ZACARIAS VILLAVICENCIO, ET AL. vs.

JUSTO LUKBAN, ET
AL., G.R. No. L-14639, March 25, 1919 (purpose of writ; reease
of perso! "etai!e" "oes !ot re!"er petitio! for #$ %oot i!
e&ceptio!a cases'
Facts:
Justo Lukban as Manila City's Mayor together with Anton Hohmann, the city's Chief
of Police, took custody of about 1! women at the night of "ctober #$ beyond the
latters consent and knowledge and thereafter were shi%%ed to Mindanao s%eci&cally
in 'a(ao where they were signed as laborers) *aid women are inmates of the
houses of %rostitution situated in +ardenia *treet, in the district of *am%aloc)
,hat when the %etitioner &led for habeas cor%us, the res%ondent mo(ed to dismiss
the case saying that those women were already out of their -urisdiction and that , it
should be &led in the city of 'a(ao instead)
,he court ruled in fa(or of the %etitioner with the instructions.
/or the res%ondents to ha(e ful&lled the court's order, three o%tional courses were
o%en0 112 ,hey could ha(e %roduced the bodies of the %ersons according to the
command of the writ. or 1#2 they could ha(e shown by a3da(it that on account of
sickness or in&rmity those %ersons could not safely be brought before the court. or
142 they could ha(e %resented a3da(its to show that the %arties in 5uestion or their
attorney wai(ed the right to be %resent)
Issue0
,he writ of Habeas Cor%us was &led by the %etitioner, with the %rayer that the
res%ondent %roduce around 1! women whom Justo Lukban et, al de%orted to
'a(ao) Liberty of abode was also raised (ersus the %ower of the e6ecuti(e of the
Munici%ality in de%orting the women without their knowledge in his ca%acity as
Mayor)
Held0
,he court concluded the case by granting the %arties aggrie(ed the sum of 7!!
%esos each, %lus 1!! %esos for nominal damage due to contem%t of court)
8easoning further that if the chief e6ecuti(e of any munici%ality in the Phili%%ines
could forcibly and illegally take a %ri(ate citi9en and %lace him beyond the
boundaries of the munici%ality, and then, when called u%on to defend his o3cial
action, could calmly fold his hands and claim that the %erson was under no restraint
and that he, the o3cial, had no -urisdiction o(er this other munici%ality)
:e belie(e the true %rinci%le should be that, if the res%ondent is within the
-urisdiction of the court and has it in his %ower to obey the order of the court and
thus to undo the wrong that he has in;icted, he should be com%elled to do so) <(en
if the %arty to whom the writ is addressed has illegally %arted with the custody of a
%erson before the a%%lication for the writ is no reason why the writ should not issue)
=f the mayor and the chief of %olice, acting under no authority of law, could de%ort
these women from the city of Manila to 'a(ao, the same o3cials must necessarily
ha(e the same means to return them from 'a(ao to Manila) ,he res%ondents, within
the reach of %rocess, may not be %ermitted to restrain a fellow citi9en of her liberty
by forcing her to change her domicile and to a(ow the act with im%unity in the
courts, while the %erson who has lost her birthright of liberty has no e>ecti(e
recourse) ,he great writ of liberty may not thus be easily e(aded)
NORBERTO FERIA Y PACQUING, petitioe!, vs. T"E
COURT OF APPEALS, T"E #IRECTOR OF T"E BUREAU OF
CORRECTIONS, $UNTINLUPA, $ETRO $ANILA %IN
PLACE OF T"E JAIL &AR#EN OF T"E $ANILA CITY JAIL',
T"E PRESI#ING JU#GE OF BRANC" II, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT OF $ANILA, () T"E CITY PROSECUTOR, CITY
OF $ANILA, !espo)ets. G.R. No. 122954. (e)ruar* 15, 2+++
(purpose of writ; #$ !ot su)stitute for ost appea'
Facts0
After disco(ering that his entire criminal records, including the co%y of the
