CASE 9

Soria v. Desierto. G.R. Nos. 153524-25, January 31, 2005.

Facts:

This was a criminal case where petitioners Edimar Bista and Rodolfo Soria were arrested
on May 13, 2001, Sunday and the day before the May 14 elections, without a warrant by
respondents for alleged illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. In this case, one police
identified Bista to have a standing warrant of arrest for violation of BP Blg. 6. From the time of
Soria’s detention up to the time of his release, 22 hours had already elapsed and Bista was
detained for 26 days. The crimes for which Soria was arrested without warrant are punishable by
correctional penalties or their equivalent, hence, criminal complaints or information should be
filed with the proper judicial authorities within 18 hours of his arrest. The crimes which Bista
was arrested are punishable by afflictive or capital penalties or their equivalent, thus, he could
only be detained for 36 hours without criminal complaints or information having filed with the
proper judicial authorities.

Subsequently, the petitioners filed with the Office of the Ombudsman for Military Affairs
a complaint-affidavit for violation of article 125 of the Revised Penal Code against herein private
respondents. However, the office dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. But petitioners filed
their motion for reconsideration which was then again denied for the same reason in the second
assailed resolution.

Issue:

Whether or not the officers of the Office of the Ombudsman gravely abused their
discretion in dismissing the complaint for violation of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.

Ruling:

No. The respondents did not abuse their discretion in dismissing the case. The
respondents’ disposition of the petitioners’ complaint for violation of Article 125 of the Revised
Penal Code cannot be said to have been conjured out of thin air as it was properly supported or
anchored by law and jurisprudence. It is important to remember that grave abuse of discretion is
such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment on the part of the public officer concerned
which is equivalent to an excess or lack of jurisdiction.

In the case at bar, the complaint of Sonia as based on applicable laws and jurisprudence,
an election day or a special holiday, should not be included in the computation of the period
prescribed by law for filing a complaint or information in courts in cases of warrantless arrests, it
being a no-office day. Therefore, there could be no violation of Article 125 of the RPC. In the
same spectrum, the complaint of Bista against the respondents for violation of the said article
will not prosper because the running of the 36-hour period for filing a complaint or information
against him from the time of his arrest was tolled by one day which was Election Day. Further,
he had a standing warrant of arrest for violation of BP Blg. 6 and he could only be released if he
has no other pending criminal case requiring the continuous detention.