a crime. One need not be a police officer to be chargeable with
Arbitrary Detention. It is accepted that other public officers like judges and mayors, who act with
abuse of their functions, may be guilty of this crime. A perusal of the powers and function vested in
mayors would show that they are similar to those of a barrio captain except that in the case of the
latter, his territorial jurisdiction is smaller. Having the same duty of maintaining peace and order, both
must be and are given the authority to detain or order detention. Noteworthy is the fact that even
private respondent Tuvera himself admitted that with the aid of his rural police, he as a barrio
captain, could have led the arrest of petitioner Valdez.

People vs. Burgos (G.R. No. L-68955 September 4, 1986)


G.R. No. L-68955 September 4, 1986
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
RUBEN BURGOS y TITO, defendant-appellant.
Facts: Defendant is charged with illegal possession of firearm in furtherance of subversion
(tasks such as recruiting members to the NPA and collection of contributions from its
members) and found guilty by the RTC of Digos, Davao del Sur. From the information filed
by the police authorities upon the information given by Masamlok, allegedly a man
defendant tried to recruit into the NPA, the police authorities arrest defendant and had his
house searched. Subsequently, certain NPA-related documents and a firearm, allegedly
issued and used by one Alias Cmdr. Pol of the NPA, are confiscated. Defendant denies being
involved in any subversive activities and claims that he has been tortured in order to accept
ownership of subject firearm and that his alleged extrajudicial statements have been made
only under fear, threat and intimidation on his person and his family. He avers that his
arrest is unlawful as it is done without valid warrant, that the trial court erred in holding the
search warrant in his house for the firearm lawful, and that the trial court erred in holding
him guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of PD 9 in relation to GOs 6and 7.
Issue: If defendants arrest, the search of his home, and the subsequent confiscation of a
firearm and several NPA-related documents are lawful.
Held: Records disclose that when the police went to defendants house to arrest him upon
the information given by Masamlok, they had neither search nor arrest warrant with them
in wanton violation of ArtIV, Sec 3 (now Art III, sec 2). As the Court held in Villanueva vs
Querubin, the state, however powerful, doesnt have access to a mans home, his
haven of refuge where his individuality can assert itself in his choice of welcome
and in the kind of objects he wants around him. In the traditional formulation, a mans
house, however humble, is his castle, and thus is outlawed any unwarranted intrusion by
the government.
The trial court justified the warrantless arrest under Rule 113 Sec 6 of the RoC:
a)
b)
c)

When the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is about to


commit an offense in his presence;
When an offense has in fact been committed, and he has reasonable ground to believe that
the person to be arrested has committed it;
When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment
or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending
or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another
and the confiscation of the firearm under Rule 126, Sec 12:
A person charged with an offense may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything
which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense.
However, the trial court has erred in its conclusion that said warrantless arrest is under
the ambit of aforementioned RoC. At the time of defendants arrest, he wasnt in actual
possession of any firearm or subversive document, and was not committing any
subversive acthe was plowing his field. It is not enough that there is reasonable
ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a crime in a

warrantless arrest. An essential precondition is that a crime must have beenin fact
or actually have been committed first; it isnt enough to suspect a crime may have
been committed. The test of reasonable ground applies only to the identity of the
perpetrator. The Court also finds no compelling reason for the haste with which the arresting
officers sought to arrest the accused. We fail to see why they failed to first go through the
process of obtaining a warrant of arrest, if indeed they had reasonable ground to believe
that the accused had truly committed a crime. There is no showing that there was a real
apprehension that the accused was on the verge of flight or escape. Likewise, there is no
showing that the whereabouts of the accused were unknown.
In proving the ownership of the questioned firearm and alleged subversive documents,
assuming they were really illegal, the defendant was never informed of his constitutional
rights at the time of his arrest; thus the admissions obtained are in violation of the
constitutional right against self-incrimination under Sec 20 Art IV (now Sec 12, Art III) and
thus inadmissible as evidence.
Furthermore, the defendant was not accorded his constitutional right to be assisted by
counsel during the custodial interrogation. His extra-judicial confession, the firearm, and the
alleged subversive documents are all inadmissible as evidence. In light of the
aforementioned, defendant is acquitted on grounds of reasonable doubt of the crime with
which he has been charged. Subject firearm and alleged subversive documents have been
disposed of in accordance with law.
The Court also maintains that violations of human rights do not help in overcoming a
rebellion. Reiterating Morales vs Enrile, while the government should continue to
repel the communists, the subversives, the rebels, and the lawless with the means
at its command, it should always be remembered that whatever action is taken
must always be within the framework of our Constitution and our laws

HI guys,
Please see below the list of cases for our criminal law:
1. Laurel v Misa 1947
2. PP v Perez 1949
3. PP v Prieto 1948
4. PP v Manayao 1947
5. PP v Adriano
6. PP v Lol-lo and Saraaw 1992
7. PP v Rodriguez 1985
8. PP v. Siyoh 1985
9. Umil v Ramos 1990
10. PP v Burgos 1986
11. Nilo v. Salazar 1987
12. Stonehill v. Diokno 1967
13. Burgos v. Chief of Staff 1984
14. PP v Mandoriao 1955

15. PP v Pengson 1971


16. PP v Nanoy 1972
17. Enrile v Salazar 1990
18. Enrile v Amin 1990
19. PP v Dasig 1993
20. PP v Lovidioro 1995
21. PP v Cabrera 1922
22. US v Tolentino 1906
23. Espanolas v PP 1951
24. Martinez v Morfe 1972
25. 25. PP v Beltran 1985
26. Tanega v Msakayan 1967
27. PP v Abilong 1948
28. Torres v Gonzales 1987
29. PP v Dioso 1964
30. PP v Hernandez
31. PP v Doriantes
32. PP v Kong Leon 1950
33. Del Rosario V People 1961
34. PPv Galvano 1958
35. PP v Romualdez 1932
36. Beradio v CA 1982
37. Luage v Ca 1982
38. PP v Sendaydiego 1978
39. Siquian v. People 1989
40. PP v Villalon 1990
41. PP v Dara
42. PP v Cotez
43. Gigantoni v PP
44. Legamia v IAC 1984
45. Diaz v People
46.Ouano v Ca
47. PP v KOttinger
48. PP vs Aparici
49. PP vs Padan 1957

You might also like