HABEAS CORPUS CASES 1. Madrian vs.

Madrian (Special Proceedings Court of Appeals and Supreme Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the family courts of Habeas Corpus involving custody of minors) acts! Petitioner and respondent were married" and after a bitter #uarrel" petitioner left the conjugal abode bringing with him their three sons ($ of which are minors) to Albay and to %aguna subse#uently& 'espondent filed a petition for habeas corpus in the Court of Appeals for their their $ minor sons on the ground that petitioner(s act disrupted their education and deprived them of their mother(s care& Petitioner filed a memorandum alleging that respondent was unfit to ta)e custody of their children and #uestioned the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals claiming that under Section *(b) of 'A +,-." family courts have e/clusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide the petition for habeas corpus filed by respondent& 0he Court of Appeals rendered a decision asserting its authority to ta)e cogni1ance and ruling" that under the amily Code" respondent was entitled to custody of the minors& Petitioner challenges the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over the petition for habeas corpus and insists that jurisdiction over the case is lodged in the family courts under 'A +,-.& 2ssue! 345 the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases involving custody of minors& Held! 6es& 0he Supreme Court ruled in a previous jurisprudence that 0he Court of Appeals should has cogni1ance of this case since there is nothing in 'A +,-. that revo)ed its jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus involving the custody of minors& 'A +,-. did not divest the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of their jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases involving the custody of minors& 0he concurrent jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court with family courts in said cases was further affirmed by A&7& 5o& 8,98,98:9SC (April $$" $88:) in 'e! 'ule on Custody of 7inors and 3rit of Habeas Corpus in 'elation to Custody of 7inors which provides that! Section $8& Petition for writ of habeas corpus& A verified petition for a writ of habeas corpus involving custody of minors shall be filed with the amily Court& 0he writ shall be enforceable within its judicial region to which the amily Court belongs& /// /// ///

granted" the writ shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines&

2. G.R. No. 167211 March 14 2!!6 "N #HE MA##ER O$ #HE PE#"#"ON $OR #HE HABEAS CORPUS O$ A##%. $ERNAN&O ARGUE''ES (R. vs. MA(. GEN. (OSE BA'A(A&"A (R. 2n his capacity as Sergeant9at9Arms of the Senate Petitioners filed a petition for habeas corpus because they were detained in a room at the Senate pursuant to an 4rder dated 7arch ;*" $88* issued to respondent by the Senate Committee on <an)s" inancial 2nstitutions and Currencies (Senate Committee)& 0heyprayed that respondent be directed to appear before this Court to produce their bodies and to e/plain why they should not be set at liberty without delay& 2SS=>! 3ill release of the detainee renders moot a petition for 3HC? H>%@! 0he petition has become moot& A writ of habeas corpus e/tends 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 entitled to it& 0he singular function of a petition for habeas corpus is to protect and secure the basic freedom of physical liberty& Petitioners have been released& 3hile the issues raised by petitioners are important" it is not appropriate to resolve them now in these proceedings& 0his is all the more so considering that the only respondent here is 7aj& Aen& Bose <alajadia" Br&" the Senate sergeant9at9arms" impleaded in that capacity for holding petitioners in custody& 0he Senate Committee itself has not been made a respondent and" therefore" has not been given the opportunity to be heard on the issues sought to be resolved&

). Ca*ara vs. Pa+a,a-an (Special Proceedings Habeas Corpus" contempt) acts! Petitioner Assistant Cice9President and Head of the %and Compensation @ivision of the %and <an) of the Philippines (%<P) was detained under a warrant of arrest respondent judge issued from a contempt citation against the former for %<P(s failure to deposit the preliminary compensation in Civil Case 5o& '9;,.8 as provided under the trial courts order& %<P was directed to deposit the preliminary compensation" in cash and bonds" in the total amount of PD;"-,:"8$D&,8 with the %<P" 7anila" within D days from receipt of this order" and to notify the Court of compliance within such period& %<P then complied with this order by depositing the said amount in its head office in cash under its account in trust for" and in bond payable to" the trial court(s cler) of court& However the respondent judge found %<P(s compliance

