G.R. No.

139789 July 19, 2001 and frail father to sign away Potenciano and Erlinda's property to
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF companies controlled by Lin and Sylvia. She also argued that since
POTENCIANO ILUSORIO, ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO, petitioner, Potenciano retired as director and officer of Baguio Country Club and
vs.ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO-BILDNER, SYLVIA K. ILUSORIO-YAP, Philippine Oversees Telecommunications, she would logically assume
JOHN DOES and JANE DOES, respondents. his position and control. Yet, Lin and Sylvia were the ones controlling
PARDO, J.: the corporations.15

Once again we see the sad tale of a prominent family shattered by The fact of illegal restraint has not been proved during the hearing at
conflicts on expectancy in fabled fortune. the Court of Appeals on March 23, 1999.16Potenciano himself declared
that he was not prevented by his children from seeing anybody and
that he had no objection to seeing his wife and other children whom he
On March 11, 1999, Erlinda K. Ilusorio, the matriarch who was so
loved.
lovingly inseparable from her husband some years ago, filed a petition
with the Court of Appeals1 for habeas corpus to have custody of her
husband in consortium. Erlinda highlighted that her husband suffered from various ailments.
Thus, Potenciano Ilusorio did not have the mental capacity to decide
for himself. Hence, Erlinda argued that Potenciano be brought before
On April 5, 1999, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision
the Supreme Court so that we could determine his mental state.
dismissing the petition for lack of unlawful restraint or detention of the
subject, Potenciano Ilusorio.
We were not convinced that Potenciano Ilusorio was mentally
incapacitated to choose whether to see his wife or not. Again, this is a
Thus, on October 11, 1999, Erlinda K. Ilusorio filed with the Supreme
question of fact that has been decided in the Court of Appeals.
Court an appeal via certiorari pursuing her desire to have custody of
her husband Potenciano Ilusorio.2 This case was consolidated with
another case3 filed by Potenciano Ilusorio and his children, Erlinda I. As to whether the children were in fact taking control of the
Bildner and Sylvia K. Ilusorio appealing from the order giving visitation corporation, these are matters that may be threshed out in a separate
rights to his wife, asserting that he never refused to see her. proceeding, irrelevant in habeas corpus.

On May 12, 2000, we dismissed the petition for habeas corpus 4 for Third. Petitioner failed to sufficiently convince the Court why we should
lack of merit, and granted the petition5 to nullify the Court of Appeals' not rely on the facts found by the Court of Appeals. Erlinda claimed
ruling6 giving visitation rights to Erlinda K. Ilusorio.7 that the facts mentioned in the decision were erroneous and
incomplete. We see no reason why the High Court of the land need go
to such length. The hornbook doctrine states that findings of fact of the
What is now before the Court is Erlinda's motion to reconsider the
lower courts are conclusive on the Supreme Court.17 We emphasize, it
decision.8
is not for the Court to weigh evidence all over again.18 Although there
are exceptions to the rule,19 Erlinda failed to show that this is an
On September 20, 2000, we set the case for preliminary conference on exceptional instance.
October 11, 2000, at 10:00 a. m., without requiring the mandatory
presence of the parties.
Fourth. Erlinda states that Article XII of the 1987 Constitution and
Articles 68 and 69 of the Family Code support her position that as
In that conference, the Court laid down the issues to be resolved, to spouses, they (Potenciano and Erlinda) are duty bound to live together
wit: and care for each other. We agree.
(a) To determine the propriety of a physical and medical
examination of petitioner Potenciano Ilusorio;
The law provides that the husband and the wife are obliged to live
(b) Whether the same is relevant; and
together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity.20 The sanction
(c) If relevant, how the Court will conduct the same.9
therefor is the "spontaneous, mutual affection between husband and
The parties extensively discussed the issues. The Court, in its
wife and not any legal mandate or court order" to enforce consortium. 21
resolution, enjoined the parties and their lawyers to initiate steps
towards an amicable settlement of the case through mediation and
other means. Obviously, there was absence of empathy between spouses Erlinda
and Potenciano, having separated from bed and board since 1972. We
defined empathy as a shared feeling between husband and wife
On November 29, 2000, the Court noted the manifestation and
experienced not only by having spontaneous sexual intimacy but a
compliance of the parties with the resolution of October 11, 2000. 10
deep sense of spiritual communion. Marital union is a two-way
process.
On January 31, 2001, the Court denied Erlinda Ilusorio's manifestation
and motion praying that Potenciano Ilusorio be produced before the
Marriage is definitely for two loving adults who view the relationship
Court and be medically examined by a team of medical experts
with "amor gignit amorem" respect, sacrifice and a continuing
appointed by the Court.11
commitment to togetherness, conscious of its value as a sublime social
institution.22
On March 27, 2001, we denied with finality Erlinda's motion to
reconsider the Court's order of January 31 , 2001.12
On June 28, 2001, Potenciano Ilusorio gave his soul to the Almighty,
his Creator and Supreme Judge. Let his soul rest in peace and his
The issues raised by Erlinda K. Ilusorio in her motion for survivors continue the much prolonged fracas ex aequo et bono.
reconsideration are mere reiterations of her arguments that have been
resolved in the decision.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, we DENY Erlinda's motion for reconsideration.
At any rate, the case has been rendered moot by the death of
Nevertheless, for emphasis, we shall discuss the issues thus: subject.SO ORDERED.

