JOHAYR, SALMAN M.

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

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.

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.

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.