SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS HABEAS CORPUS BON BERNARD P.

ACANG

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS The writ of habeas corpus was devised and exists as a speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint, and as the best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom Purpose The objective of the writ of habeas corpus is to determine whether the confinement or detention is valid or lawful. If it is, the writ cannot be issued. What is to be inquired into is the legality of a persons detention as of, at the earliest, the filing of the application for the writ of habeas corpus, for even if the detention is at its inception illegal, it may, by reason of some supervening events may no longer illegal at the time of the filing of the application. Once a person detained is duly charged in court, he may no longer question his detention through a petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. CARLOS T. GO Sr. vs. LUIS T. RAMOS (G.R. No. 167569, September 4, 2009) Nature A release that renders a petition for a writ of habeas corpus moot and academic must be one which is free from involuntary restraints. Where a person continues to be unlawfully denied one or more of his constitutional freedoms, where there is present a denial of due process, where the restraints are not merely involuntary but appear to be unnecessary, and where a deprivation of freedom originally valid has, in the light of subsequent developments, become arbitrary, the person concerned or those applying in his behalf may still avail themselves of the privilege of the writ. EFREN C. MONCUPA vs. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, et. al, (G.R. No. L-63345 January 30, 1986) Denial of Constitutional Right The high prerogative writ of habeas corpus, whose origin is traced to antiquity, was devised and exists as a speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint, and as the best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom. It secures to a prisoner the right to have the cause of his detention examined and determined by a court of justice, and to have the issue ascertained as to whether he is held under lawful authority. Consequently, the writ may also be availed of where, as a consequence of a judicial proceeding, (a) there has been a deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the restraint of a person, (b) the court had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence, or (c) an excessive penalty has been imposed, as such sentence is void as to such excess.15 Petitioner's claim is anchored on

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS HABEAS CORPUS BON BERNARD P. ACANG

the first ground considering, as he claims, that his continued detention, notwithstanding the lack of a copy of a valid judgment of conviction, is violative of his constitutional right to due process. NORBERTO FERIA vs. COURT OF APPEALS et. al (G.R. No. 122954,February 15, 2000)

The most basic criterion for the issuance of the writ, therefore, is that the individual seeking such relief be illegally deprived of his freedom of movement or placed under some form of illegal restraint. If an individual's liberty is restrained via some legal process, the writ of habeas corpus is unavailing. Concomitant to this principle, the writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to directly assail a judgment rendered by a competent court or tribunal which, having duly acquired jurisdiction, was not deprived or ousted of this jurisdiction through some anomaly in the conduct of the proceedings. IN RE: REYNALDO DE VILLA (G.R. No. 158802, November 17, 2004) The writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty or by which the rightful custody of a person is being withheld from the one entitled thereto. It is issued when one is either deprived of liberty or is wrongfully being prevented from exercising legal custody over another person. Thus, it contemplates two instances: (1) deprivation of a persons liberty either through illegal confinement or through detention and (2) withholding of the custody of any person from someone entitled to such custody. IN RE: EUFEMIA E. RODRIGUEZ (G.R. No. 169482, January 29, 2008) Writ of Habeas Corpus May Be Used With the Writ of Certiorari The writs of habeas corpus and certiorari may be ancillary to each other where necessary to give effect to the supervisory powers of the higher courts. A writ of habeas corpus reaches the body and the jurisdictional matters, but not the record. A writ of certiorari reaches the record but not the body. Hence, a writ of habeas corpus may be used with the writ of certiorari for the purpose of review. However, habeas corpus does not lie where the petitioner has the remedy of appeal or certiorari because it will not be permitted to perform the functions of a writ of error or appeal for the purpose of reviewing mere errors or irregularities in the proceedings of a court having jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter. In the absence of exceptional circumstances, the orderly course of trial should be pursued and the usual remedies exhausted before the writ may be invoked. Habeas corpus is not ordinarily available in advance of trial to determine jurisdictional questions that may arise. It has to be an exceptional case for the writ ofhabeas corpus to be available to

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS HABEAS CORPUS BON BERNARD P. ACANG

an accused before trial. In the absence of special circumstances requiring immediate action, a court will not grant the writ and discharge the prisoner in advance of a determination of his case in court. HONORATO GALVEZ et.al. vs. COURT OF APPEALS (G.R. No. 114046 October 24, 1994) The inquiry on a writ of habeas corpus is addressed, not to errors committed by a court within its jurisdiction, but to the question of whether the proceeding or judgment under which the person has been restrained is a complete nullity. The probe may thus proceed to check on the power and authority, itself an equivalent test of jurisdiction, of the court or the judge to render the order that so serves as the basis of imprisonment or detention. Keeping in mind the limitation that in habeas corpus the concern is not merely whether an error has been committed in ordering or holding the petitioner in custody, but whether such error is sufficient to render void the judgment, order, or process, an inquiry into the validity of the proceedings or process can be crucial in safeguarding the constitutional right of a potential accused against an obvious and clear misjudgment. The intrinsic right of the State to prosecute and detain perceived transgressors of the law must be balanced with its duty to protect the innate value of individual liberty. JUDGE MELVYN U. CALVAN vs. COURT of APPEALS, et.al (G.R. No. 140823. October 3, 2000) State Without Power to Reserve Re-Arrest Ordinarily, a petition for habeas corpus becomes moot and academic when the restraint on the liberty of the petitioners is lifted either temporarily or permanently. But the instant case presents a different situation. The question to be resolved is whether the State can reserve the power to re-arrest a person for an offense after a court of competent jurisdiction has absolved him of the offense. An affirmative answer is the one suggested by the respondents because the release of the petitioners being merely "temporary" it follows that they can be re-arrested at anytime despite their acquittal by a court of competent jurisdiction. We hold that such a reservation is repugnant to the government of laws and not of men principle. Under this principle the moment a person is acquitted on a criminal charge he can no longer be detained or re-arrested for the same offense. This concept is so basic and elementary that it needs no elaboration. GERRY TOYOTO et.al. vs. HON. FIDEL RAMOS et.al. ( G.R. No. L-69270, October 15, 1985) Custody of a Minor The writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS HABEAS CORPUS BON BERNARD P. ACANG

entitled thereto. Thus, it is the proper legal remedy to enable parents to regain the custody of a minor child even if the latter be in the custody of a third person of his own free will. It may even be said that in custody cases involving minors, the question of illegal and involuntary restraint of liberty is not the underlying rationale for the availability of the writ as a remedy. Rather, it is prosecuted for the purpose of determining the right of custody over a child. It must be stressed too that in habeas corpus proceedings, the question of identity is relevant and material, subject to the usual presumptions including those as to identity of the person. EDGARDO A. TIJING et.al. vs. COURT OF APPEALS et.al (G.R. No. 125901, March 8, 2001) The grant of the writ of habeas corpus on the issue of the custody of minor will all depend on the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) that the petitioner has the right of custody over the minor; (2) that the rightful custody of the minor is being withheld from the petitioner by the respondent; and (3) that it is to the best interest of the minor concerned to be in the custody of petitioner and not that of the respondent. JOHANNA SOMBONG vs. COURT of APPEALS, et.al (G.R. No. 111876, January 31, 1996)