0he petition may li)ewise be filed with the Supreme Court" Court of Appeals" or with any of its members and" if so

insufficient and ordered %<P to place the deposit in the name of Bosefina %ubrica as payee" in the form that is readily withdrawable& 'espondent judge ordered Camara to remain in detention until %<P complies with such order& Hence" petitioner filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus& 2ssue! 345 a respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac) or in e/cess of his jurisdiction when he refused to release Camara from detention despite %<P(s compliance& Held! 6es& =nder section :" 'ule ;8$ of the 'ules of Court" a writ of habeas corpus does not lie if it appears that the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in custody of an officer under process issued by a court or judge" and that the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the process& Petitioner does not #uestion the trial court(s jurisdiction to issue the 4rder citing petitioner in contempt& 3hat petitioner assails is respondent judge(s refusal to release Camara from detention despite %<P(s compliance of the full amount of the preliminary compensation& 0his is grave abuse of respondent judge(s contempt powers" amounting to lac) or e/cess of his jurisdiction&

2ssue! 345 a petition for a writ of habeas corpus be granted& Held! 6es& 0he writ of habeas corpus e/tends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty& An application for the writ of habeas corpus is made upon verified petition setting forth! (;) that the person in whose behalf the application is made is imprisoned or restrained of his libertyG ($) the officer or name of the person by whom he is imprisoned or restrainedG (,) the place where he is imprisoned or restrained of his libertyG and (:) a copy of the commitment or cause of detention of such person&

4. $2ria vs. Co.r- o0 A112a3s (Special Proceedings Habeas Corpus) acts! After discovering that his entire criminal records" including the copy of the judgment" was lost or destroyed" petitioner filed a Petition for the 2ssuance of a 3rit of Habeas Corpus with the SC against the Bail 3arden of the 7anila City Bail" the Presiding Budge of <ranch $" 'egional 0rial Court of 7anila" and the City Prosecutor of 7anila" praying for his discharge from confinement on the ground that his continued detention without any valid judgment is illegal and violative of his constitutional right to due process& 0he '0C dismissed the case on the ground that the mere loss of the records of the case does not invalidate the judgment or commitment nor authori1e the release of the petitioner" and that the proper remedy would be reconstitution of the records of the case which should be filed with the court which rendered the decision& Petitioner argues that his detention is illegal because there e/ists no copy of a valid judgment as re#uired by Sections ; and $ of 'ule ;$8 of the 'ules of Court" and that the evidence considered by the trial court and Court of Appeals in the habeas corpus proceedings did not establish the contents of such judgment& 2n a comment" 4SA maintains that public respondents have more than sufficiently shown the e/istence of a legal ground for petitioner(s continued incarceration" vi1&" his conviction by final judgment" and under Section : of 'ule ;8$ of the 'ules of Court" the discharge of a person suffering imprisonment under lawful judgment is not authori1ed& 2ssue! 345 there is legal basis to detain petitioner after the destruction or loss of his criminal records& Held! 6es& 0he writ of habeas corpus" was devised and e/ists as a speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint" and as the best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom& 2t secures to a prisoner the right to have the cause of his detention e/amined and determined by a court of justice" and to have the issue ascertained as to whether he is held under lawful authority& Conse#uently" the writ may also be availed of where" as a conse#uence of a

