G.R. No. L-26723 December 22, 1966
Arthur Medina y Yumul, petitioner, vs. Marcelo F. Orozco, Jr., Acting City Warden of Caloocan City, respondent.

FACTS

On November 7, 1965, at about 12:00 p.m., petitioner Arthur Medina y Yumul was arrested and incarcerated in the Caloocan City jail for his alleged involvement in the murder of Marcelo Sangalang y Diwa, which occurred on October 31, 1965. On the same day of his arrest, at about 9:00 a.m., the case against Medina and two others was referred to a fiscal, who conducted a preliminary investigation in Medina’s presence. An information for murder was filed against Medina and his co-accused in the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Caloocan branch) on November 10, 1965, at about 3:40 p.m., docketed as Criminal Case No. C-1197. The court promptly ordered their commitment to jail. Medina was arraigned and stood trial, which had not yet concluded at the time of the petition.

ISSUE

1. Whether petitioner’s detention from November 7 to November 10, 1965, constituted arbitrary detention in violation of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.
2. Whether petitioner is entitled to discharge from custody due to the alleged arbitrary detention.
3. Whether a preliminary investigation was conducted prior to the filing of the information.
4. Whether the Supreme Court is the proper forum to raise the absence of a preliminary investigation.
5. Whether petitioner was deprived of his right to a speedy trial.

RULING

1. No arbitrary detention. Although over 75 hours elapsed from Medina’s arrest to the filing of the information (exceeding the 18-hour period for capital offenses under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code), the detention was not arbitrary. The period included November 7 (Sunday), November 8 (official holiday), and November 9 (election holiday). The fiscal brought the case to court on the first office day following the arrest, considering the practical difficulties in locating court personnel and drafting documents during holidays.
2. No entitlement to discharge. Even assuming the initial detention was arbitrary, Medina’s current detention is based on a valid court order of commitment dated November 10, 1965, upon a murder indictment—a capital offense where bail is not a matter of right. The legality of the current detention is separate from any prior illegality. A petition for habeas corpus is inappropriate when detention is under a valid court order.
3. Preliminary investigation was conducted. Petitioner’s claim of no preliminary investigation is unsupported. The fiscal asserted it was conducted on the day of arrest in Medina’s presence, corroborated by Medina’s own motion for reinvestigation on November 12, 1965, and the subsequent reinvestigation on December 1, 1965. The presumption of regularity in official duties applies.
4. Supreme Court is not the proper forum. The absence of a preliminary investigation does not affect the court’s jurisdiction but relates to procedural regularity and can be waived. Such matters should be raised before the trial court (Court of First Instance), not the Supreme Court.
5. No deprivation of speedy trial. The trial delays were due to multiple postponements requested by the defense, including motions by Medina’s counsel. Delays caused by the accused or his counsel cannot be deemed oppressive or a denial of the right to a speedy trial.
Petition for habeas corpus is DENIED. Costs against petitioner.