-udgment, was lost or destroyed, %etitioner &led a Petition for the =ssuance of a :rit
of Habeas Cor%us with the *C against the Jail :arden of the Manila City Jail, the
Presiding Judge of ?ranch #, 8egional ,rial Court of Manila, and the City Prosecutor
of Manila, %raying for his discharge from con&nement on the ground that his
continued detention without any (alid -udgment is illegal and (iolati(e of his
constitutional right to due %rocess)
,he 8,C dismissed the case on the ground that the mere loss of the records of the
case does not in(alidate the -udgment or commitment nor authori9e the release of
the %etitioner, and that the %ro%er remedy would be reconstitution of the records of
the case which should be &led with the court which rendered the decision)
Petitioner argues that his detention is illegal because there e6ists no co%y of a (alid
-udgment as re5uired by *ections 1 and # of 8ule 1#! of the 8ules of Court, and that
the e(idence considered by the trial court and Court of A%%eals in the habeas
cor%us %roceedings did not establish the contents of such -udgment)
=n a comment, "*+ maintains that %ublic res%ondents ha(e more than su3ciently
shown the e6istence of a legal ground for %etitioner@s continued incarceration, (i9),
his con(iction by &nal -udgment, and under *ection 7 of 8ule 1!# of the 8ules of
Court, the discharge of a %erson su>ering im%risonment under lawful -udgment is
not authori9ed)
Issue:
:"A there is legal basis to detain %etitioner after the destruction or loss of his
criminal records)
Held:
Bes) ,he writ of habeas cor%us, was de(ised and e6ists as a s%eedy and e>ectual
remedy to relie(e %ersons from unlawful restraint, and as the best and only
su3cient defense of %ersonal freedom) =t secures to a %risoner the right to ha(e the
cause of his detention e6amined and determined by a court of -ustice, and to ha(e
the issue ascertained as to whether he is held under lawful authority) Conse5uently,
the writ may also be a(ailed of where, as a conse5uence of a -udicial %roceeding, 1a2
there has been a de%ri(ation of a constitutional right resulting in the restraint of a
%erson, 1b2 the court had no -urisdiction to im%ose the sentence, or 1c2 an e6cessi(e
%enalty has been im%osed, as such sentence is (oid as to such e6cess) Petitioner@s
claim is anchored on the &rst ground considering, as he claims, that his continued
detention, notwithstanding the lack of a co%y of a (alid -udgment of con(iction, is
(iolati(e of his constitutional right to due %rocess)?ased on the records and the
hearing conducted by the trial court, there is su3cient e(idence on record to
establish the fact of con(iction of %etitioner which ser(es as the legal basis for his
detention)
As a general rule, the burden of %ro(ing illegal restraint by the res%ondent rests on
the %etitioner who attacks such restraint) =n other words, where the return is not
sub-ect to e6ce%tion, that is, where it sets forth %rocess which on its face shows
good ground for the detention of the %risoner, it is incumbent on %etitioner to allege
and %ro(e new matter that tends to in(alidate the a%%arent e>ect of such %rocess)
=f the detention of the %risoner is by reason of lawful %ublic authority, the return is
considered %rima facie e(idence of the (alidity of the restraint and the %etitioner
has the burden of %roof to show that the restraint is illegal)
:hen a court has -urisdiction of the o>ense charged and of the %arty who is so
charged, its -udgment, order, or decree is not sub-ect to collateral attack by habeas
cor%us)
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF POTENCIANO ILUSORIO,
ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO, petitioner, vs. ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO-BILDNER, SYLVIA K.
