Scribd
Upload
112 views1 page

Duropan Case

Duropan and Coloma, barangay officials in Bohol, arrested William Pacis and others for harvesting nipa palms without proper authority. Pacis claimed the group was authorized by their cooperative. The court found Duropan and Coloma guilty of unlawful arrest, as barangay officials do not have authority to arrest under the law. To be guilty of unlawful arrest, one must arrest another without legal authorization or reasonable grounds. The appeals courts affirmed the guilty ruling, as barangay officials lacked authority to arrest Pacis and the group, and had no reasonable grounds to do so.

Uploaded by

Jethrobby Piedad
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
112 views1 page

Duropan Case

Duropan and Coloma, barangay officials in Bohol, arrested William Pacis and others for harvesting nipa palms without proper authority. Pacis claimed the group was authorized by their cooperative. The court found Duropan and Coloma guilty of unlawful arrest, as barangay officials do not have authority to arrest under the law. To be guilty of unlawful arrest, one must arrest another without legal authorization or reasonable grounds. The appeals courts affirmed the guilty ruling, as barangay officials lacked authority to arrest Pacis and the group, and had no reasonable grounds to do so.

Uploaded by

Jethrobby Piedad
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

PIEDAD

CASE NO. 09
Article 269 – Unlawful Arrest
Duropan vs. People, G.R. No. 230825

FACTS: Duropan and Coloma were Barangay kagawad and Barangay Tanod of Lincod,
Maribojoc, Bohol. Both saw William Pacis (Pacis) and others harvesting nipa palm in a
plantation. When Coloma asked who gave them the authority to harvest, Pacis replied that they
were ALIMANGO members who is a cooperative duly registered with the Cooperative
Development Authority who has authority to utilize, protect, maintain and develop Mangroove-
Nipa. Doubting Pacis’ claim, accused arrested their group on the ground that pursuant to brgy
resolution no. 2 it ordered the barangay officials to conduct surveillance on the mangrove/nipa
area due to several complaints of illegal cutting of mangroves and nipa leaves. MCTC convicted
accused of unlawful arrest defined and penalized under Article 269 of RPC which was affirmed
both by the RTC and CA. Petitioner now claims that not all elements of the crime were present
because Pacis was not arrested but was merely invited to the Police Station, that he referred
ALIMANOG Organization as ALIMANGO Association, and that the complainant attacked them.

ISSUE: W/N there was reasonable ground to arrest Pacis which warrants petitioners' acquittal
from the charge of unlawful arrest.

RULING & MP: NO. While deemed as persons in authority and agents of persons in authority,
respectively, the barangay kagawad and barangay tanod are not the public officers whose official
duty is to arrest or detain persons contemplated within the purview of Article 269 of the Revised
Penal Code. It is undisputed that Pacis’ apprehension was not pursuant to an arrest warrant. To
prosecute accused of the crime of unlawful arrest successfully, the following elements
must be proved: (1) that the offender arrests or detains another person; (2) that the arrest
or detention is to deliver the person to the proper authorities; and (3) that the arrest or
detention is not authorized by law or that there is no reasonable ground to. The SC affirms
the findings of the three tribunals that all the elements constituting the crime of unlawful arrest
are present in this case. Hence, petitioners’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt is likewise affirmed.

Inquiry is incumbent on whether the person implementing the arrest has the official duty to arrest
or detain, and whether he or she had reasonable ground to effect the apprehension in that
instance. In the crime of unlawful arrest, the offender who arrested or detained another intended
to deliver the apprehended person to the proper authorities, considering he or she does not have
the authority. This act of conducting the apprehended persons to the proper authorities takes the
offense out of the crime of illegal detention. Thus, if the arresting officers are not among those
whose official duty gives them the authority to arrest, they become liable for illegal detention
under Article 267 or 268. If the arrest is for the purpose of delivering the person arrested to the
proper authorities, but it is done without any reasonable ground or any of the circumstances for a
valid warrantless arrest, the arresting persons become liable for unlawful arrest under Article
269.

You might also like