1.

2.
3.
4.
5.

People vs Camerino *25

Ilagana vs Enrile *26
People vs Burgos *27
Sayo vs Chief of Police *28
US vs Santos 36 Phil 853 *29 Nature of the Action:
Material Facts:
Ruling:
Ratio:
Personal knowledge of facts in arrests without a warrant must be based
upon probable cause, which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of
suspicions p. 46
Prevention of a crime is just as commendatory as the capture of criminals.
Surely the officer must not be forced to wait the commission of robbery or
other felony. The rule is supported by the necessities of life. The applicable
principles rest upon the same foundation of reason and common sense. P48

6. People vs Ancheta (68 Phil 415) #30

Nature of the Action:
Material Facts:
Ruling:
Ratio:
7. US vs Batallones (23 Phil 46) GR No. 7248 *31
Nature of the Action:
Material Facts: from p48:
A constabulary officer was engaged to marry a girl, but later, the
engagement was broken. Thereafter, while the officer was passing in front of
the girls house, he was assaulted by the girls two brothers, after the girl had
approached him in a friendly manner, which she never did before. He
suspected that the girl had conspired with assailants, and so he ordered her
arrest and detention. The officer filed a complaint against the girl and her
brothers. For the girls arrest and detention, the officer was charged with
arbitrary detention.
Issue/s: W/N
Ruling: No, the Constabulary officer was not guilty of arbitrary
detention
Ratio: page 49
Arbitrary detention depends upon the nature of the deed. It is sufficient that
the agent or person in authority making the arrest has reasonable sufficient
grounds to believe the existence of an act having the characteristics of a
crime and that the same grounds exist for him to believe that the person
sought to be detained participated therein. The obligation to make an arrest
by a reason of a crime, does not presuppose as a necessary requisite for the
fulfillment thereof, the indubitable existence of ca crime.
8. US vs Hachaw (21 Phil 514) *32
Nature of the Action:
Material Facts:
Ruling:

Ratio:
9. Paraluman vs Director of Prisons (22 SCRA 638) *33
Nature of the Action:
Material Facts:
Ruling:
Ratio:
10.
People vs Sali (CA 50 OG 5676) *34
Nature of the Action:
Material Facts:
Ruling:
Ratio:
11.
Lino vs Fugoso (77 Phil 937) GR No. L-1159 *35
Nature of the Action:
Material Facts:
Ruling:
Ratio:
Lino v Fugoso
CECILIO M. LINO
vs.
VALERIANO E. FUGOSO, LAMBERTO JAVALERA, and JOHN DOE, in their capacity
as Mayor, Chief of Police and Officer in charge of municipal jail, all of the City
of Manila
G.R. No. L-1159

January 30, 1947

MORAN, C.J.:

Milo v Salanga
c/o A2015 Crim Digests
RAMON S. MILO, in his capacity as Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Pangasinan, and
ARMANDO VALDEZ
vs.
ANGELITO C. SALANGA, in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of
Pangasinan(Branch IV), and JUAN TUVERA, SR
[G.R. No.L-37007. July 20, 1987.]
GANCAYCO, J
Doctrine:
Arbitrary detention is commited by a public officer who, without legal grounds, detains a
person. The elements of this crime are: 1) That the officer is a PUBLIC OFFICER or
EMPLOYEE, 2) That he DETAINS a person, and 3) That detention is without legal grounds
***Milo here is the the Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Pangasinan
Facts:
1.) 12 Oct. 1972 Information for Arbitrary Detention filed against Juan Tuvera Sr.,
Tomas Mendoza and Rodolfo Mangsat in CFI of Pangasinan stating:

a. 21 April 1973 Juan Tuvera, Sr. (barrio captain) et al. MALTREATED Armando
Valdez, hitting the latter w/ butts of guns and fist blows
b. Tuvera w/o legal grounds and w/ members of the police force of Mangsat,
Pangasinan conspiring, confedenrating and helping one another (JRB: I
put this for good measure) LODGED and LOCKED Valdez inside the
municipal jail of Manaoag, Pangasinan for about 11 hours.
2.) 4 April 1973 Tuvera filed motion to quash the Info bec. Acc. To him:
a. Facts do not constitute an offense (i.e., barrio captain =/= public official)
b. Proofs adduced at the investigation are not sufficient to support the filing of
the information
c. TUVERAs ARGUMENTS:
i. He didnt have authority to make an arrest nor jail and detain Valdez
(bec. Barrio capt. Only)
ii. He is neither a peace officer or policeman
iii. He was not a public official
iv. He had nothing to do with the detention of Valdez (cops did it)
v. He is not directly or indirectly connected in the admin. Of the Manaoag
Police Force
vi. Barrio capts on 21 April 1972 were not yet Persons in Authority and it
was only through PD 299 that they became such.
vii. Proper charge was ILLEGAL detention, and not ARBITRARY DETENTION
d. Asst. Provincial Fiscal Milo filed an opposition to the motion
3.) 25 April 1973 Judge Salanga granted the motion to quash; found that Tuvera, Sr.
was NOT a Public Officer who can be charged with Arbitrary Detention (see
QuickGuide for requisites of Arbit. Det.)
ISSUES:
1.) Whether Tuvera, Sr. committed the crime of Arbitrary Detention against
Armando Valdez (By god, YES!)
RULING: Petition for Certiorari granted. The questioned order (granting motion to
quash) is set aside. CASE REMANDED to appropriate trial court for further proceedings.
RATIO:
1.) Requisites of Arbitrary Detention are present
a. The Information charges Tuvera (barrio capt.) to having conspired with Corporal
Mendoza and Pat. Magsat who are members of the police force of Manaoag
Pangasinan in detaining peti. Valdez for about 11 hrs. in municipal jail w/o legal
ground.
b. Requirement of a Public Officer contemplated in Arbitrary Detention:
i. Must have authority to detain or order the detention of persons accused of ac
rime
ii. Public Officers = policemen, other agents of the law (judges, mayors)
c. Court has held barrio lieutenants (ie, barrio captains/brgy captains) as PERSONS in
AUTHORITY
i. US v Braganza - Barrio Lieutenant and a Municip. Councilor arrested a priest
in church; no crime committed by the priest; the 2 were convicted of arbitrary
detention
ii. US v Gellada a Barrio Lieutenant w/ a Mr. Soliman, tied his houseboy Sixto
and delivered him to a justice of the peace, where he was detained during the
whole night until 9 am the next day. Justice of the peace released Sixto bec.

He had not committed a crime. Barrio Lieutenant Gellada was convicted of

arbitrary detention
d. RA No. 3590 (Revised Barrio Charter)
i. Powers and duties of a barrio captain include looking after maintenance of
public order in the barrio and assist municipal mayor and councilor in the
performance of duties in such barrio, to look after gen. welfare, enforce all
laws and ordinances w/in barrio, organize/lead an emergency group when
necessary to maintain peace and order
e. Prof. Aruegos Treatise on Barrio Govt Law and Administration (VERY
IMPORTANT This part SEALS the deal)
i. Upon barrio capt. Depends in the main the maintenance of public order in
the barrioHe is the peace officer in the barrio considered under the law as a
person in authority. As such HE MAY MAKE ARREST AND DETAIN
PERSONS W/IN LEGAL LIMITS.
ii. ERGO, one need not be a police officer to be chargeable w/ Arbitrary
Detention
iii. Powers and Functions of Mayors SIMILAR to those of brgy capt.; only
difference is in size of jurisdiction
iv. TUVERA STUPID ADMISSION:
1. W/ aid of his rural police, he as barrio capt. Could have led arrest of
peti. Valdez
BONUS PART (Mainly Procedural)
On Motion to Quash:
1.) Tuvera asserted Motion to Quash was VALID as he only sought the aid and assistance
of the Manaoag Police Force and that he only accompanied Valdez to town for the
latters personal safety
a. SC: Save it for your defense in trial, Tuvera!
i. These additional facts mentioned by Tuvera are contrary to the
Information filed or do not appear on its face, and so cannot be heard on
hearing for a motion to quash.
NOTES FROM THE CASE ITSELF:
1.) There is no criminal delay in the delivery of the accused to the court, where the two
days following his arrest were holidays. (Medina vs. Orosco)
2.) A public officer or employee who DETAINS a person w/o LEGAL GROUNDS is
guilty of ARBITRARY DETENTION.
HOWEVER, a person so detained WILL NOT BE RELEASED if afterwards he is detained
under a valid information.

