SERAPIO v.

SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. Numbers 148468, 148769, and 149116
January 28, 2003
En Banc

Atty. Edward Serapio (petitioner) filed two petitions in the SC; these are: 1. A petition for certiorari
assailing the resolutions of the Third division of the Sandiganbayan denying his petition for bail,
motion for reinvestigation and motion to quash; 2. Petition for Habeas Corpus.

Petitioner was charged with the crime of plunder together with Former President Joseph Estrada
and son Jinggoy Estrada among others. Petitioner was a member of the Board of Trustees and legal
counsel of Erap Muslim Youth Foundation. He allegedly received, on behalf of the said
foundation, millions of pesos coming from illegal activities.

The Ombudsman recommended the filing of a case against him before the Sandiganbayan. A
warrant for his arrest was issued. Upon learning of the said warrant he voluntarily surrendered to
the PNP. Petitioner, thereafter, file an Urgent Motion for Bail but such motion is opposed by the
prosecution for the reason that petitioner should be arraign first before he can avail of Bail. Later
on Petitioner simultaneously filed a motion to quash.

The bail hearing was reset several times due to various pleadings filed by petitioner and the
prosecution.

Due to this, petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus for the reason that the prosecution have
waived their right to present evidence in opposition to his petition for bail; the prosecution
launched an endless barrage of obstructive and dilatory moves to prevent the conduct of the bail
hearings; and, on the failure of the People to adduce strong evidence of his guilt. For the said
reasons, he is still being deprived of his liberty.

Petitioner cited also Moncupa vs. Enrile, which in such case the Court held that habeas corpus
extends to instances where detention, while valid from its inception, has later become arbitrary.
Issue: Whether the petition habeas corpus should be granted?

Decision: No. SC finds no basis for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus. General rule applies.
“Petition for habeas corpus is not the appropriate remedy for asserting ones right to bail. It cannot
be availed of where accused is entitled to bail not as a matter of right but on the discretion of the
court and the latter has not abused such discretion in refusing to grant bail, or has not even
exercised said discretion. The proper recourse is to file an application for bail with the court where
the criminal case is pending and to allow hearings thereon to proceed.”
Moncupa vs Enrile does not apply in this case because petitioner’s restraint of liberty did not
become arbitrary. His application for bail has yet to commence (to be heard).

The delay in the hearing of his petition for bail cannot be pinned solely to the Sandiganbayan or
on the prosecution because he himself is partly to be blamed (his actions caused delay too.

As a general rule, the writ of habeas corpus will not issue where the person alleged to be restrained
of his liberty in custody of an officer under a process issued by the court which jurisdiction to do
so.

In exceptional circumstances, habeas corpus may be granted by the courts even when the person
concerned is detained pursuant to a valid arrest or his voluntary surrender, for this writ of liberty
is recognized as the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary
and lawless state action due to its ability to cut through barriers of form and procedural mazes.