Soria vs.

Desierto
G.R. Nos. 153524-25, January 31, 2005
Chico-Nazario, J.

FACTS:
The respondent police officers arrested petitioners Rodolfo Soria and
Edimar Bista without a warrant for alleged illegal possession of firearms
at 8:30PM of May 13, 2001, Sunday, which immediately precedes the
May 14, 2001 Elections. Petitioners were brought to Prosecutor Viloria
on Monday at 4:30PM and was released at 6:30PM of the same day
while Bista was released after 26 days when he applied for bail due to
his standing warrant of arrest for another offense committed.
Petitioners, invoking Article 125, filed a complaint before the
Ombudsman. The latter dismissed the same for lack of merit, ruling that
sundays, holidays, and election days are excluded in the computation
periods as contemplated in Article 125.
ISSUE:
Whether or not sundays, holidays, and election days are excluded in the
computation of periods under Article 125.
RULING:
No, an election day or a special holiday, should not be included in the
computation of the period prescribed by law for the filing of
complaint/information in courts in cases of warrantless arrests, it being a
“No Office Day.”
The Court, citing Medina v. Orozco, Jr., reasoned that –
…In these three no-office days, it was not an easy matter for a fiscal to
look for his clerk and stenographer, draft the information and search for
the Judge to have him act thereon, and get the clerk of court to open the
courthouse, docket the case and have the order of commitment
prepared. And then, where to locate and the uncertainty of locating
those officers and employees could very well compound the fiscal’s
difficulties. These are considerations sufficient enough to deter us from
declaring that Arthur Medina was arbitrarily detained.