Soria vs. Desierto PDF

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 9

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 C.
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.
Criminal Law; Delay in the Delivery of Detained Persons; Computation of Time; Election
day or special holiday not included in the computation of period for filing
complaint/information in cases of warrantless arrests.—Based on applicable laws and
jurisprudence, an election day or a special holiday, should not be included in the computation
of the period prescribed by law for the filing of complaint/information in courts in cases of
warrantless arrests, it being a “no-office day.”
Same; Same; Same; The means of communication as well as the hour of arrest and other
circumstances must be taken into consideration.—For the purpose of determining the
criminal liability of an officer detaining a person for more than six hours prescribed by the
Revised Penal Code, the means of communication as well as the hour of arrest and other
circumstances, such as the time of surrender and the material possibility for the fiscal to
make the investigation and file in time the necessary information, must be taken into
consideration.
Courts; Ombudsman; Factual Findings; Certiorari; Hence, if the Ombudsman, using
professional judgment, finds the case dismissible, the Court shall respect such findings, unless
clothed with grave abuse of discretion.—We have consistently refrained from interfering with
the investigatory and prosecutorial powers of the Ombudsman absent any compelling reason.
This policy is based on
_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

340

340 SUPREME
COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Soria vs. Desierto
constitutional, statutory and practical considerations. We are mindful that the
Constitution and RA 6770 endowed the Office of the Ombudsman with a wide latitude of
investigatory and prosecutorial powers, virtually free from legislative, executive or judicial
intervention, in order to insulate it from outside pressure and improper influence. Moreover,
a preliminary investigation is in effect a realistic judicial appraisal of the merits of the case.
Sufficient proof of the guilt of the accused must be adduced so that when the case is tried, the
trial court may not be bound, as a matter of law, to order an acquittal. Hence, if the
Ombudsman, using professional judgment, finds the case dismissible, the Court shall respect
such findings, unless clothed with grave abuse of discretion. Otherwise, the functions of the
courts will be grievously hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of
investigatory proceedings conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with regard to
complaints filed before it. In much the same way, the courts will be swamped with cases if
they will have to review the exercise of discretion on the part of fiscals or prosecuting
attorneys each time the latter decide to file an information in court or dismiss a complaint by
a private complainant.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.


Jimenez, Gonzales, Liwanag, Bello, Valdez, Caluya & Fernandez for
petitioners.
Cabotaje & Associates for private respondents.

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

Yet again, we are tasked to substitute our judgment for that of the Office of the
Ombudsman in its finding of lack of probable cause made during preliminary
investigation. And, yet again, we reaffirm the time-honored practice of non-
interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations by our prosecutory bodies
absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion on their part.
341
VOL. 450, JANUARY 341
31, 2005
Soria vs. Desierto
Petitioners, thru a special civil action for certiorari, contend precisely that the public
1

respondents herein—officers of the Office of the Ombudsman—gravely abused their


discretion in dismissing the complaint for violation of Article 125 of the Revised Penal
Code (Delay in the delivery of detained persons) against private respondents herein,
members of the Philippine National Police stationed at the Municipality of Santa,
Ilocos Sur.
From the respective pleadings of the parties, the following facts appear to be
2

indubitable:

1. 1.On or about 8:30 in the evening of 13 May 2001 (a Sunday and the day
before the 14 May 2001 Elections ), petitioners were arrested without a
3

warrant by respondents police officers for alleged illegal possession of


firearms and ammunition;
2. 2.Petitioner Soria was arrested for alleged illegal possession of .38 cal. revolver
(a crime which carries with it the penalty of prision correccional in its
maximum period) and for violation of Article 261, par. (f) of the Omnibus
Election Code in relation to the Commission on Election Resolution No. 3328
(which carries the penalty of imprisonment of not less than one [1] year but
not more than six [6] years);
3. 3.Petitioner Bista was arrested for alleged illegal possession of sub-machine
pistol UZI, cal. 9mm and a .22 cal. revolver with ammunition;
4. 4.Immediately after their arrest, petitioners were detained at the Santa, Ilocos
Sur, Police Station. It was at the Santa Police

_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 3-22.
2 Petitioners’ “PETITION FOR CERTIORARI (UNDER RULE 65 OF THE RULES OF COURT)” dated
27 May 2002, Rollo, pp. 3-22; Public Respondents’ “COMMENT” dated 09 October 2002, Rollo, pp. 105-128;
Petitioners’ reply (To: Respondents’ Comment dated 09 October 2002), Rollo, pp. 130-137; Petitioners’
“MEMORANDUM” dated 25 March 2003, Rollo, pp. 140-164; Public Respondents’ “MEMORANDUM” dated
01 April 2003, Rollo, pp. 168-189.
3 Erroneously designated by the public respondents as “Presidential Elections.”

