1

[ADMINISTRATORS] Judge Eliza B. Yu is the one and only Judge who challenged the
legality of night court operations that existed for decades under six (6) former Chief
Justices (1991 - 2012). Consequently, she was charged with Gross Insubordination and
Grave Misconduct including violation of Article 231 of the Revised Penal Code for her
night court protest by 4 Judges and 70 court employees. The Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) reported and recommended that she be held liable for Grave
Misconduct, Gross insubordination and Violation of New Code of Judicial Conduct for
her night court protest to the Supreme Court En Banc in 2012. Later on, OCA
recommended the suspension of night court operations to Chief Justice Maria
Lourdes Sereno who approved it as published by The Manila Standard Today on
January 25, 2015.

Some of the rights of the accused who were charged with cases covered by the Summary
Procedure are impaired by the operation of night courts. The 1991 Revised Rule on
Summary Procedure provides the procedure to be followed in commencing a criminal
action. Under Section 12 thereof, it states: " xxx (b) If commenced by information . - When
the case is commenced by information , or is not dismissed pursuant to the next preceding
paragraph, the court shall issue an order which, together with copies of the affidavits and
other evidence submitted by the prosecution, shall require the accused to submit his
counter-affidavit and the affidavits of his witnesses as well as any evidence in his behalf,
serving copies to the complainant or prosecutor not later than ten (10) days from receipt
of said order. The prosecution, may reply affidavits within ten (10) days after receipt of
the counter-affidavits of the defense. In view of this, the accused cannot be immediately
arraigned on the same day,' of his arrest at night. Neither can this Court order the arrest
of the accused for the purpose of his arraignment at night. Section 16 of the same Rule
declares:" The Court shall not order the arrest of the accused except for failure to appear
whenever required. Release of the person arrested shall be either on bail or on
recognizance by responsible citizen acceptable to the court." Neither can the police
officers apprehend and detain the accused charged with cases covered by the Rule on
Summary Procedure for the sole purpose of attending the hearing at night by the court
without being liable for Arbitrary Detention under Article 124 of the Revised Penal Code.
Said article provides the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period ( 4 months and
1 day to 6 months) to prision correctional in its minimum period (6 months and 1 day to 2
years and 4 months) of imprisonment, if the detention shall not exceed in three (3) days,
committed by a police officer or employee who detains a person without any legal ground.
There is no legal basis to detain the accused by the police officer at night before the night
court opens to hear the cases because the accused is not required to post bail at all.

The night inquest without the corresponding release of the accused charged with cases
covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure is questionable exposing the public
prosecutor to criminal and administrative liabilities. Inquest is an informal and summary
investigation conducted by a public prosecutor in criminal cases involving persons
arrested and detained without the benefit of a warrant of arrest issued by the court for the
purpose of determining whether or not said persons should remain under custody and
correspondingly be charged in court (Section 1, DOJ Circular No. 61 , September 21,
1993). The inquest prosecutor determines the legality of the warrantless arrest of an
arrested and detained person. When the warrantless arrest was improperly made, the
inquest prosecutor shall, among others, recommend the release of the arrested and
detained person. On the other hand, when the warrantless arrest was properly made, the
inquest prosecutor shall inform the arrested and detained person if he wants to avail a
preliminary investigation, in which case, he shall execute a waiver of the provisions of
2
Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. If the said arrested and detained person did not
avail a preliminary investigation or did not execute a waiver, the inquest prosecutor shall
proceed with the inquest. If the inquest prosecutor finds probable cause, he shall prepare
the information which shall indicate the offense committed and the amount of bail
recommended, if bailable. Under the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure Court effective
January 1, 1985 as amended in 1988 and October 1, 1994, Rule 113, Section 5. Arrest
without warrant; when lawful - "A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant,
arrest a person: (a) when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has just
been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of
facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and (c ) When the
person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place
where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or
has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. In cases falling
under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be
forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in
accordance with Rule 112, Section 7." When a person is lawfully arrested without a
warrant for an offense cognizable by the Regional Trial Court the complaint or information
may be filed by the offended party, peace officer or fiscal without a preliminary
investigation having been first conducted, on the basis of the affidavit of the offended
party or arresting officer or person. However, before the filing of such complaint or
information, the person arrested may ask for a preliminary investigation by a proper officer
in accordance with this Rule, but must sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code as amended(Section 7, Rule 112, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure
Court effective January 1, 1985 as amended in 1988 and October 1, 1994). Under
the Old Rule, it is silent as to the person arrested without warrant for an offense
cognizable by the Metropolitan Trial Court or first level courts. Thus, it necessarily follows
that inquest can be conducted only on cases cognizable by the Regional Trial Court. The
Rules on Criminal Procedure was amended in 2000. The provision of Rule 112, section
11 was also amended which read as follows: "When a person is lawfully arrested without
a warrant involving an offense which requires a preliminary investigation, the complaint
or information may be filed by a prosecutor without need of such investigation provided
an inquest has been conducted in accordance with existing rules, xxx Before the
complaint or information is filed, the person arrested may ask for a preliminary ,
investigation in accordance with this Rule, but he may sign a waiver of the provisions of
Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, xxx After the filing of the complaint or information
in court without a preliminary investigation, the accused may, within five (5) days from the
time he learns of its filing, ask for preliminary investigation with the same right to adduce
evidence in his defense as provided in this rule." What are the cases subject to preliminary
investigation under the New Rule? The answer is in Rule 112, Section 1 that states:" a
preliminary investigation is required to be conducted before the filing of a complaint or
information for an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four (4) years,
two (2) months and one (1) day without regard to the fine. " Under the Old Rule, the
offense covered is six (6) years or more. Thus, now the inquest can be conducted only
where the penalty is four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day and above. Thus, the
public prosecutors cannot conduct inquest of the night arrests of the suspected criminals
because the penalty involved in cases covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure is not
more than six (6) months.

