Sayo v Chief of Police
G.R. No L-2128
May 12, 1948
Petitioner:
Melencio Sayo and Joaquin Mostero
Respondent:
Chief of Police and Officer in Charge of
Municipal Jail of Manila
Facts:
Upon complaint of Bernardino Malinao,
charging the petitioners with having
committed the crime of robbery, Benjamin
Dumlao, a policeman of the City of Manila,
arrested the petitioners on April 2, 1948, and
presented a complaint against them with the
fiscal's office of Manila. Until April 7, 1948,
when the petition for habeas corpus filed
with this Court was heard, the petitioners
were still detained or under arrest, and the
city fiscal had not yet released or filed
against them an information with the proper
courts justice.
This case has not been decided before this
time because there was not a sufficient
number of Justices to form a quorum in
Manila, and it had to be transferred to the
Supreme Court acting in division here in
Baguio for deliberation and decision. We
have not until now an official information as
to the action taken by the office of the city
fiscal on the complaint filed by the Dumlao
against the petitioners.
Issues:
W/N petitioners were illegally detained and
restrained from their liberty?
Held:
YES - Article 125 of the Revised Penal
Code provides that "the penalties provided
in the next proceeding article shall be
imposed upon the public officer or employee
who shall detain any person for some legal
ground and shall fail to deliver such person
to the proper judicial authorities within the
period of six hours."
Taking into consideration the history of the
provisions of the above quoted article, the
precept of our Constitution guaranteeing
individual liberty, and the provisions of
Rules of Court regarding arrest and habeas
corpus, we are of the opinion that the words
"judicial authority", as used in said article,
mean the courts of justices or judges of said
courts vested with judicial power to order
the temporary detention or confinement of a
person charged with having committed a
public offense, that is, "the Supreme Court
and such inferior courts as may be
established by law".
Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code was
substantially taken from article 202 of the
old Penal Code formerly in force of these
Islands, which penalized a public officer
other than a judicial officer who, without
warrant, "shall arrest a person upon a charge
of crime and shall fail to deliver such person
to the judicial authority within twenty-four
hours after his arrest." There was no doubt
that a judicial authority therein referred to
was the judge of a court of justice
empowered by law, after a proper
investigation, to order the temporary
commitment or detention of the person
arrested; and not the city fiscals or any other
officers, who are not authorized by law to do
so.
The judicial authority mentioned in section
125 of the Revised Penal Code cannot be
construed to include the fiscal of the City of
Manila or any other city, because they
cannot issue a warrant of arrest or of
commitment or temporary confinement of a
person surrendered to legalize the detention
of a person arrested without warrant.
To consider the city fiscal as the judicial
authority referred to in article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code, would be to authorize
the detention of a person arrested without
warrant for a period longer than that
permitted by law without any process issued
by a court of competent jurisdiction.