SORIA v.

DESIERTO
G.R. Nos. 153524-25 January 31, 2005

FACTS: At about 8:30 in the evening of May 13, 2001, a Sunday and the day before the elections,
petitioners were arrested without a warrant by respondents for alleged illegal possession of
firearms and ammunition. Thereafter, petitioners were detained at Santa, Ilocos Sur, Police Station.
It was here that one of the police officers identified Bista to have a standing warrant of arrest for
the violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 6. The following day, May 14, 2001, a Monday and the day
of the election, a Joint-Affidavit against the petitioners was subscribed and sworn to by the
arresting officers before Provincial Prosecutor Jessica Viloria and was filed and docketed. On the
same day, at about 6:30 in the evening, Prosecutor Viloria ordered the release of Soria to undergo
the requisite preliminary investigation. Soria’s detention took twenty-two hours. Meanwhile, Bista
continued to be detained at the Santa Police Station.
At around 2:00 in the afternoon of May 15, 2001, Bista was brought before the MTC of
Vigan, Ilocos Sur, for his pending case of the violation of BP Blg. 6. He posted bail and an Order
of Temporary Release was issued. However, no order of release was issued in Bista’s arrest for
the alleged illegal possession of firearms. He was only released on June 8, 2001 upon filing of bail
bonds. His duration of detention was 26 days.
It is undisputable that the alleged crimes hurled against Soria are punishable by correctional
penalties or their equivalent. Hence, criminal complaints or information should be filed with the
proper judicial authorities within 18 hours of his arrest. Also, the crimes alleged of Bista are
punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or their equivalent. In this note, he could only be
detained for 36 hours without criminal complaints or information having been filed with the proper
judicial authorities.
The main contention here is the proper application of the 12-18-36 periods. On the one
hand, petitioners’ claim that public respondents erred in construing Article 125 as excluding
Sundays, holidays, and election days in the computation of the periods prescribed for public
officers to deliver arrested persons to the proper judicial authorities because the law never
explicitly made such an exception. It is a basic tenet in statutory construction that if a statute is
clear, it should be given its literal meaning.
On the other hand, respondents cited the cases of Medina v. Orozco, Jr. and Sayo v. Chief
of Police of Manila and on commentaries of jurists to bolster their position that Sundays, holidays,
and election days are excluded in the computation of the periods provided in Article 125.

RULING: In view of the foregoing, the public respondents did not abuse their discretion in
dismissing for lack of probable cause the complaint against private respondents. The abuse of
discretion must be deemed as tantamount to an evasion of positive duty or to arbitrarily exercise
his power due to passion and hostility. The arguments of the respondents are backed up by law
and jurisprudence, thus: first, that a special holiday, in this case, an election day, should not be
included in the computation of hours prescribed by law for the filing of complaint or information
in courts in cases of warrantless arrests, it being a no-office day because it will be difficult to
process the necessities since there are no employees on those days (Medina v. Orozco, Jr.). Second,
there are other material considerations that should be taken into consideration i.e. the means of
communication, hours of arrest, and time of surrender, material possibility for the fiscal to make
an investigation and file the necessary information (Sayo v. Chief of Police). Third, with regard to
Bista, his arrest prolonged due to the elections. Additionally, he has a standing warrant of arrest
for another case and as a rule, one can only be released if there is no other pending criminal case
requiring his detention. In line with this, the Court shall respect the decision of the Ombudsman
having acted using professional judgment and without grave abuse of discretion.

SAYO and MOSTERO v. CHIEF OF POLICE

G.R. No. L-2128 May 12, 1948

FACTS: Petitioners Melencio Sayo and Joaquin Mostero with having committed the crime of
robbery upon complaint of Bernardino Malinao, was arrested by Benjamin Dumlao, a policeman
of the City of Manila on April 2, 1948, and presented a complaint against them with the fiscal's
office of Manila. When the petition for habeas corpus was heard on April 7, 1948, Sayo and
Mostero were still detained or under arrest, and the city fiscal had not yet released or filed charges
against them with the proper courts justice. Petitioners filed a criminal case against Respondents
for delay in the delivery of detained persons under Art. 125. They also claimed that they were
arrested for robbery but was not delivered to the proper judicial authorities within 6 hours under
Art. 125. Respondent’s contended that Petitioners were delivered to the proper judicial authorities
within 6 hours for they filed a complaint at the fiscal’s office but was not acted upon by the fiscal.

RULING: The court ruled that policeman Dumlao acted in good faith on the matter in considering
that he had complied with the mandate of Article 125 by delivering the petitioners within 6 hours
to the office of fiscal. Petitioners were being actually detained when the said policeman filed a
complaint against them with the city fiscal. Sayo and Mostero are being illegally restrained of their
liberty. Thus, petitioners release is ordered.

