This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2005-01-31 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The sole bone of contention revolves around the proper application of the 12-18-36 periods. With respect specifically to the detention of petitioner Soria which lasted for 22 hours, it is alleged that public respondents gravely erred in construing Article 125[3] as excluding Sundays, holidays and election days in the computation of the periods prescribed within which public officers should deliver arrested persons to the proper judicial authorities as the law never makes such exception. Statutory construction has it that if a statute is clear and unequivocal, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without any attempts at interpretation.[4] Public respondents, on the other hand, relied on the cases of Medina v. Orozco, Jr.,[5] and Sayo v. Chief of Police of Manila[6] and on commentaries[7] of jurists to bolster their position that Sundays, holidays and election days are excluded in the computation of the periods provided in Article 125,[8] hence, the arresting officers delivered petitioners well within the allowable time. | |||||