Case Digest (G.R. No. 153524-25)
Facts:
Rodolfo Soria and Edimar Bista v. Hon. Aniano Desierto, et al., G.R. Nos. 153524-25, January 31, 2005, Supreme Court Second Division, Chico-Nazario, J., concerned petitions for certiorari under Rule 65 challenging the Office of the Ombudsman’s dismissal of a complaint for violation of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code (delay in the delivery of detained persons).Petitioners Rodolfo Soria and Edimar Bista were arrested without warrant on the evening of 13 May 2001 by respondents police officers for alleged illegal possession of firearms and related election offenses; they were detained at the Santa, Ilocos Sur Police Station. It was later discovered at the station that Bista had a standing warrant of arrest for violation of B.P. Blg. 6 pending in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Vigan.
On 14 May 2001 petitioners were brought to Provincial Prosecutor Jessica Viloria, a joint-affidavit was sworn by the arresting officers and filed that evening; Soria was released that same day upon the prosecutor’s order (after about 22 hours’ detention), while Bista remained detained. On 15 May 2001 Bista posted bail in the Vigan MTC matter and an information for illegal possession of firearms was filed in the Narvacan courts that afternoon; Bista was released on bail on 8 June 2001 after being detained a total of 26 days.
On 15 August 2001 petitioners filed with the Office of the Ombudsman for Military Affairs a complaint-affidavit against the arresting officers for violation of Article 125, Revised Penal Code. The Ombudsman rendered a Joint Resolution dated 31 January 2002 dismissing the complaint for lack of merit; a motion for reconsideration filed 4 March 2002 was denie...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Office of the Ombudsman gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint for violation of Article 125, Revised Penal Code?
- In computing the 12-18-36 hour periods under Article 125, Revised Penal Code, should Sundays, holidays and election days be excluded?
- Does the filing of an information with the proper court satisfy the arresting officer’s duty under Article 125 and thus justify continued de...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)