TOPIC: Art. 125 – Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities.

CASE: Lino vs Fugoso 77 Phil. 933

FACTS:

The Manila police detained Montaniel without a warrant for inciting sedition and Pacifico
Deoduco for resisting arrest and disobeying police commands. These two petitioners were still
in custody when this habeas corpus petition was submitted. As a result, they were imprisoned
for three and four days, respectively, without warrants or legally filed charges.

After an investigation by that office, Pascual Montaniel and Pacifico Deoduco were both kept in
detention due to information submitted with the municipal court, even though there was
insufficient evidence to support their prosecution for inciting sedition and resisting arrest,
respectively. According to the information submitted, the municipal court did not issue any arrest
warrants or commitment orders.

ISSUE: Whether accused Deoduco and Montaniel were illegally detained.

RULING: Yes. The accused were illegally detained.

The court has determined that Deoduco and Montaniel's detention was unlawful in light of the
provided circumstances. Even if they were legitimately detained without a warrant, their
continuing detention became unlawful after six hours if they hadn't been handed over to the
appropriate judicial authorities. (Revised Penal Code, Article 125; as revised by Act No. 3940.)
Since no arrest warrants or commitment orders had been issued by the municipal court prior to
the hearing of this case before this Court, the illegality of their imprisonment was not remedied
by the filing of an information against them.

The court determined that the two inmates should not have been kept in the municipal court
simply because the information was filed there because it appeared that the offenses charged
are minor and are not typically grounds for arrest in accordance with Rule 108, section 10. The
court also determined that the two inmates should have been released from prison long before
the information was filed there. Only a commitment order could make the prisoner's continuing
incarceration legal in such a situation, but no such order has ever been given.

Ratio: What constitutes a violation of this article is the failure to deliver the person arrested to
the proper judicial authority within the prescribed time.
If the information is filed beyond the prescribed period, the detention becomes illegal.
The illegality of such detention is not cured by the filing of the information in court.
In such case, the detaining officer is liable under Article 125 because a violation had already
been committed before the information was filed.
DELIVERY. What constitutes delivery is the making of an accusation or charge or filing of an
information against the person arrested with the corresponding court or judge, whereby the
latter acquires jurisdiction to issue an order of release or of commitment of the prisoner. It is not
physical delivery that will satisfy the requirement of this article.

APPLICABLE LAW: Article 125 - Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial
authorities.

Elements of Art. 125

1. The offender is a public officer or employee

2. That he has detained a person for some legal ground
3. That he fails to deliver such person to the proper judicial
authorities within:

a. 12 hours for crimes or offenses punishable by light penalties or their equivalent

b. 18 hours for crimes or offenses punishable by correctional penalties or their
equivalent
c. 36 hours for crimes or offenses punishable by afflictive penalties or capital penalties or
their equivalent

RIGHTS OF THE PERSON DETAINED

1. He shall be informed of the cause of his detention

2. He shall be allowed, upon his request, to communicate and
confer at anytime with his attorney.

A public officer or employee is liable for preventing the exercise of the right of attorneys to visit
and confer with persons arrested.

PURPOSE OF ARTICLE 125

This provision is intended to prevent any abuse resulting from confining a person without
informing him of his offense and without permitting him to go on bail.

As opposed to Article 124 where the detention is illegal from the start, detention under this
provision is legal in the beginning but subsequently becomes illegal after the expiration of the
prescribed periods without the detained prisoner having been delivered to the proper judicial
authority.

Note that the time for delivery of detained persons prescribed in Article 125 does not apply to
suspected terrorists who are detained under RA 9372, in which case the detainee must be
delivered within 3 days from the time of detention.