G.R. No. 154130 - Astorga vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 154130)

Petitioner and Respondent

Petitioner is the local chief executive who allegedly summoned armed men and brought the DENR team to his house; respondent is the State prosecuting the crime of Arbitrary Detention under penal law as adjudicated first by the Sandiganbayan and then reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Facts occurred on September 1–2, 1997. Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner in Criminal Case No. 24986 (judgment dated July 5, 2001). The Supreme Court initially affirmed that conviction (Decision of October 1, 2003). Petitioner filed motions for reconsideration, including a second motion for reconsideration filed with leave; the Court reconsidered and rendered a later resolution reversing the conviction and acquitting petitioner.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Because the decision date falls after 1990, the 1987 Philippine Constitution governs constitutional provisions cited, specifically Article III, Section 14(2) on presumption of innocence. Relevant procedural law: Rules of Court, Rule 133, Section 2 concerning the standard of proof in criminal cases. The elements and jurisprudential standards applicable to the crime of Arbitrary Detention as stated in the Court’s decision are controlling.

Summary of Facts

A DENR team and two police escorts found two boats under construction at Barangay Locob‑Locob and encountered Mayor Astorga, owner of the boats. A heated altercation occurred; the mayor called reinforcements and a boat with ten armed men arrived. The DENR team was taken to petitioner’s house, where they had dinner and the team departed around 2:00 a.m. The private offended parties later reported the incident to supervisors and executed a joint affidavit of desistance, then ceased appearing to testify.

Charges, Conviction and Initial Supreme Court Decision

Petitioner was charged with and convicted of Arbitrary Detention by the Sandiganbayan. The Supreme Court initially denied the petition for review and affirmed the Sandiganbayan conviction on October 1, 2003, imposing an indeterminate penalty (as described in the Sandiganbayan judgment). Petitioner’s first motion for reconsideration was denied with finality on January 12, 2004.

Second Motion for Reconsideration: Grounds Asserted

With leave, petitioner filed a second motion for reconsideration alleging, inter alia: the armed men were not summoned for the purpose of detaining the DENR team; there is no evidence that the DENR members insisted on leaving; the private offended parties declared petitioner’s innocence in a joint affidavit of desistance; and criminal intent was lacking.

Court’s Authority to Admit a Second Motion for Reconsideration

The Court recognized as a general rule that a second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading but has discretionary power to admit such pleading when substantive justice may be better served. The rules of procedure are tools to achieve justice and may be suspended or relaxed where their strict application would frustrate justice.

Legal Elements of Arbitrary Detention

The Court restated the elements: (1) the offender is a public officer or employee; (2) he detains a person; and (3) the detention is without legal ground. In cases without actual physical restraint, the determinative factor is fear — a subjective state of mind of the victim.

Evaluation of the Determinative Factor: Fear

Because fear is subjective and addressed to the mind of the victim, its presence must be assessed in light of the victim’s perception at the time. The Court emphasized that witnesses who are not victims themselves (e.g., police escorts) are not competent to establish the subjective fear of the private offended parties.

Testimony of SPO1 Capoquian and SPO3 Cinco

SPO1 Capoquian’s testimony indicated the team arrived around 5:00 p.m., had dinner at petitioner’s house, and left at approximately 2:00 a.m. He testified that there was laughter during dinner, that the DENR team partook in dinner (but he denied they drank wine), and that the team were free to leave and could roam the barangay. While he stated an impression that they were told not to leave the barangay, he also admitted he heard no explicit prohibition and that he did not observe actual restraint. The testimonial record therefore tended to negate clear evidence of detention through coercion or imposed restraint.

Weather and Safety Considerations

Testimony showed it was raining after dinner and that sea travel may have been unsafe. The Court found it plausible that petitioner advised the team to remain on the island for safety reasons. Such a precautionary motive and the convivial circumstances of shared dinner and conversation were inconsistent with a hostile detention scenario.