4. Cr./ vs. Co.r- o0 A112a3s (Special Proceedings Habeas Corpus! 'e#uisites) acts! 7aria Cru1(s filed a petition for habeas corpus& Her son" @avid" was tried and convicted by the trial court for violation of the @angerous @rugs Act of ;.D$ ('A -:$*)& He was convicted on September $D" ;.., and sentenced to life imprisonment& He was committed to the 5ational Penitentiary on 4ctober ;," ;..,& 4n @ecember ,;" ;..," '&A& 5o& D-. too) effect& 0his law amended provisions of several penal laws" including the @angerous @rugs Act of ;.D$& 0he penalty for the illegal sale of marijuana under the old law was Elife imprisonment to death&F =nder '&A& D-*." the penalty depended on the #uantity of the drug& 0he sale of ED*8 grams or more of 2ndian hemp or marijuanaF became punishable by reclusion perpetua" to death& 0he penalty for the sale of less than D*8 grams of marijuana was reduced to a range Efrom prision correccional to reclusion perpetua" depending upon the #uantityF of the drug& 0he amount of marijuana for which @avid Cru1 was convicted is $&D8 grams& 0he imposable penalty for this amount under the Simon ruling is prision correctional which has a duration of si/ (-) months and one (;) day to si/ (-) years& Presently" @avid Cru1 has already served si/ (-) years and three (,) months of his sentence which is way beyond the last day of prision correccional& 0he continued detention of Cru1 at" the 5ational Penitentiary has been admitted by the Solicitor Aeneral as already illegal&

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 e/cessive penalty has been imposed" as such sentence is void as to such e/cess& Petitioner(s claim is anchored on the first ground considering" as he claims" that his continued detention" notwithstanding the lac) of a copy of a valid judgment of conviction" is violative of his constitutional right to due process&<ased on the records and the hearing conducted by the trial court" there is sufficient evidence on record to establish the fact of conviction of petitioner which serves as the legal basis for his detention& As a general rule" the burden of proving illegal restraint by the respondent rests on the petitioner who attac)s such restraint& 2n other words" where the return is not subject to e/ception" that is" where it sets forth process which on its face shows good ground for the detention of the prisoner" it is incumbent on petitioner to allege and prove new matter that tends to invalidate the apparent effect of such process& 2f the detention of the prisoner is by reason of lawful public authority" the return is considered prima facie evidence of the validity of the restraint and the petitioner has the burden of proof to show that the restraint is illegal& 3hen a court has jurisdiction of the offense charged and of the party who is so charged" its judgment" order" or decree is not subject to collateral attac) by habeas corpus&

nature of the involuntary restraint and relieving him of such restraints as may be illegal& 'eservation of the military in the form of restrictions attached to the detainee(s temporary release constitutes restraints on the liberty of the detainee& 2t is not physical restraint alone which is in#uired into by the writ of habeas corpus& 0emporary release of detainee from detention with involuntary restraints does not render the petition for writ of habeas corpus moot and academic& 2t is available where a person continue to be unlawfully denied of one or more of his constitutional freedoms" where there is denial of due process" where the restraints are not merely involuntary but are necessary" and where a deprivation of freedom originally valid has later become arbitrary&

7. Hard2n vs. &ir2c-or o0 Prisons acts! red Harden is being confined in prison for contempt of court& 0his arose when the plaintiff was restrained from transferringmoneys" shares of stoc)" and other properties and assets involving the administration of conjugal partnership that he had with 7rs& Harden& 7r& Harden" however" transferred cash to various ban)s inHong)ong and California" as well as to an un)nown person& He was ordered by the court to redeposit the money and the <alatoc 7ining Co& shares belonging to the conjugal partnership" which he had inHong)ong to the Chartered <an) of 2ndia" Australia and China (7anila <ranch)& He was not able to fulfill these orders" and so was put to jail& 2ssue! 3hether or not the petitioner" warrant a writ of habeas corpus Held! 5o& 0he petition is denied with costs& 0he grounds for relief by habeas corpus are only (;) deprivation of any fundamental or constitutional rights ($) lac) of jurisdiction of the court to impose the sentence or (,) e/cessive penalty& 2t was held that the court has jurisdiction to impose the sentence simply because the person charged is in the state and he is still within the jurisdiction of its courts& 7oreover" the penalty imposed on the petitioner is not e/cessive because under Section D" 'ule -: of the 'ules of Court" Ewhen the contempt consists in the omission to do an act which is yet in the power of the accused to perform" he may be imprisoned by order of a superior court until he performs it&F 0his justifies the penalty imposed on red Harden" thereby not ma)ing it e/cessive& 7oreover" the court(s findings are supported by sufficient evidence and it is a matter of fact which cannot be reviewed by habeas corpus& 0he writ of habeas corpus cannot be used as a writ of error& red Harden" can

