Benito Astorga, Petitioner, vs. People of The PHILIPPINES, Respondent
Benito Astorga, Petitioner, vs. People of The PHILIPPINES, Respondent
Benito Astorga, Petitioner, vs. People of The PHILIPPINES, Respondent
BENITO
ASTORGA, petitioner,
PHILIPPINES, respondent.
vs.
PEOPLE
OF
THE
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, as well as its Resolutions dated September 28, 2001 and July 10, 2002.
[1]
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]
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 4:305:00 p.m., prompting them to stop and investigate. Thus, Maniscan and Militante
disembarked from the DENRs 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. Dont you know that I can
box? I can box. Dont you know that I can declare this a misencounter?) Mayor
Astorga then ordered someone to fetch reinforcements, and forty-five (45) minutes
later, or between 5:00-6:00 p.m., a banca arrived bearing ten (10) men, some of them
dressed in fatigue uniforms. The men were armed with M-16 and M14 rifles, and they
promptly surrounded the team, guns pointed at the team members. At this, Simon tried
to explain to Astorga the purpose of his teams mission. He then took out his handheld
ICOM radio, saying that he was going to contact his people at the DENR in Catbalogan
to inform them of the teams whereabouts. Suddenly, Mayor Astorga forcibly grabbed
Simons radio, saying, Maupay nga waray kamo radio bis diri somabut an iyo opisina
kon hain kamo, bis diri kamo maka aro hin bulig. (Its better if you have no radio so that
your office would not know your whereabouts and so that you cannot ask for help).
Mayor Astorga again slapped the right shoulder of Simon, adding, Kong siga kamo ha
Leyte ayaw pagdad-a dinhi ha Samar kay diri kamo puwede ha akon. (If you are tough
guys in Leyte, do not bring it to Samar because I will not tolerate it here.) Simon then
asked Mayor Astorga to allow the team to go home, at which Mayor Astorga retorted
that they would not be allowed to go home and that they would instead be brought to
Daram. 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.) 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.)
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[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. After dinner, Militante, Maniscan and SPO1
Capoquian were allowed to go down from the house, but not to leave the barangay.
On the other hand, SPO3 Cinco and the rest just sat in the house until 2:00 a.m.
when the team was finally allowed to leave.
[14]
[15]
[16]
[18]
[19]
[20]
The accused filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated July 11, 2001 which was
denied by the Sandiganabayan in a Resolution dated September 28, 2001. A Second
Motion for Reconsideration dated October 24, 2001 was also filed, and this was
similarly denied in a Resolution dated July 10, 2002.
[21]
[22]
[23]
[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 petitioners 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, especially in light of the fact that the private
complainants executed a Joint Affidavit of Desistance. Petitioner asserts that nowhere
in the records of the case is there any competent evidence that could sufficiently
establish the fact that restraint was employed upon the persons of the team members.
[26]
[27]
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. LucobLucob.
[28]
[29]
1.
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. The detention was thus without legal grounds, thereby satisfying the third
element enumerated above.
[32]
What remains is the determination of whether or not the team was actually
detained.
In the case of People v. Acosta, 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.
[33]
[34]
In the case of People v. Cortez, we held that, in establishing the intent to deprive
the victim of his liberty, it is not necessary that the offended party be kept within an
enclosure to restrict her freedom of locomotion. At the time of her rescue, the offended
party in said case was found outside talking to the owner of the house where she had
been taken. She explained that she did not attempt to leave the premises for fear that
the kidnappers would make good their threats to kill her should she do so. We ruled
therein that her fear was not baseless as the kidnappers knew where she resided and
they had earlier announced that their intention in looking for her cousin was to kill him
on sight. Thus, we concluded that fear has been known to render people immobile and
that appeals to the fears of an individual, such as by threats to kill or similar threats, are
equivalent to the use of actual force or violence.
[35]
[36]
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. 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. Given such
circumstances, we give credence to SPO1 Capoquians statement that it was not safe
to refuse Mayor Astorgas orders. It was not just the presence of the armed men, but
also the evident effect these gunmen had on the actions of the team which proves that
fear was indeed instilled in the minds of the 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.
[37]
[38]
[39]
[41]
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 Sandiganbayans reliance on the testimony of SPO1 Capoquian is
misplaced, for the reason that SPO1 Capoquian is not one of the private complainants
in the case. He also makes much of the fact that prosecution witness SPO1
Capoquian was 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.
[43]
[44]
It is a time-honored doctrine that the trial courts factual findings are conclusive and
binding upon appellate courts unless some facts or circumstances of weight and
substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted. Nothing in the
case at bar prompts us to deviate from this doctrine. 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 Astorgas
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. He heard all of Mayor Astorgas
threatening remarks. He was with Simon when they were encircled by the men
dressed in fatigues and wielding M-16 and M-14 rifles. In sum, SPO1 Capoquian
witnessed all the circumstances which led to the Arbitrary Detention of the team at the
hands of Mayor Astorga.
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
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. 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. 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.
[49]
[50]
[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:
[53]
[1]
Records, p. 255; penned by Associate Justice Rodolfo G. Palattao, concurred in by Associate Justices
Narciso S. Nario and Nicodemo T. Ferrer.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
Exhibit B, p. 2.
[9]
[10]
Exhibit B, p. 2.
[11]
[12]
Exhibit B, p. 2.
[13]
Id.
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
Records, p. 158.
[20]
[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]
[27]
[28]
[29]
Id., p. 27.
[30]
[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]
[33]
[34]
[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]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
Id., p. 159.
[43]
[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]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
Id., p. 26.
[52]
[53]
- versus -
Promulgated:
August 20, 2004
x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
RESOLUTION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
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.
2.
3.
4.
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]
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).
Yes sir.
Yes sir.
And you ate dinner between 5:00 oclock to 2:00 oclock in the morning
of September 2, is that correct?
And Mayor Astorga brought you to a house where you had dinner?
Yes sir.
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 oclock Mayor Astorga
was with you having dinner?
You did not hear the conversation between the Mayor and the foresters,
the complainants here?
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?
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
And the weather was not good for motorized travel at that particular time
that you were in Lucoblucob, Daram?
I know it is raining but I could not say that you could not travel.
What was the condition of the sea at that time when you were in
Lucoblucob?
The sea was good in fact we did not get wet and there were no waves at
that time.
It was not raining at the day but after we ate in the evening it rained.
It was raining hard in fact after 8:00 p.m. up to 1:00 oclock in the
morning is that correct?
A little bit hard I dont know when the rain stopped, sir.
It is possible that it rain.. the rain stopped at 1:00 oclock in the morning
of September 2?
xxx
xxx
AJ PALATTAO:
q
No Your Honor.
Up to what point did you reach when you were allegedly prevented to go
somewhere?
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?
But on your part can you just leave that place or somebody will prevent
you to go somewhere else?
What I felt I will not be able to leave because we were already told not to
leave the barangay.
In other words, you can go places in that barangay but you are not
supposed to leave that barangay, is this Barangay Daram?
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?
No Your Honor.
Why are you very positive that in your case you can leave but in the case
of those I have enumerated they cannot, why?
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
6.
xxx
xxx;
7.
8.
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 Capoquians 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 hardand-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 petitioners 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 prosecutions
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.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified
that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
[1]
Rollo, p. 197.
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.
[2]