HABEAS CORPUS-ADA MAE D.

ABELLERA

PEOPLE
vs.
MARTIN SIMON y SUNGA

FACTS:

Martin Simon y Sunga was charged with a violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act
No. 6425, as amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, under an
indictment alleging that he sold four tea bags of marijuana to a Narcotics Command (NARCOM)
poseur-buyer in consideration of the sum of P40.00, which tea bags, when subjected to
laboratory examination, were found positive for marijuana. An illegal drug pusher.

Upon tip of an informant, the Narcotics Command conducted a buy-bust operation against a
certain Alyas Pusa who was allegedly a drug pusher. The team proceeded to the target
together with the informant who pointed the accused Martin Simon. After the transaction was
consummated with the entrapment money, Simon was arrested and taken to a Police
Headquarters where he was placed under custodial investigation.

According to one Sgt. Domingo Pejoro, Simon verbally waived his right to counsel during the
custodial investigation. He also testified that Simon signed a Receipt of Property Seized,
according to which he admitted to the confiscation of 4 tea bags of dried marijuana leaves from
him. The entry in the Receipt was corrected upon instruction of the actual apprehending
officers.

ISSUE: WON a relief under a writ of habeas corpus is proper. YES.

HELD:

If the judgment which could be affected and modified by the reduced penalties provided in
Republic Act No. 7659 has already become final and executory or the accused is serving
sentence thereunder, then practice, procedure and pragmatic considerations would warrant
and necessitate the matter being brought to the judicial authorities for relief under a writ
of habeas corpus.

ERLINDA I. BILDNER and SYLVIA K. ILUSORIO, JOHN DOE and JANE DOE, respondents. Mesm
[G.R. No. 139808. May 12, 2000]
POTENCIANO ILUSORIO, MA. ERLINDA I. BILDNER, and SYLVIA ILUSORIO, petitioners,
vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO, respondents.

FACTS:
Erlinda Kalaw Ilusorio is the wife of lawyer Potenciano Ilusorio. Potenciano Ilusorio is about 86
years of age possessed of extensive property valued at millions of pesos. For many years,
lawyer Potenciano Ilusorio was Chairman of the Board and President of Baguio Country Club.
On July 11, 1942, Erlinda Kalaw and Potenciano Ilusorio contracted matrimony and lived
together for a period of thirty (30) years. In 1972, they separated from bed and board for
undisclosed reasons. Potenciano lived at Urdaneta Condominium, Ayala Ave., Makati City when
he was in Manila and at Ilusorio Penthouse, Baguio Country Club when he was in Baguio City.
On the other hand, Erlinda lived in Antipolo City.

Out of their marriage, the spouses had six (6) children, namely: Ramon Ilusorio (age 55); Erlinda
Ilusorio Bildner (age 52); Maximo (age 50); Sylvia (age 49); Marietta (age 48); and Shereen (age
39).

Upon Potencianos arrival from the United States, he stayed with Erlinda for about five (5)
months in Antipolo City. The children, Sylvia and Erlinda (Lin), alleged that during this time,
their mother gave Potenciano an overdose of 200 mg instead of 100 mg Zoloft, an
antidepressant drug prescribed by his doctor in New York, U.S.A. As a consequence,
Potencianos health deteriorated.

After attending a corporate meeting in Baguio City, Potenciano Ilusorio did not return to
Antipolo City and instead lived at Cleveland Condominium, Makati. Erlinda filed with the Court
of Appeals a petition for habeas corpus to have the custody of lawyer Potenciano Ilusorio.
She alleged that respondents refused petitioners demands to see and visit her husband and
prohibited Potenciano from returning to Antipolo City.

ISSUE: May a wife secure a writ of habeas corpus to compel her husband to live with her in
conjugal bliss? The answer is no.

HELD:

Marital rights including coverture and living in conjugal dwelling may not be enforced by the
extra-ordinary writ of habeas corpus.

A writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention, or by which
the rightful custody of a person is withheld from the one entitled thereto.

"Habeas corpus is a writ directed to the person detaining another, commanding him to
produce the body of the prisoner at a designated time and place, with the day and cause of
his capture and detention, to do, submit to, and receive whatsoever the court or judge
awarding the writ shall consider in that behalf."

It is a high prerogative, common-law writ, of ancient origin, the great object of which is the
]
liberation of those who may be imprisoned without sufficient cause. It is issued when one is
deprived of liberty or is wrongfully prevented from exercising legal custody over another
person.

It is available where a person continues to be unlawfully denied of one or more of his

constitutional freedoms, where there is denial of due process, where the restraints are not
merely involuntary but are unnecessary, and where a deprivation of freedom originally valid
has later become arbitrary. It is devised as a speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons
from unlawful restraint, as the best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom.

The essential object and purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to inquire into all manner of
involuntary restraint, and to relieve a person therefrom if such restraint is illegal.

To justify the grant of the petition, the restraint of liberty must be an illegal and involuntary
deprivation of freedom of action. The illegal restraint of liberty must be actual and effective,
not merely nominal or moral.

The evidence shows that there was no actual and effective detention or deprivation of lawyer
Potenciano Ilusorios liberty that would justify the issuance of the writ. The fact that lawyer
Potenciano Ilusorio is about 86 years of age, or under medication does not necessarily render
him mentally incapacitated. Soundness of mind does not hinge on age or medical condition but
on the capacity of the individual to discern his actions.

After due hearing, the Court of Appeals concluded that there was no unlawful restraint on his
liberty.

The Court of Appeals also observed that lawyer Potenciano Ilusorio did not request the
administrator of the Cleveland Condominium not to allow his wife and other children from
seeing or visiting him. He made it clear that he did not object to seeing them.

As to lawyer Potenciano Ilusorios mental state, the Court of Appeals observed that he was of
sound and alert mind, having answered all the relevant questions to the satisfaction of the
court.

Being of sound mind, he is thus possessed with the capacity to make choices. In this case, the
crucial choices revolve on his residence and the people he opts to see or live with. The choices
he made may not appeal to some of his family members but these are choices which exclusively
belong to Potenciano. He made it clear before the Court of Appeals that he was not prevented
from leaving his house or seeing people. With that declaration, and absent any true restraint on
his liberty, we have no reason to reverse the findings of the Court of Appeals.

With his full mental capacity coupled with the right of choice, Potenciano Ilusorio may not be
the subject of visitation rights against his free choice. Otherwise, we will deprive him of his right
to privacy. Needless to say, this will run against his fundamental constitutional right.
The Court of Appeals exceeded its authority when it awarded visitation rights in a petition
for habeas corpus where Erlinda never even prayed for such right. The ruling is not consistent
with the finding of subjects sanity.

When the court ordered the grant of visitation rights, it also emphasized that the same shall be
enforced under penalty of contempt in case of violation or refusal to comply. Such assertion of
raw, naked power is unnecessary.

The Court of Appeals missed the fact that the case did not involve the right of a parent to visit a
minor child but the right of a wife to visit a husband. In case the husband refuses to see his wife
for private reasons, he is at liberty to do so without threat of any penalty attached to the
exercise of his right.

No court is empowered as a judicial authority to compel a husband to live with his wife.
Coverture cannot be enforced by compulsion of a writ of habeas corpus carried out by
sheriffs or by any other mesne process. That is a matter beyond judicial authority and is best
left to the man and womans free choice.