Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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.
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