G.R. No. 232413.  July 25, 2017.*

(formerly UDK 15419)
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ISSUANCE
OF WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITH PETITION FOR
RELIEF
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
PANGASINAN LEGAL AID and JAY-AR R. SENIN,
petitioners, vs. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE, BUREAU OF
JAIL MANAGEMENT AND PENOLOGY, and
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, respondents.

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Judgments; Moot and

Academic; The Supreme Court (SC) will decide cases, otherwise
moot, if: first, there is a grave violation of the Constitution; second,
the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount
public interest are involved; third, when the constitutional issue
raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the
bench, the bar, and the public; and fourth, the case is capable of
repetition yet evading

_______________

*  EN BANC.

 
 
397
 VOL. 832, JULY 25, 2017 397
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Pangasinan Legal Aid vs.
Department of Justice

review.—Although the latest circular of Secretary Aguirre is

laudable as it adheres to the constitutional provisions on the
rights of pretrial detainees, the Court will not dismiss the case on
the ground of mootness. As can be gleaned from the ever-changing
DOJ circulars, there is a possibility that the latest circular would
again be amended by succeeding secretaries. It has been
repeatedly held that “the Court will decide cases, otherwise moot,
if: first, there is a grave violation of the Constitution; second, the
exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public
interest are involved; third, when the constitutional issue raised
requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench,
the bar, and the public; and fourth, the case is capable of
repetition yet evading review. All four (4) requisites are present in
this case.
Constitutional Law; Criminal Procedure; Warrantless Arrests;
The rule is that a person subject of a warrantless arrest must be
  delivered to the proper judicial authorities within the periods
provided in Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC),
otherwise, the public official or employee could be held liable for
the failure to deliver except if grounded on reasonable and
allowable delays.—The rule is that a person subject of a
warrantless arrest must be delivered to the proper judicial
authorities within the periods provided in Article 125 of the RPC,
otherwise, the public official or employee could be held liable for
the failure to deliver except if grounded on reasonable and
allowable delays. Article 125 of the RPC is intended to prevent
any abuse resulting from confining a person without informing
him of his offense and without allowing him to post bail. It
punishes public officials or employees who shall detain any person
for some legal ground but fail to deliver such person to the proper
judicial authorities within the periods prescribed by law. In case
the detention is without legal ground, the person arrested can
charge the arresting officer with arbitrary detention under Article
124 of the RPC. This is without prejudice to the possible filing of
an action for damages under Article 32 of the New Civil Code of
the Philippines.
Same; Same; Same; The waiver of Article 125 of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC) does not vest upon the Department of Justice
(DOJ), Provincial Prosecutor’s Office (PPO), Bureau of Jail
Management and Penology (BJMP), and Philippine National
Police (PNP) the unbridled right to indefinitely incarcerate an
arrested person and subject him to the whims and caprices of the
reviewing prosecutor of
  
 

398

398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Integrated Bar of the Philippines Pangasinan Legal Aid vs.
Department of Justice

the DOJ.—The waiver of Article 125 of the RPC does not vest
upon the DOJ, PPO, BJMP, and PNP the unbridled right to
indefinitely incarcerate an arrested person and subject him to the
whims and caprices of the reviewing prosecutor of the DOJ. The
waiver of Article 125 must coincide with the prescribed period for
preliminary investigation as mandated by Section 7, Rule 112 of
the Rules of Court. Detention beyond this period violates the
accused’s constitutional right to liberty. Stated differently, the
waiver of the effects of Article 125 of the RPC is not a license to
detain a person ad infinitum. Waiver of a detainee’s right to be
delivered to proper judicial authorities as prescribed by Article
125 of the RPC does not trump his constitutional right in cases
where probable cause was initially found wanting by reason of the
dismissal of the complaint filed before the prosecutor’s office even
if such dismissal is on appeal, reconsideration, reinvestigation or
on automatic review. Every person’s basic right to liberty is not to
be construed as waived by mere operation of Section 7, Rule 112
of the Rules of Court. The fundamental law provides limits and
this must be all the more followed especially so that detention is
proscribed absent probable cause.

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS in the Supreme Court. Habeas

Corpus.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
   January E. Ragudo for petitioner.

