View full case

RODOLFO SORIA v. ANIANO DESIERTO

FACTS:

On May 13, 2001, the petitioners were arrested by the respondents, members of the Philippine National Police, for alleged illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. Petitioner Soria was arrested for illegal possession of a .38 caliber revolver and for violation of the Omnibus Election Code. Petitioner Bista was arrested for illegal possession of a sub-machine pistol UZI and a .22 caliber revolver with ammunition. Both petitioners were immediately detained at the Santa, Ilocos Sur, Police Station.

On May 14, 2001, petitioner Soria was released to undergo preliminary investigation, while petitioner Bista continued to be detained at the Santa Police Station. The next day, petitioner Bista was brought before the Municipal Trial Court of Vigan, Ilocos Sur for a case pending against him, and he was released on bail. However, no order of release was issued in connection with petitioner Bista's arrest for illegal possession of firearms.

On May 15, 2001, an information for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition was filed against petitioner Bista with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Narvacan, Ilocos Sur. Additionally, informations for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition and violation of the Omnibus Election Code were filed in the Regional Trial Court at Narvacan, Ilocos Sur.

On June 8, 2001, petitioner Bista was released upon filing of bail bonds. He was detained for 26 days.

On August 15, 2001, the petitioners filed a complaint-affidavit for violation of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code against the private respondents.

The Office of the Ombudsman rendered a resolution dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied.

The issue revolves around the proper application of the 12-18-36 periods prescribed in Article 125. The public respondents contend that Sundays, holidays, and election days should be excluded in the computation of these periods, while the petitioners argue that such exceptions are not provided by law.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the public respondents committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint for violation of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code against the private respondents.

  2. Was there a delay in the delivery of the detained person to the proper judicial authorities?

  3. Did the filing of the complaint interrupt the period prescribed by Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code?

RULING:

  1. No, the public respondents did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The filing of the complaint against the private respondents was done within the allowed time and in accordance with existing laws and jurisprudence. The public respondents properly considered the non-inclusion of election days, holidays, and Sundays in the computation of the period for delivery of arrested persons to the proper judicial authorities. Thus, there was no arbitrary detention or violation of Article 125.

  2. The answer is in the negative. The complaints against the petitioner were seasonably filed in the court of justice within the thirty-six (36)-hour period prescribed by law. 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.

  3. The filing of the complaint with the Municipal Trial Court interrupted the period prescribed in Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Grave abuse of discretion is such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment by a public officer which is equivalent to an excess or lack of jurisdiction. It 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 arbitrarily and despotic by reason of passion or hostility.

  • Statutory construction dictates that if a statute is clear and unequivocal, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without any attempts at interpretation.

  • Election days, holidays, and Sundays are not included in the computation of the periods provided in Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code for the delivery of arrested persons to the proper judicial authorities.

  • The Office of the Ombudsman has wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutorial powers, free from legislative, executive or judicial intervention. The courts must defer to the Ombudsman's determination unless there is grave abuse of discretion.

  • A preliminary investigation is a judicial appraisal of the merits of the case. Sufficient proof of the guilt of the accused must be adduced so that the trial court may not be bound, as a matter of law, to order an acquittal.

  • The functions of the courts will be hampered if they have to review the exercise of discretion on the part of fiscals or prosecuting attorneys each time they decide to file an information in court or dismiss a complaint by a private complainant.