Case Summary (G.R. No. 230825)
Petitioners
Pascasio Duropan and Raymond Nixer Coloma, barangay officials accused of conspiring to arrest William Pacis without legal justification, allegedly acted under a barangay‐issued surveillance order and claimed good faith reliance on suspected theft.
Respondent
The People of the Philippines, represented by the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office of Bohol, pressing for conviction based on lack of reasonable ground for the warrantless arrest.
Key Dates
• Incident: March 7, 2009
• Municipal Circuit Trial Court Decision: November 23, 2011
• Regional Trial Court Decision (RTC Branch 4, Tagbilaran City): May 17, 2013
• Court of Appeals Decision (CA-G.R. CR No. 02182): October 23, 2015
• Supreme Court Decision (G.R. No. 230825): June 10, 2020
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article III, Section 2 (Right against unreasonable searches and seizures)
• Revised Penal Code, Article 269 (Unlawful arrest)
• Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 113, Section 5 (When warrantless arrest is lawful)
Facts of the Case
On March 7, 2009, at 11:30 a.m., Duropan and Coloma observed Pacis and others harvesting nipa palms. Pacis identified himself as an ALIMANGO member. Despite this, the barangay officials physically compelled Pacis onto boats and brought him to the Maribojoc police station. No warrant was presented. Pacis and companions were subsequently released when police found no legal basis for their arrest.
Procedural History
The Municipal Circuit Trial Court found both petitioners guilty of unlawful arrest and imposed two to four months of arresto mayor and a ₱500 fine each. The RTC affirmed with slight modification of the prison period. The Court of Appeals likewise upheld conviction and added a 6% interest on the fine. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via petition for review on certiorari.
Elements of Unlawful Arrest
Under Article 269 RPC, the prosecution must prove:
- Arrest or detention of a person;
- Intent to deliver the person to proper authorities;
- Lack of legal authorization or reasonable ground for the arrest.
Authority to Arrest and Inherent Powers of Barangay Officials
Barangay kagawads and tanods are persons in authority under the Local Government Code but are not peace officers empowered to effect warrantless arrests except in in flagrante delicto situations. Their surveillance resolution did not confer general arrest powers.
Overt Act Test for In Flagrante Delicto Arrest
Rule 113, Section 5(a) RCrP allows warrantless arrest only if the suspect commits, is committing, or is attempting to commit a crime in the arresting officer’s presence. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that two elements must concur: (1) an overt act indicating immediate criminal conduct; and (2) that act occurred within the view of the arresting person. Both elements were absent: harvesting nipa leaves in broad daylight, without proof of theft or violent offense, did not constitute a crime observable in flagrante.
Analysis and Supreme Court Ruling
The Court held that Duropan and Coloma effected a de facto arrest, depriving Pacis of liberty to answer for an alleged offense. No reasonable ground existed, as Pacis had identified himself as an authorized cooperative member, and the barangay
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 230825)
Facts
- On the evening of March 7, 2009, in Barangay Lincod, Maribojoc, Bohol, petitioners Pascasio Duropan (barangay kagawad) and Raymond Nixer Coloma (barangay tanod) observed William Pacis and four companions harvesting nipa palms.
- Petitioners questioned their authority; Pacis claimed membership in the ALIMANGO cooperative, duly registered to manage mangrove-nipa areas.
- Doubting this claim and without a warrant, petitioners forced Pacis’s group into paddle boats and conveyed them to the Maribojoc police station.
- Chief of Police later released Pacis and his companions, finding no legal basis for their arrest.
Procedural History
- Municipal Circuit Trial Court (Crim. Case No. M-1467): convicted petitioners of Unlawful Arrest (Art. 269, RPC); sentenced each to 2 months & 1 day to 4 months arresto mayor and fine of ₱500.
- Regional Trial Court, Tagbilaran City (Crim. Case No. 15504): affirmed conviction; modified penalty to medium period of arresto mayor (2 months & 1 day) and fine of ₱500 plus costs.
- Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CR No. 02182): denied petitioners’ appeal; affirmed RTC decision with modification that the fine bears 6% interest per annum from finality until fully paid.
- Supreme Court (G.R. No. 230825): Petition for Review on Certiorari denied; CA decision and resolution affirmed.
Issues
- Whether petitioners effected an actual arrest of William Pacis.
- Whether there was reasonable ground or legal authorization for a w