FRANCISCO BERNARTE et.al v.

CA
610 SCRA 19 | October 18, 1996
Romero, J.

Doctrine: Even if the arrest was illegal, supervening events such as issuance of judicial process or
filing of a complaint/information may bar the release or discharge of the person detained. The
remedy lies not on petition for habeas corpus but on quashal of the information or warrant of arrest
duly issued.

FACTS
Petitioners in this case assail the decision of the CA which dismissed their petition for writ
of habeas corpus. The facts would show that a certain Estrella Arastia together with several others
filed a complaint against petitioners for a violation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.
It is alleged in the said complaint that petitioners organized themselves into the Anibang
Manggagawa sa Agricultura and illegally intruded into the lands owned by complainants. The
complainants also prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction which was granted
by the RTC. The trial court ordered petitioners to desist and vacate the land immediately. As an
answer, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the court for the lack
of merit. The court then deputized members of the PNP to enforce the said writ.
Not giving up, petitioners filed a complaint before the DARAB, alleging that the
complainant resulted to the use of force and armed men in order to force them to evacuate the
assailed lands and deprive them of their property. Petitioners also prayed for a writ of preliminary
injunction. In the decision issued by DARAB, it declared the subject land as part of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law and issued a writ of preliminary injunction prohibiting the
complainants from entering, intruding and disturbing the farming activities of the petitioners.
Relying on the writ issued by DARAB, petitioners went back to the subjet land which
prompted the police to dispatch several policemen to the area to remind the petitioners of the earlier
issued writ of preliminary injunction and ordered the petitioners to leave said premises. Upon their
refusal to leave, the policemen arrested them and subsequently charged them with resistance and/or
disobedience to the lawful order of persons in authority before the Municipal Trial Court of
Lubao. On the same day, petitioners were released from the police custody and they went back to
the subject land. As a result of this, police arrested petitioners without warrant for having entered
he landholding and for resisting and intimidating said police officers. Petitioners were then
detained and subsequently charged with direct assault upon agents of a person in authority.
After the filing of the information, petitioners then filed before the Court a petition for
habeas corpus, questioning the legality of their arrest and detention. The same was remanded to
the CA who issued the assailed decision dismissing the said petition. The CA upheld the validity
of the arrest of the petitioners
ISSUES AND HOLDING

1. W/N the arrest was legal- YES.

In justifying the legality of the arrest, the CA held that the PNP team was merely
enforcing a lawful order from the Court and by seriously resisting the same, the petitioners
have committed the crime of Direct Assault Upon An Agent of A Person in Authority and
therefore, a warrant was not necessary as provided in the Sec 5(a), Rule 113, Rules on
Criminal Procedure namely in flagrante delicto, hot pursuit and escapee. Also, no explicit

SERAPIO C2021 | 1
 rule requiring a judge, after an accused has been arrested without a warrant for an offense
cognizable by the regional trial court and later charged in a complaint or information
conformably with the provisions of Rule 112, Section 7 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
Procedure to still issue a warrant of arrest or order of commitment for the said accused
because it would lead to an absolute superfluity.

2. W/N trial court erred in dismissing the writ of habeas corpus- NO.
The writ of habeas corpus under Rule 102 of the Rules of Court extends 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. It is
meant to inquire to the legality of one’s detention. However, once the person detained is
duly charged in court, he may no longer question his detention by petition of writ of habeas
corpus. His remedy lies either to the quashal of the information and or the warrant of arrest
duly issued.
In the present case, the petitioners were immediately charged with the crime of
Direct Assault upon their detention. As held in Velasco v CA, even if the arrest was illegal,
supervening events such as issuance of judicial process or filing of a complaint/information
may bar the release or discharge of the person detained. Hence, the petition for habeas
corpus has been rendered moot and academic. Moreover, almost all of them already posted
bail. It is also elementary that by filing a motion for bail tantamount to voluntary
submission of his person to the jurisdiction of the court.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari is hereby DENIED. No cost.

SERAPIO C2021 | 2