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.

DECISION

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
Division Clerk of Court
[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.

DECISION

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.