12.
People vs Acosta (CA 84 OG 4742) *36
Nature of the Action:
Material Facts:
Ruling:
Ratio:
13.
Villavicencio vs Lukban (39 Phil 778) *37
Nature of the Action:
Material Facts:
Ruling:

Ratio:
14.
US vs Vallejo (11 Phil 193) *38
Nature of the Action:
Material Facts:
Ruling:
Ratio:
US v Vallejo
THE UNITED STATES
vs.
SALVADOR VALLEJO, ET AL.,
[G.R. No. 4367. September 3, 1908.]
TRACEY, J
Crimes Against Public Order Digests
(c/o Anit. Bernardo. Calleja. Cantos. Damasing. Dela Cruz. Hipolito. Regalado.
Santos)
Rebellion
People v Hernandez
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs.
AMADO V. HERNANDEZ, ET AL.,
99 Phil. 515.
Facts:
This refers to the petition for bail filed by defendant appellant Amado Hernandez on
June 26, 1954, and renewed on December 22, 1955. The prosecution maintains that
Hernandez is charged with, and has been convicted of, rebellion complexed with
murders, arsons and robberies, for which the capital punishment, it is claimed, may be
imposed, although the lower court sentenced him merely to life imprisonment. On the
other hand, the defense contends, among other things, that rebellion can not be
complexed with murder, arson, or robbery.
The amended Information contained the allegation that on or about March 15, 1945,
and for some time before the said date and continuously thereafter until the present
time, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring, confederating, and
cooperating with each other, as well as with the 31 other defendants, being then
officers and/or members of, or otherwise associated with the Congress of Labor
Organizations (CLO), formerly known as the Committee on Labor Organization (CLO), did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously help, support, promote, maintain,
cause, direct and/or command the 'Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan' (HMB) or the
Hukbalahaps (Huks) to rise publicly and take arms against the Republic of the
Philippines, or otherwise participate in such armed public uprising, for the purpose of
removing the territory of the Philippines from the allegiance to the government and laws
thereof, as in fact the said Huks have risen publicly and taken arms to attain the said
purpose by then and there making armed raids, sorties and ambushes, attacks against
police, constabulary and army detachments as well as innocent civilians, and as a
necessary means to commit the crime of rebellion, in connection therewith and in
furtherance thereof, have then and there committed acts of murder, pillage, looting,

plunder, arson, and planned destruction of private and public property to create and
spread chaos, disorder, terror, and fear so as to facilitate the accomplishment of the
aforesaid purpose.
Issue: Can Rebellion be made into a complex crime?
Held: No, it cannot.
Wherefore, the aforementioned motion for bail of defendant-appellant Amado V.
Hernandez is hereby granted and, upon the filing of a bond, with sufficient sureties, in
the sum of P30,000, and its approval by the court, let said defendant-appellant be
provisionally released. It is so ordered.
Ratio:
Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code provides that: "When a single act constitutes two or
more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for
committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the
same to be applied in its maximum period."
Pursuant to Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code "any person, merely participating or
executing the commands of others in a rebellion shall suffer the penalty of prision
mayor in its minimum period."
The penalty is increased to prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P20,000 for "any
person who promotes, maintains or heads a rebellion or insurrection or who, while
holding any public office or employment, takes part therein":
1. "engaging in war against the forces of the government",
2. "destroying property", or
3. "committing serious violence",
4. "exacting contributions or"
5. "diverting public funds from the lawful purpose for which they have been
appropriated".
Whether performed singly or collectively, these five (5) classes of acts constitute only
one offense, and no more, and are, altogether, subject to only one penalty prision
mayor and a fine not to exceed P20,000.
One of the means by which rebellion may be committed, in the words of said Article
135, is by "engaging in war against the forces of the government" and "committing
serious violence" in the prosecution of said "war". These expressions imply everything
that war connotes, namely; resort to arms, requisition of property and services,
collection of taxes and contributions, restraint of liberty, damage to property, physical
injuries and loss of life, and the hunger, illness and unhappiness that war leaves in its
wake except that, very often, it is worse than war in the international sense, for it
involves internal struggle, a fight between brothers, with a bitterness and passion or
ruthlessness seldom found in a contest between strangers. Being within the purview of
"engaging in war" and "committing serious violence", said resort to arms, with the
resulting impairment or destruction of life and property, constitutes not two or more
offense, but only one crime that of rebellion plain and simple. Inasmuch as the acts
specified in said Article 135 constitute, one single crime, it follows