ILUSORIO-YAP, JOHN DOES and JANE DOES, respondents. , G.R. No. 139,-9,
Ma* 12, 2+++ (purpose of writ'
FACTS:
Potenciano =lusorio, a lawyer, CD year old of age, %ossessed e6tensi(e %ro%erty
(alued at millions of %esos) /or many year, he was the Chairman of the ?oard and
President of ?aguio Country Club) He was married with <rlinda =lusorio, herein
%etitioner, for 4! years and begotten D children namely 8amon, Lin =llusorioE?ildner
1defendant2, Ma6imo, *yl(ia, Marietta and *hereen) ,hey se%arated from bed and
board in 1F#) Potenciano li(ed at Makati e(ery time he was in Manila and at
=llusorio Penthouse, ?aguio Country Club when he was in ?aguio City) "n the other
hand, the %etitioner li(ed in Anti%olo City)
=n 1FF, u%on Potenciano@s arri(al from G*, he stayed with her wife for about $
months in Anti%olo city) ,he children, *yl(ia and Lin, alleged that during this time
their mother o(erdose Potenciano which caused the latter@s health to deteriorate)
=n /ebruary 1FFC, <rlinda &led with 8,C %etition for guardianshi% o(er the %erson
and %ro%erty of Potenciano due to the latter@s ad(anced age, frail health, %oor
eyesight and im%aired -udgment) =n May 1FFC, after attending a cor%orate meeting
in ?aguio, Potenciano did not return to Anti%olo instead li(ed at Cle(eland
Condominium in Makati) =n March 1FFF, %etitioner &led with CA %etition for habeas
cor%us to ha(e the custody of his husband alleging that the res%ondents refused her
demands to see and (isit her husband and %rohibited Potenciano from returning to
Anti%olo)
ISSUE:
:hether or not the %etitioned writ of habeas cor%us should be issued)
HELD:
A writ of habeas cor%us e6tends to all cases of illegal con&nement or detention, or
by which the rightful custody of a %erson is withheld from the one entitled thereto)
,o -ustify the grant for such %etition, the restraint of liberty must an illegal and
in(oluntary de%ri(ation of freedom of action) ,he illegal restraint of liberty must be
actual and e>ecti(e not merely nominal or moral)
<(idence showed that there was no actual and e>ecti(e detention or de%ri(ation of
Potenciano@s liberty that would -ustify issuance of the writ) ,he fact that the latter
was CD years of age and under medication does not necessarily render him
mentally inca%acitated) He still has the ca%acity to discern his actions) :ith his full
mental ca%acity ha(ing the right of choice, he may not be the sub-ect of (isitation
rights against his free choice) "therwise, he will be de%ri(ed of his right to %ri(acy)
,he case at bar does not in(ol(e the right of a %arent to (isit a minor child but the
right of a wife to (isit a husband) =n any e(ent, that the husband refuses to see his
wife for %ri(ate reasons, he is at liberty to do so without threat or any %enalty
attached to the e6ercise of his right) Co(erture, is a matter beyond -udicial
authority and cannot be enforced by com%ulsion of a writ of habeas cor%us carried
out by the sheri>s or by any other %rocess)
IN THE MATTER OF PETITION FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS :AUCENA L. GARCIA, petitioner, G.R. No. 141443, .u/ust 3+,
2+++ (purpose of writ'
Facts:
Petitioner is con(icted by &nal -udgment of the crime of falsi&cation of %ublic
document) =n the case at bar, %etitioner is out on bail and is seeking for a relief (ia a
%etition for habeas cor%us 5uestioning the (alidity of the -udgment rendered)
Petitioner contends that were %roceedings were attended by (iolations of the
constitutional rights of the accused. the -udgment of con(iction is (oid thereby
warranting relief by the e6traordinary legal remedy of habeas cor%us)
,he "*+, on the other hand states that the writ of habeas cor%us is a remedy
a(ailable to a %erson who is illegally im%risoned or restrained by his liberty)
Conse5uently, a %erson discharged or out on bail, like %etitioner, is not entitled to
the writ)
Issue:
:"A a %erson con(icted by &nal -udgment andHor out on bail is entitled to the writ
of habeas cor%us)
Held:
Ao) ,he high %rerogati(e writ of habeas cor%us was de(ised and e6ists as a s%eedy
and e>ectual remedy to relie(e %ersons from unlawful restraint) =ts ob-ect is to
in5uire into the legality of one@s detention, and if found illegal, to order release of
the detainee)
=t is a wellEsettled rule that the writ will not issue where the %erson in whose behalf
the writ is sought is out on bail, or is in the custody of an o3cer under %rocess
issued by a court or -udge or by (irtue of a -udgment or order of a court of record,
and that the court or -udge had -urisdiction to issue the %rocess, render -udgment,
or make the order)
M!n"#$a %&. P!n"'-En()*' +GR L-,--./, -0 Jan#a(1 234,5 En Banc, Gutierrez Jr. (J): 8
concur, 1 took no part, 1 reserves vote
Fa"6&:
Efren C. Moncupa, together with others, was arrested on 22 April 1982 at about 10!0 p.". at the corner
of #. $ua%on &treet and 'ue%on Avenue, 'ue%on Cit(. Moncupa was brought to M)*+1! Ca"p ,ago
,anta(, 'ue%on Cit( where he was detained. -n 2. April 1982, on the allegation that he was a /ational
#e"ocratic 0ront 1/#02 staff "e"ber, a 3residential Co""it"ent -rder 13C-2 was issued against hi"
and 8 other persons. After two separate investigations, conducted first, b( 4ieutenant Colonel *erardo
4antoria, 5r., Chief of $as6 0orce Ma6abansa )nvestigation *roup and second, b( )nvestigating 0iscal
A"ado Costales of 'ue%on Cit(, it was ascertained that Moncupa was not a "e"ber of an( subversive
organi%ation. ,oth investigators reco""ended the prosecution of Moncupa onl( for illegal possession of
firear"s and illegal possession of subversive docu"ents under 3residential #ecree ... Conse7uentl(,
two separate infor"ations were filed against Moncupa, one, for illegal possession of firear"s before the
Court of 0irst )nstance of 8i%al and the other for violation of 3# .. before the Cit( Court of 'ue%on Cit(.
