On May 13, 2001, at 8:30 p.m., a Sunday and the day before the May 14 elections, Tony and Ben were arrested without warrant by the PNP for alleged illegal possession of firearms and violation of the Omnibus Election Code: Tony, for alleged illegal possession of a 38 cal. revolver and Ben, for alleged illegal possession cal. 9mm UZI and a .22 cal. revolver. Tony’s supposed crime was punishable with correctional penalties so he could be detained only for a maximum of 18 hours while Ben’s alleged crime requires detention only for a maximum of 36 hours.
The next day May 14, 2001 (election day) at 4:30 p.m., both were brought to the residence of the Provincial Fiscal where a Joint Affidavit against them was subscribed which was filed and docketed at the prosecutor’s office at 6 p.m. At about 6:30 p.m. when 22 hours had already lapsed, Tony was released to undergo the requisite preliminary investigation. Ben however remained in detention and was brought to the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) on May 15, 2001 at 2 p.m. in connection with another crime for violation of B.P. 6 where he had a standing warrant of arrest. When Ben posted bail for such charge, the MTC ordered his release. But he was still detained because no order of release was yet issued in the illegal possession of firearms case. It was only at 4:30 p.m. of the same day March 15, 2001 that an Information for illegal possession was filed against him at the MTC. Then at 5 p.m. another Information was filed against Tony and Ben in the RTC for illegal possession and violation of the election code. Ben posted bail for the two cases only on June 8, 2001. He was detained for exactly 26 days. So both Tony and Ben filed a complaint against the arresting PNP officers for delay in the delivery of detained persons in violation of Art. 125 of the RPC. Were the PNP officers liable?
No. An election day or special holiday should not be included in the computation of the period prescribed by law for the filing of the complaint or information in courts in cases of warrant-less arrest, it being a "no office day". In no office days, it is not an easy matter for a prosecutor to look for his clerk and stenographer, draft the information and search for a judge to have him act thereon, and get the clerk to open the courthouse, docket the case and have the order of commitment prepared. And then the uncertainty of locating those officers and employees could very well compound the prosecutor’s difficulties.
In the case of Tony, he was released after 22 hours on election day itself which tolled the running of the 18 hours. And while it appears that the complaints against him were filed only the next day, on May 15, 2001, he was already released by that time as directed by the prosecutor’s office the day before pending preliminary investigation. Hence there could be no arbitrary detention or violation of Article 125 of the RPC to speak of.
With respect to Ben, his complaint against the PNP for violation of Article 125 will not prosper because the running of the 36-hour period prescribed by law for the filing of said complaint from the time of his arrest was tolled by one day (election day). Moreover, he has a standing warrant of arrest for violation of B.P. 6 and it was only on May 15, 2001 at about 2 p.m. that he was able to post bail and secure the release order. But he could not be released because there was no order of release yet for his alleged illegal possession of firearms and violation of the election code which were filed only on May 15, 2001 at 5 p.m. This complaint was filed within the 36 hours prescribed by law because the election day is not included in the counting. The duty of the detaining officers is deemed complied with upon the filing of the complaints. Further action like the issuance of the release order then rests upon the judicial authorities. And his release after 26 days was only because he posted bail only on June 8, 2001 (Soria and Bista vs. Desierto et. al. 153524-25, January 31, 2005)