Case Summary (G.R. No. 137266)
Key Dates
- April 2, 1948: Warrantless arrest of petitioners.
- April 7, 1948: Hearing of the habeas corpus petition.
Applicable Law
- Revised Penal Code, Article 125 (failure of public officer to deliver arrested person to judicial authority within six hours).
- Rules of Court (Rules 108 and 109 on preliminary investigation, arrest, and habeas corpus).
- 1935 Philippine Constitution, Bill of Rights (protection against unreasonable seizure and requirement that no warrant issue except upon probable cause determined by a judge).
Facts
- Petitioners were taken into custody by a police officer who filed a complaint with the City Fiscal of Manila.
- They remained detained from 11:30 a.m. on April 2 until at least April 7 without formal filing of an information or issuance of a commitment warrant by any court or judge.
- No definitive action by the City Fiscal was made available on record; no municipal or Court of First Instance judge conducted a preliminary investigation or issued a warrant of commitment.
Issue
Does the City Fiscal of Manila constitute a “judicial authority” under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, such that delivery to the Fiscal within six hours satisfies the requirement for lawful detention?
Legal Reasoning
- Origin and Purpose of Article 125
– Adopted from the old Penal Code’s requirement that arrested persons be delivered to a judge within 24 hours; revised to six hours to safeguard individual liberty. - Definition of “Judicial Authority”
– Under the Constitution’s vesting of judicial power (Supreme Court and inferior courts), “judicial authority” means a court or judge empowered to issue written commitment or release orders (auto motivado) upon finding probable cause. - Role of the City Fiscal
– Statutorily charged with conducting preliminary investigation and preparing complaints or informations, not with issuing warrants of arrest or commitment.
– Does not assume physical custody or exercise judicial review of probable cause; that function rests solely with courts or judges. - Constitutional Safeguards
– 1935 Constitution, Bill of Rights, guarantees security of person against unreasonable seizure and requires warrants to issue only upon probable cause determined by a judge after examination under oath. - Rules of Court Provisions
– Rule 109, Sec. 17: Officer making an arrest without warrant must, within the Penal Code’s time limit, take the arrestee to the proper court or judge.
– Rule 108, Secs. 1 and 11: Habeas corpus applies to illegal detention; person in custody for lack of court pr
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 137266)
Facts
‒ On April 2, 1948, Patrolman Benjamin Dumlao arrested Melencio Sayo and Joaquin Mostero at about 11:30 a.m. in Manila on Bernardino Malinao’s complaint for alleged robbery.
‒ The arrest was made without a warrant; petitioners were held in custody pending investigation.
‒ No information was filed by the City Fiscal of Manila, nor was a commitment warrant issued by any court, within six hours of arrest.
‒ Petitioners remained detained until April 7, 1948, when their habeas corpus petition was heard by the Supreme Court.
Procedural History
‒ Petition for habeas corpus filed by Sayo and Mostero.
‒ Hearing before the Supreme Court on April 7, 1948, after transfer to Baguio due to lack of quorum in Manila.
‒ Decision issued May 12, 1948; motion for reconsideration subsequently filed and denied August 27, 1948.
Issue
‒ Whether the City Fiscal of Manila is a “judicial authority” under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code to whom a person arrested without warrant must be delivered within six hours.
Applicable Law
‒ Article 125, Revised Penal Code: public officer who detains a person on legal ground and fails to deliver him to proper judicial authority within six hours is punishable.
‒ Sec. 1, Art. VIII, Constitution: judicial power vested in Supreme Court and inferior courts.
‒ Sec. 1(3), Art. III, Constitution: no warrant of arrest may issue but upon probable cause determined by a judge after examination under oath.
‒ Articles 202 and 204, old Penal Code: earlier provisions punishing officers who failed to deliver arrested persons to judicial authority within 24 hours.
‒ Rules of Court: Rule 109, Sec. 17 (duty to take arrested person “within time prescribed” to court or judge); Rule 108, Secs. 11 and 13 (preliminary investigations); Rule 102, Secs. 1 and 4 (scope of habeas corpus).
‒ Revised Administrative Code: Secs. 2460 (power to take bail), 2463 (powers of peace officers), 2465 (duties of City Fiscal), 2474 (preliminary investigation in Manila).
Petitioners’ Contentions
‒ Detention beyond six hours without delivery to a “judicial authority” is illegal restraint of liberty.
‒ Filing a complaint with the City Fiscal’s