RPC-BOOK II LESSON 5

Art. 125. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities. —
The penalties provided in the next preceding 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:

(12) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent;

(18) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by correctional penalties, or their

equivalent; and

(36) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or their
equivalent.

In every case, the person detained shall be informed of the cause of his detention and
shall be allowed, upon his request, to communicate and confer at any time with his
attorney or counsel. (As amended by Exec. Order No. 272)

(Ang pinaka malimit na itinatanong sa mga pulis o ng mga pulis ay kung gaano katagal
pwedeng ikulong ang isang tao matapos naito ay hulihin ng WALANG WARRANT OF
ARREST. (ANG ARTICLE 125 AY HINDI APPLICABLE KUNG ANG ISANG TAO AY
HINULI NG MAY WARRANT OF ARREST).

May batas ba na nagtatakda ng tamang panahon kung gaano ang pwedeng itagal ng
isang tao na hinuli?

Ano ang pananagutan ng isang tao o pulis na nagkulong ng isang tao ng lampas sa
itinakda ng batas?

Ang mga katanungan yan ang sasagutin ng Artikulo 125.

Sa ilalim ng Artcle 125 ng batas na ito, ang isang tao na hinuli ng walang warrant of
arrest ay maari lamang ikulong ng:

a. 12 oras kung ang parusa sa kanyang krimin na nagawa ay light penalties o katumbas
nito. Pag sinabi na light penalties ito ay ang pagkakabilanggo ng 1 araw hanggang 30
araw o ang pag mumulta ng halagang P200.00.

b. 18 oras kung ang parusa sa krimin na kanyang nagawa ay correctional penalties o

katumbas nito. Pag sinabi na correctional penalties ito ay ang pagkakabilnaggo ng
hanggang 6 na taon o ang pagmumulta ng higit sa P200.00.

c. 36 na oras kung ang parusa sa kanyang krimin na nagawa ay 6 na taon hanggang

parusang kamatayan

Elements:
 1. That 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. twelve (12) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by light penalties, or their
equivalent; or

b. eighteen (18) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by correctional penalties, or

their equivalent; or

c. thirty-six (36) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by afflictive or capital

penalties, or their equivalent.

If the offender is a private person, the crime is illegal detention.

(Kung ang nagkasala sa batas na ito ay isang pribading tao, ang kaso ay hindi
paglabag sa Article 125 kundi sa Article 267 or 268 o yong kasong illegal detention)

A private individual who makes a lawful arrest must also comply with the requirements
prescribed in Art. 125. If he fails to do so, he shall be guilty of illegal detention (Art. 267
or Art. 268), not arbitrary detention.

(Kung ang isang pribadong tao ay nagsagawa ng isang pag aresto sa pamamagitan ng
citizen arrest, siya ay may obligasyon na sundin ang isinasaad ng Article 125, at kung
siya ay mabibigo na ito ay sundin, siya ay mapaparusahan sa pag-labag sa illegal
detention at hindi arbitrary detention)

The periods of time in Art. 125 were applied to the arrests made by a private person.
(People vs. Sali, et al., C.A., 50 O.G. 5676)

"Shall detain any person for some legal ground."

Under Art. 125, the public officer or employee has detained the offended party for some
legal ground. The detention is legal in the beginning, because the person detained was
arrested under any of the circumstances where arrest without warrant is authorized by
law. The detention becomes illegal after a certain period of time, because the offended
party is not delivered to the proper judicial authority, within the period specified by Art.
125.

(Sa ilalim ng Article 125, ang pag aresto ay legal sa umpisa, subalit ito ay nagiging
illegal kala-unan sapagkat ang nang huli ay nabigo na sundin ang itinatakda ng Article
125. Kung sa kauna-unahan pa lamang ay ang pag-aresto ay illegal na, ito ay hindi pag
labag sa Article 125 kundi ito ay paglabag sa Article 124 o yong kaso na tinatawag natin
na arbitrary detention)
If the detention of a person is not for some legal ground, it will be a case under Art. 124,
not under Art. 125.

Lino vs. Fuguso (77 Phil. 937-939)

Facts: Pascual Montaniel was arrested without warrant by the police officers of Manila
on November 8,1946, for inciting to sedition, and Pacifico Deoduco, on November
7,1946, for resisting arrest and disobedience to police orders. On November 11 when
this petition for habeas corpus was filed, these two petitioners were still under arrest.
They were thus held in confinement for three and four days, respectively, without
warrants and without charges formally filed in court. The papers of their cases were not
transmitted to the City Fiscal's Office until late in the afternoon of November.

