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

FACTS

On September 11, 2014, Eddie Fortunado filed a complaint for Arbitrary Detention and Grave Misconduct before the Ombudsman against petitioners, who were NBI officials and agents in Bacolod City. Fortunado alleged that on June 27, 2012, he was forcibly taken to the NBI Bacolod City, tortured to confess to the murder of Judge Henry Arles, and forced to sign documents and a letter requesting protective custody. He was detained and later transferred to NBI Manila. His mother filed a Petition for a Writ of Amparo, and the RTC, while finding the case outside the scope of the writ, ordered his release due to a lack of legal basis for his continued confinement on December 26, 2012.
Petitioners countered that Fortunado voluntarily surrendered, confessed to the murder, and agreed to be a witness under the Witness Protection Program. They asserted the arrest was lawful as Fortunado was found with an unlicensed firearm, and that medical examinations showed no signs of torture.
The Ombudsman, in its July 29, 2015 Decision, found petitioners guilty of Simple Misconduct, not Grave Misconduct or Arbitrary Detention. It ruled that while Fortunado’s initial arrest for illegal possession of firearms was lawful, his detention became illegal because petitioners failed to deliver him to the proper judicial authorities within the periods mandated under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. Specifically, instead of an inquest, a regular complaint for illegal possession was filed only on August 7, 2012, and the corresponding Information was filed on January 7, 2013, resulting in a detention of over six months without a case being filed in court. The penalty was a three-month suspension without pay.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals, in its August 2, 2018 Decision, affirmed the finding of liability but modified the offense to Simple Neglect of Duty. The CA held that Fortunado’s voluntary surrender did not justify indefinite detention and noted he was charged with murder only on November 19, 2012, almost five months after his surrender. However, it found no wrongful intent, only an error in judgment. The CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on August 29, 2019.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding petitioners guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty for their handling of the detention of Eddie Fortunado.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals Decision with MODIFICATION, finding petitioners guilty of Simple Misconduct and imposing a three-month suspension without pay.
The Court held that the CA correctly found petitioners administratively liable but erred in characterizing the offense as Simple Neglect of Duty. The facts established Simple Misconduct. Petitioners failed to comply with their duty under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code to deliver a detained person to the proper judicial authorities within the prescribed periods. Fortunado was arrested on June 27, 2012, for illegal possession of firearms, an offense punishable by prision mayor, an afflictive penalty requiring delivery within 36 hours. Petitioners filed a regular complaint only on August 7, 2012, and the Information was filed on January 7, 2013. This delay constituted a violation of a clear rule or duty.
The Court rejected petitioners’ defenses. Fortunado’s alleged voluntary surrender and request for protective custody did not waive the mandatory periods under Article 125 or justify prolonged detention without judicial scrutiny. The claim that the delay was due to a preliminary investigation for murder was unavailing, as the duty to deliver for the offense of illegal possession (the ground for arrest) was separate and immediate. The Court found the elements of corruption or clear intent to violate the law absent, thus warranting a finding of Simple Misconduct, not Grave Misconduct. The penalty of a three-month suspension without pay, as originally imposed by the Ombudsman, was reinstated as appropriate.