Title
Soria vs. Desierto
Case
G.R. No. 153524-25
Decision Date
Jan 31, 2005
Petitioners arrested without warrant for illegal firearms; detained beyond 36-hour limit. Ombudsman dismissed complaint; SC upheld exclusion of non-office days in detention computation, affirmed no grave abuse of discretion.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 153524-25)

Undisputed Factual Background

Petitioners were arrested without warrant on May 13, 2001, for:
• Soria – illegal possession of a .38 cal. revolver (correctional penalty) and election code violation
• Bista – illegal possession of a UZI sub-machine gun and .22 cal. revolver (afflictive penalty)
Both were initially detained at Santa Police Station. Affidavits were filed on May 14, 2001, before the Provincial Prosecutor, then docketed by 6 PM. Soria was released that same day; Bista remained detained, faced additional charges, posted bail on May 15, and was finally released on June 8, 2001.

Issue on Article 125 Period Computation

Article 125, RPC, prescribes delivery of detainees within:
• 12 hours (light penalties)
• 18 hours (correctional penalties)
• 36 hours (afflictive/capital penalties)
Petitioners challenged the exclusion of Sundays, holidays, and election days in computing these periods, alleging that respondents gravely abused their discretion by dismissing their complaint for delay in delivery.

Petitioners’ Arguments

• Article 125 contains no exception excluding non-office days from the computation of the 12/18/36 periods.
• Soria was detained for 22 hours (exceeding the 18-hour limit).
• Bista’s detention was excessive despite the filing of information; release orders were not issued until June 8.

Respondents’ Defense

• Reliance on jurisprudence (Medina v. Orozco, Sayo v. Manila Chief of Police) and academic commentaries holding that no-office days (Sundays, holidays, election days) are excluded in computing the delivery periods.
• The duty of the arresting officers ended upon filing the complaint/information; further release orders rest with the judiciary (People v. Acosta; Agbay v. Deputy Ombudsman for the Military).

Standard of Review: Grave Abuse of Discretion

Grave abuse of discretion is a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to evasion of a positive duty. In the absence of such abuse, courts will not interfere with the Ombudsman’s preliminary investigation findings (1987 Constitution, Arts. XI and XIII; RA 6770).

Interpretation and Application of Article 125

The Court observed that:
• Medina and Sayo justify excluding no-office days when the practical operation of courts is impossible or impracticable.
• Literal and purposive construction support this exception to ensure fairness and respect for procedural realities.

Application to Petitioner Soria

• Arrest on May 13; affidavit filed May 14, and release ordered May 14 at 6:30 PM.
• Even with 22 hours elapsed, exclusion of Sunday and election day reduced the computation to one office day.
• No arbitrary detention occurred; delivery within the allowable period was satisfied.

Application to Petitioner Bista

• Affidavit filed and information lodged on May 15, well within the 36-hour period (minus election day tolling).
• Detaining officers’ duty ceased upon

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.