HABEAS CORPUS CASES

1) AMPATUAN vs MACARAIG

Armed with the 21 April 2008 recommendation of the Manila Citys

Prosecution Office, petitioner, who is the wife of PO1 Ampatuan, filed
a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus before the RTC
of Manila on 22 April 2008.

NURHIDA JUHURI AMPATUAN vs. JUDGE VIRGILIO V. MACARAIG

G.R. No. 182497, 29 June 2010

FACTS: Atty. Alioden D. Dalaig, Head of the COMELEC Legal

Department, was killed at the corner of M. H. Del Pilar and Pedro Gil
Streets, Ermita, Manila. Investigation conducted by the Manila Police
District Homicide Section yielded the identity of the male perpetrator
as PO1 Ampatuan. Consequently, PO1 Ampatuan was commanded to
the MPD District Director for proper disposition. Likewise, inquest
proceedings were conducted by the Manila Prosecutors Office.

On 18 April 2008, Police Senior Superintendent Guinto, rendered his

Pre-Charge Evaluation Report against PO1 Ampatuan, finding
probable cause to charge PO1 Ampatuan with Grave Misconduct
(Murder) and recommending that said PO1 Ampatuan be subjected
to summary hearing.

Meanwhile, on 21 April 2008, the City Prosecutor of Manila

recommended that the case against PO1 Ampatuan be set for further
investigation and that the latter be released from custody unless he
is being held for other charges/legal grounds.

On 24 April 2008, RTC ordered the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus

commanding therein respondents to produce the body of PO1
Ampatuan and directing said respondents to show cause why they
are withholding or restraining the liberty of PO1 Ampatuan.

Seeking the reversal of RTC, the respondents averred that the filing
of the administrative case against PO1 Ampatuan is a process done
by the PNP and this Court has no authority to order the release of the
subject police officer. The petitioner countered that the letter
resignation of PO1 Ampatuan has rendered the administrative case
moot and academic. Respondent however stressed that the
resignation has not been acted by the appropriate police officials of
the PNP, and that the administrative case was filed while PO1
Ampatuan is still in the active status of the PNP. The RTC reversed
and dismissed the petition.

ISSUE: THE RESPONDENT COURT GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION

WHEN IT FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT THE ARREST AND DETENTION
OF PO1 BASSER B. AMPATUAN WAS MADE WITHOUT ANY WARRANT
AND THEREFORE, ILLEGAL.

HELD: The objective of the writ is to determine whether the

confinement or detention is valid or lawful. If it is, the writ cannot be
issued. What is to be inquired into is the legality of a person's
detention as of, at the earliest, the filing of the application for the
writ of habeas corpus, for even if the detention is at its inception
illegal, it may, by reason of some supervening events, such as the
instances mentioned in Section 4 of Rule 102, be no longer illegal at
the time of the filing of the application

In this case, PO1 Ampatuan has been placed under Restrictive

Custody. Republic Act No. 6975 (also known as the Department of
Interior and Local Government Act of 1990), as amended by Republic
Act No. 8551 (also known as the Philippine National Police Reform
and Reorganization Act of 1998), clearly provides that members of
the police force are subject to the administrative disciplinary
machinery of the PNP.

Given that PO1 Ampatuan has been placed under restrictive custody,
such constitutes a valid argument for his continued detention. This
Court has held that a restrictive custody and monitoring of
movements or whereabouts of police officers under investigation by
their superiors is not a form of illegal detention or restraint of liberty.

Restrictive custody is, at best, nominal restraint which is beyond the

ambit of habeas corpus. It is neither actual nor effective restraint that
would call for the grant of the remedy prayed for. It is a permissible
precautionary measure to assure the PNP authorities that the police
officers concerned are always accounted for.

In sum, petitioner is unable to discharge the burden of showing that

she is entitled to the issuance of the writ prayed for in behalf of her
husband, PO1 Ampatuan. The petition fails to show on its face that
the latter is unlawfully deprived of his liberty guaranteed and
enshrined in the Constitution.

2) Datukan Malang Salibo vs Warden, Quezon City Jail Annex

Case Digest GR 197597 April 8 2015

Facts:
Butukan S. Malang, one of the accused in the Maguindanao
massacre, had a pending warrant of arrest issued by the trial court in
People vs Ampatuan Jr. et. al. When Datukan Malang Salibo learned
that the police officers of Datu Hofer Police Station in Maguindanao
suspected him to be Butukan S. Malang, he presented himself to clear
his name. Salibo presented to the police pertinent portions of his
passport, boarding passes and other documents tending to prove
that a certain Datukan Malang Salibo was in Saudi Arabia when the
massacre happened. The authorities, however, apprehended and
detained him. He questioned the legality of his detention via Urgent
Petition for Habeas Corpus before the CA, maintaining that he is not
the accused Batukan S. Malang. The CA issued the writ, making it
returnable to the judge of RTC Taguig. After hearing of the Return,
the trial court granted Salibos petition and ordered his immediate
release from detention.

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
in the Alias Warrant of Arrest, orderly course of trial must be pursued
and the usual remedies exhausted before the writ of habeas corpus
may be invoked. Salibos proper remedy, according to the CA, should
have been a motion to quash information and/or warrant of arrest.

On the other hand, Salibo believes that the Warden erred in

appealing the RTC decision before the CA. Salibo argued that
although the CA delegated to the RTC the authority to hear the
Wardens Return, the RTCs ruling should be deemed as the CA ruling,
and hence, it should have been appealed directly before the SC.

Issue 1: W/N Salibo properly availed the remedy of a petition for writ
of habeas corpus
Yes. Habeas corpus is the remedy for a person deprived of liberty due
to mistaken identity. In such cases, the person is not under any lawful
process and is continuously being illegally detained.

First, it was Butukan S. Malang, not Salibo, who was charged and
accused in the Information and Alias Warrant of Arrest issued in the
case of People vs Ampatuan. Based on the evidences presented,
Salibo sufficiently established that he could not have been Butukan
S. Malang. Therefore, Salibo was not arrested by virtue of any
warrant charging him of an offense, nor restrained under a lawful
process or an order of a court. Second, Salibo was not validly arrested

without a warrant. When he was in the presence of authorities, he

was neither 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.

The police officers have deprived him of his liberty without due
process of law. Therefore, Salibo correctly availed himself of a
Petition for Habeas Corpus.

3) ANITA MANGILA, VS. JUDGE HERIBERTO M. PANGILINAN, ET. AL.

GR NO. 160739 JULY 17, 2013
DOCTRINE
Habeas corpus is not in the nature of a writ of error; nor intended as
a substitute for the trial courts function. It cannot take the place of
appeal, certiorari or writ of error. The writ cannot be used to
investigate and consider questions of error that might be raised
relation to procedure or on the merits.
Where restraint is under legal process, mere errors and irregularities,
which do not render the proceedings void, are not grounds for relief
by habeas corpus because in such cases, the restraint is not illegal.
The writ of habeas corpus does not act upon the prisoner who seeks
relief, but upon the person who holds him in what is alleged to be the
unlawful authority. Hence, the only parties before the court are the
petitioner (prisoner) and the person holding petitioner in custody,
and the only question to be resolved is whether the custodian has
authority to deprive the prisoner of his liberty.

FACTS

WON habeas corpus is a proper remedy?

On June 16, 2003, seven criminal complaints against petitioner Anita

Mangila and four others with syndicated estafa in violation of Article
315 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to PD 1689, and with
violations of Section 7(b) of RA 8042, were filed in the MTC of Puerto
Princesa in Palawan. The complaints arose from the recruiting and
promising of employment by Mangila and others to private
complainants as overseas contract workers in Toronto, Canada and
from the collection of visa processing fees, membership fees and
online application without lawful authority from the POEA.

HELD

The following day, June 17, 2003, Judge Heriberto M. Pangilinan,

Presiding Judge of the MTCC, conducted a preliminary investigation
on the complaints. He accordingly issued a warrant of arrest for
Mangila and her cohorts without bail. The next day, the entire
records of the cases and the warrant was transmitted to the City
Prosecutor of Puerto Princesa city. Mangila was arrested on June 18,
2003 and detained at the NBI headquarters in Taft Avenue, Manila.
Claiming that respondent judge did not have authority to conduct the
preliminary investigation and that the preliminary investigation he
conducted was not yet completed when he issued the warrant of
arrest; and that the warrant of arrest was issued without sufficient
justification or without a finding of probable cause, Mangila filed with
the Court of Appeals a petition for habeas corpus to obtain release
from detention. She alleged that habeas corpus was resorted to
because she could no longer file a motion to quash the warrant
considering that respondent judge had already forward the records
of the case to the City Prosecutor, who had no authority to lift or
recall the warrant. The CA denied the petition.
ISSUE

A.) NO. The high prerogative writ of habeas corpus has been devised
as a speedy and effective remedy to relieve persons from unlawful
restraint. The writ is not ordinarily granted where the law provides
for other remedies in the regular course, and in the absence of
exceptional circumstances. Habeas corpus cannot be issued as a writ
of error or as a means of reviewing errors of law and irregularities not
involving the questions of jurisdiction occurring during the course of
the trial, subject to the caveat that constitutional safeguards of
human life and liberty must be preserved and not destroyed. The
primary, if not the only object, of the writ of habeas corpus is to
determine the legality of the restraint under which a person is held.
With Mangilas arrest and ensuing detention being by virtue of the
order lawfully issued by Judge Pangilinan, the writ of habeas corpus
was not an appropriate remedy to relieve her from the restraint on
her liberty. This is because the restraint, being lawful and pursuant to
a court process, could not be inquired into through the writ. Her
proper recourse was to bring the supposed irregularities to the
attention of the City Prosecutor.