Case 667
FIRST DIVISION
ANITA MANGILA, petitioner, vs. JUDGE HERIBERTO M. PANGILINAN, ASST. CITY
PROSECUTOR II LUCIA JUDY SOLINAP, and NATIONAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION (DIRECTOR REYNALDO WYCOCO), respondents. [G.R. No.
160739. July 17, 2013.]
Topic: Writ of Habeas Corpus: Nature/object
BERSAMIN, J p:
Facts: Mangila was arrested on June 18, 2003 on alleged syndicated estafa and
detained at the headquarters on Taft Avenue, Manila of the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI).
Claiming that Judge Pangilinan did not have the authority to conduct the preliminary
investigation; that the preliminary investigation he conducted was not yet completed
when he issued the warrant of arrest; and that the issuance of the warrant of arrest was
without sufficient justification or without a prior finding of probable cause, Mangila filed
in the Court of Appeals (CA) a petition for habeas corpus to obtain her release from
detention.
Her petition averred that the remedy of habeas corpus was available to her because
she could no longer file a motion to quash or a motion to recall the warrant of arrest
considering that Judge Pangilinan had already forwarded the entire records of the case
to the City Prosecutor who had no authority to lift or recall the warrant. Her appeal was
denied by the CA.
Issue: Did the CA err in ruling that habeas corpus was not the proper remedy to obtain
the release of Mangila from detention?
Ruling: No, the CA did not err.
The high prerogative writ of habeas corpus has been devised as a speedy and effective
remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint. In Caballes v. Court of Appeals, the
Court discoursed on the nature of the special proceeding of habeas corpus in the
following manner:
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, notwithstanding 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. When a prisoner petitions for a writ of
habeas corpus, he thereby commences a suit and prosecutes a case in that court.
Case 667
Habeas corpus is not in the nature of a writ of error; nor intended as substitute for the
trial court's 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. The inquiry in a habeas corpus proceeding is
addressed to the question of whether the proceedings and the assailed order are, for
any reason, null and void. The writ is not ordinarily granted where the law provides for
other remedies in the regular course, and in the absence of exceptional circumstances.
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. In another case, it was held that habeas
corpus cannot be issued as a writ of error or as a means of reviewing errors of law and
irregularities not involving the questions of jurisdiction occurring during the course of the
trial, subject to the caveat that constitutional safeguards of human life and liberty must
be preserved, and not destroyed. It has also been held that where restraint is under
legal process, mere errors and irregularities, which do not render the proceedings void,
are not grounds for relief by habeas corpus because in such cases, the restraint is not
illegal.
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 writ of habeas corpus does not act upon the prisoner who seeks relief, but
upon the person who holds him in what is alleged to be the unlawful authority. Hence,
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 thereto ex 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 not 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.
11 (Bold underscoring supplied for emphasis)
The object of the writ of habeas corpus is to inquire into the legality of the detention,
and, if the detention is found to be illegal, to require the release of the detainee. Equally
well-settled however, is that the writ will not issue where the person in whose behalf the
writ is sought is out on bail, or is in the custody of an oDcer under process issued by a
court or judge with jurisdiction or by virtue of a judgment or order of a court of record.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the resolutions promulgated on October 14, 2003
and November 19, 2003 in C.A.-G.R. SP No. 79745; and ORDERS the petitioner to pay
the costs of suit.