necessarily that said acts offer no occasion for the application of Article 48, which
requires therefor the commission of, at least, two crimes.
Political crimes are those directly aimed against the political order, as well as such
common crimes as may be committed to achieve a political purpose. The decisive factor
is the intent or motive. If a crime usually regarded as common like homicide, is
perpetrated for the purpose of removing from the allegiance "to the Government the
territory of the Philippines Islands or any part thereof," then said offense becomes
stripped of its "common" complexion, inasmuch as, being part and parcel of the crime
of rebellion, the former acquires the political character of the latter.
There is one other reason and a fundamental one at that why Article 48 of our
Penal Code cannot be applied in the case at bar: If murder were not complexed with
rebellion, and the two crimes were punished separately (assuming that this could be
done), the following penalties would be imposable upon the movant, namely: (1) for the
crime of rebellion, a fine not exceeding P20,000 and prision mayor, in the corresponding
period, depending upon the modifying circumstances present, but never exceeding 12
years of prision mayor; and (2) for the crime of murder, reclusion temporal in its
maximum period to death, depending upon the modifying circumstances present. In
other words, in theabsence of aggravating circumstances, the extreme penalty could
not be imposed upon him. However, under Article 48, said penalty would have to be
meted out to him, even in the absence of a singlea ggravating circumstance. Thus, said
provision, if construed in conformity with the theory of the prosecution, would be
unfavorable to the movant. Upon the other hand, said Article 48 was enacted for the
purpose of favoring the culprit, not of sentencing him to a penalty more severe than
that which would be proper if the several acts performed by him were punished
separately.

15.
US vs De Los Reyes (20 Phil 467) *39
Nature of the Action:
Material Facts:
Ruling:
Ratio:
16.
People vs Malasugui (63 Phil 221) *40
Nature of the Action:
Material Facts:
Ruling:
Ratio:
17.
People vs Sane (CA 40 OG, Supp 5,113) *41
Nature of the Action:
Material Facts:
Ruling:
Ratio:
18.
US vs Addison (28 Phil 580) *42
Nature of the Action:
Material Facts:
Ruling:
Ratio:

19.
Alvarez vs CFI (64 Phil 33) *43
Nature of the Action:
Material Facts:
Ruling:
Ratio:
20.
People vs Dela Pena (97 Phil 669) GR No. 8474 *44
Nature of the Action:
Material Facts:
Ruling:
Ratio:
21.
Stonehill vs Diokno (20 SCRA 383) *45
Nature of the Action:
Material Facts:
Ruling:
Ratio:
22.
Alvero vs Dizon (76 Phil 637) *46
Nature of the Action:
Material Facts:
Ruling:
Ratio:
23.
Roldan vs Arca (65 SCRA 336) *47
Nature of the Action:
Material Facts:
Ruling:
Ratio:
24.
Uy Kheytin vs Villareal (42 Phil 886) *48
Nature of the Action:
Material Facts:
Ruling:
Ratio:
25.
Papa vs Mago (22 SCRA 857) *49
Nature of the Action:
Material Facts:
Ruling:
Ratio:
26.
Ignacio vs Ela (99 Phil 347) *50
Nature of the Action:
Material Facts:
Ruling:
Ratio: