Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

Habeas Corpus (1993) Habeas Corpus (1998)

Roxanne, a widow, filed a petition for habeas A was arrested on the strength of a warrant
corpus with the Court of Appeals against of arrest issued by the RTC in connection
Major Amor who is allegedly detaining her with an Information for Homicide. W, the
18-year old son Bong without authority of live-in partner of A filed a petition for habeas
the law. corpus against A's jailer and police
investigators with the Court of Appeals.
After Major Amor had a filed a return
alleging the cause of detention of Bong, the 1. Does W have the personality to file the
Court of Appeals promulgated a resolution petition for
remanding the case to the RTC for a full-
blown trial due to the conflicting facts 2. Is the petition tenable? [3%] habeas
presented by the parties in their pleadings. In corpus? [2%]
directing the remand, the court of Appeals
relied on Sec.9(1), in relation to Sec. 21 of BP
129 conferring upon said Court the authority 1. Yes.W,the live-in partner of A, has the
to try and decide habeas corpus cases personality to file the petition for habeas
concurrently with the RTCs. Did the Court of corpus because it may be filed by "some
Appeals act correctly in remanding the person in his behalf." (Sec. 3. Rule 102.
petition to the RTC? Why? Rules of Court.)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: 2. No. The petition is not tenable because

the warrant of arrest was issued by a court
No, because while the CA has original which had Jurisdiction to issue it (Sec. 4,
jurisdiction over habeas corpus concurrent Rule 102 Rules of Court)
with the RTCs, it has no authority for
remanding to the latter original actions Habeas Corpus (2003)
filed with the former. On the contrary, the
CA is specifically given the power to Widow A and her two children, both girls,
receive evidence and perform any and all aged 8 and 12 years old, reside in Angeles
acts necessary to resolve factual issues City, Pampanga. A leaves her two daughters
raised in cases falling within its original in their house at night because she works in
jurisdiction. a brothel as a prostitute. Realizing the danger
to the morals of these two girls, B, the father
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: of the deceased husband of A, files a petition
for habeas corpus against A for the custody
Yes, because there is no prohibition in the
of the girls in the Family Court in Angeles
law against a superior court referring a case
City. In said petition, B alleges that he is
to a lower court having concurrent
jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has entitled to the custody of the two girls
referred to the CA or the RTC cases falling because their mother is living a disgraceful
within their concurrent jurisdiction. life. The court issues the writ of habeas
corpus. When A learns of the petition and the
writ, she brings her two children to Cebu files a motion to dismiss the wife’s petition
City. At the expense of B the sheriff of the on the ground of the pendency of the other
said Family Court goes to Cebu City and case. Rule.
serves the writ on A. A files her comment on
the petition raising the following defenses: a) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The enforcement of the writ of habeas corpus
The motion to dismiss the petition for
habeas corpus should be granted to avoid
Cebu City is illegal; and b) B has no multiplicity of suits. The question of who
personality to institute the petition. 6% between the spouses should have custody
of their minor child could also be
Resolve the petition in the light of the above
determined in the petition for declaration
defenses of A. (6%)
of nullity of their marriage which is already
SUGGESTED ANSWER: pending in the RTC of Pasig City. In other
words, the petition filed in Pasig City,
(a) The writ of habeas corpus issued by the praying for custody of the minor child is
Family Court in Angeles City may not be unnecessary and violates only the cardinal
legally enforced in Cebu City, because the rules of procedure against multiplicity of
writ is enforceable only within the judicial suits. Hence, the latter suit may be abated
region to which the Family Court belongs, by a motion to dismiss on the ground of litis
unlike the writ granted by the Supreme pendentia (Yu v. Yu, 484 SCRA 485 [2006]).
Court or Court of Appeals which is
enforceable anywhere in the Philippines. Habeas Corpus; Bail (2008)
(Sec. 20 of
No.XIX. After Alma had started serving her
Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of sentence for violation of BP 22, she filed a
Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of petition for a writ of habeas corpus, citing
Minors. (A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC; see also Sec. Vaca vs CA where the sentence of
4 of Rule 102, Rules of Court.) imprisonment of a party found guilty of
violation of BP 22 was reduced to a fine equal
(b) B, the father of the deceased husband of to double the amount of the check involved.
A, has the personality to institute the She prayed that her sentence be similarly
petition for habeas corpus of the two minor modified and that she be immediately
girls, because the grandparent has the right released from detention. In the alternative,
of custody as against the mother A who is a she prayed that pending determination on
prostitute. (Sectioins 2 and 13, Id.) whether the Vaca ruling applies to her, she
Habeas Corpus (2007) be allowed to post bail pursuant to Rule 102,
Sec. 14, which
No.IV. Husband H files a petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage before the provides that if a person is lawfully
RTC of Pasig City. Wife W files a petition for imprisoned or restrained on a charge of
habeas corpus before the RTC of Pasay City, having committed an offense not punishable
praying for custody over their minor child. H by death, he may be admitted to bail in the
discretion of the court. accordingly, the trial SUGGESTED ANSWER:
court allowed Alma to post bail and then
ordered her release. In your opinion, is the FALSE. The Sandiganbayan may grant
order of the trial court correct – petitions for Habeas corpus only in aid of
its appellate jurisdiction (R.A. 7975, as
(a) Under Rule 102? amended by R.A 8249), not in the exercise of
“original” jurisdiction.

No, Alma, who is already convicted by final

judgment, cannot be entitled to bail under
Sec. 14, Rule 102. The provision
presupposes that she had not been
convicted as yet. It provides that if she is
lawfully imprisoned or restrained for an
offense not punishable by death, she may
be recommitted to imprisonment or
admitted to bail in the discretion of the
court or judge (Sec. 14, Rule 102; Celeste vs.
People, 31 SCRA 391; Vicente vs. Judge
Majaducon, A.M. No. RTJ-02- 1698, 23 June
2005; San Pedro vs. Peo, G.R. No. 133297, 15
August 2002).

(b) Under the Rules of criminal procedure?


Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure,

Rule 114, Sec. 24 clearly prohibits the grant
of bail after conviction by final judgment
and after the convict has started to serve
sentence. In the present case, Alma had
already started serving her sentence. She
cannot, therefore, apply for bail (Peo. vs.
Fitzgerald, G.R. No. 149723, 27 October

Habeas Corpus; Sandiganbayan (2009)

No.XI.C. In the exercise of its original
jurisdiction, the Sandiganbayan may grant
petitions for the issuance of a writ of habeas