Case Summary (G.R. No. L-2128)
Historical Continuity of Arrest Provisions
Provisional Law provisions (1884), Rules 27–28, and Sec. 37 of Act No. 133 (Charter of Manila) authorized warrantless arrests. These were carried into Sec. 6, Rule 109 of the Rules of Court and Sec. 2463 of the Revised Administrative Code. Art. 30–31 of the Provisional Law specified prompt delivery of detainees to judicial authorities and limited detention to twenty‐four hours (extendable to three days under record of serious cause). These procedural safeguards remain largely in force.
Six-Hour Delivery Requirement and Its Purpose
Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code reduced the executive delivery period to six hours. This strict limit is designed to protect personal liberty and guard against unreasonable detention. Sec. 17, Rule 109 of the Rules of Court reiterates that persons arrested for legal grounds must be taken “without unnecessary delay and within the time prescribed in the Revised Penal Code” to the proper court or judge.
“Delivery” to Judicial Authority as Filing of Information
Physical handover of the body is not required. “Delivery” consists in filing an accusation or information with the corresponding court or judge, thereby vesting jurisdiction to issue a warrant of release or commitment. In Manila, filing an information with the city fiscal and the corresponding city court effects delivery.
Limitations on Powers of City Fiscal and Chief of Police
– Chief of Police (Revised Administrative Code, Sec. 2460) may take bail for municipal‐ordinance violations and, upon fiscal’s recommendation and fixation of bail amount, for penal‐law violations. He lacks authority to detain beyond six hours if bail is not posted.
– City Fiscal cannot issue warrants of commitment or release; his sole power is to recommend and fix bail and to file informations. Therefore, he cannot serve as the “judicial authority” under Art. 125 and cannot order continued detention absent court warrant.
Concurrence Emphasizing Strict Compliance
A concurring opinion reaffirmed that arrest without warrant must be followed by delivery to a judge or court within six hours. The city fiscal’s lack of warrant-issuing power means delivery to him cannot cure illegality if detention exceeds six hours. Administrative inefficiency does not justify noncompliance; legislative amendment would be the remedy if the six-hour period were deemed insufficient.
Dissenting View on City Fiscal as Judicial Authority
The dissent argued that the city fiscal is a “judicial officer” in both popular and strict senses, charged by statute to conduct preliminary investigations, prepare informations, and recommend bail. In Manila’s scheme, the city fiscal is the only official to receive arrested persons and perform the functions attributed to justices of the peace elsewhere.
Dissent on Separate Six-Hour Period for City Fiscal
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-2128)
Procedural Background
- Originated as a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s decision interpreting Art. 125, Revised Penal Code (RPC)
- Petitioners: Melencio Sayo and Joaquin Mostero; Respondents: Chief of Police and Officer in Charge of the Manila Municipal Jail
- Initial ruling held that “judicial authority” in Art. 125 RPC means a competent court or judge, not the City Fiscal
- Decision penned by Justice Feria, with concurrences by Justices Paras, Pablo, Bengzon and Briones; partial concurrence by Justice Perfecto; dissent by Justice Tuason, joined in part by Justice Padilla
Issue Presented
- Whether the City Fiscal of Manila qualifies as the “judicial authority” to whom a person arrested without warrant must be delivered within six hours under Art. 125 RPC
Statutory and Historical Foundations
- Provisional Law for application of Spanish Penal Code (Royal Decree of Sept. 4, 1884):
• Rules 27 & 28 (cases and mode of arrest without warrant)
• Arts. 30–31 (time limits for delivery and preliminary warrant of commitment or release) - Act No. 133 (Charter of Manila), Sec. 37; Revised Administrative Code, Secs. 2463, 2460, 2465, 2474
- Rule 109, Rules of Court: Sec. 6 (arrest without warrant), Sec. 17 (delivery within prescribed time)
- Art. 204 of the old Penal Code (antecedent to Art. 125 RPC)
- Const., Art. III, Sec. 1(3) (no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause determined by judge under oath or affidavit)
Interpretation of “Judicial Authority” under Art. 125 RPC
- Art. 125 RPC requires delivery of arrested person within six hours “to the judicial authority”
- Court holds “judicial authority” means a competent court or judge empowered to issue an “auto motivado” (written warrant of commitment or release stating grounds)
- City Fiscal lacks power to issue such warrants; office has never exercised warrant-issuing authority since creation