Against the other accused, however, the cases filed were for violation of 3# 88! as a"ended. Moncupa
was e9cluded fro" the charge under the 8evised Anti+&ubversion 4aw. Moncupa:s arraign"ent and
further proceedings have not been pursued, and (et, Moncupa:s "otions for bail were denied b( the lower
court. Moncupa filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus. 5uan 3once Enrile, 0abian C. ;er, *alileo
<intanar, 0ernando *orospe, and 5ose Castro contend that the petition has beco"e "oot and acade"ic
"ust necessaril( be denied, as Moncupa "a( have been released fro" his detention cell 1i.e. te"porar(
release2.
I&&#':
=hether the petition for the writ of habeas corpus has beco"e "oot and acade"ic in view of
Moncupa:s te"porar( release.
H'*d:
Attached to Moncupa:s te"porar( release are restrictions i"posed on hi", i.e. 112 >is freedo" of
"ove"ent is curtailed b( the condition that petitioner gets the approval of respondents for an( travel
outside Metro Manila. 122 >is libert( of abode is restricted because prior approval of respondents is also
re7uired in case petitioner wants to change his place of residence. 1.2 >is freedo" of speech is "uffled
b( the prohibition that he should not ?participate in an( interview conducted b( an( local or foreign "ass
"edia representatives nor give an( press release or infor"ation that is ini"ical to the interest of national
securit(.? 1@2 >e is re7uired to report regularl( to respondents or their representatives. $he reservation of
the "ilitar( in the for" of restrictions attached to the te"porar( release constitute restraints on the libert(
of Moncupa. &uch restrictions li"it the freedo" of "ove"ent of Moncupa. )t is not ph(sical restraint alone
which is in7uired into b( the writ of habeas corpus. )n the light of the ruling in ;illavicencio vs. 4u6ban,
which held that ?a pri"e specification of an application for a writ of habeas corpus is restraint of libert(.
$he essential obAect and purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to in7uire into all "anner of involuntar(
restraint as distinguished fro" voluntar(, and to relieve a person therefro" if such restraint is illegal. An(
restraint which will preclude freedo" of action is sufficient,? the present petition for habeas corpus has not
beco"e "oot and acade"ic. A release that renders a petition for a writ of habeas corpus "oot and
acade"ic "ust be one which is free fro" involuntar( restraints. =here a person continues to be
unlawfull( denied one or "ore of his constitutional freedo"s, where there is present a denial of due
process, where the restraints are not "erel( involuntar( but appear to be unnecessar(, and where a
deprivation of freedo" originall( valid has, in the light of subse7uent develop"ents, beco"e arbitrar(, the
person concerned or those appl(ing in his behalf "a( still avail the"selves of the privilege of the writ.