342
342 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Soria vs. Desierto

1. Station that petitioner Bista was identified by one of the police officers to have
a standing warrant of arrest for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 6 issued by
the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Vigan, Ilocos Sur, docketed as Criminal
Case No. 12272;
2. 5.The next day, at about 4:30 p.m. of 14 May 2001 (Monday and election
day), petitioners were brought to the residence of Provincial Prosecutor
Jessica Viloria in San Juan, Ilocos Sur, before whom a “Joint-Affidavit”
against them was subscribed and sworn to by the arresting officers. From
there, the arresting officers brought the petitioners to the Provincial
Prosecutor’s Office in Vigan, Ilocos Sur, and there at about 6:00 p.m. the
“Joint-Affidavit” was filed and docketed;
3. 6.At about 6:30 in the evening of the same day, 14 May 2001, petitioner
Soria was released upon the order of Prosecutor Viloria to undergo the
requisite preliminary investigation, while petitioner Bista was brought back
and continued to be detained at the Santa Police Station. From the time of
petitioner Soria’s detention up to the time of his release, twenty-two (22)
hours had already elapsed;
4. 7.On 15 May 2001, at around 2:00 in the afternoon, petitioner Bista was
brought before the MTC of Vigan, Ilocos Sur, where the case for violation of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 6 was pending. Petitioner Bista posted bail and an
Order of Temporary Release was issued thereafter;
5. 8.At this point in time, no order of release was issued in connection with
petitioner Bista’s arrest for alleged illegal possession of firearms. At 4:30 in
the afternoon of the same day (15 May 2001), an information for Illegal
Possession of Firearms and Ammunition, docketed as Criminal Case No.
4413-S, was filed against petitioner Bista with the 4th Municipal Circuit Trial
Court of Narvacan, Ilocos Sur. At 5:00 in the afternoon, informations for
Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition and violation of Article 261,
par. (f) of the Omnibus Election Code in relation to COMELEC Resolution No.
3328, docketed as Criminal Cases No. 2269-N and No. 2268-N, respectively,
were filed in the Regional Trial Court at Narvacan, Ilocos Sur;
6. 9.On 08 June 2001, petitioner Bista was released upon filing of bail bonds in
Criminal Cases No. 2268-N and No. 4413-S. He was detained for 26 days;

343
VOL. 450, JANUARY 343
31, 2005
Soria vs. Desierto

1. 10.On 15 August 2001, petitioners filed with the Office of the Ombudsman for
Military Affairs a complaint-affidavit for violation of Art. 125 of the Revised
Penal Code against herein private respondents;
2. 11.After considering the parties’ respective submissions, the Office of the
Ombudsman rendered the first assailed Joint Resolution dated 31 January
2002 dismissing the complaint for violation of Art. 125 of the Revised Penal
Code for lack of merit; and
3. 12.On 04 March 2002, petitioners then filed their motion for reconsideration
which was denied for lack of merit in the second assailed Resolution dated 25
March 2002.

Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code states:


Art. 125. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities.—The
penalties provided in the next 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.

It is not under dispute that the alleged crimes for which petitioner Soria was arrested
without warrant are punishable by correctional penalties or their equivalent, thus,
criminal complaints or information should be filed with the proper judicial authorities
within 18 hours of his arrest. Neither is it in dispute that the alleged crimes for which
petitioner Bista was arrested are punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or their
equivalent, thus, he could only be detained for 36 hours without criminal complaints
or information having been filed with the proper judicial authorities.
344
344 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Soria vs. Desierto
The sole bone of contention revolves around the proper application of the 12-18-36
periods. With respect specifically to the detention of petitioner Soria which lasted for
22 hours, it is alleged that public respondents gravely erred in construing Article
125 as excluding Sundays, holidays and election days in the computation of the
4

periods prescribed within which public officers should deliver arrested persons to the
proper judicial authorities as the law never makes such exception. Statutory
construction has it that if a statute is clear and unequivocal, it must be given its
literal meaning and applied without any attempts at interpretation. Public 5

respondents, on the other hand, relied on the cases of Medina v. Orozco, Jr., and Sayo 6

v. Chief of Police of Manila and on commentaries of jurists to bolster their position


7 8

that Sundays, holidays and election days are excluded in the computation of the
periods provided in Article 125, hence, the arresting officers delivered petitioners
9

well within the allowable time.


