GR L 9805 06; (March, 1957) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-9805-06; March 29, 1957
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DIONISIO MABONG, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
On May 20, 1955, in Lianga, Surigao, Dionisio Mabong was seen stabbing Cipriano Tabel with a bolo. Rural policeman Rufo Verano intervened, clubbed Mabong, took his bolo, tied him up, and delivered him to the chief of police. Mabong was detained in the municipal jail. On May 23, 1955, after more than three days of detention, the chief of police filed two separate murder complaints before the Justice of the Peace, who conducted a preliminary investigation where Mabong pleaded guilty. The cases were forwarded to the court of first instance, where the provincial fiscal filed the corresponding informations. Mabong filed a motion to quash and a petition for habeas corpus, arguing that his detention became illegal after the expiration of the 18-hour period prescribed under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code for delivering a detained person to judicial authorities, and that the subsequent filing of complaints did not validate his initial illegal detention.
ISSUE
Whether the accused’s detention became illegal due to the failure of the authorities to deliver him to the proper judicial authorities within the 18-hour period prescribed by Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, thereby rendering the criminal informations against him invalid and entitling him to release.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the motion to quash and the petition for habeas corpus. The Court ruled that while the public officer responsible for the delay in delivering the accused to judicial authorities beyond the 18-hour period may be criminally liable under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, this delay does not invalidate the subsequent criminal proceedings or the detention itself once a formal complaint is filed. The legality of the confinement is based on the judicial process issued after the filing of the complaint. The Court cited the case of Gunable vs. Director of Prisons, stating that an alleged violation of Article 125 does not affect the legality of confinement under a subsisting process from a competent court. The filing of the criminal complaints on May 23, 1955, rendered the subsequent detention legal, and the issuance of a warrant of arrest thereafter became a mere formality. The order appealed from was affirmed.