ELISEO ALIMPOOS, CIRIACA ALIMPOOS, SGT. MILLARDO M. PATES, PEDRO
BACLAY, CATALINO YAMILO, RAFAEL CAPANGPANGAN, DALMACIO YGOT and
EUFROCINA ESTORES, Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,
HONORABLE JUDGE MONTANO A. ORTIZ, REYNALDO MOSQUITO and MATILDE
ABASTILLAS MOSQUITO, Respondents. G.R. No. L-2,331, 0u* 3+, 19-1
(purpose 1 !ature of writ; petitio! for #$ !ot proper re%e"*
whe! 23 is !ot co!"ucte", or irre/uar* co!"ucte"'
FACTS:
8eynaldo Mos5uito has been accused of 8obbery wH less *erious Physical =n-uries)
He was detained by (irtue of a warrant of arrest which was issued without the
obser(ance of the legal re5uirements for the issuance thereof) Mos5uito &led a
%etition for Habeas Cor%us before the ,rial Court) Mos5uito named as defendants in
the case the Pro() /iscal and the %ri(ate o>ended %arties) He also &led a claim for
damages %remised on Art 4# 172 and other a%%licable %ro(isions of the Ci(il Code)
ISSUES:
1) :"A the writ of Habeas Cor%us if the %ro%er remedy for Mos5uitoI
#) :"A damages may be awarded in a Habeas Cor%us caseI
4) :"A %ri(ate o>ended %arty may take %art in the caseI
Held:
1) ,he Habeas Cor%us is not the %ro%er remedy) :hen a warrant of arrest is being
assailed for im%ro%er %reliminary in(estigation, the remedy is a %etition to 5uash
the warrant of arrest or %etition for rein(estigation of the case) =t is the general rule
that Habeas Cor%us should not be resorted to when there is another remedy
a(ailable)
#) Ao) 'amages cannot be awarded) ,he sole function of the writ is to relie(e fr)
unlawful im%risonment and ordinarily it cannot be %ro%erly used for another
%ur%ose)
4) :hile the issuance of the writ connotes the commencement of a ci(il action, the
%roceeding for
Habeas Cor%us is technically not yet a suit between %ri(ate %arties) ,he %ro%er
%arty is the Chief of Police or the %erson ha(ing the accused in detention and not
the %ri(ate o>ended %arty) =t is also only the &scal who may a%%eal the order
granting the writ as mandated by *ec) 1F, 8ule 71 of the 8"C)
IN RE: THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR REYNALDO DE VILLA G.R.
!""#$ N%&e'(e) *+ $##,
Lacking the re5uisites set by /eria, %etition for writ of habeas cor%us una(ailing as a
collateral attack to a &nal -udgment) ,his is a %etition for the issuance of a writ of
habeas cor%us under 8ule 1!# of the 8ules of Court) Petitioner 8eynaldo de Jilla,
-oined by his son, %etitionerErelator June de Jilla, seeks a twoEfold relief0 /irst, that
res%ondent 'irector of Prisons -ustify the basis for the im%risonment of %etitioner
8eynaldo de Jilla. and second, that %etitioner be granted a new trial)K1L ,hese
reliefs are sought on the basis of %ur%ortedly e6cul%atory e(idence, gathered after
%erforming deo6yribonucleic acid 1'AA2 testing on sam%les allegedly collected from
the %etitioner and a child born to the (ictim of the ra%e)
Aileen Mendo9a, 1#, was ra%ed by her uncle, 8eynaldo de Jilla in her home in
Pasig) Her %regnancy %rom%ted the &ling of charges by her %arents against de Jilla)
'e Jilla0
1) sickness, old age of D rendered me inca%able of erection
#) Mendo9as bear a grudge against me
4) Alibi0 in hometown of *an Luis, Laguna at time of crime
8,C0 de Jilla guilty beyond reasonable doubt of 5uali&ed ra%e, sentenced to death)
Case automatically ele(ated to *C for automatic re(iew due to %enalty im%osed)
*C0 a3rmed 8,C decision, modi&ed by awarding moral damages) *C found
date of birth of Aileen@s child, Leahlyn medically consistent with time of ra%e)
June de Jilla, son of accused, alleged that defense counsel only learned of
'AA testing to resol(e %aternity issue at time of %endency of *C automatic re(iew)
His # M8s of the case %raying for 'AA tests to be conducted were denied) 'AA tests
obtained from ?illy de Jilla, grandson of 8eynaldo, and Leahlyn showed that de Jilla
could not ha(e sired the latter)
June thus &led %etition for writ of habeas cor%us for his father)

Issue0 :"A writ of habeas cor%us a %ro%er remedy in the instant case)
Held0 Ao)
8atio of the Court)
1) "n the issue of writ of habeas cor%us as %ro%er remedy0
a) indi(idual is illegally de%ri(ed of his freedom of mo(ement or %laced under
some form of illegal restraint
b) howe(er, cannot be used to directly assail a -udgment rendered by a
com%etent court or tribunal which, ha(ing duly ac5uired -urisdiction, was not
de%ri(ed or ousted of this -urisdiction
