This defendant was charged in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Cebu with the crime of illegal detention, was  found guilty by the lower court and sentenced to pay a fine of 325 pesetas, in case of insolvency to suffer  subsidiary imprisonment and to pay the costs.

From that sentence the defendant appealed to this court.
   
The  defendant and  appellant alleges  that the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause in the lower court was not sufficient  to justify  the  sentence imposed by that court. The  facts seem to be as  follows:

First. That on the 13th of November, 1910, the defendant was  vice-president of the municipality of Taburan in the Province of Cebu.

Second.  That  Anastacio Bragat was a  policeman in the said municipality on said date.

Third. That on said date one Eduardo Mendoza was the president of the municipality of Taburan.
   
Fourth. That on the said 13th of November, 1910, a complaint was presented to the president of said municipality, signed by Visitacion Esmero, charging the said Anastacio Bragat with the crime of larceny of nine pieces of jewelry. This complainant alleged that she believed that the jewelry was then in the trunk of the said Anastacio Bragat in his house.
 
Fifth. That by reason of the  parentage or relationship which existed between the president of the said municipality and the complainant,  Visitacion Esmero, the former referred the complaint to the vice-president, the defendant herein, of said municipality, for action.
 
Sixth. That immediately  upon  receiving the  order of the president, the vice-president ordered  the  said Anastacio Bragat, the policeman, detained  in the municipal building. The vice-president also ordered the  justice of  the  peace to issue a search warrant for the  purpose of searching the house of  said policeman.
 
Seventh. It appears further that  upon  the morning of the  14th of November, 1910,  the said Visitacion Esmero appeared in the office of the president of the said pueblo and withdrew her complaint, upon the ground that she had found the jewelry which she  believed Anastacio Bragat had stolen.
 
Eighth. Upon the presentation of the said written statement of Visitacion Esmero, the defendant  herein  directed that further proceedings against Anastacio Bragat be dispensed with.
 
During the trial of the cause Anastacio Bragat attempted to show that he had been illegally and arbitrarily deprived of his liberty from early in the morning  of  the  13th  of November, 1910, until sometime in the morning of the 14th of November, 1910; that the period  of his illegal detention was something less  than twenty-four  hours.   Anastacio Bragat attempted to  show that  he had been  detained  in "incomunicado"  The  defendant, as  well as the justice of the peace of said pueblo, declared as witnesses and attempted to show that the detention of the said Anastacio Bragat was not in "incomunicado;" that he was detained in the municipal building simply, until the officials of said pueblo could make an investigation of the charges preferred against him.   We think  that the evidence shows that he was de- tained in the municipal  building,  but that  he was not detained in "incomunicado."  The evidence  shows that his querida slept with him  in  the  municipal building on the night of the 13th of November.

Article 200 of the Penal Code provides that any public officer who arrests a person without authority of law or by virtue of some regulation of a general character in force in the Philippines, except it be for the commission  of a crime, shall  be punished by a  fine of  not less than 325 and not more than 3,250  pesetas,  if the detention shall not  have exceeded three days, etc.

In the present case the complaint presented by Visitacion Esmero charged the said Anastacio Bragat with the crime of larceny.   This complaint was referred by the president of the pueblo to the vice-president, the defendant herein, for action.  While it may not have been necessary to  have ordered the detention of the said Anastacio Bragat, under the circumstances, and while, as a matter of fact, his detention was not authorized at all in the manner in which it was done, and under the circumstances, yet, nevertheless, it does not seem to us that the defendant herein detained the said Anastacio Bragat arbitrarily.   Visitacion Esmero alleged that Anastacio Bragat had  stolen her jewelry; that the same  was in his trunk in his house.  It may have been that the vice-president,  the  defendant  herein,  believing  the charges of the said Visitacion Esmero, ordered the defendant at once to remain in the municipal building for the purpose of preventing his removing the said jewelry from his trunk. At all events, and taking into consideration all  of the circumstances surrounding  the alleged detention of Anastacio Bragat, we are of the opinion that the evidence does not show  that Jose Figueroa, the defendant herein, did  maliciously, criminally and without motive, arbitrarily detain Anastacio Bragat in the manner described in the complaint.

This court has held in the case of U. S. vs. Gonzaga  (4 Phil. Rep., 364) that  article 200 of the Penal Code has no application to a case where the person arrested is charged with a crime and is arrested on account thereof.  (U. S. vs. Gonzaga, 3 Phil. Rep., 135.)   Had there been no charges preferred against the said Anastacio Bragat, charging him with a crime, then perhaps his detention  would have been arbitrary and illegal.   (U. S. vs. Agravante, 10 Phil.  Rep., 46;  U. S. vs.  Braganza, 10 Phil. Rep., 79;  U. S. vs. Gellada, 15 Phil. Rep., 120:)

For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the sentence of the lower  court should  be  reversed, the complaint dismissed and the defendant discharged from the custody of the law.   So ordered.

Arellano, C. J.., Mapa, Carson, and Trent, JJ., concur.