6. Monc.1a vs. Enri32 (Special Proceedings 0emporary release with involuntary restraints does not render the petition for writ of habeas corpus moot and academic) acts! Petitioners were arrested and detained on the allegation that they were members of a subversive organi1ation& Petitioners filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus& 'espondents filed a motion to dismiss after the petitioner was temporarily released from detention on the ground that the petition for habeas corpus may be deemed moot and academic since the petitioner is free and no longer under the respondent(s custody& Petitioner argues that his temporary release did not render the instant petition moot and academic because of the restrictions imposed by the respondents which constitute an involuntary and illegal restraint on his freedom& 2ssue! 345 a petition for a writ of habeas corpus becomes moot and academic in view of the detained person(s release with restrictions& Held! 5o& 'estraints attached to temporary release of a detained person warrant the Supreme Court(s in#uiry into the

5. O3a+.2r vs. Mi3i-ar, Co**ission 2n ;.D." 4laguer and some others were detained by military personnel and they were placed in Camp <agong @iwa& %ogauer and his group are all civilians& 0hey were charged with (;) unlawful possession of e/plosives and incendiary devicesG ($) conspiracy to assassinate President and 7rs& 7arcosG (,) conspiracy to assassinate cabinet members Buan Ponce >nrile" rancisco 0atad and Cicente PaternoG (:) conspiracy to assassinate 7essrs& Arturo 0angco" Bose 'oHo and 4nofre CorpusG (*) arson of nine buildingsG (-) attempted murder of 7essrs& %eonardo Pere1" 0eodoro Calencia and Aenerals 'omeo >spino and abian CerG and (D) conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion" and inciting to rebellion& 4n August ;." ;.+8" the petitioners went to the SC and filed the instant Petition for prohibition and habeas corpus& 2SS=>! 3hether or not the petition for habeas corpus be granted& H>%@! 0he petition for habeas corpus has become moot and academic because by the time the case reached the SC 4laguer and his companions were already released from military confinement& E3hen the release of the persons in whose behalf the application for a writ of habeas corpus was filed is effected" the Petition for the issuance of the writ becomes moot and academic& ;+ 2nasmuch as the herein petitioners have been released from their confinement in military detention centers" the instant Petitions for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed for having become moot and academic&F <ut the military court created to try the case of 4laguer (and the decision it rendered) still continues to subsist& 2SS=>$! 0he issue is then shifted to! 3hether or not a military tribunal has the jurisdiction to try civilians while the civil courts are open and functioning& H>%@! 0he SC nullified for lac) of jurisdiction all decisions rendered by the military courts or tribunals during the period of martial law in all cases involving civilian defendants& A military commission or tribunal cannot try and e/ercise jurisdiction" even during the period of martial law" over civilians for offenses allegedly committed by them as long as the civil courts are open and functioning" and that any judgment rendered by such body relating to a civilian is null and void for lac) of jurisdiction on the part of the military tribunal concerned&

P:8&88" which tea bags" when subjected to a laboratory e/amination" were found positive for marijuana& 4n @ecember :" ;.+." the trial court rendered judgment convicting appellant" and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment&

2ssue! 3hether or not the 2ndeterminate Sentence %aw is applicable to the case?

Held! 6es& @rug offenses are not included in nor has appellant committed any act which would put him within the e/ceptions to said law and the penalty to be imposed does not involve reclusion perpetua to death& 0he 2ndeterminate Sentence %aw is a legal and social measure of compassion" and should be liberally interpreted in favor of the accused&

1!. "3.sorio vs. Bi3dn2r AC0S! Potenciano 2lusorio" a lawyer" +- year old of age" possessed e/tensive property valued at millions of pesos& or many year" he was the Chairman of the <oard and President of <aguio Country Club& He was married with >rlinda 2lusorio" herein petitioner" for ,8 years and begotten - children namely 'amon" %in 2llusorio9<ildner (defendant)" 7a/imo" Sylvia" 7arietta and Shereen& 0hey separated from bed and board in ;.D$& Potenciano lived at 7a)ati every time he was in 7anila and at 2llusorio Penthouse" <aguio Country Club when he was in <aguio City& 4n the other hand" the petitioner lived in Antipolo City&