c) =t is the nullity of an assailed -udgment of con(iction due to said lack of
-urisdiction which makes it susce%tible to collateral attack through HC
d) /eria () CA doctrine allowed HC as %ostEcon(iction remedy only when there
e6ists0
i) de%ri(ation of a constitutional right resulting in the restraint
ii) court had no -urisdiction
iii) %enalty being e6cessi(e, is (oided
e) June did not allege any of the three conditions in /eria to a(ail of HC
#) Pro%er remedy should ha(e been certiorari or a%%eal
4) M"n the issue of denial of de Jilla@s e>ecti(e aid of counsel who left for the G*
in the middle of a%%eal
a) *C did not &nd negligence amounting to denial of constitutional right
7) M"n the issue of the rele(ance of the 'AA test as to de Jilla@s guilt
a) Pregnancy not an essential element of crime of ra%e
b) 8esults of 'AA test could not conclusi(ely determine de Jilla@s guilt for the
crime of ra%e
$) M"n the issue of remedy of motion for new trial
a) 8ule 1#1 of 8e(ised 8ules of Criminal Procedure0
*<C) #) +rounds for a new trial)N,he court shall grant a new trial on any of the
following grounds0
1a2 ,hat errors of law or irregularities %re-udicial to the substantial rights of the
accused ha(e been committed during the trial.
1b2 ,hat new and material e(idence has been disco(ered which the accused
could not with reasonable diligence ha(e disco(ered and %roduced at the trial and
which if introduced and admitted would %robably change the -udgment)
b) 8e5uisites for motion for new trial0
1a2 that the e(idence was disco(ered after trial.
1b2 that said e(idence could not ha(e been disco(ered and %roduced at the trial
e(en with the e6ercise of reasonable diligence.
1c2 that it is material, not merely cumulati(e, corroborati(e or im%eaching. and
1d2 that the e(idence is of such weight that that, if admitted, it would %robably
change the -udgment
c) Lack of knowledge of 'AA testing attributable to negligence of counsel, and
the same is binding u%on de Jilla
d) "ther means to determine %aternity were %re(iously a(ailable to de Jilla
anyway)
'is%ositi(e) Petition for habeas cor%us and motion for new trial dismissed)
IN THE -ATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF OSCAR DE
GU.-AN+ CHAIR-AN SEDFREY A. ORDO/E.+ DIRECTOR E--ANUEL C. NERI
AND THE CO--ISSION ON HU-AN RIGHTS+ 0et1t1%2e)s+
&s. DIRECTOR VICENTE VINARAO+ BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS+ res%ondent)
+)8) Ao) LE114D 'ecember C, 1FF7) (#$ whe! i%posa)e pe!at* for a!
o4e!se is re"uce" )* aw'
,his is an original %etition for habeas cor%us &led directly before this Court in behalf
of "scar de +u9man y <nri5ue9, who was tried and con(icted by the 8egional ,rial
Court of *an Jose City N ?ranch 4F in +)8) Ao) D7#, OPeo%le of the Phili%%ines ()
"scar de +u9man y <nri5ue9,O 1CC *C8A 7!, for (iolation of the 'angerous 'rugs
Act of 1F#, alleging in %articular the fact that de +u9man wilfully and unlawfully
sold two 1#2 sticks of mari-uana)
G%on re(iew by this Court, the trial court's decision sentencing de +u9man to su>er
the %enalty of life im%risonment %lus %ayment of P#!,!!! &ne and costs was
a3rmed in toto and the a%%eal was dismissed with costs against accusedEa%%ellant)
Gnder the %ro(isions of *ection #!, 8e%ublic Act Ao) D7#$ as last amended by 8)A)
D$F, which became e>ecti(e on 'ecember 41, 1FF4, and as inter%reted by this
Court in the case of Peo%le () *imon, 1 if the 5uantity of the mari-uana in(ol(ed is
less than #$! grams, the im%osable %enalty, in the e(ent that the con(iction should
be a3rmed, shall be within the range of %rision correccional 1from si6 1D2 months
and one 112 day to si6 1D2 years2) Clearly, de +u9man is entitled to bene&t from the
reduction of %enalty introduced by the new law)
Petitioners allege that since de +u9man has been ser(ing sentence since July 1FC7
or for more than ten 11!2 years now, his continued detention in the Aational
Penitentiary is a (iolation of his basic human rights and that, therefore, he should be
released from %rison without further delay) =n aid of -udicial administration,
%etitioners further recommend that all %risoners similarly situated be likewise
released from %rison)
,he writ of habeas cor%us e6tends to all cases of illegal con&nement or detention by
which any %erson is de%ri(ed of his liberty u%on a (eri&ed %etition setting forth0
1) that the %erson in whose behalf the a%%lication is made is im%risoned or
restrained of his liberty.
