In the matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of CEZARI GONZALES and JULIUS MESA:
ROBERTO RAFAEL PULIDO vs. Gen. EFREN ABU, as Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and all
persons acting in his stead and under his authority, and GEN. ERNESTO DE LEON, in his capacity as the Flag
Officer in Command of the Philippine Navy, and all persons acting in his stead and under his authority,
respondents.
G.R. No. 170924, July 4, 2007
petitioner seeks to implement through a petition for habeas
Facts: corpus the provisional release from detention that the lower
court has ordered. The question this immediately raises is:
In line with their participation in the “Oakwood Mutiny” that can this be done through a petition for habeas corpus when
led to Pres. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s issuance of the validity of the grant of bail and the release under bail are
Proclamation No. 427 declaring the country to be under a live questions before another Division of this Court?
"state of rebellion” and General Order No. 4 directing the
AFP and the PNP to carry out all reasonable measures, giving We believe and so hold that his cannot and should not be
due regard to constitutional rights, to suppress and quell the done as this is precisely the reason why the rule against
"rebellion.", petitioners were taken into custody by their forum shopping has been put in place. The remedies sought
Service Commander. Gonzales and Mesa were not charged being two sides of the same coin (i.e., the release of
before a court martial with violation of the Articles of War. Gonzales and Mesa), they cannot be secured through
They were, however, among the soldiers charged before separately-filed cases where issues of jurisdiction may arise
Branch 61 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, and whose rulings may conflict with one another. To be sure,
with the crime of Coup D’etat as defined under Article 134- we clearly heard the petitioner say that there can be no
A of the Revised Penal Code. They were consequently conflict because the effectiveness of our ruling in this
detained in Fort Bonifacio under the custody of the Philippine petition will depend on the nature and tenor of the ruling in
Marines. A petition for bail was filed by the accused soldiers the certiorari case; there is no basis for a release on habeas
which the RTC subsequently granted. Despite of the order corpus if this same Court will rule in the certiorari case that
and the service thereof, petitioners were not released. As a the grant of bail is improper. For this very same reason, we
response, the People of the Philippines moved for partial should not entertain the present petition as the matter
reconsideration of the order granting bail. With the denial of before us is already before another co-equal body whose
the Motion for Partial Reconsideration, the People filed with ruling will be finally determinative of the issue of Gonzales’
the Court of Appeals on 4 February 2005 a special civil action and Mesa’s release. The Decision of the Seventh Division of
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with urgent this Court, heretofore footnoted, ordering the release on bail
prayer for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Gonzales and Mesa drives home this point.
of Preliminary Injunction. Moreover, since Gonzales and
Mesa continued to be in detention, a Petition for Habeas XXX XXX XXX
Corpus was filed by petitioner Pulido on their behalf. In
response, Respondents prayed that the Petition for Habeas When the release of the persons in whose behalf the
Corpus be dismissed primarily on two grounds: (1) the application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus was filed is effected,
continued detention of Gonzales and Mesa is justified the Petition for the issuance of the writ becomes moot and
because of the pendency of the Petition for Certiorari academic. With the release of both Mesa and Gonzales, the
questioning the order dated 8 July 2004 of the RTC granting Petition for Habeas Corpus has, indeed, been rendered
bail to Gonzales and Mesa before the 7th Division of the moot. Courts of justice constituted to pass upon substantial
Court of Appeals and (2) petitioner is guilty of forum rights will not consider questions where no actual interests
shopping because of his failure to state in the petition that are involved. Thus, the well-settled rule that courts will not
the order granting bail has been elevated to the Court of determine a moot question. Where the issues have become
Appeals and pending before its 7th Division. Thus, we have moot and academic, there ceases to be any justiciable
this case. controversy, thus rendering the resolution of the same of no
practical value. This Court will therefore abstain from
Issue: expressing its opinion in a case where no legal relief is
needed or called for.
Whether or not the petition for habeas corpus was proper
despite of the pending special civil action for certiorari before
the Court of Appeals 7th Division.
Held:
No. That the present petition has direct and intimate links
with the certiorari case is beyond doubt as they involve two
sides of the same coin. The certiorari case filed by the People
seeks to prevent the release of Gonzales and Mesa by
annulling the lower court’s grant of bail. The present
petition, on the other hand, was filed in behalf of Gonzales
and Mesa to secure their immediate release because the
order granting bail is already executory. In effect, the