In addition to the foregoing arguments and with respect specifically to petitioner
Bista, petitioners maintain that the filing of the information in court against
petitioner Bista did not justify his continuous detention. The information was filed
at 4:30 p.m. of 15 May 2001 but the orders for his release were issued by the
Regional Trial Court and Municipal Trial Court of Narvacan, Ilocos Sur, only on 08
June 2001. They argued that based on law and jurisprudence, if no charge is filed by
the prosecutor within the period fixed by law, the arresting officer must release the
detainee lest he be
_______________

4 Revised Penal Code.


5 Rollo, p. 131.
6 No. L-26723, 22 December 1966, 18 SCRA 1168, 1170.

7 No. L-2128, 12 May 1948, 80 Phil. 859.

8 (1) Aquino, The Revised Penal Code, 1997 ed., p. 74. (2) Boado, Notes and Cases on the Revised Penal

Code, 2001 ed., p. 318 (Rollo, pp. 117 & 179).


9 Revised Penal Code.

345
VOL. 450, JANUARY 345
31, 2005
Soria vs. Desierto
charged with violation of Article 125. Public respondents countered that the duty of
10

the arresting officers ended upon the filing of the informations with the proper
judicial authorities following the rulings in Agbay v. Deputy Ombudsman for the
Military, and People v. Acosta.
11 12

From a study of the opposing views advanced by the parties, it is evident that
public respondents did not abuse their discretion in dismissing for lack of probable
cause the complaint against private respondents.
Grave abuse of discretion is such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment
on the part of the public officer concerned which is equivalent to an excess or lack of
jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an
evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to
act at all in contemplation of law as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and
despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility. 13

No grave abuse of discretion, as defined, can be attributed to herein public


respondents. Their disposition of petitioners’ complaint for violation of Article 125 of
the Revised Penal Code cannot be said to have been conjured out of thin air as it was
properly backed up by law and jurisprudence. Public respondents ratiocinated thus:
As aptly pointed out by the respondents insofar as the complaint of Rodolfo Soria is
concerned, based on applicable laws and jurisprudence, an election day or a special holiday,
should not be included in the computation of the period prescribed by law for the filing of
complaint/information in courts in cases of warrantless
_______________

10Id.
11G.R. No. 134503, 02 July 1999, 309 SCRA 726 (Rollo, pp. 123-124).
12 C.A. 54 Official Gazette 4739 (Rollo, pp. 122-123).

13 Duero v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131282, 04 January 2002, 373 SCRA 11, 17; Perez v. Office of the

Ombudsman, G.R. No. 131445, 27 May 2004, 429 SCRA 357.

346
346 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Soria vs. Desierto
arrests, it being a “no-office day.” (Medina vs. Orozco, 125 Phil. 313.) In the instant case,
while it appears that the complaints against Soria for Illegal Possession of Firearm and
Violation of COMELEC Resolution No. 3328 were filed with the Regional Trial Court and
Municipal Trial Court of Narvacan, Ilocos Sur, only on May 15, 200[1] at 4:30 p.m., he had
already been released the day before or on May 14, 2001 at about 6:30 p.m. by the
respondents, as directed by Prov. Prosecutor Jessica [Viloria]. Hence, there could be no
arbitrary detention or violation of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code to speak of. 14

Indeed, we did hold in Medina v. Orozco, Jr., that— 15

. . . The arresting officer’s duty under the law was either to deliver him to the proper judicial
authorities within 18 hours, or thereafter release him. The fact however is that he was not
released. From the time of petitioner’s arrest at 12:00 o’clock p.m. on November 7 to 3:40 p.m.
on November 10 when the information against him for murder actually was in court, over 75
hours have elapsed.
But, stock should be taken of the fact that November 7 was a Sunday; November 8 was
declared an official holiday; and November 9 (election day) was also an official holiday. In
these three no-office days, it was not an easy matter for a fiscal to look for his clerk and
stenographer, draft the information and search for the Judge to have him act thereon, and
get the clerk of court to open the courthouse, docket the case and have the order of
commitment prepared. And then, where to locate and the uncertainty of locating those
officers and employees could very well compound the fiscal’s difficulties. These are
considerations sufficient enough to deter us from declaring that Arthur Medina was
arbitrarily detained. For, he was brought to court on the very first office day following arrest.

And, in Sayo v. Chief of Police of Manila — 16

. . . Of course, for the purpose of determining the criminal liability of an officer detaining a
person for more than six hours pre-
_______________

14 Rollo, pp. 25-26.


15 Supra, note 6.
16 Supra, note 7 at p. 870.

347
VOL. 450, JANUARY 347
31, 2005
Soria vs. Desierto
scribed by the Revised Penal Code, the means of communication as well as the hour of arrest
and other circumstances, such as the time of surrender and the material possibility for the
fiscal to make the investigation and file in time the necessary information, must be taken
into consideration.

