Title
People vs. Dongail
Case
G.R. No. 217972
Decision Date
Feb 17, 2020
Police officers abducted, detained, and murdered three victims; convicted of arbitrary detention and murder, with aggravating circumstances, and ordered to pay damages.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 154113)

Nature of the Crimes and Accusations

Respondents, acting as police officers, were charged with complex crimes of arbitrary detention with murder under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The Informations alleged that on August 31, 2003, they and other co-conspirators unlawfully deprived the three victims of liberty, interrogated and tortured them across multiple sites, and ultimately shot Suganob and Lomoljo on September 1, 2003, and Salabas on September 15, 2003, in Ajuy, Iloilo.

Procedural History to the Supreme Court

– Trial Court (RTC, Manila Branch 27) consolidated three Informations and, on April 13, 2011, convicted respondents of three counts each of murder (Art. 248, RPC) and arbitrary detention (Art. 124, RPC), imposing indeterminate prison terms and awarding damages.
– Court of Appeals affirmed on July 31, 2014, sustaining separate convictions for murder and arbitrary detention, applying aggravating circumstances of treachery, abuse of superior strength, and cruelty.
– Respondents elevated the case to the Supreme Court, challenging the characterization as a complex crime, the discharge of Brillantes as state witness, and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence regarding Salabas’s death.

Complex Crime vs Separate Offenses

Under Article 48, a complex crime arises when one felony is a necessary means for committing another or when multiple felonies are consummated in one act. The Supreme Court held that arbitrary detention was not a necessary means to murder, as respondents could have killed the victims without prior abduction. The detention was consummated before the killings; therefore, the offenses are separate and distinct, warranting independent convictions.

Elements of Murder and Arbitrary Detention

Murder (Art. 248, RPC): (1) a person was killed; (2) respondents caused the death; (3) qualifying circumstance(s) attended the killing; (4) the crime is neither parricide nor infanticide. The Court found direct testimony of Brillantes proved the killings of Suganob and Lomoljo. Salabas’s murder was proven by an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence: surveillance, abduction, confinement, sightings at various locations, and recovery of his cadaver.
Arbitrary Detention (Art. 124, RPC): (1) offender is a public officer; (2) detains a person; (3) detention lacks legal grounds. All elements were satisfied by respondents’ unauthorized custody of the three victims.

State Witness Discharge

Brillantes was discharged as a state witness under Rule 119, Sec. 17 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court found no impropriety, as the RTC correctly determined that his testimony was necessary, corroborated, and that he was not the most guilty nor tainted by moral turpitude.

Sentences and Damages

– Murder: Reclusion perpetua for each of the three counts, with qualifying aggravating circumstances of treachery, abuse of superior strength (absorbed in treachery for two victims), and cruelty.
– Arbitrary Detention: Two terms of




...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.