G.R. No L-2128 First issue: Yes. Article 125 of the Revised
May 12, 1948 Penal Code provides that "the penalties provided in the next proceeding article shall Petitioner: be imposed upon the public officer or Melencio Sayo and Joaquin Mostero employee who shall detain any person for some legal ground and shall fail to deliver Respondent: such person to the proper judicial Chief of Police and Officer in Charge of authorities within the period of six hours." Municipal Jail of Manila Taking into consideration the history of the Facts: provisions of the above quoted article, the Upon complaint of Bernardino Malinao, precept of our Constitution guaranteeing charging the petitioners with having individual liberty, and the provisions of committed the crime of robbery, Benjamin Rules of Court regarding arrest and habeas Dumlao, a policeman of the City of Manila, corpus, we are of the opinion that the words arrested the petitioners on April 2, 1948, and "judicial authority", as used in said article, presented a complaint against them with the mean the courts of justices or judges of said fiscal's office of Manila. Until April 7, 1948, courts vested with judicial power to order when the petition for habeas corpus filed the temporary detention or confinement of a with this Court was heard, the petitioners person charged with having committed a were still detained or under arrest, and the public offense, that is, "the Supreme Court city fiscal had not yet released or filed and such inferior courts as may be against them an information with the proper established by law". courts justice. Second issue: No. Article 125 of the Revised This case has not been decided before this Penal Code was substantially taken from time because there was not a sufficient article 202 of the old Penal Code formerly in number of Justices to form a quorum in force of these Islands, which penalized a Manila, and it had to be transferred to the public officer other than a judicial officer Supreme Court acting in division here in who, without warrant, "shall arrest a person Baguio for deliberation and decision. We upon a charge of crime and shall fail to have not until now an official information as deliver such person to the judicial authority to the action taken by the office of the city within twenty-four hours after his arrest." fiscal on the complaint filed by the Dumlao There was no doubt that a judicial authority against the petitioners. therein referred to was the judge of a court of justice empowered by law, after a proper Issues: investigation, to order the temporary W/N petitioners had been illegally restrained commitment or detention of the person of their liberty arrested; and not the city fiscals or any other W/N city fiscal of manila is a judicial officers, who are not authorized by law to do authority within meaning of RPC Art 125 so. The judicial authority mentioned in section 125 of the Revised Penal Code cannot be construed to include the fiscal of the City of Manila or any other city, because they cannot issue a warrant of arrest or of commitment or temporary confinement of a person surrendered to legalize the detention of a person arrested without warrant.
To consider the city fiscal as the judicial
authority referred to in article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, would be to authorize the detention of a person arrested without warrant for a period longer than that permitted by law without any process issued by a court of competent jurisdiction.