Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Sayo V Chief of Police

    Uploaded by

    Lotsee Elauria
    Melencio Sayo and Joaquin Mostero were arrested by policeman Benjamin Dumlao on April 2, 1948 on charges of robbery filed by Bernardino Malinao. They remained detained until April 7, 1948 when their habeas corpus petition was heard, as the city fiscal had not yet filed an information against them or released them. The Supreme Court ruled that the city fiscal is not a judicial authority under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, which requires arrested persons to be turned over to a judicial authority within 6 hours. As the fiscal cannot issue warrants, the petitioners' detention was illegal and they were ordered released.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Sayo V Chief of Police

    Uploaded by

    Lotsee Elauria
    1K views1 page
    Melencio Sayo and Joaquin Mostero were arrested by policeman Benjamin Dumlao on April 2, 1948 on charges of robbery filed by Bernardino Malinao. They remained detained until April 7, 1948 when their habeas corpus petition was heard, as the city fiscal had not yet filed an information against them or released them. The Supreme Court ruled that the city fiscal is not a judicial authority under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, which requires arrested persons to be turned over to a judicial authority within 6 hours. As the fiscal cannot issue warrants, the petitioners' detention was illegal and they were ordered released.

    Original Description:

    case digest criminal law

    Original Title

    Sayo v Chief of Police

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Melencio Sayo and Joaquin Mostero were arrested by policeman Benjamin Dumlao on April 2, 1948 on charges of robbery filed by Bernardino Malinao. They remained detained until April 7, 1948 when their habeas corpus petition was heard, as the city fiscal had not yet filed an information against them or released them. The Supreme Court ruled that the city fiscal is not a judicial authority under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, which requires arrested persons to be turned over to a judicial authority within 6 hours. As the fiscal cannot issue warrants, the petitioners' detention was illegal and they were ordered released.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views1 page

    Sayo V Chief of Police

    Uploaded by

    Lotsee Elauria
    Melencio Sayo and Joaquin Mostero were arrested by policeman Benjamin Dumlao on April 2, 1948 on charges of robbery filed by Bernardino Malinao. They remained detained until April 7, 1948 when their habeas corpus petition was heard, as the city fiscal had not yet filed an information against them or released them. The Supreme Court ruled that the city fiscal is not a judicial authority under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, which requires arrested persons to be turned over to a judicial authority within 6 hours. As the fiscal cannot issue warrants, the petitioners' detention was illegal and they were ordered released.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No. L-2128 May 12, 1948 MELENCIO SAYO and JOAQUIN MOSTERO, petitioners, vs.

    THE CHIEF OF POLICE and THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF MUNICIPAL JAIL, BOTH OF CITY OF MANILA, respondents. FACTS Upon complaint of Bernardino Malinao, charging the petitioners with having committed the crime of robbery, Benjamin Dumlao, a policeman of the City of Manila, arrested the petitioners on April 2, 1948, and presented a complaint against them with the fiscal's office of Manila. Until April 7, 1948, when the petition for habeas corpusfiled with this Court was heard, the petitioners were still detained or under arrest, and the city fiscal had not yet released or filed against them an information with the proper courts justice. This case has not been decided before this time because there was not a sufficient number of Justices to form a quorum in Manila, and it had to be transferred to the Supreme Court acting in division in Baguio for deliberation and decision. SC has not until now an official information as to the action taken by the office of the city fiscal on the complaint filed by the Dumlao against the petitioners. ISSUE W/N the city fiscal of manila is a judicial authority within the meaning of the provisions of article 125 of the RPC, or are the petitioners being illegally restrained of their liberty RULING Petitioners release is ordered. Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code provides that "the penalties provided in the next proceeding 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 six hours." The surrender or delivery to the judicial authority of a person arrested without warrant by a peace officer, does not consist in a physical delivery, but in making an accusation or charge or filing of an information against the person arrested with the corresponding court or judge, whereby the latter acquires jurisdiction to issue an order of release or of commitment of the prisoner, because the arresting officer cannot transfer to the judge and the latter does not assume the physical custody of the person arrested. 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. For the purpose of determining the criminal liability of an officer detaining a person for more than six hours prescribed by the Revised Penal Code, the means of communication as well as the hour of arrested and other circumstances, such as the time of surrender and the material possibility for the fiscal to make the investigation and file in time the necessary information, must be taken into consideration. If the city fiscal does not file the information within said period of time and the arresting officer continues holding the prisoner beyond the six-hour period, the fiscal will not be responsible for violation of said article 125, because he is not the one who arrested and illegally detained the person arrested, unless he has ordered or induced the arresting officer to hold and not release the prisoner after the expiration of said period. (Separate Opinion, found in book page 58)

    You might also like