GR L 5151; (January, 1910) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5151
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GERONIMO GELLADA, defendant-appellant.
January 31, 1910
FACTS:
On January 24, 1907, Sixto Gentugao, a servant of Geronimo Gellada, had a dispute with Gellada’s daughter. Upon hearing the dispute, Gellada, a barrio lieutenant, attempted to assault Gentugao with a stick. With the help of another individual, Gellada caught Gentugao, bound him with a rope, and an hour later sent him to the justice of the peace (JP) of Himamaylan. Gentugao was detained overnight by the JP until 9 a.m. the following morning, when the JP, upon learning the facts and reviewing the official letter from Gellada, immediately ordered his release, finding no lawful reason for his detention.
Gellada alleged that Gentugao was drunk, pushed him, and might have injured others with a stick, but these claims were not substantiated by evidence. The provincial fiscal filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance, charging Gellada with illegal detention and ill-treatment. The CFI convicted Gellada, sentencing him to a fine of 500 pesetas with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Gellada appealed this judgment.
ISSUE:
Can Geronimo Gellada, a barrio lieutenant and thus an agent of authority, be convicted of arbitrary detention under Article 200, No. 1 of the Penal Code, despite the complaint initially charging “illegal detention and ill-treatment,” given that the facts proven align with the elements of arbitrary detention by an agent of authority?
RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance.
The Court held that the facts proven in the case are characteristic of the crime of arbitrary detention committed by an agent of authority, such as a barrio lieutenant, as defined by Article 200, No. 1 of the Penal Code. Gellada, acting as a barrio lieutenant, detained Sixto Gentugao and sent him to the justice of the peace without any lawful reason (such as the commission of a crime) and without proper authority. This resulted in Gentugao being deprived of his liberty for many hours, prompting the justice of the peace to order his release upon finding no justification for the detention. The defendant’s exculpatory statements were not sustained by evidence.
The Court further clarified that an erroneous classification of the act in the complaint does not prevent conviction for the crime actually proven by the evidence, especially when both classifications refer to acts that are generically the same, if not identical, and merely differ based on the character of the person who executed them. The commission of acts charged in an information is established by the evidence, not by the allegations of the parties. Therefore, the conviction for arbitrary detention was proper based on the facts presented.