Upon investigation by that office, no sufficient evidence was found to warrant the
prosecution of Pascual Montaniel for inciting to sedition and of Pacifico Deoduco for
resisting arrest, but both remained under custody because of informations filed with the
municipal court charging Montaniel with unjust vexation and Deoduco with disobedience
to an agent of a person in authority. And so far, no warrants of arrest or orders of
commitment are shown to have been issued by the municipal court pursuant to the
informations thus filed.

Held: Under these facts, the detention of Pacifico Deoduco and Pascual Montaniel is
illegal. Even assuming that they were legally arrested without warrant on November 7
and 8,1946, respectively, their continued detention became illegal upon the expiration of
six hours without their having been delivered to the corresponding judicial authorities.

Note: Before E.O. No. 272, the detention of a person legally arrested without a warrant
becomes illegal upon the expiration of:

a) six (6) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent;
or

b) nine (9) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by correctional penalties, or their
equivalent; or

c) eighteen (18) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by afflictive or capital

penalties, or their equivalent.

Art. 125 does not apply when the arrest is by virtue of a warrant of arrest.

But the arrest must be lawful.

If the arrest is made with a warrant of arrest, the person arrested can be detained
indefinitely until his case is decided by the court or he posts a bail for his temporary
release. The reason for this is that there is already a complaint or information filed
against him with the court which issued the order or warrant of arrest and it is not
necessary to deliver the person thus arrested to that court.
(Kung ang isang tao ay inaresto sa bisa ng isang valid na warrant of arrest hindi na
kinakailangan sundin pa ang sinasabi ng Article 125, at ang taong hinuli ay maaring ng
ikulong ng kahit gaano katagal hanggat hindi nagpapalabas ang kautusan ang hukuman
na siya ay palayain. Ang ganitong patakaran ay pinapahintulutan sapagkat kapag ang
hukuman ay nagpalabas na ng warrant of arrest, ibig sabihin ang kasong hinuli ay may
kaso na sa hukuman, at siya ay nasaskop ng hurisdiksyon nito.

Disposition of person arrested without a warrant.

In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 5, Article 113, the person
arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or
jail, and he shall be proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112, Section 7. (Sec. 5,
Rule 113, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure).

Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure states that:

"When a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant involving an offense which

requires a preliminary investigation, the complaint or information may be filed by a
prosecutor without need of such investigation provided an inquest has been conducted
in accordance with existing Rules. In the absence or unavailability of an inquest
prosecutor, the complaint may be filed by the offended party or a peace officer directly
with the proper court on the basis of the affidavit of the offended party or arresting
officer or person."

(Kapag ang isang tao ay naayon sa batas na inaresto ng walang warrant of arrest sa
kasong nangangailangan ng preliminary investigation o paunang pag-iimbistiga, ang
reklamo o information ay maaring isampa ng taga-usig ng hindi na nangangailangan ng
nabanggit na pag-iimbistiga sa kondisyon na nagkaroon na ng inquest o pagsisiyasat
sang-ayon sa umiiral na batas. Kung wala ang taga-usig na magsisiyasat, ang reklamo
ay maaring isampa ng biktima o ng alagad ng batas sa hukuman base sa sinumpaang
salaysay ng biktima o ng nakahuling alagad ng batas)

"Shall fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities.

"It will be noted that what constitutes a violation of Article 125 is the failure to deliver the
person arrested to the proper judicial authority within the period specified therein.

(Ang malilimit na pagkalito ay kung saan dadalahin ang taong inaresto bago matapos
ang panahon na itinkda ng Article 125. Sabi ng batas na ito, ang taong inaresto ay
dapat na madala o makasuhan sa hukuman bago matapos ang mga oras na
binabanggit ng Article 125.

Kung ang kaso ay dinala sa taga-usig o sa piskal, ito ay hindi sapat at mapapanagot pa
rin ang taong umaresto, sapagkat malinaw ang sinasabi ng batas naito na dapat ay sa
hukuman, at ang taga-usig o piskal ay hindi bahagi ng hukuman.