#) the o3cer or name of the %erson by whom he is so im%risoned or restrained.
4) the %lace where he is im%risoned or restrained of his liberty. and
7) a co%y of the commitment or cause of detention of such %erson 1*ection 4,
8ule 1!#, 8e(ised 8ules of Court2)
=t a%%earing that all the abo(e re5uirements ha(e been met and &nding merit in the
%etition, the same is hereby +8AA,<') Let a writ of habeas cor%us issue
immediately)
,he 'irector, Aew ?ilibid Prisons, is commanded to forthwith e6ecute the writ for de
+u9man's discharge from con&nement unless he is being detained for some other
lawful cause, to make due return of the writ, and to submit a com%lete in(entory of
all other %risoners therein similarly situated within thirty days, to relie(e them from
further con&nement) :ith costs de o&cio)
JO"ANNA SO$BONG, petitioe!, vs. COURT OF APPEALS
() $ARIETTA NERI ALVIAR, LILIBET" NERI () (**
pe!sos +o*)i, t+e s-./e0t 0+i*) ARABELA SO$BONG i
t+ei! 0-sto)1, !espo)ets. (#$ i! reatio! to custo"* of %i!or
chi"re!; %i!or5s wefare of para%ou!t co!si"eratio!'
Facts0
Petitioner was the mother of Arabella ") *ombong who was born on A%ril #4, 1FC
in ,aguig, Metro Manila) *ometime in Ao(ember, 1FC, Arabella, then only si6
months old, was brought to the *ir John Clinic, owned by ,y located at Caloocan
City, for treatment) Petitioner did not ha(e enough money to %ay the hos%ital bill in
the balance of P4!!)!!) Arabella could not be discharged as a result)
Petitioner said that she %aid 1,!! for the release e(en if the bill was only 4!!) ,he
s%ouses ,y, who had custody of the daughter, would not gi(e Arabella to her)
Petitioner &led a %etition with the 8egional ,rial Court of Pue9on City for the
issuance of a :rit of Habeas Cor%us against the s%ouses ,y) *he alleged that
Arabella was being unlawfully detained and im%risoned at the ,y residence) ,he
%etition was denied due course and summarily dismissed, without %re-udice, on the
ground of lack of -urisdiction gi(en that the detention was in Caloocan)
,y claimed that Arabella was with them for some time, but gi(en to someone who
claimed to be their guardian)
,he "3ce of the City Prosecutor of Qalookan City, on the basis of %etitioner@s
com%laint, &led an information against the s%ouses ,y for Qidna%%ing and =llegal
'etention of a Minor before the 8egional ,rial Court of Qalookan City) ,y then
re(ealed that the child may be found in 5ue9on city) :hen *ombong reached the
residence, a small girl named Christina +race Aeri was found) *ombong claimed the
child to be hers e(en if she wasn@t entirely sure that it was Arabella)
"n "ctober 14, 1FF#, %etitioner &led a %etition for the issuance of a :rit of Habeas
Cor%us with the 8egional ,rial Court) ,he court ruled in *ombong@s fa(or and
ordered the res%ondents to deli(er the child)
,he A%%ellate Court took cogni9ance of the following issues raised by res%ondent0
112 ,he %ro%riety of the habeas cor%us %roceeding (isEaE(is the %roblem res%ecting
the identity of the child sub-ect of said %roceeding. 1#2 =f indeed %etitioner be the
mother of the child in 5uestion, what the e>ect would %roof of abandonment be
under the circumstances of the case. and 142 :ill the 5uestion of the child@s welfare
be the %aramount consideration in this case which in(ol(es child custody)
,he ,C decision was re(ersed) Hence, this %etition)
Issue0 =s habeas cor%us the %ro%er remedy for taking back ArabellaI
Held0 Bes but re5uisites not met) Petition dismissed)
8atio0
=n general, the %ur%ose of the writ of habeas cor%us is to determine whether or not
a %articular %erson is legally held) A %rime s%eci&cation of an a%%lication for a writ
of habeas cor%us, in fact, is an actual and e>ecti(e, and not merely nominal or
moral, illegal restraint of liberty) R,he writ of habeas cor%us was de(ised and e6ists
