[G.R. No. 123101. November 22, 2000] he was one of the pirates in this case.

Where eyewitnesses contradict

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. TITING ARANAS themselves on a vital question, such as the identity of the offender, the
element of reasonable doubt is injected and cannot be lightly disregarded.
DE LEON, JR., J.: The identity of the offender, like the crime itself must be proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. In the case at bench, there is no positive identification of
FACTS: the appellant inasmuch as prosecution eyewitnesses Uy and Magalona
contradicted themselves on the identity of the alleged offender.
On 15th day of December, 1992 in the seawaters of Bohol, Elmer Manalili,
conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with intent to Appellant Elmer Manalili is ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable
gain, and by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, did then doubt.
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously seize by boarding a passenger [G.R. No. 154130. October 1, 2003]
sea vessel M/V J & N Princess, owned by one Nelson Uy and under the
complement of Gervacio Uy and Saturnino Gaudicos with 19 officers and BENITO ASTORGA, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 
crew members and while on board said vessel, seized its radio and YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
subsequently demanded and divested them and its passengers cash in the
amount of P200,000.00, Philippine Currency and valuables and equipments Facts: On the 1st day of September, 1997, Astroga, being the Municipal
worth P350,000.00, Philippine currency or in the total amount of Five Mayor of Daram, Samar, in such capacity and committing the offense in
Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P550,000.00), Philippine Currency, and on relation to office, conniving, confederating and mutually helping with
the occasion of said piracy, accused committed the crime of physical injuries unidentified persons, who are herein referred to under fictitious names
on the person of Ernesto Magalona, the quarter master; Acts committed JOHN DOES, who were armed with firearms of different calibers, with
contrary to the provisions of Art. 123 of the Revised Penal Code, as deliberate intent, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
amended by PD 532. detain DENR Employees, at the Municipality of Daram, by not allowing them
to leave the place, without any legal and valid grounds thereby restraining
Accused Titing Aranas alias Tingards, Angelo Paracueles, Juan Villa alias and depriving them of their personal liberty for nine (9) hours, but without
Juantoy, Gaudencio Tolsidas and Rodrigo Salas remain at large. Hence, this exceeding three (3) days.
case proceeded only against appellant Elmer Manalili who was arrested on
On September 1, 1997, Regional Special Operations Group (RSOG) of the
January 21, 1993 in Cebu City. When arraigned on August 23, 1993,
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Office No. 8,
appellant Manalili pleaded not guilty and waived his right to pre-
Tacloban City sent a team to the island of Daram, Western Samar to conduct
trial. Thereafter, trial ensued.
intelligence gathering and forest protection operations in line with the
The prosecution presented the testimonial evidence of Gervacio Uy and governments campaign against illegal logging.  The team stopped at Brgy.
Ernesto Magalona who identified Aranas, Paracueles and Manalili. Elmer Bagacaywhere they saw two yacht-like boats being constructed. After
Manalili denied that he was involved in the piracy, as he was in his residence consulting with the local barangay  officials, the team learned that the boats
in Cebu City at that time. Defense witnesses also came to his aid. belonged to a certain Michael Figueroa.  The team spotted two more boats
being constructed in the vicinity of Brgy. Lucob-Lucob prompting them to
RTC: the Court finds accused ELMER MANALILI GUILTY  stop and investigate. They met Mayor Astorga who held them captive with
ISSUE: Whether Elmer Manalili was guilty for qualified piracy the aid of armed men.