6. P2o132 vs. Si*on acts! Accused9appellant 7artin Simon y Sunga was charged on 5ovember ;8" ;.++ with a violation of Section :" Article 22 of 'A no& -:$* under an indictment alleging that on or about 4ctober $$" ;.++" at barangay Sto& Cristo" Auagua" Pampanga" he sold four tea bags to a 5arcotics Command (5A'C47) poseur9buyer in consideration of the sum of

2n ;..D" upon Potenciano(s arrival from =S" he stayed with her wife for about * months in Antipolo city& 0he children" Sylvia and %in" alleged that during this time their mother overdose Potenciano which caused the latter(s health to deteriorate& 2n ebruary ;..+" >rlinda filed with '0C petition for guardianship over the person and property of Potenciano due to the latter(s advanced age" frail health" poor eyesight and impaired judgment& 2n 7ay ;..+" after attending a corporate meeting in <aguio" Potenciano did not return to Antipolo instead lived at Cleveland Condominium in 7a)ati& 2n 7arch ;..." petitioner filed with CA petition for habeas corpus to have the custody of his husband alleging that the respondents refused her demands to see and visit her husband and prohibited Potenciano from returning to Antipolo& 2SS=>! 3hether or not the petitioned writ of habeas corpus should be issued&

H>%@! A writ of habeas corpus e/tends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention" or by which the rightful custody of a person is withheld from the one entitled thereto& 0o justify the grant for such petition" the restraint of liberty must an illegal and involuntary deprivation of freedom of action& 0he illegal restraint of liberty must be actual and effective not merely nominal or moral& 0hat when the petitioner filed for habeas corpus" the respondent moved to dismiss the case saying that those women were already out of their jurisdiction and that " it should be filed in the city of @avao instead&

0he court ruled in favor of the petitioner with the instructionsG

>vidence showed that there was no actual and effective detention or deprivation of Potenciano(s liberty that would justify issuance of the writ& 0he fact that the latter was +years of age and under medication does not necessarily render him mentally incapacitated& He still has the capacity to discern his actions& 3ith his full mental capacity having the right of choice" he may not be the subject of visitation rights against his free choice& 4therwise" he will be deprived of his right to privacy&

or the respondents to have fulfilled the courtIs order" three optional courses were open! (;) 0hey could have produced the bodies of the persons according to the command of the writG or ($) they could have shown by affidavit that on account of sic)ness or infirmity those persons could not safely be brought before the courtG or (,) they could have presented affidavits to show that the parties in #uestion or their attorney waived the right to be present&

Held!

0he case at bar does not involve the right of a parent to visit a minor child but the right of a wife to visit a husband& 2n any event" that the husband refuses to see his wife for private reasons" he is at liberty to do so without threat or any penalty attached to the e/ercise of his right& Coverture" is a matter beyond judicial authority and cannot be enforced by compulsion of a writ of habeas corpus carried out by the sheriffs or by any other process&

0he court concluded the case by granting the parties aggrieved the sum of :88 pesos each" plus ;88 pesos for nominal damage due to contempt of court& 'easoning further that if the chief e/ecutive of any municipality in the Philippines could forcibly and illegally ta)e a private citi1en and place him beyond the boundaries of the municipality" and then" when called upon to defend his official action" could calmly fold his hands and claim that the person was under no restraint and that he" the official" had no jurisdiction over this other municipality& 3e believe the true principle should be that" if the respondent is within the jurisdiction of the court and has it in his power to obey the order of the court and thus to undo the wrong that he has inflicted" he should be compelled to do so& >ven if the party to whom the writ is addressed has illegally parted with the custody of a person before the application for the writ is no reason why the writ should not issue& 2f the mayor and the chief of police" acting under no authority of law" could deport these women from the city of 7anila to @avao" the same officials must necessarily have the same means to return them from @avao to 7anila& 0he respondents" within the reach of process" may not be permitted to restrain a fellow citi1en of her liberty by forcing her to change her domicile and to avow the act with impunity in the courts" while the person who has lost her birthright of liberty has no effective recourse& 0he great writ of liberty may not thus be easily evaded

11. 7i33avic2ncio vs. '.89an 2ssue!

