SC: Detainees who secure dismissal of complaints must be promptly released

Authorities must promptly release a person who has secured dismissal of the criminal complaint unless he is being held in custody for other reasons not related to the case, the Supreme Court (SC) has said.

Voting unanimously, the SC held on July 25 that the waiver of Article 125 (Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities) of the Revised Penal Code does not give the government the right to detain a person indefinitely.

Specifically, the high court said 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” must be released.

The SC said 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.

"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 30-day period in cases of violation of Republic Act 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act] for the conduct of the preliminary investigation lapses," the decision stated. 

"This rule also applies in cases where the investigating prosecutor resolves to dismiss the case, even if such dismissal was appealed to the DOJ [Department of Justice] 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," the Court said through now retired Justice Jose Mendoza.

Detention beyond this period, according to the court, violates the accused’s constitutional right to liberty.

The ruling stemmed from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Pangasinan Legal Aid’s petition seeking for the release of its client Jay-Ar Senin, whose rights were allegedly violated because he had been detained for at least eight months without any finding of probable cause or a case having been filed in court.

Named as respondents in the petition were the DOJ, Provincial Prosecutor’s Office, Bureau of Jail Management and Penology and Philippine National Police.

Senin was arrested and detained in San Fabian Police Station, Pangasinan in 2015 for alleged involvement in the sale of illegal drugs during a buy-bust operation.

He availed of a full-blown preliminary investigation, executing a waiver of the provision of Article 125 of the RPC.

The prosecutor decided to dismiss the case but pursuant to the then prevailing DOJ Circular, the case was forwarded to the DOJ for automatic review.

The DOJ then reversed the prosecutor's findings and filed a case before the Dagupan City Regional Trial Court, which later issued a warrant of arrest and a commitment order regarding his detention.

Still, the IBP assailed various DOJ circulars including Department Circular 022 dated February 12, 2013 issued by then Secretary and now Senator Leila de Lima.

DC 022 allows continued detention of an individual while the dismissal of the preliminary investigation of the complaint is pending resolution before the Office of the Secretary of Justice.

De Lima revised the circular through DC 012, wherein the 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 the respondent is detained for other causes.

De Lima's successor, then Secretary and now SC Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, issued Department Circular 050 dated December 18, 2015 requiring that the respondent shall be immediately released from detention pending automatic review only if the case subject of the automatic review is not resolved within 30 days.

Caguioa later revoked DC 50 and DC 22 and reinstated DC 12.

On January 13, 2017, Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II issued DC 004, reiterating that a respondent in cases involving violation of RA 9165 should be released from detention even if the case is pending for automatic review before the DOJ.

The high court lauded the latest DOJ circular "as it adheres to the constitutional provisions on the rights of pre-trial detainees."

The SC, however, observed that "there is a possibility that the latest circular would again be amended by succeeding secretaries."

"As the case is prone to being repeated as result of constant changes, the Court, as the guardian and final arbiter of the Constitution and pursuant to its prerogative to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement constitutional rights, 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 [Secretary of Justice]," the ruling stated.

Caguioa inhibited from the case.  — RSJ, GMA News