MENDOZA, J.:
 
This is a petition for the issuance of writ of habeas
corpus with a petition for declaratory relief filed by the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Pangasinan
Chapter Legal Aid, pursuant to its purpose, as stated in “In
the Matter of the Integration of the Bar of the Philippines,”
issued by the Supreme Court on January 9, 1973, and the
provisions under Guidelines Governing the Establishment
and Operation of Legal Aid Offices in All Chapters of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (Guidelines on Legal
Aid).
 
  
399

VOL. 832, JULY 25, 2017 399

Integrated Bar of the Philippines Pangasinan Legal Aid vs.
Department of Justice

The petition claims that as a result of jail visitations

participated in by the IBP Legal Aid Program, as well as a
series of consultations with the Philippine National Police
(PNP) on the extant condition of detention prisoners, it was
discovered that several detention prisoners had been
languishing in jail for years without a case being filed in
court by the prosecutor’s office and without definite
findings as to the existence or nonexistence of probable
cause.
 
DOJ Issuances
 
The petition considers such condition of several
detention prisoners as an alarming situation brought about
by several Department of Justice (DOJ) issuances, namely:
1. DOJ Circular (D.C.) No. 12, Series of 2012, which
provided that the dismissal of all drug-related cases
involving violations for which the maximum penalty
is either reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment is
subject to automatic review by the Justice Secretary
whether such case has been dismissed on inquest,
preliminary investigation or reinvestigation. It also
stated that [t]he automatic review shall be summary
in nature and shall, as far as practicable, be
completed within 30 days from receipt of the case
records, without prejudice to the right of the
respondent to be immediately released from detention
pending automatic review, unless the respondent is
detained for other causes;
2. D.C. No. 22, Series of 2013, entitled Guidelines on the
Release of Respondents/Accused Pending Automatic
Review of Dismissed Cases Involving Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 9165; and
 
 
400

400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Integrated Bar of the Philippines Pangasinan Legal Aid vs.
Department of Justice

3. D.C. No. 50, Series of 2012, entitled Additional

Guidelines on the Application of Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code, as Amended (RPC).1
For the IBP, it is the height of injustice when innocent
persons are left to suffer in jail for years without a fixed
term. Contending that it is their duty to defend the
Constitution and protect the people against unwarranted
imprisonment and detention, the IBP is requesting the
Court to act on the amendment of the Rules on Preliminary
Investigation, by way of a letter, which has been forwarded
to the Committee on Revision. Pending the desired
amendment, however, the IBP urges the Court to act on
the urgent and imperative need to release from detention
those who are wrongfully imprisoned despite the absence of
probable cause.
The IBP represents in this case its client, Jay-Ar Senin
(Senin). Senin’s rights were allegedly violated because he
has been detained for at least eight months without any
finding of probable cause or a case having been filed in
court.
Senin’s case started when a complaint against him and
other unidentified persons was indorsed on February 9,
2015, by Police Chief Inspector Crisante Pagaduan Sadino
of the San Fabian Police Station, Pangasinan to the
Provincial Prosecutor’s Office. He was arrested while
engaged in the sale of illegal drugs during a buy-bust
operation. Thereafter, he executed a waiver of the
provisions of Article 125 of the RPC.

_______________

1   Art.  125.  Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper

judicial authorities.—The penalties provided in the next preceding article
shall be imposed upon the public officer or employee who shall detain any
person for some legal ground and shall fail to deliver such person to the
proper judicial authorities within the period of; twelve (12) hours, for
crimes or offenses punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent;
eighteen (18) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by correctional
penalties, or their equivalent; and thirty-six (36) hours, for crimes, or
offenses punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or their equivalent.

 
 
401
 VOL. 832, JULY 25, 2017 401
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Pangasinan Legal Aid vs.
Department of Justice

After the preliminary investigation, the prosecutor resolved

to dismiss the case. Pursuant to the then prevailing DOJ
Circular, the case was forwarded to the DOJ for automatic
review.
The IBP claims that the waiver of Article 125 of the RPC
does not vest the DOJ, Provincial Prosecutor’s Office
(PPO), Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP),
and the PNP, the unbridled right to detain Senin
indefinitely subject only to the whims and caprices of the
reviewing prosecutor of the DOJ. Section 7, Rule 112 of the
Rules of Court explicitly provides that preliminary
investigation must be terminated within 15 days from its
inception if the person arrested had requested for a
preliminary investigation and had signed a waiver of the
provisions of Article 125.2 It follows, therefore, that the
waiver of Article 125 must coincide with the 15-day period
of preliminary investigation. The detention beyond this
period violates Senin’s constitutional right to liberty. The
review of the investigating prosecutor’s resolution has been

_______________

2   Section  7.  When accused lawfully arrested without warrant.—

When a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant involving an offense
which requires a preliminary investigation, the complaint or information
may be filed by a prosecutor without need of such investigation provided
an inquest has been conducted in accordance with existing rules. In the
absence or unavailability of an inquest prosecutor, the complaint may be
filed by the offended party or a peace officer directly with the proper court
on the basis of the affidavit of the offended party or arresting officer or
person.
Before the complaint or information is filed, the person arrested may ask
for a preliminary investigation in accordance with this Rule, but he must
sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, in the presence of his counsel. Notwithstanding the waiver, he
may apply for bail and the investigation must be terminated within fifteen
(15) days from its inception.
After the filing of the complaint or information in court without a
preliminary investigation, the accused may, within five (5) days from the
time he learns of its filing, ask for a preliminary investigation with the
same right to adduce evidence in his defense as provided in this Rule.

 
 
 402

402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Integrated Bar of the Philippines Pangasinan Legal Aid vs.
Department of Justice

pending with the DOJ for more than eight months. The
IBP concludes that Senin must be released from detention
and be relieved from the effects of the unconstitutional
issuances of the DOJ.
Thus, the petition prays that the Court:

a) declare that pursuant to A.M. No. 08-11-7-SC, the petitioner is

exempt from the payment of filing fees;
b) issue a writ of habeas corpus directing the release of Senin;
c) declare the aforementioned issuances of the DOJ as
unconstitutional;
d) immediately set the case for hearing due to its urgency; and
e) issue a writ of kalayaan directing the release of all detention
prisoners in a similar plight.

 
Department
Circular No.
50
 
On December 18, 2015, D.C. No. 50 was issued by then
Secretary of Justice (SOJ), now Associate Justice Alfredo
Benjamin S. Caguioa of this Court. In brief, D.C. No. 50
stated that a person with a pending case for automatic
review before the DOJ shall be released immediately if the
review is not resolved within a period of 30 days, to wit:

9.  All cases subject to automatic review shall be resolved by

the Office of the Secretary within thirty (30) days from the date
the complete records are elevated to this Department in order to
give the concerned signatory of the review resolution sufficient
time to study the case, the reviewing prosecutor to whom the case
is assigned is mandated to submit his recommendation to the
concerned signatory ten (10) days before the thirty (30)-day
deadline. The docket section of this Department is also

 
 
403

VOL. 832, JULY 25, 2017 403

Integrated Bar of the Philippines Pangasinan Legal Aid vs.
 Department of Justice

directed to monitor compliance with the periods prescribed herein.

If the case subject of the automatic review is not resolved
within thirty (30) days, then the respondent shall be immediately
released from detention pending automatic review, unless the
respondent is detained for other causes.

 
D.C. No. 50 also directed all heads of prosecution offices
to immediately issue corresponding release orders in favor
of respondents, whose cases are still pending automatic
review before the Office of the Secretary, beyond the 30 day
period, unless they are detained for other causes.
 
Department
Circular No.
003
 
On January 13, 2016, however, D.C. No. 003 was issued
revoking DC No. 50 and reinstating D.C. No. 012, Series of
2012.
 
Reversal of the Order
of Dismissal

 
Meanwhile, on February 10, 2016, the Information
against Senin for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs
was finally filed by Prosecutor Marcelo C. Espinosa. Later,
the RTC, Branch 43, Dagupan City (RTC), issued a
commitment order directing Senin’s detention during the
pendency of the case against him.
On February 16, 2016, the IBP filed a manifestation
with motion informing the Court that to their surprise,
Senin signed a Motion for Issuance of Order of Release;
that such motion was filed before the RTC, Branch 43, and
was later on set for hearing; that to protect the interest of
Senin, the IBP filed a motion to intervene in the said
proceeding; that no case has been filed before the said trial
court; that any action the RTC would take might preempt
the Court in resolving this
 
 
404

404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Integrated Bar of the Philippines Pangasinan Legal Aid vs.
Department of Justice
case; and that Senin remains incarcerated despite the
issuance of D.C. No. 50. With all these events, the IBP
prays for the issuance of an order directing BJMP to
release Senin from detention unless detained for some
other lawful causes.
An Amended information, dated February 22, 2016, was
subsequently filed before the RTC, Branch 43.
 
Department
Circular No. 004
 
On January 4, 2017, the incumbent Secretary of Justice,
Vitaliano N. Aguirre II, issued D.C. No. 004, Series of 2017,
the pertinent provisions of which read:

In the interest of the service and pursuant to the provisions of

existing laws, the dismissal of all cases whether on inquest,
preliminary investigation, reinvestigation or on appeal, filed for
violation of Republic Act
No. 9165 (Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) and
involving the maximum penalty of reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, shall be subject to automatic review by the
Secretary of Justice.
The entire records of the case shall be elevated to the Secretary
of Justice, within three (3) days from issuance of the resolution
dismissing the complaint or appeal, as applicable, and the parties
involved shall be notified accordingly.
Notwithstanding the automatic review, respondent
shall be immediately released from detention unless
detained for other causes.
This Department Circular shall apply to all pending cases and
to those which have been dismissed prior to the issuance hereof, if
such dismissal has not yet attained finality as of the effectivity of
this Circular.
This Department Order revokes all prior issuances
inconsistent herewith and shall take effect immediately until
revoked.
For strict compliance.

 
 

405

VOL. 832, JULY 25, 2017 405

Integrated Bar of the Philippines Pangasinan Legal Aid vs.
Department of Justice
Position of the IBP on the
effect of the amendments
on the DOJ issuances
 
The IBP concedes that the present detention of Senin
had been overrun by the issuance of D.C. No. 50, the
resolution of the DOJ reversing the dismissal order of the
PPO and the eventual filing of the February 22, 2016
Amended Information. It remains firm, however, that
despite these circumstances, the dismissal of this petition
is not in order as the writ of habeas corpus for the
immediate release of Senin is but one of the three reliefs
being sought from the Court. The IBP reiterates that the
constitutionality of DC No. 12, Series of 2012, DC No. 22,
Series of 2013 and DC No. 50 is still being questioned.
Likewise, it emphasizes that the issuance of a writ of
kalayaan is one of the reliefs prayed for in order to protect
those similarly situated as Senin.
The IBP pleads for the Court not to dismiss the petition
outright and resolve the issue on the constitutionality of
the DOJ issuances in order to prevent the executive
department from issuing orders which tend to violate basic
constitutional rights.
It appears that the IBP is unaware of the issuance of
D.C. No. 004 as no manifestation has been filed with the
Court regarding the same circular.
 
Position of the BJMP
 
According to the BJMP, Senin has been confined in its
facility through a valid commitment order issued by the
court and cannot be released without an order directing the
same. It asserts that it has not disregarded or violated any
existing laws or policy at the expense of Senin’s rights. The
BJMP cites Agbay v. Deputy Ombudsman3 and its 2007
Revised

_______________

3  369 Phil. 174; 309 SCRA 726 (1999). The power to order the release
or confinement of the accused is determinative of the issue. In

 
 
406

406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Integrated Bar of the Philippines Pangasinan Legal Aid vs.
Department of Justice

BJMP Manual,4 wherein it is provided that court order is

required before a prisoner can be released. It insists that
the continuous detention of Senin is legal considering that
the RTC has already issued a commitment order, which
has not been recalled or revoked.
The BJMP avers that D.C. No. 50 does not vest it
unbridled discretion to release prisoners because a court
order is always required. It opines that the filing of an
Information against Senin for Illegal Possession of
Dangerous Drugs mooted the question on the legality of the
latter’s detention.
 
Position of the OSG
 
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) posits that the
remedy of habeas corpus availed of by the IBP and Senin is
not appropriate considering that as of February 10, 2016,
the SOJ has found the existence of probable cause for the
filing of information in court. For said reason, the OSG
deems it unnecessary for the Court to determine the
constitutionality of the DOJ issuances as the question on
the legality of Senin’s detention has already been put to
rest. In other words, the OSG points out that the
constitutional question is not the very lis mota of the case,
thus, precluding this Court from exercising its power of
judicial review.

_______________

contrast with a city fiscal, it is undisputed that a municipal court judge,

even in the performance of his function to conduct preliminary
investigation retains the power to issue order of release or commitment.
4   No inmate shall be released on a mere verbal order or an order
relayed by telephone. The release of an inmate by reason of acquittal,
dismissal of case, payment of fines and/or indemnity, or filing of bond
shall be effected only upon receipt of the Release Order served by the
court process server. The Court Order shall bear the full name of the
inmate, the crime he/she was charged with, the criminal case number and
such other details that will enable the officer in charge to properly identify
the inmate to be released.

 
 
407
 VOL. 832, JULY 25, 2017 407
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Pangasinan Legal Aid vs.
Department of Justice

Reply of the IBP

 
The IBP seeks to nullify the DOJ issuances for the
alleged violation of the detainee’s rights. It asserts that the
DOJ issuances requiring the automatic review of dismissed
cases involving drug-related cases for which the maximum
penalty is either reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment,
permit the indefinite confinement of a pretrial detainee
who has waived Article 125 of the RPC in order to undergo
preliminary investigation. The IBP believes that a person
who has requested the conduct of a preliminary
investigation can only be detained for a maximum period of
15 days because the Rules require that the preliminary
investigation be terminated within such period despite
waiver of Article 125. It also claims that those persons
whose cases were dismissed initially by the investigating
prosecutor should be released even if the dismissal is still
subject to reinvestigation or to the SOJ’s automatic review.
 
History of the DOJ Issuances
 
D.C. No. 46, dated
June 26, 2003

 
The process of automatic review of dismissed drug cases
was first instituted in 2003.
Due to numerous complaints about illegal drug cases
being whitewashed or dismissed due to sloppy police work,
former SOJ Simeon Datumanong issued D.C. No. 46,
empowering the DOJ to automatically review dismissed
cases filed in violation of R.A. No. 9165 and involving the
maximum penalty of life imprisonment or death.
The circular also applied to cases which had been
dismissed prior to its issuance if such dismissal had not yet
attained finality as of the date of the circular.
 
 
408

408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Integrated Bar of the Philippines Pangasinan Legal Aid vs.
Department of Justice
D.C. No. 12, dated
February 13, 2012
 
D.C. No. 46 was followed by D.C. No. 12 in which former
SOJ Leila M. De Lima, for the most part, reiterated the
provisions of the first circular but added that automatic
review of dismissed drug cases shall be without prejudice to
the right of the respondent to be immediately released from
detention pending automatic review, unless respondent is
detained for other causes.
 
D.C. No. 22, dated
February 12, 2013
 
A year after, SOJ De Lima revised the guidelines
directing the continued detention of some respondents
accused of violating R.A. No. 9165. She reasoned that
cases, where the maximum imposable penalty reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment, are presumably high-
priority drug cases whose alleged perpetrators should
remain in custody.
In this circular, the only respondents who may be
released, pending automatic review of their cases by the
SOJ, are those whose cases were dismissed during inquest
proceedings on the ground that the arrest was not a valid
warrantless arrest under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules
of Criminal Procedure, or that no probable cause exists to
charge respondents in court.
The respondents shall remain in custody, pending
automatic review of the dismissal of their cases, in the
following instances as provided for under the circular:
1. When during inquest proceedings, respondent elects to
avail of a regular preliminary investigation and
waives in writing the provisions of Article 125 of the
RPC;
2. When an information is filed in court after inquest
proceedings and the accused is placed in
 
 
409

VOL. 832, JULY 25, 2017 409

Integrated Bar of the Philippines Pangasinan Legal Aid vs.
Department of Justice

the custody of the law, but the court allows the

accused to avail of a regular preliminary
 investigation, which results in the dismissal of the
case, the handling prosecutor shall insist that the
accused shall remain in the custody of the law
pending automatic review by the SOJ, unless the
court provides otherwise, or until the dismissal is
affirmed by the SOJ and the corresponding motion to
dismiss or withdraw information is granted by the
court;
3. When an information is filed in court after
preliminary investigation proceedings and the
accused is placed in the custody of the law, but the
court allows the accused to avail of reinvestigation,
which results in the dismissal of the case, the accused
shall remain in custody of the law pending automatic
review by the SOJ, unless the court provides
otherwise, or until the dismissal is affirmed by the
SOJ and the corresponding motion to dismiss or
withdraw information is granted by the court; and
4. When the case against respondent is dismissed after
due reinvestigation, if the case was commenced as an
inquest case but was converted to a regular
preliminary investigation after respondent elected the
same and waived the provisions of Article 125 of the
RPC.
 
D.C. No. 50, dated
December 18, 2015
 
In order to address the problem of delay in the
disposition of cases subject to automatic review and the
prolonged detention of drug suspects without any case filed
against them, then SOJ Caguioa issued D.C. No. 50,
directing all heads of prosecution offices to immediately
issue corresponding release
 
 
410

410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Integrated Bar of the Philippines Pangasinan Legal Aid vs.
Department of Justice

orders in favor of respondents whose cases are still pending

automatic review before the SOJ beyond the 30-day period
prescribed in the subject circular, unless respondents are
detained for some other causes.
 
D.C No. 003, dated
January 13, 2016
 
In view of the considerable number of petitions for
habeas corpus filed against the DOJ by accused
languishing in jail for years while their cases were pending
automatic review by the DOJ, then SOJ Caguioa revoked
D.C. No. 50 dated December 18, 2015 and D.C. No. 22,
dated February 12, 2013.
SOJ Caguioa then reinstated D.C. No. 12, dated
February 13, 2012, mandating immediate release of
respondents pending automatic review, unless respondents
are detained for other causes.
 
D.C. No. 004, dated
January 4, 2017
 
SOJ Vitaliano Aguirre, in this latest circular, reiterated
the provisions of D.C. No. 3, dated January 13, 2016,
insofar as it orders the respondent/s to be immediately
released from detention, pending automatic review, unless
detained for other causes.
 
Petition is moot
and academic
 
The Court agrees with the OSG that this controversy
has become moot and academic. First, the DOJ already
issued D.C. No. 004, Series of 2017, which recognizes the
right of a detainee to be released even if the dismissal of
the case on preliminary investigation is the subject of
automatic review by the SOJ. Second, records show that
the order of dismissal was reversed; that upon filing of the
information with the
 
 
411

VOL. 832, JULY 25, 2017 411

Integrated Bar of the Philippines Pangasinan Legal Aid vs.
Department of Justice

court, there was judicial determination of probable cause

against Senin; and that following such judicial
determination, the court issued a warrant of arrest and a
commitment order.
 
The rule pertaining to pretrial
detainees whose cases are
under preliminary investiga-
tion, or whose cases have been
dismissed on inquest, prelimi-
nary investigation but pending
appeal, motion for reconsidera-
tion, reinvestigation or auto-
matic review
 
Although the latest circular of Secretary Aguirre is
laudable as it adheres to the constitutional provisions on
the rights of pretrial detainees, the Court will not dismiss
the case on the ground of mootness. As can be gleaned from
the ever-changing DOJ circulars, there is a possibility that
the latest circular would again be amended by succeeding
secretaries. It has been repeatedly held that “the Court will
decide cases, otherwise moot, if: first, there is a grave
violation of the Constitution; second, the exceptional
character of the situation and the paramount public
interest are involved; third, when the constitutional issue
raised requires formulation of controlling principles to
guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and fourth, the
case is capable of repetition yet evading review.5 All four
(4) requisites are present in this case.
As the case is prone to being repeated as a result of
constant changes, the Court, as the guardian and final
arbiter of

_______________

5  International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications,

Inc. v. Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), G.R. Nos. 209271, 209276,
209301 & 209430, July 26, 2016, 798 SCRA 250. (Resolution)

 
 
412

412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Integrated Bar of the Philippines Pangasinan Legal Aid vs.
Department of Justice

the Constitution6 and pursuant to its prerogative to

promulgate rules concerning the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights,7 takes this
opportunity to lay down controlling principles to guide the
bench, the bar and the public on the propriety of the
continued detention of an arrested person whose case has
been dismissed on inquest, preliminary investigation,
reinvestigation, or appeal but pending automatic review by
the SOJ.
The rule is that a person subject of a warrantless arrest
must be delivered to the proper judicial authorities8 within
the periods provided in Article 125 of the RPC, otherwise,
the public official or employee could be held liable for the
failure

