MILO vs.

SALANGA- Marianne Aquino

G.R. No. L-37007
July 20, 1987
Gancayco:
Doctrine: Arbitrary Detention- Public Officer: A barrio captain is a public officer who
can be liable for the crime of Arbitrary Detention
Facts: On April 21, 1972 at around 10pm in Manaoag, Pangasinan, accused barrio
captain Juan Tuvera Sr., with some private persons (Juan Tuvera Jr., Bertilli Bataoil,
and Dianong) allegedly maltreated Armando Valdez through fistblows and by hitting
him with the butts of their guns. Immediately thereafter, accused Tuvera with
members of the police force (Cpl. Tomas Mendoza and Pat. Rodolfo Mangsat),
without legal grounds, detained Valdez inside the municipal jail for about 11 hours.
They were charged with Arbitrary Detention under Art. 124 of the RPC.
Tuvera filed a motion to quash the information on the ground that the facts charged
do not constitute an offense and that the proofs adduced at the investigation are
not sufficient to support the filing of the information. Petitioner Assistant Provincial
Fiscal Ramon S. Milo filed an opposition. Respondent Judge Angelito C. Salanga,
however, granted the motion to quash by concluding that Tuvera was not a public
officer.
Issue: Whether or not a barrio captain is a public officer who can be charged with
Arbitrary Detention.
Held: Yes.
Arbitrary Detention is committed by a public officer who, without legal grounds,
detains a person.1 The elements of this crime are the following:
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee.
2. That he detains a person.
3. That the detention is without legal grounds
The public officers liable for Arbitrary Detention must be vested with authority to
detain or order the detention of persons accused of a crime. Such public officers are
the policemen and other agents of the law, the judges or mayors.
In the case at bar:
Defense
Court
1. Did not have the authority to make RA 3590 (The Revised Barrio Charter) the
arrest nor jail and detain.
duties and powers of a barangay captain
2. He was neither a policeman nor a include the following:
peace officer.
To look after the maintenance of
3. He was not a public official.
public order; and
4. He had nothing to do with the Enforce laws and ordinances
detention of petitioner Valdez.
5. He was not connected directly or He is a peace officer in the barrio

indirectly in the administration of the

Manaoag Police Force.

6. On April 21, 1972, barrio captains and

heads of barangays were not yet
considered as persons in authority.
It was only upon the promulgation of PD
No. 299 that they were considered as
persons in authority.
The proper charge was illegal detention
and not arbitrary detention.

considered under the law as a person in

authority. As such, he may make arrest
and detain persons within legal limits.
(Aruego in his treatise on Barrio
Government Law and Administration)
Also, one need not be a police officer to
be chargeable with Arbitrary Detention.
Public officers who act with abuse of
power may be guilty of the crime. A
mayor and a barrio captain have similar
powers, differing only in the extent of
their territorial jurisdiction. They have
the same duty of maintaining peace and
order, as such, both have the authority
to detain or order detention.
Long before Presidential Decree 299 was
signed into law, barrio lieutenants (who
were later named barrio captains and
now barangay captains) were recognized
as persons in authority. In various cases,
this Court deemed them as persons in
authority, and convicted them of
Arbitrary Detention:
U.S. vs. Braganza: Barrio lieutenant
Martin Salibio and municipal councilor
Hilario Braganza arrested Fr. Feliciano
Gomez even if he had not committed
any crime.
U.S. vs. Gellada: Barrio lieutenant
Geronimo Gellada, with the help of
Filoteo Soliman, bound and tied his
houseboy Sixto Gentugas with a rope at
around 6PM and brought him to the
justice of the peace. Sixto was detained
overnight and was released by 9AM upon
order of the justice of peace because
Sixto did not commit any crime.

Dispositive: Petition for Certiorari granted. Order granting the motion to quash is
set aside. Cases remanded to trial court for further proceedings.