Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
1) AMPATUAN vs MACARAIG
Seeking the reversal of RTC, the respondents averred that the filing
of the administrative case against PO1 Ampatuan is a process done
by the PNP and this Court has no authority to order the release of the
subject police officer. The petitioner countered that the letter
resignation of PO1 Ampatuan has rendered the administrative case
moot and academic. Respondent however stressed that the
resignation has not been acted by the appropriate police officials of
the PNP, and that the administrative case was filed while PO1
Ampatuan is still in the active status of the PNP. The RTC reversed
and dismissed the petition.
Given that PO1 Ampatuan has been placed under restrictive custody,
such constitutes a valid argument for his continued detention. This
Court has held that a restrictive custody and monitoring of
movements or whereabouts of police officers under investigation by
their superiors is not a form of illegal detention or restraint of liberty.
Facts:
Butukan S. Malang, one of the accused in the Maguindanao
massacre, had a pending warrant of arrest issued by the trial court in
People vs Ampatuan Jr. et. al. When Datukan Malang Salibo learned
that the police officers of Datu Hofer Police Station in Maguindanao
suspected him to be Butukan S. Malang, he presented himself to clear
his name. Salibo presented to the police pertinent portions of his
passport, boarding passes and other documents tending to prove
that a certain Datukan Malang Salibo was in Saudi Arabia when the
massacre happened. The authorities, however, apprehended and
detained him. He questioned the legality of his detention via Urgent
Petition for Habeas Corpus before the CA, maintaining that he is not
the accused Batukan S. Malang. The CA issued the writ, making it
returnable to the judge of RTC Taguig. After hearing of the Return,
the trial court granted Salibos petition and ordered his immediate
release from detention.
Issue 1: W/N Salibo properly availed the remedy of a petition for writ
of habeas corpus
Yes. Habeas corpus is the remedy for a person deprived of liberty due
to mistaken identity. In such cases, the person is not under any lawful
process and is continuously being illegally detained.
First, it was Butukan S. Malang, not Salibo, who was charged and
accused in the Information and Alias Warrant of Arrest issued in the
case of People vs Ampatuan. Based on the evidences presented,
Salibo sufficiently established that he could not have been Butukan
S. Malang. Therefore, Salibo was not arrested by virtue of any
warrant charging him of an offense, nor restrained under a lawful
process or an order of a court. Second, Salibo was not validly arrested
The police officers have deprived him of his liberty without due
process of law. Therefore, Salibo correctly availed himself of a
Petition for Habeas Corpus.
FACTS
HELD
A.) NO. The high prerogative writ of habeas corpus has been devised
as a speedy and effective remedy to relieve persons from unlawful
restraint. The writ is not ordinarily granted where the law provides
for other remedies in the regular course, and in the absence of
exceptional circumstances. Habeas corpus cannot be issued as a writ
of error or as a means of reviewing errors of law and irregularities not
involving the questions of jurisdiction occurring during the course of
the trial, subject to the caveat that constitutional safeguards of
human life and liberty must be preserved and not destroyed. The
primary, if not the only object, of the writ of habeas corpus is to
determine the legality of the restraint under which a person is held.
With Mangilas arrest and ensuing detention being by virtue of the
order lawfully issued by Judge Pangilinan, the writ of habeas corpus
was not an appropriate remedy to relieve her from the restraint on
her liberty. This is because the restraint, being lawful and pursuant to
a court process, could not be inquired into through the writ. Her
proper recourse was to bring the supposed irregularities to the
attention of the City Prosecutor.