HELD: NO, he was not. The trial court erred in appreciating the testimonial RTC: Found Mayor Astroga guilty.
evidence of both the prosecution and defense which led to his
conviction. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that
ISSUE: Whether The trial court grievously erred in finding the accused guilty [G.R. No. 134503. July 2, 1999]
of Arbitrary Detention as defined and penalized under Article 124 of the
JASPER AGBAY vs. THE HONORABLE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE
Revised Penal Code, based on mere speculations, surmises and conjectures
MILITARY, NATIVIDAD, JR. and SOLOMON,
and, worse, notwithstanding the Affidavit of Desistance executed by the five
(5) complaining witnesses. GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
HELD: NO. The accused is found guilty. FACTS: On the 7th day of September 1997 at Sitio Bonbon, Brgy. Catarman,
Liloan, Metro Cebu, the above-named accused, did then and there, willfully,
Arbitrary Detention is committed by any public officer or employee who,
feloniously and unlawfully, conspiring, confederating, helping with one
without legal grounds, detains a person. The elements of the crime are:
another, while accused JASPER AGBAY manipulating to finger the vagina of
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee. GAYLE FATIMA AMIGABLE GICAYARA, his companion block the sight of the
Private Complainant, Mrs. JOAN A. GICAYARA, while on board a tricycle
2. That he detains a person.
going their destinations. 
3. That the detention is without legal grounds.
On September 10, 1997, counsel for petitioner wrote the Chief of Police of
That petitioner, at the time he committed the acts assailed herein, was then Liloan demanding the immediate release of petitioner considering that the
Mayor of Daram, Samar is not disputed.  In the case at bar, the restraint latter had failed to deliver the detained Jasper Agbay to the proper judicial
resulting from fear is evident. Inspite of their pleas, the witnesses and the authority within thirty-six (36) hours from September 7, 1997. After 7 days,
complainants were not allowed by petitioner to go home, without lawful petitioner was ordered released by the court after he had posted bond.
grounds. Petitioner filed a complaint for delay in the delivery of detained persons
against police officers stationed at the Liloan Police Substation, before the
It is a time-honored doctrine that the trial courts factual findings are Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas.
conclusive and binding upon appellate courts unless some facts or
circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, ISSUE: Whether the respondents are guilty of violating ART. 125 of the RPC
misapprehended or misinterpreted. Nothing in the case at bar prompts us to
HELD: NO.
deviate from this doctrine. 
Art. 125.  Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial
Only by an earnest enforcement of the provisions of articles 124 and 125 of
authorities. - The penalties provided in the next preceding article shall be
the Revised Penal Code will it be possible to reduce to its minimum such
imposed upon the public officer or employee who shall detain any person
wanton trampling of personal freedom as depicted in this case. The
for some legal ground and shall fail to deliver such person to the proper
responsible officials should be prosecuted, without prejudice to the
judicial authorities within the period of: twelve (12) hours, for crimes or
detainees right to the indemnity to which they may be entitled for the
offenses punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent; eighteen (18)
unjustified violation of their fundamental rights.
hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by correctional penalties, or their
equivalent; and thirty-six hours (36) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable
by afflictive or capital penalties, or their equivalent.
In every case, the person detained shall be informed of the cause of his
detention and shall be allowed, upon his request, to communicate and
confer at any time with his attorney or counsel.
In the case at bar, petitioner was arrested and detained at the Liloan Police
Station on 7 September 1997 for an alleged violation of R.A. 7610,
specifically section 5(b) thereof . This crime carries a penalty of reclusion of reclusion temporal as minimum, to 21 years of reclusion perpetua, as
temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua, an afflictive maximum”
penalty. Under these circumstances, a criminal complaint or information
Petitioner's defenses are as follows: (1) that his arrest was illegal and
should be filed with the proper judicial authorities within thirty six (36)
consequently, the firearms and ammunitions taken in the course thereof are
hours of his arrest.
inadmissible in evidence under the exclusionary rule; (2) that he is a
Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code is intended to prevent any abuse confidential agent authorized, under a Mission Order and Memorandum
resulting from confining a person without informing him of his offense and Receipt, to carry the subject firearms; and (3) that the penalty for simple
without permitting him to go on bail . More specifically, it punishes public illegal possession constitutes excessive and cruel punishment proscribed by
officials or employees who shall detain any person for some legal ground the 1987 Constitution.
and shall fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within
ISSUE: Whether or not the defenses are of merit
the periods prescribed by law. The continued detention of the accused
becomes illegal upon the expiration of the periods provided for by Art. 125 HELD: NO.
without such detainee having been delivered to the corresponding judicial
authorities, meaning the courts of justices or judges of said courts vested I. Warrantless arrests are sanctioned in the following instances: [28]
with judicial power to order the temporary detention or confinement of a "Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A peace officer or a private
person charged with having committed a public offense, that is, the person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
Supreme Court and other such inferior courts as may be established by law.
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
The power to order the release or confinement of an accused is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
determinative of the issue. In contrast with a city fiscal, it is undisputed that
a municipal court judge, even in the performance of his function to conduct (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal
preliminary investigations, retains the power to issue an order of release. knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed
it.
[G.R. No. 121917. March 12, 1997]
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a
ROBIN CARIO  vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE of the PHILIPPINES penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or
FRANCISCO, J.: temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another.
FACTS: That on or about the 26th day of October, 1992, in the City of
Angeles, Philippines the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, The five (5) well-settled instances when a warrantless search and seizure of
unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and under his custody and property is valid, are as follows:
control one (1) M-16 Baby Armalite rifle, SN-RP 131120 with four (4) long 1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section
and one (1) short magazines with ammunitions, one (1) .357 caliber revolver 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence.
Smith and Wesson, SN-32919 with six (6) live ammunitions and one (1) .380
Pietro Beretta, SN-A35723Y with clip and eight (8) ammunitions, without 2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view", the elements of which are:
having the necessary authority and permit to carry and possess the same. (a). a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the
ALL CONTRARY TO LAW. the arrest of petitioner, but granted his application police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties;
for bail.
(b). the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the
RTC: Rendered convicting petitioner of the crime charged and sentenced right to be where they are;
him to an "indeterminate penalty from 17 years, 4 months and 1 day
(c). the evidence must be immediately apparent, and
(d). "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further search. [48]
3. search of a moving vehicle.
4. consented warrantless search, and
5. customs search.
II. In crimes involving illegal possession of firearm, two requisites must be
established, viz.: (1) the existence of the subject firearm and, (2) the fact
that the accused who owned or possessed the firearm does not have the
corresponding license or permit to possess. Indeed, petitioner's purported
Mission Order and Memorandum Receipt are inferior in the face of the
more formidable evidence for the prosecution as our meticulous review of
the records reveals that the Mission Order and Memorandum Receipt were
mere afterthoughts contrived and issued under suspicious circumstances
III. The trial court and the respondent court are bound to apply the
governing law at the time of appellant's commission of the offense for it is a
rule that laws are repealed only by subsequent ones. It is the duty of judicial
officers to respect and apply the law as it stands. And until its repeal,
respondent court can not be faulted for applying P.D. 1866 which abrogated
the previous statutes adverted to by petitioner.