Primary Holding
The waiver of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code must coincide with the prescribed period for preliminary investigation. Detention beyond this period violates the accused's constitutional right to liberty. Detainees must be released if preliminary investigations exceed statutory timelines or if their cases are dismissed (even pending review), unless lawfully held for other causes.
Background
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) discovered pre-trial detainees languishing in jail for years without charges due to DOJ circulars requiring automatic reviews. Jay-Ar Senin, arrested in a 2015 drug buy-bust, waived Article 125 of the RPC, but his case was dismissed and remained under DOJ review for eight months.
History
-
February 9, 2015: Senin arrested, waived Article 125 of the RPC.
-
2015–2017: DOJ issued conflicting circulars (No. 50, 003, 004) on detention during automatic review.
-
February 10, 2016: Information filed against Senin; RTC issued a commitment order.
-
July 25, 2017: Supreme Court declared the petition moot but ruled on constitutional issues.
Facts
-
1.
Senin was arrested for drug-related charges, waived Article 125, and remained detained despite the prosecutor dismissing his case. The DOJ’s automatic review process delayed resolution, leading to prolonged detention without judicial filing.
Arguments of the Petitioners
-
1.
DOJ circulars violated constitutional rights by allowing indefinite detention despite dismissal or delays in review.
-
2.
Waiver of Article 125 does not permit detention beyond the 15-day preliminary investigation period under Rule 112.
-
3.
Senin’s detention beyond statutory periods was unlawful.
Arguments of the Respondents
-
1.
BJMP: Senin’s detention was lawful due to a court-issued commitment order after charges were filed.
-
2.
OSG: The petition became moot once charges were filed and probable cause judicially determined.
-
3.
DOJ circulars were valid exercises of administrative discretion.
Issues
-
1.
Whether DOJ circulars permitting indefinite detention during automatic review violate constitutional rights.
-
2.
Whether waiver of Article 125 allows prolonged detention beyond statutory limits.
-
3.
Whether the case was moot due to subsequent charges against Senin.
Ruling
-
1.
The Court held that detention beyond statutory periods violates constitutional rights to liberty, even with a waiver of Article 125. Circulars enabling indefinite detention are unconstitutional. The case was technically moot but addressed to prevent future violations.
Doctrines
-
1.
Right to Liberty: Prolonged detention without judicial determination of probable cause violates due process.
-
2.
Mootness Exception: Courts may resolve moot cases involving grave constitutional violations or issues capable of repetition.
-
3.
Judicial Review: The Supreme Court may invalidate executive issuances conflicting with constitutional rights.
Key Excerpts
-
1.
"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." - Justice Diosdado Peralta
-
2.
“Waiver of Article 125 does not vest the State with unbridled right to detain indefinitely.”
Precedents Cited
-
1.
Agbay v. Deputy Ombudsman (369 Phil. 174) - Cited regarding power to order release/confinement
-
2.
Sayo v. Chief of Police of Manila (80 Phil. 859) - Defined "judicial authority" under Art. 125
-
3.
IBP v. Hon. Ponce Enrile: Highlighted the judiciary’s role in protecting citizens from executive overreach.
Statutory and Constitutional Provisions
-
1.
Article 125, Revised Penal Code - Delay in delivery of detained persons
-
2.
R.A. No. 9165 Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
-
3.
Constitution Article VIII, Section 5(5) Supreme Court rule-making power
-
4.
Article 32, New Civil Code Damages for rights violations