First. Erlinda K. Ilusorio claimed that she was not compelling

Potenciano to live with her in consortium and that Potenciano's mental SERAPIO V. SANDIGANBAYAN
state was not an issue. However, the very root cause of the entire Facts: Atty. Edward Serapio (petitioner) filed two petitions in the SC;
petition is her desire to have her husband's custody.13 Clearly, Erlinda these are: 1. A petition for certiorari assailing the resolutions of the
cannot now deny that she wanted Potenciano Ilusorio to live with her. Third division of the Sandiganbayan denying his petition for bail,
motion for reinvestigation and motion to quash; 2. Petition for Habeas
Corpus.
Second. One reason why Erlinda K. Ilusorio sought custody of her Petitioner was charged with the crime of plunder together with Former
husband was that respondents Lin and Sylvia were illegally restraining President Joseph Estrada and son Jinggoy Estrada among others.
Potenciano Ilusorio to fraudulently deprive her of property rights out of Petitioner was a member of the Board of Trustees and legal counsel of
pure greed.14 She claimed that her two children were using their sick
Erap Muslim Youth Foundation. He allegedly received, on behalf of the entire case upon the accused; and argued that petitioners motion to
said foundation, millions of pesos coming from illegal activities. quash and his petition for bail are inconsistent, and therefore, petitioner
should choose to pursue only one of these two remedies.[104] He further
claims that the Sandiganbayan, through its questioned orders and
The Ombudsman recommended the filing of a case against him before resolutions postponing the bail hearings effectively denied him of his
the Sandiganbayan. A warrant for his arrest was issued. Upon learning right to bail and to due process of law.[105]
of the said warrant he voluntarily surrendered to the PNP. Petitioner,
thereafter, file an Urgent Motion for Bail but such motion is opposed by Petitioner also maintains that the issuance by the
the prosecution for the reason that petitioner should be arraign first Sandiganbayan of new orders canceling the bail hearings which it had
before he can avail of Bail. Later on Petitioner simultaneously filed a earlier set did not render moot and academic the petition for issuance
motion to quash. of a writ of habeas corpus, since said orders have resulted in a
continuing deprivation of petitioners right to bail.[106]He argues further
that the fact that he was arrested and is detained pursuant to valid
The bail hearing was reset several times due to various pleadings filed process does not by itself negate the efficacy of the remedy of habeas
by petitioner and the prosecution. corpus. In support of his contention, petitioner cites Moncupa vs.
Enrile,[107] where the Court held that habeas corpus extends to
instances where the detention, while valid from its inception, has later
Due to this, petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus for the reason become arbitrary.[108]
that the prosecution have waived their right to present evidence in
opposition to his petition for bail; the prosecution launched an endless However, the People insist that habeas corpus is not proper
barrage of obstructive and dilatory moves to prevent the conduct of the because petitioner was arrested pursuant to the amended information
bail hearings; and, on the failure of the People to adduce strong which was earlier filed in court,[109] the warrant of arrest issuant
evidence of his guilt. For the said reasons, he is still being deprived of pursuant thereto was valid, and petitioner voluntarily surrendered to
his liberty. the authorities.[110]

As a general rule, the writ of habeas corpus will not issue where
Petitioner cited also Moncupa vs. Enrile, which in such case the Court the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty in custody of an officer
held that habeas corpus extends to instances where detention, while under a process issued by the court which jurisdiction to do so.[111] In
valid from its inception, has later become arbitrary. exceptional circumstances, habeas corpus may be granted by the
courts even when the person concerned is detained pursuant to a valid
arrest or his voluntary surrender, for this writ of liberty is recognized as
Issue: Whether the petition habeas corpus should be granted? the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom
Decision: No. SC finds no basis for the issuance of the writ of habeas against arbitrary and lawless state action due to its ability to cut
corpus. General rule applies. through barriers of form and procedural mazes.[112] Thus, in previous
Petition for habeas corpus is not the appropriate remedy for asserting cases, we issued the writ where the deprivation of liberty, while initially
ones right to bail. It cannot be availed of where accused is entitled to valid under the law, had later become invalid,[113] and even though the
bail not as a matter of right but on the discretion of the court and the persons praying for its issuance were not completely deprived of their
latter has not abused such discretion in refusing to grant bail, or has liberty.[114]
not even exercised said discretion. The proper recourse is to file an
application for bail with the court where the criminal case is pending The Court finds no basis for the issuance of a writ of habeas
and to allow hearings thereon to proceed. corpus in favor of petitioner. The general rule that habeas corpus does
Moncupa vs Enrile does not apply in this case because petitioners not lie where the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the
restraint of liberty did not become arbitrary. His application for bail has custody of an officer under process issued by a court which had
yet to commence (to be heard). jurisdiction to issue the same[115]applies, because petitioner is under
detention pursuant to the order of arrest issued by the Sandiganbayan
on April 25, 2001 after the filing by the Ombudsman of the amended
The delay in the hearing of his petition for bail cannot be pinned solely information for plunder against petitioner and his co-accused.
to the Sandiganbayan or on the prosecution because he himself is Petitioner had in fact voluntarily surrendered himself to the authorities
partly to be blamed (his actions caused delay too. on April 25, 2001 upon learning that a warrant for his arrest had been
issued.