The jurisprudence of Luz vs. People, G.R. No. 797788, February 29, 2012 supported
one of the legal arguments of my letter dated February 2,2011 to court Administrator Jose
Midas Marquez and a letter dated February 11, 2011 addressed to former Department of

3
Tourism Secretary Alberto Lim. In this landmark case, it was held, under R.A. 4136, or
the Land Transportation and traffic Code, the procedure for dealing with traffic violation
is not the arrest of the offender but the confiscation of the driver's license of the latter. At
the time that he was waiting for PO3 Alteza to write his citation ticket, petitioner could not
be said to have been "under arrest." There was no intention on the part of PO3 Alteza to
arrest him, deprive him of his liberty, or take him into custody. Prior to the issuance of the
ticket, the period in which at the police station may be characterized merely as waiting
time. In fact, as found by the trial court, PO3 Alteza himself testified that the only reason
they went to the police sub-station was that petitioner had been flagged down "almost in
front" of that place. Hence, it was only for the sake of convenience that they were waiting
there. There was no intention to take petitioner into custody. It also appears that,
according to City Ordinance No. 98-012, which was violated by petitioner, the failure to
wear a crash helmet while riding a motorcycle is penalized by a fine only. Under the Rules
of Court, a warrant of arrest need not be issued if the information or charge was
filed for an offense penalized by a fine only. It may be stated as a corollary that neither
can a warrantless arrest be made for such an offense. Now to relate this jurisprudence
with the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, one of the offenses under the same
Rules is violation of traffic laws, rules and regulations [Section 1, B (1) RRSP] that is
covered by A.O. No. 19-2011. Therefore, the arrest and detention of nighttime
violators of traffic law, rules and regulations for the night court operation under
A.O. No. 19-2011 are illegal.

Under Section 1, Rule XVII of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of the
Administrative Code of 1987, heads of department or agencies are mandated to require
all officers and employees under him to strictly observe the prescribed government office
hours. Likewise, Section 5, Rule XVII of the same Omnibus Rules stipulates that:
"Officers and employees of all departments and agencies, except those covered by
special laws, shall render not less than eight (8) hours of work a day for five days a week
or a total of forty (40) hours a week, exclusive of time for lunch. As a general rule, such
hours shall be from eight o'clock in the morning to twelve o'clock noon and from one
o'clock to five o'clock in the afternoon on all days except Saturdays, Sundays and
Holidays." The foregoing provisions of law lay the ground rules on government officer
hours. It mandates an eight-hour daily work schedule, or a total of forty hours a week, for
all government employees, exclusive of the lunch break. With due respect, the night
court duty gravely violated this rule.

In PNB vs. PEMA and CIR, G.R. No. L-30279, July 30, 1982: Why is a laborer or
employee who works beyond the regular hours of work entitled to extra compensation
called in this enlightened time, overtime pay? Verily, there can be no other reason than
that he is made to work longer than what is commensurate with his agreed compensation
for the statutorily fixed or voluntarily agreed hours of labor he is supposed to do. When
he thus spends additional time to his work, the effect upon him is multi-faceted: he puts
in more effort, physical and/or mental; he is delayed in going home to his family to enjoy
the comforts thereof; he might have no time for relaxation, amusement or sports; he might
miss important pre-arranged engagements; etc., etc. It is thus the additional work, labor
or service employed and the adverse effects just mentioned of his longer stay in his place
of work that justify and is the real reason for the extra compensation that he called
overtime pay. Overtime work is actually the lengthening of hours developed to the
4
interests of the employer and the requirements of his enterprise. It follows that the wage
or salary to be received must likewise be increased, and more than that, a special
additional amount must be added to serve either as encouragement or inducement or to
make up for the things he loses which we have already referred to. And on this score, it
must always be borne in mind that wage is indisputably intended as payment for work
done or services rendered. With due respect, the night court duty gravely violated this
jurisprudence.

However, none of the judges and court personnel reporting for night court duties can avail
of overtime pay because of Sections 278 and 283, Chapter 4, Volume I, Government
Accounting and Auditing Manual for lack of urgency of work completion. A night court duty
is a violation of constitutional rights under Article II, Section 18 and Article XIII, Section 3
of the 1987 Constitution.

Judges and court personnel ordered to render night court duties from 4:30 p.m. to 11:00
p.m. from Monday to Friday are not paid with overtime pay by the Office of the Court
Administrator.