G.R. No. 249274 , August 30, 2023
Syrus J. Aluzan, Jose Henry L. Arellano and Ferdinand M. Lavin, Petitioners, vs. Eddie Fortunado, Respondent.

FACTS

This case originated from a complaint filed by respondent Eddie Fortunado before the Office of the Ombudsman against petitioners, who were officials of the NBI Bacolod City, for Grave Misconduct and violation of Article 124 of the Revised Penal Code. Fortunado alleged he was abducted on June 27, 2012, detained at the NBI Bacolod City, tortured, and forced to admit to the murder of Judge Henry Arles. He was transferred to NBI Manila on July 11, 2012. His mother filed a petition for a writ of amparo, which was dismissed as the circumstances of his detention were known, but the court acknowledged no legal basis for his continued confinement and ordered his release. Petitioners denied the allegations, claiming Fortunado sought their protective custody due to his involvement in the killing and was not tortured. The Ombudsman found petitioners guilty of Simple Misconduct, imposing a three-month suspension without pay. The Court of Appeals modified this to Simple Neglect of Duty. Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court. The ponencia denies the petition but bases petitioners’ administrative liability on their failure to comply with the 15-day period for preliminary investigation under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, arguing Fortunado’s voluntary surrender waived his rights under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code and his 14-day detention was within the allowable period.

ISSUE

Whether petitioners should be held administratively liable for Gross Neglect of Duty for the prolonged detention of Fortunado beyond the periods provided in Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, notwithstanding claims of voluntary surrender and protective custody.

RULING

The dissenting opinion agrees with the denial of the Petition but disagrees with the ponencia’s rationale. It holds that petitioners should be liable for Gross Neglect of Duty. The dissent argues that: (1) there was no express waiver of Fortunado’s rights under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as his claim of abduction contradicts any implied waiver from voluntary surrender; (2) the “protective custody” was effectively an arrest without a warrant for illegal possession of firearms, evidenced by an affidavit of seizure executed on the same day Fortunado was taken in, making Article 125 applicable; (3) petitioners failed to comply with the mandatory periods under Article 125 and the requirements for a valid waiver, such as a written waiver in the presence of counsel as required by Republic Act No. 7438 ; (4) petitioners’ failure to file a criminal complaint for illegal possession of firearms until July 27, 2012, a month after Fortunado’s detention, and their transfer of his custody to NBI Manila did not exonerate them but instead constituted a flagrant and palpable breach of duty amounting to Gross Neglect of Duty. The dissent concludes that the penalty should be modified from suspension to dismissal from the service.