AGBAY vs

AGBAY vs. DEPUTY OMBUDSMANFacts: Jasper Agbay and Sherwin Jugalbot was arrested and detained for an alleged violation of RA7610 or the “Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and DiscriminationA c t ” . A c a s e w a s f i l e d b e f o r e t h e 7 t h M u n i c i p a l C i r c u i t T r i a l C o u r t . H o w e v e r , J u g a l b o t w a s released while Agbay was detained in the police station. Counsel for petitioner wrote the Chief of Police to demand release of Agbay for failure to deliver Agbay to the proper judicial authority within 36 hours. By virtue of Memorandum Circular No. 14, Series of 1995, dated October 10,1995, of the Office of the Ombudsman, the case for delay in the delivery filed by Agbay before the Deputy Ombudsman was transferred to t he Deputy Ombudsman for the Military for proper disposition. Agbay contended that the proper judicial authority is the Regional Trial Court, not the MCTC. Issues: - Whether the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military has the authority to investigate civilian personnel of the government.- Whether there is delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper authority. Held: It is undisputed that a municipal court judge, even in the performance of his function to conductp r e l i m i n a r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , r e t a i n s t h e p o w e r t o i s s u e a n o r d e r o f r e l e a s e o r c o m m i t m e n t . Furthermore, upon the filing of the complaint with the Municipal Trial Court, the intent behind Art. 125 is satisfied considering that by such act, the detained person is informed of the crime i m p u t e d a g a i n s t h i m a n d , u p o n h i s a p p l i c a t i o n w i t h t h e c o u r t , h e m a y b e r e l e a s e d o n b a i l . Petitioner himself acknowledged this power of the MCTC to order his release when he applied for and was granted his release upon posting bail. Thus, the very purpose underlying Article 125 has been duly served with the filing of the complaint with the MCTC. The Court dismissed Agbay’s petition for reconsideration.

RA 9372 is often referred to as the “Anti-Terror Law” or “Anti-Terrorism Law“. As will be seen in the text of the law, however, this is properly known as the “Human Security Act of 2007.” SEC. 18. Period of Detention Without Judicial Warrant of Arrest. – The provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code to the contrary notwithstanding, any police or law enforcement personnel, who, having been duly authorized in writing by the Anti-Terrorism Council has taken custody of a person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism shall, without incurring any criminal liability for delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities, deliver said charged or suspected person to the proper judicial authority within a period of three (3) days counted from the moment the said charged or suspected person has been apprehended or arrested, detained, and taken into custody by the said police, or law enforcement personnel: Provided, That the arrest of those suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism must result from the surveillance under Section 7 and examination of bank deposits under Section 27 of this Act. The police or law enforcement personnel concerned shall, before detaining the person suspected of the crime of terrorism, present him or her before any judge at the latter’s residence or office nearest the place where the arrest took place at any time of the day or night. It shall be the duty of the judge,

among other things, to ascertain the identity of the police or law enforcement personnel and the person or persons they have arrested and presented before him or her, to inquire of them the reasons why they have arrested the person and determine by questioning and personal observation whether or not the suspect has been subjected to any physical, moral or psychological torture by whom and why. The judge shall then submit a written report of what he/she had observed when the subject was brought before him to the proper court that has jurisdiction over the case of the person thus arrested. the judge shall forthwith submit his/her report within three (3) calendar days from the time the suspect was brought to his/her residence or office. Immediately after taking custody of a person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism, the police or law enforcement personnel shall notify in writing the judge of the court nearest the place of apprehension or arrest: Provided, That where the arrest is made during saturdays, sundays, holidays or after office hours, the written notice shall be served at the residence of the judge nearest the place where the accused was arrested. The penalty of ten (10) years and one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment shall be imposed upon the police or law enforcement personnel who fails to notify any judge as provided in the preceding paragraph.