Caballes v.

CA
Feb. 23, 2005
Callejo Sr., J.
Short Version:
Caballes was charged with rape. During the trial, he was denied bail, the
judge inhibited himself, and the trial suffered from numerous delays. As a
result, invoking his right to speedy trial, he filed a petition for habeas
corpus and/or certiorari to appeal.
The CA and SC both dismissed the case. Habeas corpus is not the proper
remedy. Its only purpose is to inquire into the propriety of detention, not to
impute error on the part of a court.
Facts/Procedure:
1. Glenn Caballes was charged with rape of a minor in the RTC of
Malabon City. Because the petitioner was charged with a non-bailable
offense, he was detained.
2. He was arraigned on February 7, 2002 and pleaded not guilty to the
offense charged.
3. Trial ensued.
4. On April 28, 2003, the petitioner filed a petition for bail.
5. The trial was marred with many postponements for various reasons,
most prominently the continued failure of Dr. Jose Arnel Marquez to
appear as a witness.
6. Caballes then filed a motion seeking an earlier trial date, invoking his
right to speedy trial under the Speedy Trial Act of 1998, as well as a
motion for the urgent resolution of his petition for bail.
7. The court issued an Order[declaring that the petition for bail was
submitted for its resolution and denying the motion for an earlier trial
date.
8. It then issued another order denying the petition for bail, on its
finding that the evidence of guilt against the petitioner was strong.
MR denied.
9. Caballes then filed an MTD invoking his right to speedy trial, claiming
that the trial now lasted close to 400 days, far longer than the 180 day
reglementary period. Denied.
10.
The judge then inhibited himself.
11.
Caballes thus filed a Petition for Habeas
Corpus and/or Certiorari and Prohibition.

12.
The CA required him to inform the court of his choice of remedy.
13.
In compliance therewith, he filed a manifestation that he had
chosen his petition to be treated as a petition for habeas
corpus without prejudice to the concomitant application of certiorari
if the court considered the same necessary or appropriate to give
effect to the writ of habeas corpus.
14.
CA dismissed the petition for habeas corpus for being the wrong
remedy.
15.
Hence this SCA for certiorari.
Issues:
1. WON the decision had already become final and executory (Yes)
2. WON a petition for habeas corpus is the proper remedy. (No)
3. WON the writ should issue. (No)
Ratio:
1. Section 39 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 provides that the period for
appeal from the judgment of any court in habeas corpus cases shall be
48 hours from notice of the judgment appealed from. While that
provision was not incorporated in the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
Administrative Matter No. 01-1-03-SC amending Section 3, Rule 41of
the said Rules, provides that appeal in habeas corpus cases shall be
taken within forty-eight (48) hours from notice of the judgment or
final order appealed from.
Thus, Caballes should have appealed from the CAs denial of his petition
rather than filing a petition for certiorari. Certiorari cannot co-exist with an
appeal or any other adequate remedy. The existence and availability of the
right to appeal are antithetical to the availment of the special civil action for
certiorari. These two remedies are mutually exclusive. An appeal in this
case would still have been a speedy and adequate remedy. Consequently,
when the petitioner filed his petition in this Court, the decision of the CA
was already final and executory.
2. A writ of habeas corpus is not the proper remedy to assail the trial
courts denial of the MTD, the denial of the petition for bail, as well as
the voluntary inhibition of Judge Laurea.
A petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is a special
proceeding governed by Rule 102 of the Rules of Court, as amended. In Ex
Parte Billings, it was held that habeas corpus is that of a civil proceeding in

character. It seeks the enforcement of civil rights. Resorting to the writ is

not to inquire into the criminal act of which the complaint is made, but into
the right of liberty, even if the act and the immediate purpose to be served
is relief from illegal restraint. The rule applies even when instituted to
arrest a criminal prosecution and secure freedom.
Habeas corpus is not in the nature of a writ of error; nor intended as
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 relating to procedure or on
the merits. Moreover, habeas corpus should not be granted in advance of
trial. The orderly course of trial must be pursued and the usual remedies
exhausted before resorting to the writ where exceptional circumstances are
extant.
Habeas corpus is a summary remedy. It is analogous to a proceeding 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 only parties before the court are
the petitioner (prisoner) and the person holding the petitioner in custody,
and the only question to be resolved is whether the custodian has authority
to deprive the petitioner of his liberty. The writ may be denied if the
petitioner fails to show facts that he is entitled theretoex merito justicias.
A writ of habeas corpus, which is regarded as a palladium of liberty is
a prerogative writ which does not issue as a matter of right but in the sound
discretion of the court or judge. It, is, however, a writ of right on proper
formalities being made by proof. Resort to the writ is to inquire into the
criminal act of which a complaint is made but unto the right of liberty,
notwithstanding the act, and the immediate purpose to be served is relief
from illegal restraint. The primary, if not the only object of the writ
of habeas corpus ad subjuciendum is to determine the legality of the
restraint under which a person is held.
`
What is involved here is a petition for habeas corpus or, in the
alternative, a petition for a writ of certiorari. However, petition for a writ
of habeas corpus cannot be joined with the special civil action for certiorari
because the two remedies are governed by a different set of rules. Joinder
of causes of action shall not include special actions or actions governed by
special rules, thus proscribing the joinder of a special proceeding with a
special civil action.

Further, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is a remedy different

from the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court, as amended. The writ of habeas corpus is a collateral attack on the
processes, orders, or judgment of the trial court, while certiorari is a direct
attack of said processes, orders, or judgment on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of
jurisdiction.
A writ of certiorari reaches only jurisdictional errors. It has no other
use, except to bring before the court a record material to be considered in
exercising jurisdiction. A writ of certiorari reaches the record. On the
other hand, a writ of habeas corpus reaches the body but not the record; it
also reaches jurisdictional matters but does not reach the record. However,
when jurisdiction is obtained by the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, to
bring the body of the person whose liberty is involved into court, and if it is
necessary, to provide the record upon which the detention is based, that
may be accomplished by using a writ of certiorari as an ancillary
proceeding.
3. Caballes failed to establish his right to the writ of habeas corpus. He
was charged with rape punishable by reclusion perpetua and was
detained based on the said charge. He failed to establish that his
incarceration pendente lite was illegal, and likewise failed to establish
exceptional circumstances warranting the issuance of a writ of habeas
corpus.
A petition for habeas corpus is not the proper remedy to assail the denial
of bail; a petition for certiorari is. That is also the correct remedy from the
voluntary inhibition of a judge.
Finally, as to a violation of the right of the accused to a speedy trial is
violated by the prosecution, the remedy lies in the procedure provided for
under Republic Act No. 8493, as implemented by Rule 119. Section 8 of the
said Rule provides that a private counsel, the public attorney, or a
prosecutor, who allows the case to be set for trial without disclosing that a
necessary witness would be unavailable for trial, files a motion solely for
delay which he knows is totally frivolous and without merit, makes a
statement for the purpose of obtaining continuance which he knows to be
false and which is material to the granting of a continuance; or willfully fails
to proceed to trial without justification is to be punished with a fine not
exceeding P20,000, and denying him the right to practice before the court

trying the case for a period not exceeding 30 days. Thus, habeas corpus is
not the proper remedy. Once more, certiorari is.
While a petition for habeas corpus may be filed if one is deprived of his
right to a speedy disposition of the case under Article IV, Section 16 of the
1987 Constitution and of his right to due process, first of all, the delays in
this case were not the fault of the prosecution, and secondly, Caballes only
invoked this right in his petition for habeas corpus before the CA.
Petition denied.
Gabe.