MONCUPA v ENRILE
G.R. No. L-63345GUTIERREZ, JR; Jan 30, 1986
- Efren C. Moncupa, together with others, wasarrested on April 22, 1982, 10:50 P.M., at QuezonAvenue, QC. He was detained at MIG-15 CampBago Bantay. Next day, Apr 23, on the allegationthat he was a National Democratic Front (NDF)staff member, a Presidential Commitment Order(PCO) was issued against him and 8 otherpersons.- After two separate investigations, it wasascertained that Moncupa was not a member of any subversive organization. Both investigatorsrecommended the prosecution of Moncupa onlyfor illegal possession of firearms and illegalpossession of subversive documents under PD33.- Two separate informations were filed againstMoncupa, one for illegal possession of firearmsbefore CFI Rizal, and the other for violation of P.D.33 before the City Court of QC. Against the otheraccused, however, the cases filed were forviolation of P.D. 885 as amended.- Moncupa was excluded from the charge underthe Revised Anti-Subversion Law. During thependency of this petition, his arraignment andfurther proceedings have not been pursued. Ashis motions for bail were denied by the lowercourt, Moncupa filed this petition for habeascorpus.- Respondents, in their return of the writ, justifiedthe validity of Moncupa’s detention on the groundthat the privilege of the writ had been suspendedas to Moncupa.- However, on Aug 30, 1983, respondents filed amotion to dismiss stating that on May 11, 1983,Moncupa was temporarily released fromdetention on orders of the Minister of NationalDefense with the approval of the President, andthat “since the petitioner is free and no longerunder the custody of the respondents, the…petition… may be deemed moot and academic...”- It should be noted that attached to Moncupa'stemporary release are restrictions imposed onhim:1) His freedom of movement is curtailed by thecondition that Moncupa gets the approval of respondents for any travel outside Metro Manila.2) His liberty of abode is restricted because priorapproval of respondents is also required in casehe wants to change his place of residence.3) His freedom of speech is muffled by theprohibition that he should not "participate in anyinterview conducted by any local or foreign massmedia representatives nor give any press releaseor information that is inimical to the interest of national security."4) He is required to report regularly torespondents or their representatives.- Moncupa argues that although admittedly histemporary release is an improvement upon hisactual detention, the restrictions imposed by therespondents constitute an involuntary and illegalrestraint on his freedom, and his temporaryrelease "merely shifted the inquiry from thelegality of his actual detention to the legality of the conditions imposed by the respondents."
WON the petition has become moot andacademic in view of Moncupa's temporaryrelease.
A release that renders a petition for a writof habeas corpus moot and academic must beone which is free from involuntary restraints.Where a person continues to be unlawfully deniedone or more of his constitutional freedoms, wherethere is present a denial of due process, wherethe restraints are not merely involuntary butappear to be unnecessary, and where adeprivation of freedom originally valid has, in thelight of subsequent developments, becomearbitrary, the person concerned or those applyingin his behalf may still avail themselves of theprivilege of the writ.- Moncupa may have been released from hisdetention cell, but the restraints attached to histemporary release preclude freedom of action. The reservations of the military in the form of restrictions constitute restraints on his liberty,and limit his freedom of movement. It is notphysical restraint alone which is inquired into bythe writ of habeas corpus. The latitudinarianscope of the writ of habeas-corpus, as held in
Villavicencio v Lukban
, has, in law, remainedundiminished up to the present.-
Villavicencio v. Lukban:
A prime specification of an application for a writ of habeas corpus isrestraint of liberty. The essential object andpurpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to inquireinto all manner of involuntary restraint asdistinguished from voluntary, and to relieve aperson therefrom if such restraint is illegal. Anyrestraint which will preclude freedom of action issufficient....-
Caunca v. Salazar
: (case involving employmentagencies restricting freedom of movement of prospective employees/maids) …Freedom may belost due to external moral compulsion, to foundedor groundless fear, to erroneous belief in theexistence of the will. If the actual effect of suchpsychological spell is to place a person at themercy of another, the victim is entitled to theprotection of courts of justice as much as theindividual who is illegally deprived of liberty bydeprived or physical coercion.-
Toyoto, et al v. Hon. Fidel Ramos, et al.:
Ordinarily, a petition for habeas corpus becomesmoot and academic when the restraint on theliberty of the petitioners is lifted eithertemporarily or permanently…. The question to beresolved is whether the State can reserve thepower to re-arrest a person for an offense after acourt of competent jurisdiction has absolved himof the offense. An affirmative answer… (on theground that) the release… being merely'temporary', it follows that they can be re-arrested at anytime despite their acquittal… isrepugnant to the government of laws and not of men principle. Under this principle the moment aperson is acquitted on a criminal charge he canno longer be detained or re-arrested for the sameoffense.
Petition granted. The conditionsattached to the temporary release of Moncupaare declared null and void. The temporary releaseis declared absolute.
CHAVEZ V CA
24 SCRA 663 (1968)Habeas Corpus as remedy in cases of violation of the right against self-incrimination.
Roger Chavez, Actor Ricardo Sumilang, Edgardo“Ging” Pascual, Pedro Rebullo, Luis “Baby” Asistioand Lorenzo Meneses and three John Does wereaccused of car napping a Thunderbird car form Johnson Lee.