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

FACTS

The facts show that respondent Eddie Fortunado voluntarily sought the protective custody of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in Bacolod City due to a perceived fear for his life and safety after his two companions went missing. In exchange for protection, he volunteered to provide information about the killing of Judge Arles. Fortunado was not under arrest, nor was he placed under arrest. He remained in the protective custody of the NBI Bacolod City, under the petitioners’ charge, for 14 days before being transferred to NBI Manila, where criminal charges were subsequently brought against him.

ISSUE

The primary issue addressed in this Separate Concurring Opinion is whether Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes delay in the delivery of a detained person to proper judicial authorities, applies to a person who has voluntarily sought and remained in the protective custody of law enforcement without any criminal charges at the time.

RULING

Justice Singh, in his Separate Concurring Opinion, concurs in the result to deny the petition but disagrees with the application of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code and its implied waiver in this case. The opinion holds that Article 125 does not apply to Fortunado’s situation because he was not arrested or detained; he voluntarily sought protective custody. Therefore, there was no violation of Article 125. The safeguards under Article 125 are triggered only when a person is arrested or detained without a warrant, which was not the case here. Regarding liability, Justice Singh agrees that the petitioners share responsibility but contends their liability should be limited to the 14-day period they had actual custody over Fortunado, not the entire subsequent six-month period of his detention. He opines that the factual milieu supports a finding of liability for Simple Neglect of Duty only, relating to the delay in the request for preliminary investigation during the period of protective custody.