_______________

6  In his Dissenting Opinion in Ilagan v. Enrile (223 Phil. 561, 619; 139
SCRA 349, 404-405 [1985]), then Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee said:
“The judiciary, as headed by the Supreme Court has neither the
power of the sword nor the purse. Yet as the third great
department of government, it is entrusted by the Constitution with
judicial power — the awesome power and task of determining
disputes between litigants involving life, liberty and fortune and
protecting the citizen against arbitrary or oppressive action of the
State. The Supreme Court and all inferior courts are called upon by
the Constitution to protect the citizen against violation of his
constitutional or legal rights or misuse or abuse of power by the
State or its officers. The judiciary [assisted by the bar] stands
between the citizen and the State as a bulwark against executive
excesses and misuse or abuse of power by the executive as also
transgression of its constitutional limitations by the legislature.”
7  Constitution, Article VIII, Section 5(5).
8   The words “judicial authority” as contemplated by Art. 125 mean
“the courts of justices or judges of said courts vested with judicial power to
order the temporary detention or confinement of a person charged with
having committed a public offense, that is, the Supreme Court and such
inferior courts as may be established by law.” (Sayo v. Chief of Police of
Manila, 80 Phil. 859, 866 (1948), as cited in Agbay v. Deputy Ombudsman
for the Military, supra note 3 at p. 188; p. 737).

 
 
413

VOL. 832, JULY 25, 2017 413

Integrated Bar of the Philippines Pangasinan Legal Aid vs.
Department of Justice

to deliver except if grounded on reasonable and allowable

delays. Article 125 of the RPC is intended to prevent any
abuse resulting from confining a person without informing
him of his offense and without allowing him to post bail. It
punishes public officials or employees who shall detain any
person for some legal ground but fail to deliver such person
to the proper judicial authorities within the periods
prescribed by law. In case the detention is without legal
ground, the person arrested can charge the arresting officer
with arbitrary detention under Article 124 of the RPC. This
is without prejudice to the possible filing of an action for
damages under Article 32 of the New Civil Code of the
Philippines.
Article 125 of the RPC, however, can be waived if the
detainee who was validly arrested without a warrant opts
for the conduct of preliminary investigation. The question
to be addressed here, therefore, is whether such waiver
gives the State the right to detain a person indefinitely.
The Court answers in the negative.
The waiver of Article 125 of the RPC does not vest upon
the DOJ, PPO, BJMP, and PNP the unbridled right to
indefinitely incarcerate an arrested person and subject him
to the whims and caprices of the reviewing prosecutor of
the DOJ. The waiver of Article 125 must coincide with the
prescribed period for preliminary investigation as
mandated by Section 7, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court.
Detention beyond this period violates the accused’s
constitutional right to liberty.
Stated differently, the waiver of the effects of Article 125
of the RPC is not a license to detain a person ad infinitum.
Waiver of a detainee’s right to be delivered to proper
judicial authorities as prescribed by Article 125 of the RPC
does not trump his constitutional right in cases where
probable cause was initially found wanting by reason of the
dismissal of the complaint filed before the prosecutor’s
office even if such dismissal is on appeal, reconsideration,
reinvestigation or on automatic review. Every person’s
basic right to liberty is not
 
 
414

414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Integrated Bar of the Philippines Pangasinan Legal Aid vs.
Department of Justice

to be construed as waived by mere operation of Section 7,

Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. The fundamental law
provides limits and this must be all the more followed
especially so that detention is proscribed absent probable
cause.
Accordingly, the Court rules that a detainee under such
circumstances must be promptly released to avoid violation
of the constitutional right to liberty, despite a waiver of
Article 125, if the 15-day period (or the thirty 30-day period
in cases of violation of R.A. No. 9165)9 for the conduct of the
prelimi-

_______________

9   Republic Act No. 9165, Section  90.  Jurisdiction.—The Supreme

Court shall designate special courts from among the existing Regional
Trial Courts in each judicial region to exclusively try and hear cases
involving violations of this Act. The number of courts designated in each
judicial region shall be based on the population and the number of cases
pending in their respective jurisdiction.
The DOJ shall designate special prosecutors to exclusively handle cases
involving violations of this Act.
The preliminary investigation of cases filed under this Act shall
be terminated within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of
their filing.
When the preliminary investigation is conducted by a public prosecutor
and a probable cause is established, the corresponding information shall
be filed in court within twenty-four (24) hours from the termination of the
investigation. If the preliminary investigation is conducted by a judge and
a probable cause is found to exist, the corresponding information shall be
filed by the proper prosecutor within forty-eight (48) hours from the date
of receipt of the records of the case.
Trial of the case under this Section shall be finished by the court not
later than sixty (60) days from the date of the filing of the information.
Decision on said cases shall be rendered within a period of fifteen (15)
days from the date of submission of the case for resolution.
The Implementing Rules and Regulations of the law further states:
Section  90.  Jurisdiction.—The Supreme Court shall designate special
courts from among the existing Regional Trial Courts in

