7/28/2019 US vs Vincentillo

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-vs-vincentillo 1/1

US vs VINCENTILLO 19 PHIL 118 (1911)

FACTS:

  Isidro Vincentillo, the municipal president detained the offended party for 3 days because to take him to

the nearest justice of the peace requires a journey for 3 days by boat. 

He was complained for illegal and arbitrary detention.

CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED:

The arrested man was brought before a justice of the peace as soon as “practicable” after his arrest. True,three days were expended in doing, so, but it was conclusively proven at the trial that at the time of the arrest

neither the local justice of the peace nor his auxiliary were in the municipality which took them a long journey by boat. The evidence discloses, moreover, that with all practicable dispatch, the prisoner was forwarded first to oneand then to the other of the adjoining municipalities for trial, the failure to secure trial on the first occasion beingdue to the fact that the written complaint, which was entrusted to the policeman in charge of the prisoner, waseither lost or stolen.

HELD:

There can be no doubt of the lawful authority of the defendant, in the exercise of his functions asmunicipal president, who must be held to have had all the usual powers of a police officer for the making of arrestwithout warrant.

The trial judge lays great stress upon the trival nature of the offense for that the arrest was made but thatthere was no judicial officer in the remote community where the incident occurred at the time of the arrest and nocertainty of the early return of the assert justice of the place on his auxiliary.

Under the law, the person arrested must be delivered to the nearest judicial authority at most within 18hrs. (now 36 hrs, Art. 125, RPC, as amended); otherwise the public officer will be liable for arbitrary detention.

The distance which required a journey for 3 days was considered an insuperable cause. Hence, it was held that theaccused was exempt from criminal liability.