CRIM PRO Digest: Soria and Bista v. Desierto, et.al. (G.R. Nos. 153254-25)

 Criminal Procedure, Digest focusing on Rule 113:  Arrest, Duty of an Arresting Officer

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

RODOLFO SORIA and EDIMAR BISTA, Petitioners,

vs. 

HON. ANIANO DESIERTO in his capacity as Head of the Office of the Ombudsman, HON. ORLANDO CASIMIRO in his capacity as Deputy Ombudsman for Military, P/INS. JEFFREY T. GOROSPE, SPO2 ROLANDO G. REGACHO, SPO1 ALFREDO B. ALVIAR JR., PO3 JAIME D. LAZARO, PO2 FLORANTE B. CARDENAS, PO1 JOSEPH A. BENAZA, SPO1 FRANKLIN D. CABAYA and SPO4 PEDRO PAREL, Respondents.

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

DOCTRINE:

Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code states that the Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities. - The penalties provided in the preceding article shall be imposed upon the public officer or employee who shall detain any person for some legal ground and shall fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within the period of twelve (12) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent; eighteen (18) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by correctional penalties, or their equivalent; and thirty-six (36) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or their equivalent. In every case, the person detained shall be informed of the cause of his detention and shall be allowed, upon his request, to communicate and confer at any time with his attorney or counsel. 

12-18-36 rule on Sundays, Holidays, and Election Days Under Article 125, correctional penalties have an 18-hour prescriptive period. The period excludes Sundays, holidays, and election days. ―No office days are excluded in the computation. Since the courts are closed during Election Day, the prescription period did not run. Therefore, there was no delay and the information was filed in proper time.

FACTS:

This case involves a criminal matter in which Edimar Bista and Rodolfo Soria, the petitioners, were apprehended on Sunday, May 13, 2001, just one day prior to the May 14 elections, without a warrant by the respondents. They were arrested on suspicion of possessing firearms and ammunition illegally. During the course of this case, it was revealed that one of the police officers had identified Bista as having an outstanding warrant for violating BP Blg. 6.

Soria was detained for a total of 22 hours from the time of his arrest until his release, while Bista was held in custody for 26 days. The offenses for which Soria was apprehended, without a warrant, carry correctional penalties or their equivalent. Consequently, criminal complaints or information should have been promptly submitted to the appropriate judicial authorities within 18 hours of his arrest. In the case of Bista, the crimes he was arrested for are punishable by afflictive or capital penalties or their equivalent, which means he could only be detained for 36 hours without filing of criminal complaints or information with the proper judicial authorities.

Subsequently, the petitioners lodged a complaint-affidavit with the Office of the Ombudsman for Military Affairs, accusing the private respondents of violating Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. However, the office dismissed the complaint on the grounds of lacking merit. The petitioners then submitted a motion for reconsideration, which was similarly denied for the same reason in the second resolution under dispute.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner was denied due process when he was not given a copy of the the Counter-Affidavit, Resolution by the Assistant Prosecutor, and the Resolution by the Office of the Ombudsman. - NO.

HELD:

The respondents' exercise of discretion in dismissing the case was not characterized by an abuse of authority. Their decision to reject the petitioners' complaint, alleging a violation of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, was firmly grounded in established law and jurisprudence. It is essential to reiterate that "grave abuse of discretion" denotes a capricious and arbitrary judgment by a public official, tantamount to an overstep or lack of jurisdiction. In this particular case, Sonia's complaint, founded on pertinent legal provisions and jurisprudence, maintained that Election Day, as a special holiday, should not be counted in the statutory period for filing a complaint or information in court regarding warrantless arrests, given its status as a non-office day. Consequently, no violation of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code can be claimed. Similarly, Bista's complaint against the respondents on the same matter will not be successful because the 36-hour period for submitting a complaint or information from the moment of his arrest was extended by one day due to the occurrence of Election Day. Furthermore, Bista was subject to a standing warrant of arrest for a violation of BP Blg. 6, and his release was contingent upon the absence of any other pending criminal cases necessitating his continued detention.

CONCLUSION:

In conclusion, considering the absence of any grave abuse of discretion, the Office of the Ombudsman's determination, which found no basis for a violation of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, must be given due deference. The consistent stance of the court has been to refrain from interfering with the investigatory and prosecutorial powers of the Ombudsman. This principle is firmly rooted in constitutional and statutory provisions that aim to insulate the Ombudsman from external pressures. As a result, the petition is dismissed for lack of merit, and the Joint Resolution dated 31 January 2002 and the Order dated 25 March 2002 of the Office of the Ombudsman are hereby affirmed. No costs shall be imposed in this matter.

SOURCE:

Soria an Bista v. Desierto, et.al. (G.R. Nos. 153254-25). (n.d.). ChanRobles Virtual Law Library. https://chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005januarydecisions.php?id=34