MEDINA v. OROZCO
G.R. No. L-26723 December 22, 1966

FACTS: Petitioner is Arthur Medina y Yumul. Respondent is Marcelo F. Orozco, Jr, Acting City
Warden of Caloocan City. On November 7, 1965, Medina was arrested for the death of Marcelo
Sangalang. He was then incarcerated in the Caloocan City Jail. 9:00am of November 7, 1965, his
case was referred to a fiscal who then conducted a preliminary investigation. At 3:40pm of
November 10, 1965, an information for murder was filed against Medina, Olivar, and Enriquez.
Petitioner asserts that there was a violation of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. The crime
Medina allegedly committed is a capital offense and thus, the arresting officer’s task under Article
125 of the Revised Penal Code was to either deliver him to proper judicial authorities within 18
hours or release him afterwards. However, petitioner Medina was not released. From the moment
he was arrested at 12:00pm on November 7 to 3:40pm on November 10 when the information
against him was in court, 75 hours and 40 minutes have elapsed.

RULING: It must also be taken into consideration that November 7, 1965 was a Sunday.
November 8 was an official holiday. November 9 which was an election day, was then also
declared an official holiday. The court ruled that the three no-office days is not included in the
counting of the 18-hour detention period. Medina was thereafter brought to the court on the very
first office day (November 10, 1965) following his arrest on November 7, 1965. The 18-hour
period shall also start from the time of one’s arrest.
 AGBAY v. OMBUDSMAN
G.R. No. 134503, July 2, 1999

FACTS: Petitioner is Jasper Agbay. He was arrested on September 7, 1997 at the Liloan Police
Station in Metro Cebu for allegedly violating RA 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against
Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimation Act). He allegedly committed the violation against
Gayle Gicayara. The next day, or on September 8, 1997, a complaint for violation of RA 7610 was
then filed against petitioner before the 7th Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Liloan. On September
10, 1997, petitioner’s counsel wrote a letter to the respondent demanding that the petitioner be
released given the fact that the respondent failed to deliver Jasper Agbay to the proper judicial
authority within thirty-six hours from September 7, 1997. However, respondents still continued to
detain petitioner. On September 12, 1997, the MCTC of Cebu issued an order committing
petitioner to the jail warden of Cebu. It was only on September 17, 1997 when petitioner was
released by the MCTC. On September 26, 1997, petitioner filed a complaint for delay in the
delivery of detained persons against respondents. Petitioner claims that when private complainant,
Gayle’s mother, filed the complaint before the MCTC, it was an unnecessary act which did not
interrupt the period prescribed by Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. Petitioner asserts that it
should have been filed with the Regional Trial Court because it is the RTC which has jurisdiction
to try the case against him. Thus, upon the lapse of the thirty-six hours given to arresting officers
to deliver petitioner to proper authority, respondents were already guilty of violating Article 125.

RULING: The court ruled that upon the filing of the complaint with the Municipal Circuit Trial
Court, the intent behind Article 125 has already been satisfied since upon such filing, a detained
person is already informed of the crime against him. Moreover, the court ruled that the filing of
the complaint with the MCTC interrupted the period prescribed in Article 125. Thus, Agbay has
not been illegally detained.

PEOPLE v. MABONG
GR Nos. L-9805-06 1957

FACTS: On May 23, 1955, three days after the incident when Cipriano Tabel was stabbed by
Mabong with a bolo, a proper investigation before the Justice of Peace was conducted thereupon
Mabong was charged of a crime of murder sustaining in two separate information given by the
Chief of Police however, he was pleaded guilty. The Justice of Peace then forwarder the case to
the Court of First Instance in which he was filed guilty under the said information demanded by
law. Respondent Mabong, on the other hand, finding errors in the court’s actions, filed a motion
to quash and a petition for habeas corpus alleging that the detention made by the local authorities
to him was illegal prior to the expiration of 18 hours contending that he was detained in the
municipal jail of Lianga for more than three days before the criminal charge was filed against him.
Further, he claimed that according to Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that
the penalties stated in the preceding article of this Code shall impose upon those any public officer
or employee who shall delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities
within the period of eighteen hours for crimes or offenses penalized with capital punishments.

ISSUE: Whether or not the detention of the accused is invalid under Article 125 of the RPC.
RULING: No, the detention of the accused is valid under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code
because according to the aforementioned provision, it only provides for the penalty of the public
officer or employee who shall delay the delivery of detained persons for more than eighteen hours
for crimes with capital punishments. While the public officer may be criminally liable if the
detention goes beyond the prescribed number of hours, it does not affect the act he has committed
which was already in the subsisting process. Moreover, he was already under the custody of the
local authorities so the absence of warrant of arrest since his detention has no bearing as far as his
detention is concerned.