As a general rule, the writ of habeas corpus will not issue where the The ruling in Moncupa vs. Enrile[116] that habeas corpus will lie
person alleged to be restrained of his liberty in custody of an officer where the deprivation of liberty which was initially valid has become
under a process issued by the court which jurisdiction to do so. arbitrary in view of subsequent developments finds no application in
the present case because the hearing on petitioners application for bail
has yet to commence. As stated earlier, the delay in the hearing of
In exceptional circumstances, habeas corpus may be granted by the petitioners petition for bail cannot be pinned solely on the
courts even when the person concerned is detained pursuant to a valid Sandiganbayan or on the prosecution for that matter. Petitioner himself
arrest or his voluntary surrender, for this writ of liberty is recognized as is partly to be blamed. Moreover, a petition for habeas corpus is not
the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom the appropriate remedy for asserting ones right to bail.[117] It cannot be
against arbitrary and lawless state action due to its ability to cut availed of where accused is entitled to bail not as a matter of right but
through barriers of form and procedural mazes.------------------------- on the discretion of the court and the latter has not abused such
discretion in refusing to grant bail,[118] or has not even exercised said
discretion. The proper recourse is to file an application for bail with the
Accordingly, petitioner cannot be released from detention until court where the criminal case is pending and to allow hearings thereon
the Sandiganbayan conducts a hearing of his application for bail and to proceed.
resolve the same in his favor. Even then, there must first be a finding
that the evidence against petitioner is not strong before he may be The issuance of a writ of habeas corpus would not only be
granted bail. unjustified but would also preempt the Sandiganbayans resolution of
the pending application for bail of petitioner. The recourse of petitioner
Anent the issue of the propriety of the issuance of a writ is to forthwith proceed with the hearing on his application for bail.
of habeas corpus for petitioner, he contends that he is entitled to the
issuance of said writ because the State, through the prosecutions LACSON V. PEREZ
refusal to present evidence and by the Sandiganbayans refusal to
grant a bail hearing, has failed to discharge its burden of proving that
On May 1, 2001, President Macapagal-Arroyo, faced by an "angry and
as against him, evidence of guilt for the capital offense of plunder is
violent mob armed with explosives, firearms, bladed weapons, clubs,
strong. Petitioner contends that the prosecution launched a seemingly
stones and other deadly weapons" assaulting and attempting to break
endless barrage of obstructive and dilatory moves to prevent the
into Malacaang, issued Proclamation No. 38 declaring that there was
conduct of bail hearings. Specifically, the prosecution moved for
a state of rebellion in the National Capital Region. She likewise issued
petitioners arraignment before the commencement of bail hearings and
General Order No. 1 directing the Armed Forces of the Philippines and
insisted on joint bail hearings for petitioner, Joseph Estrada and
the Philippine National Police to suppress the rebellion in the National
Jinggoy Estrada despite the fact that it was only petitioner who asked
Capital Region. Warrantless arrests of several alleged leaders and
for a bail hearing; manifested that it would present its evidence as if it
promoters of the "rebellion" were thereafter effected.
is the presentation of the evidence in chief, meaning that the bail
hearings would be concluded only after the prosecution presented its
Aggrieved by the warrantless arrests, and the declaration of a "state of case, until the instant petition is finally resolved." This relief is clearly
rebellion," which allegedly gave a semblance of legality to the arrests, premature considering that as of this date, no complaints or charges
the following four related petitions were filed before the Court have been filed against any of the petitioners for any crime. And in the
event that the same are later filed, this Court cannot enjoin criminal
prosecution conducted in accordance with the Rules of Court, for by
(1) G. R. No. 147780 for prohibition, injunction, mandamus,
that time any arrest would have been in pursuant of a duly issued
and habeas corpus (with an urgent application for the issuance of
warrant.
temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction) filed
by Panfilio M. Lacson, Michael Ray B. Aquino, and Cezar O. Mancao;
(2) G. R. No. 147781 for mandamus and/or review of the factual basis As regards petitioners' prayer that the hold departure orders issued
for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, with against them be declared null and void ab initio, it is to be noted that
prayer for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, petitioners are not directly assailing the validity of the subject hold
with prayer for a temporary restraining order filed by Miriam Defensor- departure orders in their petition. They are not even expressing
Santiago; (3) G. R. No. 147799 for prohibition and injunction with intention to leave the country in the near future. The prayer to set aside
prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or restraining order filed the same must be made in proper proceedings initiated for that
by Ronaldo A. Lumbao; and (4) G. R. No. 147810 for certiorari and purpose.
prohibition filed by the political party Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino.
Anent petitioners' allegations ex abundante ad cautelam in support
All the foregoing petitions assail the declaration of a state of rebellion of their application for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, it is
by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and the warrantless arrests manifest that the writ is not called for since its purpose is to relieve
allegedly effected by virtue thereof, as having no basis both in fact and petitioners from unlawful restraint (Ngaya-an v. Balweg, 200 SCRA
in law. Significantly, on May 6, 2001, President Macapagal-Arroyo 149 [1991]), a matter which remains speculative up to this very day.
ordered the lifting of the declaration of a "state of rebellion" in Metro
Manila. Accordingly, the instant petitions have been rendered moot
G.R. No. 147781
and academic. As to petitioners' claim that the proclamation of a "state
of rebellion" is being used by the authorities to justify warrantless
arrests, the Secretary of Justice denies that it has issued a particular The petition herein is denominated by petitioner Defensor-Santiago as
order to arrest specific persons in connection with the "rebellion." He one for mandamus. It is basic in matters relating to petitions
states that what is extant are general instructions to law enforcement for mandamus that the legal right of the petitioner to the performance
officers and military agencies to implement Proclamation No. 38. of a particular act which is sought to be compelled must be clear and
Indeed, as stated in respondents' Joint Comments: complete. Mandamus will not issue unless the right to relief is clear at
[I]t is already the declared intention of the Justice the time of the award (Palileo v. Ruiz Castro, 85 Phil. 272). Up to the
Department and police authorities to obtain regular present time, petitioner Defensor Santiago has not shown that she is in
warrants of arrests from the courts for all acts imminent danger of being arrested without a warrant. In point of fact,
committed prior to and until May 1, 2001 which means the authorities have categorically stated that petitioner will not be
that preliminary investigations will henceforth be arrested without a warrant.
conducted.
(Comment, G.R. No. 147780, p. 28; G.R. No.
147781, p. 18; G.R. No. 147799, p. 16; G.R. No. G.R. No. 147799
147810, p. 24)
With this declaration, petitioners' apprehensions as to warrantless Petitioner Lumbao, leader of the People's Movement against Poverty
arrests should be laid to rest. (PMAP), for his part, argues that the declaration of a "state of rebellion"
is violative of the doctrine of separation of powers, being an
encroachment on the domain of the judiciary which has the
In quelling or suppressing the rebellion, the authorities may only resort
to warrantless arrests of persons suspected of rebellion, as provided constitutional prerogative to "determine or interpret" what took place on
under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, if the circumstances May 1, 2001, and that the declaration of a state of rebellion cannot be
an exception to the general rule on the allocation of the governmental
so warrant. The warrantless arrest feared by petitioners is, thus, not
based on the declaration of a "state of rebellion." powers.

We disagree. To be sure, Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution

Moreover, petitioners' contention in G. R. No. 147780 (Lacson
Petition), 147781 (Defensor-Santiago Petition), and 147799 (Lumbao expressly provides that "[t]he President shall be the Commander-in-
Petition) that they are under imminent danger of being arrested without Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes
necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress
warrant do not justify their resort to the extraordinary remedies
of mandamus and prohibition, since an individual subjected to lawless violence, invasion or rebellion" Thus, we held in Integrated
warrantless arrest is not without adequate remedies in the ordinary Bar of the Philippines v. Hon. Zamora, (G.R. No. 141284, August 15,
2000):
course of law. Such an individual may ask for a preliminary
investigation under Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, where he may
adduce evidence in his defense, or he may submit himself to inquest x x x The factual necessity of calling out the armed forces is
proceedings to determine whether or not he should remain under not easily quantifiable and cannot be objectively established
custody and correspondingly be charged in court. Further, a person since matters considered for satisfying the same is a
subject of a warrantless arrest must be delivered to the proper judicial combination of several factors which are not always
authorities within the periods provided in Article 125 of the Revised accessible to the courts. Besides the absence of textual
Penal Code, otherwise the arresting officer could be held liable for standards that the court may use to judge necessity,
delay in the delivery of detained persons. Should the detention be information necessary to arrive at such judgment might also
without legal ground, the person arrested can charge the arresting prove unmanageable for the courts. Certain pertinent
officer with arbitrary detention. All this is without prejudice to his filing information might be difficult to verify, or wholly unavailable
an action for damages against the arresting officer under Article 32 of to the courts. In many instances, the evidence upon which
the Civil Code. Verily, petitioners have a surfeit of other remedies the President might decide that there is a need to call out the
which they can avail themselves of, thereby making the prayer for armed forces may be of a nature not constituting technical
prohibition and mandamus improper at this time (Section 2 and 3, Rule proof.
65, Rules of Court).1wphi1.nt
On the other hand, the President as Commander-in-Chief
Aside from the foregoing reasons, several considerations likewise has a vast intelligence network to gather information, some
inevitably call for the dismissal of the petitions at bar. of which may be classified as highly confidential or affecting
the security of the state. In the exercise of the power to call,
G.R. No. 147780 on-the-spot decisions may be imperatively necessary in
emergency situations to avert great loss of human lives and
mass destruction of property. x x x
In connection with their alleged impending warrantless arrest,
petitioners Lacson, Aquino, and mancao pray that the "appropriate
(at pp.22-23)
court before whom the informations against petitioners are filed be
directed to desist from arraigning and proceeding with the trial of the
The Court, in a proper case, may look into the sufficiency of the factual On or about 9:30 P.M. of the same day, the team,
basis of the exercise of this power. However, this is no longer feasible including Yap, Tuliao and the informant, proceeded to Fuente
at this time, Proclamation No. 38 having been lifted. Osmea, Cebu City for the said purpose. Upon arrival
thereat, Yap and the informant proceeded to Pizza Hut while
Tuliao stayed behind near the parking area and so with the
G.R. No. 147810
members of the team closely watching them. When Yap and the
informant entered Pizza Hut, respondent was already there waiting
Petitioner Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino is not a real party-in- for them. They immediately approached her and the informant
interest. The rule requires that a party must show a personal stake in introduced Yap to respondent as his former customer. They had a
the outcome of the case or an injury to himself that can be redressed short conversation and Yap asked respondent if she has with her
by a favorable decision so as to warrant an invocation of the court's the item. Respondent told him that it is in her car at the parking
jurisdiction and to justify the exercise of the court's remedial powers in area. Respondent asked where the money is. Yap told her no
his behalf (KMU Labor Center v. Garcia, Jr., 239 SCRA 386 [1994]). problem as long as she has the item, he will give her the
Here, petitioner has not demonstrated any injury to itself which would money. Respondent instructed Yap to go with her at the parking
justify resort to the Court. Petitioner is a juridical person not subject to area so that she could give it to him and there, she got inside her
arrest. Thus, it cannot claim to be threatened by a warrantless arrest. car. She took the shabu inside the compartment of her Toyota
Nor is it alleged that its leaders, members, and supporters are being Fortuner with plate number YCX 965 and handed to him one (1)
threatened with warrantless arrest and detention for the crime of packed medium size of heat sealed transparent plastic sachet filled
rebellion. Every action must be brought in the name of the party whose with white crystalline substance believed to be shabu. Upon
legal right has been invaded or infringed, or whose legal right is under receiving the said item, Yap pressed it to determine if it was really
imminent threat of invasion or infringement. shabu or not and when he noticed that it was shabu, he
immediately miscalled the members of the team informing them
that the transaction was consummated and subsequently held
At best, the instant petition may be considered as an action for respondent. He then introduced himself as PDEA 7
declaratory relief, petitioner claiming that its right to freedom of operative. Tuliao, who was just at the side of the car,
expression and freedom of assembly is affected by the declaration of a
assisted Yap in apprehending the suspect. They also seized her
"state of rebellion" and that said proclamation is invalid for being cellular phone and the Toyota Fortuner which she used in
contrary to the Constitution. delivering and transporting illegal drugs. Thereafter, they informed
her that she is under arrest for violation of Section 5, Article II, RA
However, to consider the petition as one for declaratory relief affords 9165 and likewise apprised her of the Miranda Doctrine in the
little comfort to petitioner, this Court not having jurisdiction in the first language she knew and understood but she opted to remain
instance over such a petition. Section 5[1], Article VIII of the silent. After which, they asked her name and she introduced
Constitution limits the original jurisdiction of the Court to cases herself as Lovely Adam y Impal, 29 years old, married,
affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over businesswoman and a resident of Celiron, Iligan City. They
petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo brought her along with the confiscated items to their office for
warranto, and habeas corpus. proper disposition. Later on, they found out that the item
that Yap bought from respondent, marked LA dated 07-07-
06 with Yaps signature, weighing 50.27 grams which was
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petitions are hereby submitted before the PNP Crime Laboratory for chemical analysis,
DISMISSED. However, in G.R. No. 147780, 147781, and 147799, yielded positive results for the presence of Methamphetamine
respondents, consistent and congruent with their undertaking earlier Hydrochloride or Shabu, a dangerous drug.
adverted to, together with their agents, representatives, and all
persons acting for and in their behalf, are hereby enjoined from Respondent denies the charge against her. She claims
arresting petitioners therein without the required judicial warrant for all that she is a trader of ready to wear clothing. As such, she
acts committed in relation to or in connection with the may 1, 2001 frequently travels to different Asian countries to buy goods for sale
siege of Malacaang.SO ORDERED. in Cebu and in Mindanao. She supplies various boutiques
in Cebu City, including Salad Dressing at SM, D.