Hindi naman ibig sabihin ay pisikal na dadalahin ng nang aresto ang kanyang hinuli sa
hukuman kundi dapat lamang na ito ay masampahan ng kaso sa hukuman)
The delivery to the judicial authority of a person arrested without warrant by a peace
officer, does not consist in a physical delivery, but in making 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, because the arresting officer can not transfer to the judge
and the latter does not assume the physical custody of the person arrested. (Sayo vs.
Chief of Police of Manila, 80 Phil. 859)

Duty of detaining officer is deemed complied with upon the filing of the complaint with
the judicial authority.

People vs. Acosta (C.A., 54 O.G. 4742)

Facts: Pointed to as among those who laid hands on the two policemen, were Hipolito
Mamuric, Tiburcio Portacio, Perfecto Garcia, Ursulo Diego and Feliciano Cruz. They
were arrested and confined in the municipal jail that night. On the following morning, a
complaint for assault upon agents of persons in authority was filed against them with the
justice of the peace. After the filing of the complaint at 8 o'clock that morning, no action
for the preliminary investigation, as required by law, was taken and Mamuric, Portacio,
Diego and Cruz remained in jail for 6 days without the benefit thereof.

The entry in the police blotter showed that Mayor Acosta ordered their arrest and
detention.

Did Mayor Acosta commit an infraction of Art. 125?

Held: The answer is positively in the negative. Mamuric and others who were jailed with
him on the evening of June 17, 1958, were delivered to the judicial authority upon the
filing of the complaint for assault against them at 8 o'clock in the morning of the
following day.

As the duty of the detaining officer is deemed complied with upon the filing of the
complaint, further action rests upon the judicial authority. It is for the judicial authority to
determine.

" x x x whether there is reasonable ground to believe that an offense has been
committed and the defendant is probably guilty thereof, so as to issue a warrant of
arrest and to hold him for trial." (Sec. 1, Rule 8, Rules of Court)

Justice of the Peace Abaya said that after receiving the complaint in this case, he
advised the complainant, Chief of Police, to release the defendants but Mayor Acosta
objected because it would be hard to locate them later if they go into hiding. Judge
Abaya was mistaken. He need not give any advice at all. It was perfectly within his
power, as justice of the peace with whom the complaint was filed, to release, or issue
warrant of arrest against, the persons complained of after conducting the investigation
as required by the rule.

"Proper judicial authorities.

" The term "judicial authorities", as used in Art. 125, means the courts of justice 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." (Section 1,
Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution)

The judicial authorities mentioned in Section 125 of the Revised Penal Code cannot be
considered to include the fiscal of the City of Manila or any other city, because they
cannot issue a warrant of arrest or of commitment for temporary confinement of a
person surrendered to legalize the detention of the person arrested without warrant.
(Sayo vs. Chief of Police, supra)

(Ang judicial authorities na binabanggit sa Article 125 ng Revised Penal Code ay ang
mga huwes na nabigyan ng kapangyarihan na makapag utos ng pansamantalang
pagkukulong ng isang tao na gumawa ng krimin at hindi dito kasali ang mga piskal)

Detained person should be released when a judge is not available.

Where a judge is not available, the arresting officer is duty-bound to release a detained
person, if the maximum hours for detention provided under Article 125 of the Revised
Penal Code has already expired. Failure to cause the release may result in an offense
under Art. 125. (Albior vs. Auguis, A.M. No. P-01-1472, June 26, 2003)

(Kung sa pagsasampa ng kaso sa hukuman ay wala ang huwes, marapat lamang na

mapalaya ang taong hinuli at kung hindi, ang nanghuli ay maari ng mapanagot ng pag-
labag sa Article 125.

Waiver of the provisions of Art. 125.

Before the complaint or information is filed, the person arrested may ask for a
preliminary investigation in accordance with this Rule, but he must sign a waiver of the
provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in the presence of his
counsel. Notwithstanding the waiver, he may apply for bail and the investigation must
be terminated within fifteen (15) days from its inception. (Sec. 7, par. 2, Rule 112,
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)

(Tanong: Ang isang akusado na hinuli ng walang warrant of arrest ay maari ba na

humingi ng preliminary investigation bago maisampa ang kaso sa hukuman?

Sagot: Oo, sa kundisyon na siya ay pipirma sa isang waiver o pag susuko ng karapatan
na hindi niya papanagutin ang pulis na nagkulong sa kanya ng pag-labag sa Article 125.

Circumstances considered in determining liability of officer detaining a person beyond

legal period.