As to the issue concerning the duty of the arresting officer after the information has
already been filed in Court, public respondents acted well within their discretion in
ruling thus:
In the same vein, the complaint of Edimar Bista against the respondents for Violation of
Article 125, will not prosper because the running of the thirty-six (36)-hour period prescribed
by law for the filing of the complaint against him from the time of his arrest was tolled by
one day (election day). Moreover, he has a standing warrant of arrest for Violation of B.P.
Blg. 6 and it was only on May 15, 2001, at about 2:00 p.m. that he was able to post bail and
secure an Order of Release. Obviously, however, he could only be released if he has no other
pending criminal case requiring his continuous detention.
The criminal Informations against Bista for Violations of Article 125, RPC and COMELEC
Resolution No. 3328 were filed with the Regional Trial Court and Municipal Trial Court of
Narvacan, Ilocos Sur, on May 15, 2001 (Annexes “G” and “I”, Complaint-Affidavit of Edimar
Bista) but he was released from detention only on June 8, 2001, on orders of the RTC and
MTC of Narvacan, Ilocos Sur (Annexes “J” and “K”, Complaint-Affidavit). Was there a delay
in the delivery of detained person to the proper judicial authorities under the circumstances?
The answer is in the negative. The complaints against him was (sic) seasonably filed in the
court of justice within the thirty-six (36)-hour period prescribed by law as discussed above.
The duty of the detaining officers is deemed complied with upon the filing of the complaints.
Further action, like issuance of a Release Order, then rests upon the judicial authority
(People v. Acosta, [CA] 54 O.G. 4739). 17

_______________

17 Rollo, p. 26.

348
348 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Soria vs. Desierto
The above disposition is in keeping with Agbay v. Deputy Ombudsman for the
Military, wherein we ordained that—
18

. . . Furthermore, upon the filing of the complaint with the Municipal Trial Court, the intent
behind Art. 125 is satisfied considering that by such act, the detained person is informed of
the crime imputed against him and, upon his application with the court, he may be released
on bail. Petitioner himself acknowledged this power of the MCTC to order his release when
he applied for and was granted his release upon posting bail. Thus, the very purpose
underlying Article 125 has been duly served with the filing of the complaint with the MCTC.
We agree with the position of the Ombudsman that such filing of the complaint with the
MCTC interrupted the period prescribed in said Article.
All things considered, there being no grave abuse of discretion, we have no choice but
to defer to the Office of the Ombudsman’s determination that the facts on hand do
not make out a case for violation of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.
As we have underscored in numerous decisions—
We have consistently refrained from interfering with the investigatory and prosecutorial
powers of the Ombudsman absent any compelling reason. This policy is based on
constitutional, statutory and practical considerations. We are mindful that the Constitution
and RA 6770 endowed the Office of the Ombudsman with a wide latitude of investigatory and
prosecutorial powers, virtually free from legislative, executive or judicial intervention, in
order to insulate it from outside pressure and improper influence. Moreover, a preliminary
investigation is in effect a realistic judicial appraisal of the merits of the case. Sufficient proof
of the guilt of the accused must be adduced so that when the case is tried, the trial court may
not be bound, as a matter of law, to order an acquittal. Hence, if the Ombudsman, using
professional judgment, finds the case dismissible, the Court shall respect such
findings, unless clothed with grave abuse of discretion. Otherwise, the functions of the
courts will be grievously hampered by innumerable petitions
_______________

18 Supra, note 11 at pp. 739-740.

349
VOL. 450, JANUARY 349
31, 2005
Soria vs. Desierto
assailing the dismissal of investigatory proceedings conducted by the Office of the
Ombudsman with regard to complaints filed before it. In much the same way, the courts will
be swamped with cases if they will have to review the exercise of discretion on the part of
fiscals or prosecuting attorneys each time the latter decide to file an information in court or
dismiss a complaint by a private complainant. (Emphasis supplied)
19

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition dated 27 May 2002 is hereby


DISMISSED for lack of merit. 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.
SO ORDERED.
Puno (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr. and Tinga, JJ., concur.
Petition dismissed.
Note.—The appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals extends only to decisions
of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases—petitions for certiorari
arising from criminal cases should be taken to the Supreme Court. (Kuizon vs.
Desierto, 354 SCRA 158 [2001])

——o0o——
_______________

19Perez v. Office of the Ombudsman, supra, note 13, citing Presidential Commission on Good Government
v. Desierto, G.R. No. 140232, 19 January 2001, 349 SCRA 767; and Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding
Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto, G.R. No. 136192, 14 August 2001, 362 SCRA 730.

You might also like