SANGCA V CITY PROSECUTOR Blaz., BeautyLand and Lovelys Closet. She also operates a beauty
parlor in Talamban.
On January 4, 2007, petitioner Anisah Impal Sangca filed the instant
petition praying for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus and the Respondent claims that on July 7, 2006, at
release of Lovely Impal Adam who was detained in the Cebu City Jail around 10:00 in the evening, she was at Pizza Hut, Fuente Osmea
for alleged violation of Section 5, Article 2 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. Boulevard, together with her four children and their yayas. A friend
9165, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. of hers, Ana, had called her earlier in the day saying that she
would pay off her loan to her (respondent) at Pizza Hut that
The facts are as follows: evening. Ana arrived a short time later. They were eating when
Ana received a call over her cellphone. From the gist of it, Ana was
In the first week of July 2006, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency talking to a certain Rose.Respondent did not mind them because
(PDEA), Regional Office VII, received information that Adam was the conversation was only between Ana and Rose. A short time
engaged in illegal drug trafficking activities in Cebu City and later, a woman, who was introduced to her by Ana as a certain
neighboring cities and municipalities. After evaluating the information, Rose, arrived. Ana and Rose then proceeded to talk with each
Police Chief Inspector Josefino Ligan, PDEA VII Asst. Regional other, and respondent did not mind them. A while after, respondent
Director for Administration/Operation, together with FO1 Rayford A. saw Ana hand over a parcel to Rose, and the latter, on the other
Yap and PO2 Dindo M. Tuliao, planned an entrapment operation. hand, hand a green bag to Ana. Rose then left. As respondent was
about to leave, Ana requested that she be allowed to hitch a ride
The events leading to the arrest of Adam, as summarized in and respondent agreed. When they were outside, respondent
the Resolution of the Department of Justice dated November 10, 2006, noticed a vehicle blocking her car, making it impossible for her to
are as follows: back out into the road, without hitting the car. She then beeped her
car. Instead of moving their car, one of the men went down and
On July 7, 2006, at about 2:00 P.M., Yap and Tuliao thereafter, entered her vehicle and demanded for the bag that was
were able to contact the informant and inquired from him if he was allegedly given to Ana by Rose. Respondent told them to ask Ana
really sincere with his words and the latter replied since they claimed that it was given to Ana. However, the men
affirmatively. Ligan immediately composed a team and planned for pointed their guns at respondent, including her children, claiming
an entrapment operation against respondent and her cohorts. A that they were elements of PDEA and they were placing her under
short briefing was conducted where Yap was tasked to receive the arrest for illegal drug trafficking. They then grabbed respondents
shabu while Tuliao would be the back up and at the same time the green bag and from then on, she was never able to recover the
arresting officer. They prepared a Pre-Operation Report and the contents thereof, including the bag itself. Thereafter, respondent
same was coordinated with the Tactical Operation Center of Cebu was brought to the PDEA office where a certain Ryan Rubi was
City Police Office. The pre-arranged signal in the operation was also booked for alleged drug trafficking. During her conversation
that Yap would miscall them once the transaction is with Ryan Rubi, she found out that he was arrested a few hours
consummated. x x x earlier likewise by the PDEA, and during his alleged arrest, he was
required to produce a drug trafficker in exchange for his
release. Having been unable to produce any, he was charged. The
 name of Rose cropped up, and he said that during his arrest, the money with two (2) pieces of
police officers informed him that they were after Rose. His wife genuine five hundred peso bills
was out to raise money for his release, or to produce a drug wrapped with newspaper and
trafficker so that he can be released. It was further ascertained by packed with packaging
Ryan Rubi that this Rose was actually arrested by the police tape. However, while the name of
officers but was conditionally released on condition that she would the suspect is indicated in this
produce someone who would take her place. Thereafter, he excerpt is Lovely Adam y Impal and
claimed that he overheard them refer to a certain Ana, who said the evidence enumerated are as
that she would also produce respondent to take her place. The follows:
circumstances of respondents arrest and that of the said Ryan
Rubi are closely intertwined. In the police blotter, the vehicle 1) one (1) medium size of heat sealed
pertaining to respondent, which is the Toyota Fortuner was transparent plastic sachet filled with
ascribed to Ryan Rubi, while the latters vehicle was ascribed to crystalline substance believed to be
her. x x x[1] shabu;
2) one (1) unit Nokia cellphone;
The inquest prosecutor recommended the dismissal of the 3) one (1) unit Toyota Fortuner with plate
case but was disapproved by the City Prosecutor. Consequently, an number XCX 956 registered under the
information charging Adam with violation of Section 5, Article 2 of R.A. name of Lovely Adam;
No. 9165 was filed and docketed as Criminal Case No. CBU-77562
before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 58. the narration of the facts of the case in said
excerpt also included the following statement:
On petition for review before the Department of Justice, Secretary Raul Likewise, the apprehending officers seized one (1)
M. Gonzalez found no probable cause to hold Adam liable for the unit cellular phone (Sony Erickson) and the
offense charged, to wit: Mitsubishi Lancer with plate number GHC color
black registered under the name of Roberto Rubi,
A very thorough and careful scrutiny of the which was used by the aforementioned suspects
records, particularly the affidavit of arrest, reveals in transporting illegal drugs.
that no payment was ever made by the police
officers for the supposed object of the buy-bust This Roberto Rubi could not have been arrested
operations. The police officers have not even together with accused herein because there is no
alleged in their affidavits that payment was made mention of such fact in the Affidavit of Officers Yap
to respondent in exchange for the shabu. No buy- and Tuliao.
bust money was ever presented. The certificate of
inventory does not show any buy-bust In fact, the head of the arresting team of herein
money. These stick out like a sore thumb in the accused Josefino D. Liga[n] filed a Motion to
case at bar. Withdraw Said Excerpt because there was an
inadvertent interchange of facts in another case
Suffice it to say that one of the essential elements obviously against Mr. Rubi.
to be established in the prosecution of the drug
buy-bust cases, that is, the delivery of the thing The problem, however, is that from the Excerpts
sold and the payment therefore is wanting. It was presented, it is not clear to this court to which case
aptly said in the case of People v. Alilin, 206 the mention of boodle money applies. This court
SCRA 773, that: To sustain a conviction for selling cannot merely assume or conclude that the boodle
prohibited drugs, the same must be clearly and money has reference to the case of herein
unmistakably established.[2] accused because as stated, nowhere in the
separate affidavits of office[r]s Tuliao and Yap can
The Justice Secretary directed the City Prosecutor of Cebu one find any mention of such. It is not even
City to withdraw the information.[3] PDEA filed a motion for mentioned in the other Excerpt also dated July 10,
reconsideration but was denied by the Justice Secretary on December 2006 also submitted by the PDEA.[5]
8, 2006.[4]
Finding that Adam could not be held liable for the crime
In his Comment, Judge Gabriel T. Ingles, Presiding Judge of charged, Judge Ingles issued an Order on January 26, 2007 granting
the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 58, stated that at the the Motion to Withdraw Information and ordering the release of the
hearing of the motion to withdraw information on January 5, 2007, it accused, unless otherwise held for another valid ground. The
was found that: dispositive portion of the Order reads:

In the affidavit of FO1 Rayford A. Yap Accordingly, the Motion to Withdraw

and PO2 Dindo M. Tuliao, there is indeed no Information is hereby GRANTED and the accused
mention of their preparation of a buy bust money is ordered immediately released unless another
before, during or after their briefing prior to the valid ground exists for her continued detention.
alleged buy bust operation, nor is there any
mention of the price or consideration of the The prosecution and/or PDEA are/is
sale. What is merely stated is that they had ordered to turn over to this court within three (3)
enough money. days from receipt hereof the dangerous drug
xxxx described in the information which shall in turn be
Further convincing this court that there confiscated in favor of the state for proper
was no buy bust money prepared are the disposition unless the prosecution intends to refile
following: or file another case against the accused which it
a) In the Pre-Operation Report deems appropriate as double jeopardy has not
dated July 7, 2006, bearing Control attached. SO ORDERED.[6]
Number 07-07-2006-03, there is no
mention of the buy-bust money in A writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal
the operational requirements; confinement or detention in which any person is deprived of his liberty,
b) In the Excerpt From the or in which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the
Records of the PDEA 7 person entitled to it. Its essential object and purpose is to inquire into
Blotter/Logbook bearing the same all manner of involuntary restraint and to relieve a person from it if such
date and entry number 02422; restraint is illegal. The singular function of a petition for habeas corpus
c) In another Excerpt From the is to protect and secure the basic freedom of physical liberty. [7]
Records of the PDEA 7
Blotter/Logbook bearing the same In the instant case, records show that Adam has been
date and entry number 02422 there released upon order of the trial judge on January 26, 2007. Therefore,
is a mention in Facts of the Case the the petition has become moot.[8] WHEREFORE, the petition
recovery of 3 bundles of boodle is DISMISSED.
MANGILA V PANGILINAN rule, Judge Pangilinan issued the warrant of arrest against Mangila
GR No. 160739 July 17, 2013 and her cohorts. Consequently, the CA properly denied Mangilas
Facts: Seven criminal complaints charging petitioner Anita Mangila petition for habeas corpus because she had been arrested and
and four others with syndicated estafa in violation of Article 315 of the detained by virtue of the warrant issued for her arrest by Judge
RPC, in relation to PD No. 1689, and with violations of Section 7(b) of Pangilinan, a judicial officer undeniably possessing the legal authority
RA 8042 were filed in the MTCC in Puerto Princesa City. he to do so.
complaints arose from the recruiting and promising of employment by
Mangila and the others to the private complainants as overseas
It is relevant to point out at this juncture that the authority of the MTC
contract workers in Toronto, Canada, and from the collection of visa
and MTCC judges to conduct preliminary investigations was removed
processing fees, membership fees and on-line application the private
only effective on October 3, 2005 pursuant to A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC.
complainants without lawful authority from the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration (POEA).
With Mangilas arrest and ensuing detention being by virtue of the
On the following day, Judge Pangilinan , Presiding Judge of the order lawfully issued by Judge Pangilinan, the writ of habeas corpus
MTCC, conducted a preliminary investigation on the complaints. After was not an appropriate remedy to relieve her from the restraint on her
examining Miguel Aaron Palayon, one of the complainants, Judge liberty. This is because the restraint, being lawful and pursuant to a
Pangilinan issued a warrant for the arrest of Mangila and her cohorts court process, could not be inquired into through habeas corpus. Her
without bail. On the next day, the entire records of the cases, including proper recourse was to bring the supposed irregularities attending the
the warrant of arrest, were transmitted to the City Prosecutor of Puerto conduct of the preliminary investigation and the issuance of the
Princesa City for further proceedings and appropriate action in warrant for her arrest to the attention of the City Prosecutor, who had
accordance with the prevailing rules. been meanwhile given the most direct access to the entire records of
the case, including the warrant of arrest, following Judge Pangilinans
As a consequence, Mangila was arrested and detained at the transmittal of them to the City Prosecutor for appropriate action. We
headquarters on Taft Avenue, Manila of the NBI. agree with the CA, therefore, that the writ of habeas corpus could not
be used as a substitute for another available remedy.
Mangila filed in the Court of Appeals (CA) a petition for habeas corpus
to obtain her release from detention. G.R. No. 210636 July 28, 2014

The CA denied the petition for habeas corpus for its lack of merit
MA. HAZELINA A. TUJANMILITANTE IN BEHALF OF THE MINOR
Issue: Did the CA err in ruling that habeas corpus was not the proper CRISELDA M. CADA, Petitioner,
remedy to obtain the release of Mangila from detention? vs.RAQUEL M. CADA-DEAPERA, Respondent.

Held: The Supreme Court affirmed the CAs finding. Nature of the Case

The high prerogative writ of habeas corpus has been devised as a

Before Us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
speedy and effective remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint.
Rules of Court with prayer for injunctive relief seeking the reversal of
the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision1 dated May 17, 2013 as well as its
Habeas corpus is not in the nature of a writ of error; nor intended as
Resolution dated December 27, 2013 in CA-G.R. SP No. 123759. In
substitute for the trial courts function. It cannot take the place of the main, petitioner questions the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial
appeal, certiorari or writ of error. The writ cannot be used to investigate Court, Branch 130 in Caloocan City (RTC-Caloocan) to hear and
and consider questions of error that might be raised relating to
decide a special civil action for habeas corpus in relation to the custody
procedure or on the merits. of a minor residing in Quezon City.

Habeas corpus is a summary remedy. It is analogous to a proceeding

The Facts
in rem when instituted for the sole purpose of having the person of
restraint presented before the judge in order that the cause of his
detention may be inquired into and his statements final. The writ of On March 24, 2011, respondent Raquel M. Cada-Deapera filed before
habeas corpus does not act upon the prisoner who seeks relief, but the R TC-Caloocan a verified petition for writ of habeas corpus,
upon the person who holds him in what is alleged to be the unlawful docketed as Special Civil Action Case No. C-4344. In the said petition,
authority. Hence, the only parties before the court are the petitioner respondent demanded the immediate issuance of the special writ,
(prisoner) and the person holding the petitioner in custody, and the directing petitioner Ma. Hazelina Tujan-Militante to produce before the
only question to be resolved is whether the custodian has authority to court respondent's biological daughter, minor Criselda M. Cada
deprive the petitioner of his liberty. The writ may be denied if the (Criselda), and to return to her the custody over the child. Additionally,
petitioner fails to show facts that he is entitled thereto ex merito respondent indicated that petitioner has three (3) known addresses
justicias. where she can be served with summons and other court processes, to
wit: (1) 24 Bangkal St., Amparo Village, Novaliches, Caloocan City; (2)
118B K9Street, Kamias, Quezon City; and (3) her office at the
The object of the writ of habeas corpus is to inquire into the legality of Ombudsman-Office of the Special Prosecutor, 5th Floor,
the detention, and, if the detention is found to be illegal, to require the Sandiganbayan, Centennial Building, Commonwealth Avenue cor.
release of the detainee. Equally well-settled however, is that the writ
Batasan Road, Quezon City.2
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 with jurisdiction or by virtue of a judgment or order of a The next day, on March 25, 2011, the RTC-Caloocan issued a writ of
court of record. habeas corpus, ordering petitioner to bring the child to court on March
28, 2011. Despite diligent efforts and several attempts, however, the
There is no question that when the criminal complaints were lodged Sheriff was unsuccessful in personally serving petitioner copies of the
against Mangila and her cohorts on June 16, 2003,Judge Pangilinan, habeas corpus petition and of the writ. Instead, on March 29, 2011, the
as the Presiding Judge of the MTCC, was empowered to conduct Sheriff left copies of the court processes at petitioners Caloocan
preliminary investigations involving "all crimes cognizable by the proper residence, as witnessed by respondents counsel and barangay
court in their respective territorial jurisdictions." His authority was officials.3 Nevertheless, petitioner failed to appear at the scheduled
expressly provided in Section 2, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of hearings before the RTC-Caloocan.
Criminal Procedure.
Meanwhile, on March 31, 2011, petitioner filed a Petition for
Under Section 6(b) of Rule 112of the Revised Rules of Criminal Guardianship over the person of Criselda before the RTC, Branch 89
Procedure, the investigating judge could issue a warrant of arrest in Quezon City (RTC-Quezon City). Respondent filed a Motion to
during the preliminary investigation even without awaiting its Dismiss the petition for guardianship on the ground of litis pendentia,
conclusion should he find after an examination in writing and under among others. Thereafter, or on June 3, 2011, respondent filed a
oath of the complainant and the witnesses in the form of searching criminal case for kidnapping before the Office of the City Prosecutor
questions and answers that a probable cause existed, and that there Quezon City against petitioner and her counsel.
was a necessity of placing the respondent under immediate custody in
order not to frustrate the ends of justice.1wphi1 In the context of this
On July 12, 2011, the RTC-Quezon City granted respondents motion required under Section 20 of A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC, otherwise known
and dismissed the guardianship case due to the pendency of the as the Rules on Custody of Minors and Habeas Corpus in Relation to
habeas corpuspetition before RTC-Caloocan.4 Custody of Minors. According tothe CA, the rules on summons
contemplated in ordinary civil actions have no place in petitions for the
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, it being a special proceeding. 17
The falloof the Order reads:

Petitioner sought reconsideration ofthe above Decision but the same

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing,the subject motion is hereby
was denied by the CA in its December 27, 2013 Resolution.1wphi1
GRANTED.Accordingly, the case is hereby DISMISSED. SO
ORDERED.5
Hence, this Petition.
Then, on August 4, 2011, Raquel moved for the ex parte issuance of
an alias writ of habeas corpus before the RTC-Caloocan, which was The Issues
granted by the trial court on August 8, 2011. On even date, the court
directed the Sheriff to serve the alias writ upon petitioner at the Office
At the core of this controversy isthe issue of whether or not the RTC
of the Assistant City Prosecutor of Quezon City on August 10,
Caloocan has jurisdiction over the habeascorpus petition filed by
2011.6 In compliance, the Sheriff served petitioner the August 8, 2011
respondent and, assuming arguendo it does, whether or not it validly
Order as well as the Alias Writ during the preliminary investigation of
acquired jurisdiction over petitioner and the person of Criselda.
the kidnapping case.7
Likewise pivotal is the enforce ability of the writ issued by RTC-
Caloocan in Quezon City where petitioner was served a copy thereof.
Following this development, petitioner, by way of special appearance,
moved for the quashal of the writ and prayed before the RTC Caloocan
The Courts Ruling
for the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition,8 claiming, among
others, that she was not personally served with summons. Thus, as
argued by petitioner, jurisdiction over her and Criseldasperson was not The petition lacks merit. The RTC-Caloocan correctly took cognizance
acquired by the RTCCaloocan. of the habeas corpus petition. Subsequently, it acquired jurisdiction
over petitioner when the latter was served with a copy of the writ in
Quezon City.
Ruling of the Trial Court

The RTC-Caloocan has jurisdiction over the habeas corpus proceeding

On January 20, 2012, the RTC-Caloocan issued an Order denying
petitioners omnibus motion, citing Saulo v. Brig. Gen. Cruz,9 where the
Court held that a writ of habeas corpus, being an extraordinary process Arguing that the RTC-Caloocan lacked jurisdiction over the case,
requiring immediate proceeding and action, plays a role somewhat petitioner relies on Section 3 of A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC and maintains
comparable to a summons in ordinary civil actions, in that, by service that the habeas corpus petition should have been filed before the
of said writ, the Court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the family court that has jurisdiction over her place of residence or that of
respondent, as petitioner herein.10 the minor or wherever the minor may be found.18 As to respondent, she
asserts, among others, that the applicable rule is not Section 3 but
Section 20 of A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC.19
Moreover, personal service, the RTC said, does not necessarily
require that service be made exclusively at petitioners given address,
for service may be made elsewhere or wherever she may be found for We find for respondent.
as long as she was handed a copy of the court process in person by
anyone authorized by law. Since the sheriff was able to personally
serve petitioner a copy of the writ, albeit in Quezon City, the RTC- In the case at bar, what respondent filed was a petition for the
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus under Section 20 of A.M. No. 03-
Caloocan validly acquired jurisdiction over her person.11 The
dispositive portion of the Order reads: 04-04-SC and Rule 102 of the Rules of Court.20 As provided:

Section 20. Petition for writ of habeas corpus.- A verified petition for a
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Very Urgent Motion (Motion
to Quash Alias Writ; Motion to Dismiss)filed by respondent Ma. writ of habeas corpus involving custody of minors shall be filed with the
Hazelina Tujan-Militante dated August 11, 2011 is hereby DENIED for Family Court. The writ shall beenforceable within its judicial region to
which the Family Court belongs.
lack of merit.

In the meantime, respondent Ma. Hazelina Tujan-Militante is hereby However, the petition may be filed with the regular court in the absence
of the presiding judge of the Family Court, provided, however, that the
directed to appear and bring Criselda Martinez Cada before this Court
on February 10, 2012 at 8:30 oclock in the morning.SO ORDERED.12 regular court shall refer the case tothe Family Court as soon as its
presiding judge returns to duty.

