Soria v. Desierto
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Rodolfo Soria and Edimar Bista were arrested without a warrant by police officers on May 13, 2001, for alleged illegal possession of firearms and ammunition, and related election offenses. Petitioner Soria was arrested for illegal possession of a .38 caliber revolver and violation of an election offense. Petitioner Bista was arrested for illegal possession of a sub-machine pistol and a .22 caliber revolver, and it was discovered he had a standing warrant of arrest for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 6. Following their arrest, they were detained at the Santa, Ilocos Sur, Police Station. Procedural History: On May 14, 2001, the arresting officers had petitioners subscribe to a Joint-Affidavit before Provincial Prosecutor Jessica Viloria, and subsequently filed it with the Provincial Prosecutor's Office. Petitioner Soria was released that evening, approximately 22 hours after his arrest, to undergo preliminary investigation. Petitioner Bista was returned to detention. On May 15, 2001, Bista posted bail for the violation of B.P. Blg. 6. Informations for illegal possession of firearms and election offenses were filed against Bista on May 15, 2001, but he was not released until June 8, 2001, after posting bail for those cases, having been detained for 26 days. On August 15, 2001, petitioners filed a complaint-affidavit with the Office of the Ombudsman for violation of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code (Delay in the delivery of detained persons) against the arresting officers. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for lack of merit in a Joint Resolution dated January 31, 2002, and denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration on March 25, 2002. The Petition: Petitioners, through a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, contend that the public respondents, officers of the Office of the Ombudsman, gravely abused their discretion in dismissing their complaint. They argue that the Ombudsman erred in excluding Sundays, holidays, and election days in the computation of the 18-hour period for Soria and the 36-hour period for Bista under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. Petitioners also assert that the filing of the information against Bista did not justify his continued detention as his release orders were issued much later. They seek to have the Ombudsman's resolutions reversed and the complaint for violation of Article 125 given due course.
Issue(s)
Whether the public respondents gravely abused their discretion in dismissing the complaint for violation of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. Whether Sundays, holidays, and election days should be excluded in the computation of the period prescribed by Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code for the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities. Whether the filing of the information in court justified the continuous detention of Petitioner Bista despite the delay in the issuance of release orders.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Joint Resolution dated January 31, 2002, and the Order dated March 25, 2002, of the Office of the Ombudsman are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: The Supreme Court held that no grave abuse of discretion could be attributed to the public respondents. The Court reiterated its time-honored practice of non-interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations by prosecutory bodies absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion. The disposition of the Ombudsman was properly backed by law and jurisprudence. The Court emphasized that a preliminary investigation is a realistic judicial appraisal of the merits of the case, and if the Ombudsman, using professional judgment, finds the case dismissible, the Court shall respect such findings unless there is grave abuse of discretion. On the exclusion of Sundays, holidays, and election days in the computation of the period under Article 125: The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the Ombudsman that election days, being "no-office days," should not be included in the computation of the period prescribed by law for the filing of complaints or informations in court in cases of warrantless arrests. The Court cited its pronouncements in Medina v. Orozco, Jr. and Sayo v. Chief of Police of Manila, which held that such non-working days are excluded in the computation, considering the practical difficulties in filing cases and securing necessary orders on these days. Therefore, the delivery of Petitioner Soria, who was released on May 14, 2001, and whose charges were filed on May 15, 2001, was considered timely, especially since the period was tolled by the election day. On the duty of arresting officers after filing of information: The Supreme Court sustained the Ombudsman's ruling that the duty of the arresting officers is deemed complied with upon the filing of the informations with the proper judicial authorities. The Court cited Agbay v. Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and People v. Acosta, stating that once the complaint is filed with the court, the intent behind Article 125 is satisfied as the detained person is informed of the imputed crime and may apply for bail. Any further action, such as the issuance of a release order, rests upon the judicial authority. In Petitioner Bista's case, the filing of the informations on May 15, 2001, tolled the 36-hour period, and his subsequent release on June 8, 2001, was a matter for the courts to resolve after he posted bail for the various charges.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that the period prescribed for the delivery of detained persons to judicial authorities under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code is tolled by Sundays, holidays, and election days, and that the duty of arresting officers is deemed complied with upon the filing of the information, with further action resting upon the judicial authority. The Court also affirmed its policy of non-interference in the Ombudsman's findings absent grave abuse of discretion.