For the purpose of determining the criminal liability of an officer detaining a person for
more than the time prescribed by the Revised Penal Code, (1) the means of
communication as well as (2) the hour of arrest and (3) other circumstances such as the
time of surrender and the material possibility for the fiscal to make the investigation and
file in time the necessary information, must be taken into consideration. (Sayo vs. Chief
of Police of Manila, 80 Phil. 861)

Thus, when the accused were arrested for direct assault, punishable by a correctional
penalty, on the evening of June 17, 1953, the complaint could not normally been filed
earlier than 8 o'clock in the morning of June 18, because government offices open for
business usually at 8 o'clock in the morning and close at 5 o'clock in the afternoon.
(People vs. Acosta, C.A., 54 O.G. 4742)

Violation of Art. 125 does not affect legality of confinement under process issued by a
court.

(Kahit na nagkaroon ng paglabag sa Article 125, hindi ito nakakaapekto sa legalidad ng

pagkakahuli sa akusado, bilang patunay ay hindi maaring gamitin depensa ng akusado
ang paglabag sa Article 125 upang siya ay hindi mapanagot, ang papanagutang
kriminal na akusado na hinuli ay mananatili hanggat may matibay na ebedensya laban
sa kanya.)

A was arrested and detained for theft. The arresting officer filed the complaint with the
City Fiscal only after 24 hours. An information for theft against A was filed with the court
on the same day by the fiscal. Warrant of arrest was issued by the court.

Held: The failure of the arresting officer to deliver the person arrested to the judicial
authority within the time specified in Article 125, does not affect the legality of the
confinement of the petitioner who is detained because of the warrant subsequently
issued by a competent court when an information was filed therein. (Lino vs. Fuguso, et
al, 77 Phil. 933; Gunabe, et al. vs. Director of Prisons, 77 Phil. 993)

As a matter of fact, a violation of Art. 125 is not considered as one of the grounds on
which one can predicate a motion to quash the information under Rule 113, Sec. 2 of
the Rules of Court (Sec. 3, Rule 117 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure). (People
vs. Mabong, 100 Phil. 1069)

The illegality of detention is not cured by the filing of the information in court.

The detaining officer is liable under Art. 125, even if an information was filed with the
court, because a violation had already been committed before the information was filed.

Fiscal not liable, unless he ordered detention.

If the city fiscal does not file the information within the period of six hours prescribed by
law and the arresting officer continues holding the prisoner beyond the six-hour (nine-
hour, or eighteen-hour) period, the fiscal will not be responsible for violation of said
Article 125, because he is not the one who has arrested and illegally detained the
person arrested, unless he has ordered or induced the arresting officer to hold and not
release the prisoner after the expiration of said period. (Sayo vs. Chief of Police of
Manila, 80 Phil. 863)
If no charge is filed by the fiscal in court within the period fixed in Art. 125, the arresting
officer must release the detainee; otherwise, he will be guilty under Art. 125.

(Ang isang akusado ay dapat na palayain kung hindi siya masasampahan ng kaso sa
panahon na itinakda ng Article 125 at kung hindi, ang nanghuli sa kanya ay
masasampahan ng kasong paglabag sa Article 125.)

Tanong: Kung ang isang akusado ay pinalaya ng mga pulis sapagkat matatapos na ang
panahon na itinakda ng Article 125 at may kakulangan pa ng ebedensya, maari pa ba
itong kasuhan kung halimbawa na nakalipas na ang isang buwan at doon lamang na
kompleto ang mga ebedensya laban sa kanya?

Sagot: Oo, maari pa siyang kasuhan, hindi naman ibiog sabihin at siya ay pinalaya ayon
sa itinatakda ng Article 125 ay nawawala na ang kanyang pananagutan.

Remedy where warrant improperly issued.

If the accused was illegally detained because he was arrested without a preliminary
examination, what should have been done was to set aside the warrant of arrest and
order the discharge of the accused, but without enjoining the municipal judge from
conducting a preliminary examination and afterwards properly issuing a warrant of
arrest. (Alimpoos vs. Court of Appeals, 106 SCRA 159)

Rights of the person detained:

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

2. He shall be allowed, upon his request, to communicate and confer at anytime
with his attorney or counsel. (Art. 125, par. 2)

(Karapatan ng isang tao na nakakulong:

1. Dapat na maipaalam sa kanya ang dahilan kung bakit siya nakakulong;

2. Dapat na siya ay mapayagan sa kanyang pakiusap na makipag usap o
sumangguni anuman oras sa kanyang abogado)

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

(Ang isang opisyal o empleyado ng pamahalaan ay mananagot kung kanyang pipigilan

na magamit ng isang naka-kulong na tao ang kanyang karapatan na mabisita o maka
sangguni sa kanyang abogado)

Any public officer or employee who shall obstruct, prohibit, or otherwise prevent an
attorney entitled to practice in the courts of the Philippines from visiting and conferring
privately with a person arrested, at any hour of the day or, in urgent cases, of the night,
said visit and conference being requested by the person arrested or by another acting in
his behalf, shall be punished by arresto mayor. (Rep. Act No. 857)
Reason for the provisions of Article 125.

Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code 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. (Laurel vs. Misa, 76 Phil. 372)

Art. 125 distinguished from Art. 124

In arbitrary detention under Art. 124, the detention is illegal from the beginning; in
arbitrary detention under Art. 125, the detention is legal in the beginning but the illegality
of the detention starts from the expiration of any of the periods of time specified in Art.
125, without the detained prisoner detained having been delivered to the proper judicial
authority.

Time for delivery of detained persons prescribed in Art. 125 does not apply to suspected
terrorists who are detained under Republic Act 9372.

(Ang panahon na itinatakda ng Article 125 ay hindi maaring gamitin sa isang

pinaghihinalaang terrorista na ikinulong sa ilalim ng R.A. 9372)

A person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy
to commit terrorism shall be delivered to the proper judicial authority within a period of
three days counted from the moment the said charged or suspected person has been
apprehended or arrested, detained, and taken into custody by the said police, or law
enforcement personnel, without the police or law enforcement personnel having said
person in custody incurring any criminal liability for delay in the delivery of detained
persons to the proper judicial authority. However, the arrest of the suspects must result
from the surveillance under Sec. 7 and examination of bank deposits under Sec. 27.
(See Sec. 18, R.A. 9372)

Under Republic Act 9372, a judge must be notified before a suspected terrorist is
detained. Before detaining the person suspected of the crime of terrorism, the police or
law enforcement personnel concerned must present him or her before any judge at the
latter's residence or office nearest the place where the arrest took place at any time of
the day or night. It shall be the duty of the judge, among other things, to ascertain the
identity of the police or law enforcement personnel and the person/s they have arrested
and presented before him/her, to inquire of them the reasons why they have arrested
the person and determine by questioning and personal observation whether or not the
suspect has been subjected to any physical, moral and psychological torture by whom
and why.

The judge shall then submit a written report of what he/she had observed when the
subject was brought before him to the proper court that has jurisdiction over the case of
the person arrested. The report shall be submitted within three (3) calendar days from
the time the suspect was brought to his/her residence or office. Immediately after taking
custody of a person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to
commit terrorism, the police or law enforcement personnel shall notify in writing the
judge of the court nearest the place of apprehension or arrest:
Provided, That where the arrest is made during Saturdays, Sundays, holidays, or after
office hours, the written notice shall be served at the residence of the judge nearest the
place where the accused was arrested. The penalty of 10 years and 1 day to 12 years
of imprisonment shall be imposed upon the police or law enforcement personnel who
fails to notify the judge as provided in the preceding paragraph. (Sec. 18) Period of
Detention in the Event of an Actual or Imminent Terrorist Attack.

In the event of an actual or imminent terrorist attack, suspects may not be detained for
more than 3 days without the written approval of a municipal, city, provincial or regional
official of a Human Rights Commission or judge of the municipal, regional trial court, the
Sandiganbayan or a Justice of the Court of Appeals nearest the place of the arrest. If
the arrest is made during Saturdays, Sundays, holidays, or after office hours, the
arresting police or law enforcement personnel shall bring the person thus arrested to the
residence of any of the officials mentioned above that is nearest the place where the
accused was arrested. The approval in writing of any of the said officials shall be
secured by the police or law enforcement personnel concerned within 5 days after the
date of detention of the persons concerned: Provided, however, That within 3 days after
the detention the suspects, whose connection with the terror attack or threat is not
established, shall be released immediately.

(Sec. 19) Penalty for Failure to Deliver Suspect to the Proper Judicial Authority within
Three Days.

The penalty of 10 years and 1 day to 12 years imprisonment shall be imposed upon any
police or law enforcement personnel who has apprehended or arrested, detained and
taken into custody of a person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or
conspiracy to commit terrorism and fails to deliver such charged or suspected person to
the proper judicial authority within the period of 3 days.