Aggrieved, petitioner, via certiorari to the CA, assailed the issued

Order. The petition may also be filed with the appropriate regular courts in
places where there are no Family Courts.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The writ issued by the Family Court or the regular court shall be
enforceable in the judicial region where they belong.
Over a year later, the CA, in the challenged Decision dated May 17,
2013,13 dismissed the petition for certiorari in the following wise:
The petition may likewise be filed with the Supreme Court, Court of
Appeals, or with any of its members and, if so granted,the writ shall be
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of enforceable anywhere in the Philippines. The writ may be made
merit. The Regional Trial Court, Branch 130 of Caloocan City is returnable to a Family Court or to any regular court within the region
DIRECTED to proceed with due dispatch in Spec. Proc. Case No. C- where the petitioner resides or where the minor may be found for
4344 for Habeas Corpus, giving utmost consideration tothe best hearing and decision on the merits.
interest of the now nearly 14-year old child. SO ORDERED.14
Upon return of the writ, the court shall decide the issue on custody of
In so ruling, the CA held that jurisdiction was properly laid when minors. The appellate court, or the member thereof, issuing the writ
respondent filed the habeas corpus petition before the designated shall be furnished a copy of the decision. (emphasis added)
Family Court in Caloocan City.15 It also relied on the certification issued
by the punong barangay of Brgy. 179, Caloocan City, stating that
Considering that the writ is made enforceable within a judicial region,
petitioner is a bona fide resident thereof, as well as the medical
certificate issued by Criseldas doctor on April 1, 2011, indicating that petitions for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus, whether they be
her address is "Amparo Village, KC."16 Anent the RTC-Caloocans filed under Rule 102 of the Rules of Court orpursuant to Section 20 of
jurisdiction, the appellate court ruled that service of summons is not
A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC, may therefore be filed withany of the proper in the Alias Warrant of Arrest, orderly course of trial must be pursued
RTCs within the judicial region where enforcement thereof is sought.21 and the usual remedies exhausted before the writ of habeas corpus
may be invoked. Salibos proper remedy, according to the CA, should
On this point, Section 13 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (BP 129), have been a motion to quash information and/or warrant of arrest.
otherwise known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, finds
relevance. Said provision, which contains the enumeration of judicial On the other hand, Salibo believes that the Warden erred in appealing
regions in the country, states: the RTC decision before the CA. Salibo argued that although the CA
delegated to the RTC the authority to hear the Wardens Return, the
Section 13. Creation of Regional Trial Courts. There are hereby RTCs ruling should be deemed as the CA ruling, and hence, it should
created thirteen Regional Trial Courts, one for each of the following have been appealed directly before the SC.
judicial regions:
xxxx
Issue 1: W/N Salibo properly availed the remedy of a petition for writ of
The National Capital Judicial Region, consisting of the cities of Manila,
Quezon, Pasay, Caloocan and Mandaluyong, and the municipalities of habeas corpus
Navotas, Malabon, San Juan, Makati, Pasig, Pateros, Taguig,
Marikina, Paraaque, Las Pias, Muntinlupa, and Valenzuela. Yes. Habeas corpus is the remedy for a person deprived of liberty due
(emphasis ours) to mistaken identity. In such cases, the person is not under any lawful
process and is continuously being illegally detained.
In view of the afore-quoted provision,it is indubitable that the filing of a
petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus before a family First, it was Butukan S. Malang, not Salibo, who was charged and
court in any of the cities enumerated is proper as long as the writ is accused in the Information and Alias Warrant of Arrest issued in the
sought to be enforced within the National Capital Judicial Region, as case of People vs Ampatuan. Based on the evidences presented,
here. Salibo sufficiently established that he could not have been Butukan S.
Malang. Therefore, Salibo was not arrested by virtue of any warrant
In the case at bar, respondent filed the petition before the family court charging him of an offense, nor restrained under a lawful process or an
of Caloocan City. Since Caloocan City and Quezon City both belong to order of a court. Second, Salibo was not validly arrested without a
the same judicial region, the writ issued by the RTC-Caloocan can still warrant. When he was in the presence of authorities, he was neither
be implemented in Quezon City. Whether petitioner resides in the
former or the latter is immaterial in view of the above rule. committing nor attempting to commit an offense, and the police officers
had no personal knowledge of any offense that he might have
committed. Salibo was also not an escape prisoner.
Anent petitioners insistence on the application of Section 3 of A.M. No.
03-04-04-SC, a plain reading of said provision reveals that the
provision invoked only applies to petitions for custody of minors, and The police officers have deprived him of his liberty without due process
not to habeas corpus petitions. Thus: of law. Therefore, Salibo correctly availed himself of a Petition for
Habeas Corpus.
Section 3. Where to file petition.- The petition for custody of minors
shall be filed with the Family Court of the province or city where the Issue 2: W/N a motion to quash information and/or warrant of arrest is
petitioner resides or where the minormay be found. (emphasis added) the proper remedy in cases where a person with a mistaken identity is
detained
Lastly, as regards petitioners assertion that the summons was
improperly served, suffice it to state thatservice of summons, to begin No, the CAs contention is not correct. Salibos proper remedy is not a
with, is not required in a habeas corpus petition, be it under Rule 102 Motion to Quash Information and/or Warrant of Arrest. None of the
of the Rules of Court or A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC. As held in Saulo v. grounds for filing a Motion to Quash Information apply to him. Even if
Cruz, a writ of habeas corpus plays a role somewhat comparable to a petitioner Salibo filed a Motion to Quash, the defect he alleged could
summons, in ordinary civil actions, in that, by service of said writ, the not have been cured by mere amendment of the Information and/or
court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the respondent. 22 Warrant of Arrest. Changing the name of the accused appearing in the
Information and/or Warrant of Arrest from Butukan S. Malang to
In view of the foregoing, We need not belabor the other issues raised. Datukan Malang Salibo will not cure the lack of preliminary
investigation in this case. Likewise, a motion for reinvestigation will not
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals cure the defect of lack of preliminary investigation.
Decision dated May 1 7, 2013 and its Resolution dated December 27,
2013 are AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. Issue 3: W/N the Warden correctly appealed the RTC ruling on the
Return before the CA
DATUKAN MALANG SALIBO V WARDEN
Yes. An application for a writ of habeas corpus may be made through a
Facts: petition filed before CA or any of its members, the CA or any of its
members in instances authorized by law, or the RTC or any of its
Butukan S. Malang, one of the accused in the Maguindanao massacre, presiding judges. The court or judge grants the writ and requires the
had a pending warrant of arrest issued by the trial court in People vs officer or person having custody of the person allegedly restrained of
Ampatuan Jr. et. al. When Datukan Malang Salibo learned that the liberty to file a return of the writ. A hearing on the return of the writ is
police officers of Datu Hofer Police Station in Maguindanao suspected then conducted.
him to be Butukan S. Malang, he presented himself to clear his name.
Salibo presented to the police pertinent portions of his passport, The return of the writ may be heard by a court apart from that which
boarding passes and other documents tending to prove that a certain issued the writ. Should the court issuing the writ designate a lower
Datukan Malang Salibo was in Saudi Arabia when the massacre court to which the writ is made returnable, the lower court shall
happened. The authorities, however, apprehended and detained him. proceed to decide the petition of habeas corpus. By virtue of the
He questioned the legality of his detention via Urgent Petition for designation, the lower court acquires the power and authority to
Habeas Corpus before the CA, maintaining that he is not the accused determine the merits of the petition for habeas corpus. Therefore, the
Batukan S. Malang. The CA issued the writ, making it returnable to the decision on the petition is a decision appealable to the court that has
judge of RTC Taguig. After hearing of the Return, the trial court appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the lower court.
granted Salibos petition and ordered his immediate release from
detention.

On appeal by the Warden, the CA reversed the RTC ruling. The CA

held that even assuming Salibo was not the Batukan S. Malang named