as a s%eedy and e>ectual remedy to relie(e %ersons from unlawful restraint, and as
the best and only su3cient defense of %ersonal freedom) A %rime s%eci&cation of an
a%%lication for a writ of habeas cor%us is restraint of liberty) ,he essential ob-ect and
%ur%ose of the writ of habeas cor%us is to in5uire into all manner of in(oluntary
restraint as distinguished from (oluntary, and to relie(e a %erson therefrom if such
restraint is illegal) Any restraint which will %reclude freedom of action is su3cient)
,o -ustify the grant of the writ of habeas cor%us, the restraint of liberty must be in
the nature of an illegal and in(oluntary de%ri(ation of freedom of action) ,his is the
basic re5uisite under the &rst %art of *ection 1, 8ule 1!#, of the 8e(ised 8ules of
Court, which %ro(ides that Re6ce%t as otherwise e6%ressly %ro(ided by law, the writ
of habeas cor%us shall e6tend to all cases of illegal con&nement or detention by
which any %erson is de%ri(ed of his liberty)S
=n the second %art of the same %ro(ision, howe(er, Habeas Cor%us may be resorted
to in cases where Rthe rightful custody of any %erson is withheld from the %erson
entitled thereto)S ,hus, although the :rit of Habeas Cor%us ought not to be issued if
the restraint is (oluntary, we ha(e held time and again that the said writ is the
%ro%er legal remedy to enable %arents to regain the custody of a minor child e(en if
the latter be in the custody of a third %erson of her own free will)
=t may e(en be said that in custody cases in(ol(ing minors, the 5uestion of illegal
and in(oluntary restraint of liberty is not the underlying rationale for the a(ailability
of the writ as a remedy. rather, the writ of habeas cor%us is %rosecuted for the
%ur%ose of determining the right of custody o(er a child)
,he foregoing %rinci%les considered, the grant of the writ in the instant case will all
de%end on the concurrence of the following re5uisites0 112 that the %etitioner has
the right of custody o(er the minor. 1#2 that the rightful custody of the minor is
being withheld from the %etitioner by the res%ondent. and 142 that it is to the best
interest of the minor concerned to be in the custody of %etitioner and not that of the
res%ondent)
1) ,he e(idence adduced before the trial court does not warrant the conclusion that
Arabella is the same %erson as Cristina) =t will be remembered that, in habeas
cor%us %roceedings, the 5uestion of identity is rele(ant and material, sub-ect to the
usual %resum%tions including those as to identity of %erson)
,he %onente noticed that there was no show of emotion on the mother when she
met her lost daughter)
<(idence must necessarily be adduced to %ro(e that two %ersons, initially thought
of to be distinct and se%arate from each other, are indeed one and the same) ,he
%rocess is both logical and analytical)
=n the instant case, the testimonial and circumstantial %roof establishes the
indi(idual and se%arate e6istence of %etitioner@s child, Arabella, from that of %ri(ate
res%ondents@ foster child, Cristina) According to one witness, there were se(eral
babies left in the clinic and it wasn@t certain if Arabella was gi(en to the %etitioner)
#) Petitioner has not been established by e(idence to be entitled to the custody of
the minor Cristina on account of mistaken identity, it cannot be said that %ri(ate
res%ondents are unlawfully withholding from %etitioner the rightful custody o(er
Cristina) Moreo(er, the way the res%ondents obtained custody isn@t material to the
habeas cor%us issue)
4) Pri(ate res%ondents are &nancially, %hysically and s%iritually in a better %osition
to take care of the child, Cristina) ,hey ha(e the best interest of Cristina at heart)
"n the other hand, it is not to the best interest of the minor, Cristina, to be %laced in
the custody of %etitioner due to% her lack of a stable -ob and her se%aration from a
married man)