Case Digest (G.R. No. 154130)
Facts:
In Benito Astorga v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 154130, decided August 20, 2004 under the 1987 Constitution, the petitioner Benito Astorga, then Mayor of Daram, Samar, was charged with the crime of Arbitrary Detention before the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 24986. On September 1, 1997, a team composed of five members of the Regional Special Operations Group of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and two police escorts proceeded to Barangay Locob-Locob, Daram to investigate illegal logging. They encountered Mayor Astorga, a heated argument ensued, and Astorga summoned about ten armed men. The DENR team was brought to the mayor’s house where they shared dinner and drinks, remaining until 2:00 a.m. the next day before departing of their own accord. The Sandiganbayan convicted Astorga on July 5, 2001, sentencing him to an indeterminate term. This Court affirmed the conviction on October 1, 2003. A motion for reconsideration was denied on January 12, 20...Case Digest (G.R. No. 154130)
Facts:
- Incident and Parties
- On September 1, 1997, members of the DENR Regional Special Operations Group (Elpidio Simon, Moises de la Cruz, Wenefredo Maniscan, Renato Militante, Crisanto Pelias) with PNP escorts SPO3 Andres B. Cinco, Jr. and SPO1 Rufo Capoquian went to Barangay Locob-Locob, Daram, Samar to investigate illegal logging.
- They discovered two boats under construction owned by Mayor Benito Astorga. A verbal altercation ensued. Astorga summoned ten armed men, escorted the DENR team to his house, and entertained them with dinner and drinks. The team departed at about 2:00 a.m. the next day.
- Procedural History
- The Sandiganbayan charged and convicted Astorga of Arbitrary Detention (Crim. Case No. 24986), sentencing him to 4 months and 1 year 8 months.
- On October 1, 2003, the Supreme Court Special First Division affirmed the conviction. A Motion for Reconsideration was denied on January 12, 2004.
- Astorga sought leave to file a second Motion for Reconsideration, arguing lack of intent to detain, absence of fear, exculpatory affidavits by victims, and insufficient proof of detention. The Court En Banc allowed consideration of the second motion.
Issues:
- Whether the elements of Arbitrary Detention—public officer, detention, absence of legal grounds—were proven beyond reasonable doubt, specifically whether fear was instilled in the victims.
- Whether the Court may, in the interest of substantive justice, grant leave to entertain a second Motion for Reconsideration.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)