0he writ of Habeas Corpus was filed by the petitioner" with the prayer that the respondent produce around ;D8 women whom Busto %u)ban et" al deported to @avao& %iberty of abode was also raised versus the power of the e/ecutive of the 7unicipality in deporting the women without their )nowledge in his capacity as 7ayor&

acts!

Busto %u)ban as 7anila CityIs 7ayor together with Anton Hohmann" the cityIs Chief of Police" too) custody of about ;D8 women at the night of 4ctober $* beyond the latters consent and )nowledge and thereafter were shipped to 7indanao specifically in @avao where they were signed as laborers& Said women are inmates of the houses of prostitution situated in Aardenia Street" in the district of Sampaloc&

12. "n R2 A/.c2na '. Garcia (Special Proceedings Habeas Corpus! final judgment and bail)

acts! Petitioner is convicted by final judgment of the crime of falsification of public document& 2n the case at bar" petitioner is out on bail and is see)ing for a relief via a petition for habeas corpus #uestioning the validity of the judgment rendered& Petitioner contends that were proceedings were attended by violations of the constitutional rights of the accusedG the judgment of conviction is void thereby warranting relief by the e/traordinary legal remedy of habeas corpus& 0he 4SA" on the other hand states that the writ of habeas corpus is a remedy available to a person who is illegally imprisoned or restrained by his liberty& Conse#uently" a person discharged or out on bail" li)e petitioner" is not entitled to the writ& 2ssue! 345 a person convicted by final judgment andJor out on bail is entitled to the writ of habeas corpus& Held! 5o& 0he high prerogative writ of habeas corpus was devised and e/ists as a speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint& 2ts object is to in#uire into the legality of one(s detention" and if found illegal" to order release of the detainee& 2t is a well9settled rule that the writ will not issue where the person in whose behalf the writ is sought is out on bail" or is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court or judge or by virtue of a judgment or order of a court of record" and that the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the process" render judgment" or ma)e the order&

14. Anda3 vs. P2o132 (Special Proceedings Habeas Corpus is not granted) acts! Petitioners convicted of rape with homicide see) a writ of habeas corpus on the basis of a claim of mistrial andJor that the decision if the '0C was void& 0he petitioners argue that the trial court was ousted of jurisdiction to try their case since the pre9trial identification of the accused was made without the assistance of counsel and without a valid waiver from the accused& 2ssue! 345 a writ of habeas corpus should be granted& Held! 5o& 0he e/traordinary writ of habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy to in#uire into #uestions of violation of the petitioners( constitutional rights and that this court has jurisdiction to entertain this review& 0he jurisdiction of this court has been e/panded to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac) or e/cess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government& 2n this case findings show that there was no violation of the constitutional rights of the accused and a resultant deprivation of liberty or due process of law& 0he accused were sentenced to the supreme penalty of death as a result of a valid jurisdiction" after a fair and e#uitable trial

1). #i:in+ vs. Co.r- o0 A112a3s (Special Proceedings Habeas Adoption! Custody of a minor) acts! Petitioners filed a petition for habeas corpus in order to recover their son from respondent and presented witnesses to substantiate their petition& 'espondent claimed on the other hand that she is the natural mother of the child& 0he trial court held in favor of the petitioners and granted the petition for habeas corpus& 4n appeal" the CA reversed and set aside the decision rendered by the trial court& 0he appellate court e/pressed its doubts on the propriety of the habeas corpus& 2ssue! 345 habeas corpus is the proper remedy to regain custody of a minor& Held! 6es& 0he writ of habeas corpus e/tends 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 entitled thereto& 0he writ of habeas corpus 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&