Joint Affidavit of Desistance and Non‑appearance of Private Offended Parties

All private offended parties executed a joint affidavit of desistance explaining the incident as a misunderstanding, acknowledging respect for the mayor and voluntary acceptance of dinner, and stating they were eventually allowed to leave. Thereafter they did not reappear to testify. The Court treated this affidavit and the absence of direct victim testimon

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 154130)

Facts of the Case

The private offended parties were Elpidio Simon, Moises de la Cruz, Wenefredo Maniscan, Renato Militante and Crisanto Pelias, members of the Regional Special Operations Group (RSOG) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Tacloban City.
On September 1, 1997, the DENR team, together with SPO3 Andres B. Cinco, Jr. and SPO1 Rufo Capoquian of the Philippine National Police Regional Intelligence Group, proceeded 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 under construction at Barangay Locob‑Locob (Lucodlucod), measuring 18 meters by 5 meters, and there met Benito Astorga, then Mayor of Daram, who was the owner of the boats.
A heated altercation ensued between petitioner and the DENR team. Petitioner called for reinforcements and shortly thereafter a boat bearing ten armed men, some wearing fatigues, arrived at the scene.
The DENR team was brought to petitioner’s house in Daram, where they had dinner and drinks; the team left at 2:00 a.m. the following morning.
It was raining that evening and into the night; weather and sea conditions were discussed during testimony, with some recollection that heavy rain occurred after 8:00 p.m. up to about 1:00 a.m.
Testimonial evidence indicated laughter and conversational exchange between the Mayor and the DENR team during dinner; witnesses described participation in dinner and, in at least one instance, knowledge that wine was present though not necessarily consumed by the police escort.
After their return to their official stations, the DENR members reported the incident and were required to submit affidavits; subsequently they executed a Joint Affidavit of Desistance stating misunderstanding, reconciliation, and lack of interest to pursue the case against the Mayor.

Procedural History

Petitioner Benito Astorga was charged with and convicted by the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 24986 for the crime of Arbitrary Detention.
The Sandiganbayan’s Decision, dated July 5, 2001, found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to the indeterminate penalty of four (4) months arresto mayor as minimum to one (1) year and eight (8) months prision correccional as maximum.
On petition for review, the Supreme Court rendered a Decision on October 1, 2003 affirming the Sandiganbayan’s conviction and sentence.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied with finality on January 12, 2004.
Petitioner filed an Urgent Motion for Leave to File Second Motion for Reconsideration with an attached Motion for Reconsideration, and thereafter a Supplement to the Second Motion for Reconsideration.
The Court En Banc resolved to allow the Special First Division to consider and resolve the Second Motion for Reconsideration.
The prosecution was required to comment on the second Motion for Reconsideration and the Supplement.

Grounds Raised in the Second Motion for Reconsideration (as Alleged by Petitioner)

The armed men who arrived were not summoned by petitioner for the purpose of detaining the private offended parties.
There was no evidence that the supposed victims insisted on leaving the place where they were allegedly detained.
The supposed victims themselves declared the innocence of petitioner.
Criminal intent on the part of the accused was lacking.

Court’s Discretion to Admit Second Motion for Reconsideration

While generally a second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading, the Court may, in its sound discretion, admit a second motion filed with prior leave whenever substantive justice may be better served.
The rules of procedure are tools to facilitate justice; courts are not bound mechanically by technical rules where application would frustrate justice.
The Court may suspend or except a particular case from the operation of the rules when necessary to promote substantive rights and justice.

Elements of the Crime of Arbitrary Detention (as Stated in the Source)

That the offender is a public officer or employee.
That he detains a person.
That the detention is without legal grounds.

Determinative Factor: Fear as Element of Arbitrary Detention

In cases without actual physical restraint, the determinative factor is fear.
Fear is a state of mind and is necessarily subjective; its presence must be assessed in light of the perception and judgment of the victim at the time of the alleged crime.
The presence of fear cannot be tested by any hard‑and‑fast rule but should be viewed from the victim’s perspective.

Testimony of SPO1 Rufo Capoquian (Police Escort) — Key Excerpts and Observations

SPO1 Capoquian testified they arrived at Lucodlucod at about 5:00 p.m. and left at 2:00 a.m. on September 2.
He testified that Mayor Astorga told them to have dinner and brought them to a house where they had dinner.
He acknowledged the presence of wine but, with respect to the police escort’s consumption, stated they had no wine.
He described la