 
 
415

VOL. 832, JULY 25, 2017 415

Integrated Bar of the Philippines Pangasinan Legal Aid vs.
Department of Justice

nary investigation lapses. This rule also applies in cases

where the investigating prosecutor resolves to dismiss the
case, even if such dismissal was appealed to the DOJ or
made the subject of a motion for reconsideration,
reinvestigation or automatic review. The reason is that
such dismissal automatically results in a prima facie
finding of lack of probable cause to file an information in
court and to detain a person.

_______________

each judicial region to exclusively try and hear cases involving violations
of the Act. The number of courts designated in each judicial region shall
be based on the population and the number of cases pending in their
respective jurisdiction.
The DOJ, through its provincial/city prosecution offices, shall designate
special prosecutors to exclusively handle cases involving violations of the
Act.
The preliminary investigation of cases filed under the Act shall
be terminated within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of
their filing.
When the preliminary investigation is conducted by a public prosecutor
and a probable cause is established, the corresponding information shall
be filed in court within twenty-four (24) hours from the termination of the
investigation. If the preliminary investigation is conducted by a judge and
a probable cause is found to exist, the corresponding information shall be
filed by the proper prosecutor within forty-eight (48) hours from the date
of receipt of the records of the case.
However, when the prosecutor disagrees with the finding of the
Municipal Trial Court and he/she finds the need to conduct a formal
reinvestigation of the case to clarify issues, or to afford either party the
opportunity to be heard to avoid miscarriage of justice, the prosecutor has
to terminate the reinvestigation within fifteen (15) days from receipt of
the records, and if probable cause exists, to file the corresponding
information in court within forty-eight (48) hours from termination of the
reinvestigation.
Trial of the case under this Section shall be finished by the court not
later than sixty (60) days from the date of the filing of the information.
Decision on said cases shall be rendered within a period of fifteen (15)
days from the date of submission of the case for resolution.

 
 
416

416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Integrated Bar of the Philippines Pangasinan Legal Aid vs.
Department of Justice
 The Court is aware that this decision may raise
discomfort to some, especially at this time when the
present administration aggressively wages its
“indisputably popular war on illegal drugs.” As Justice
Diosdado Peralta puts it, that the security of the public and
the interest of the State would be jeopardized is not a
justification to trample upon the constitutional rights of the
detainees against deprivation of liberty without due
process of law, to be presumed innocent until the contrary
is proved and to a speedy disposition of the case.
WHEREFORE, it is hereby declared, and ruled, that all
detainees whose pending cases have gone beyond the
mandated periods for the conduct of preliminary
investigation, or whose cases have already been dismissed
on inquest or preliminary investigation, despite pending
appeal, reconsideration, reinvestigation or automatic
review by the Secretary of Justice, are entitled to be
released pursuant to their constitutional right to liberty
and their constitutional right against unreasonable
seizures, unless detained for some other lawful cause.
SO ORDERED.

Sereno (CJ.), Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro,

Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen,
Jardeleza, Martires, Tijam and Reyes, Jr., JJ., concur.
Caguioa, J., No part.

All detainees whose pending cases have gone beyond

mandated period of preliminary investigation, dismissed
despite pending appeal, reconsideration, reinvestigation or
automatic review are entitled to be released pursuant to
their constitutional rights.

 
 
417

VOL. 832, JULY 25, 2017 417

Integrated Bar of the Philippines Pangasinan Legal Aid vs.
Department of Justice

Notes.—For a warrantless arrest of an accused caught

in flagrante delicto to be valid, two requisites must concur:
(1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act
indicating that he has just committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2)
such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of
 the arresting officer. (People vs. Badilla, 802 SCRA 86
[2016])
It is settled that “reliable information” alone — even if it
was a product of well-executed surveillance operations — is
not sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest. (Sindac vs.
People, 802 SCRA 270 [2016])
 
——o0o——

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.