MANGILA v. PANGILINAN; GR NO.

160739; JULY 17, 2013

Tan
Topic: Remedies

FACTS:
Petitioner Anita Mangila was charged with seven of syndicated estafa. She
recruits and promise employment to private complainants as overseas
contract workers in Toronto, Canada without lawful authority from POEA.
By reason of the charged against petitioner, a warrant of arrest was issued
against her. She was arrested. She then filed a petition for habeas corpus
before the CA alleging that she is deprived of the remedy of a motion to
quash or a motion to recall the warrant of arrest because Judge Pangilinan
(Judge who issued the warrant) had already forwarded the entire records of
the case to the City Prosecutor who had no authority to lift or recall the
warrant. CA denied the petition.

ISSUE: Did the CA err in ruling that habeas corpus was not the proper
remedy to obtain the release of Mangila from detention?

RULING:
NO. Habeas corpus is a speedy and effective remedy devised to relieve
persons from unlawful restraint. Petitioner’s restraint in this case in not
unlawful. She had been arrested and detained by virtue of the valid warrant
issued for her arrest.

It was clear that under Section 5,Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure, the resolution of the investigating judge was not final but was
still subject to the review by the public prosecutor who had the power to
order the release of the detainee if no probable cause should be ultimately
found against her. In the context of the rule, Mangila had no need to seek
the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus to secure her release from
detention.
Her proper remedy was to bring the supposed irregularities attending the
conduct of the (preliminary investigation) and the issuance of the warrant
for her arrest to the attention of the City Prosecutor for appropriate action.