Prevailing presumption

Arbitrary detention is com-mitted by a public officer or employee who restrains or keeps a person without legal grounds. But is actual physical restraint necessary to render one liable for the crime? This is the question raised in this case of Bob, a town mayor in the Visayas.

The case arose when five members of the Regional Special Operations Group of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources conducted intelligence operations on possible illegal logging activities in a Samar island with the assistance of SPO3 Art and SPO1 Raffy of the PNP Regional Intelligence Group. On the way to a certain barangay, they saw two boats measuring 18 meters long and 5 meters wide being constructed in another barangay. So they proceeded to the area at about 5 pm. There they met Bob who turned out to be the owner of the boats. Owing perhaps to the tiring activities of the whole day, a heated altercation ensued between Bob and the DENR team. Moments later, a boat bearing ten armed men in fatigue arrived at the scene apparently in response to Bob’s call. Thereafter Bob ordered the DENR group to go with him in his house and have dinner with him and some local residents. The group acceded but after they ate, they could not leave as it started raining quite hard. They stayed for dinner up to 2 am of the next day, conversing, laughing and drinking with Bob and his men.

When the foresters returned to their respective official stations the next day, they reported the incident to their supervisors who required them to submit affidavits of what happened. On the basis of these affidavits, Bob was charged with arbitrary detention before the Sandiganbayan with the five DENR foresters as the offended parties-complainants.

During the trial, only SPO3 Art and SPO1 Raffy testified. One of the foresters also started testifying on preliminary matters but did not complete his testimony for lack of material time. Subsequently, he joined the other foresters in executing an affidavit of desistance stating that their differences had already been reconciled and both parties had already expressed apologies and they were no longer interested to pursue the case against Bob, the Mayor. Thereafter they did not appear in court to testify.

But the Sandiganbayan still convicted Bob of arbitrary detention relying on the testimonies of the two PNP policemen. He was sentenced to 4 months minimum to 1 year 8 months maximum imprisonment.

Was the Sandiganbayan correct?

Initially the SC affirmed the Sandiganbayan decision. But on second motion for reconsideration of Bob, the SC reversed the Sandiganbayan and acquitted Bob. The SC said that while arbitrary detention may be committed even without actual physical restraint, the element of fear must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. From the narration of the policemen, particularly SPO3 Art, the element of fear cannot be discerned. Fear is a state of mind and is necessarily subjective. Its presence cannot be tested by any hard and fast rule but must instead be viewed in the light of the perception and judgment of the victim at the time of the crime. As such, SPO3 Art and SPO1 Raffy, not being victims, were not competent to testify on whether or not fear existed in the minds of the foresters who were the complainants and offended parties. Their testimonies cannot be relied upon in convicting Bob.

Verily, the circumstances brought about by SPO3 Art created a reasonable doubt as to whether Bob detained the DENR foresters against their consent. The events that transpired are capable of two interpretations. It is plausible that the foresters were taken to Bob’s house and prevented from leaving until 2 a.m. the next morning. But it is equally plausible, if not more so, that Bob extended his hospitality and served dinner and drinks to the team at his house. He could have advised them to stay on the island as sea travel was rendered unsafe by the heavy rains. Eating and laughing with the foresters, the supposed offended parties, while conversing over dinner is inconsistent with a hostile confrontation between the parties. Moreover considering that Bob also served alcoholic drinks, it is not unusual that his guests left at 2 a.m. the following morning. When the circumstances are capable of two or more inferences, as in this case, one of which is consistent with the presumption of innocence while the other is compatible with guilt, the presumption of innocence must prevail and the Court must acquit (Asorga vs. People, G.R. No. 154130, August 20, 2004)