G.R. Nos. 153524-25; January 31, 2005
Rodolfo Soria and Edimar Bista, petitioners, vs. Hon. Aniano Desierto, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Rodolfo Soria and Edimar Bista were arrested without a warrant by police officers on the evening of May 13, 2001, for alleged illegal possession of firearms and election code violations. Soria was detained for offenses punishable by correctional penalties, requiring delivery to judicial authorities within 18 hours. Bista was detained for offenses punishable by afflictive penalties, allowing a 36-hour detention period. Soria was released after 22 hours upon the order of a prosecutor for a preliminary investigation. Bista, also identified for a separate offense with a standing warrant, was brought before a court for that charge within the 36-hour period, but the information for illegal possession of firearms was filed against him only after approximately 26 hours of detention.
The petitioners filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman, alleging a violation of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code (Delay in Delivery of Detained Persons) against the arresting officers. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause, finding that the procedural requirements under Article 125 were substantially complied with and that the delays were not unjustified. The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied, prompting them to elevate the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint for violation of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code against the respondent police officers for lack of probable cause.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the Ombudsman’s resolutions. The Court reiterated the well-established doctrine that it will not interfere with the Ombudsman’s exercise of its investigatory and prosecutory powers absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. The determination of probable cause during a preliminary investigation is an executive function, and the Court will not substitute its own judgment for that of the Ombudsman unless such discretion is exercised in an arbitrary or capricious manner.
The Court found no grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic centers on the proper computation of the detention periods under Article 125. The periods are reckoned from the actual arrest and detention of the person. The Ombudsman correctly found that for Soria, the 22-hour detention before release for preliminary investigation was not unreasonable given the procedural steps taken. For Bista, the filing of the information for illegal possession, the crime with the heavier penalty, occurred within the 36-hour period from his arrest. The time spent processing the separate charge for which he had a warrant did not constitute a violation. The Ombudsman’s finding that the police officers acted without deliberate intent to delay and substantially complied with the law was within its discretionary authority. The petition merely questioned the Ombudsman’s factual assessment and legal conclusion, which is insufficient to establish grave abuse of discretion warranting judicial reversal.