GLENN CABALLES y CHUA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. EMMANUEL D. LAUREA, HON. BENJAMIN T.

ANTONIO, and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. FACTS: 1. RTC: Petitioner Glenn Chua Caballes was charged with rape of a minor (Pio) a. Because the petitioner was charged with a non-bailable offense, he was detained. . !he petitioner was arraigned and pleaded not guilt".
a. b. c. d. e. (The fac ! "e#$% a&e a"$' he !(eedy &)a# )!!'e. J'! )n ca!e #an*+ !he petitioner#s original counsel commenced his crosse$amination of Pio, but fa)#ed to complete the same. Petitioner#s new counsel continued his cross-e$amination of Pio but still fa)#ed to terminate the same. !he trial was set to terminate the cross-e$amination of Pio but once again fa)#ed due to the illness of the private prosecutor. !rial was further reset to another date. !hereafter, the prosecution declared that its ne$t witness would be %r. &ar'ue(, the &edico-)egal *fficer of P+P, who had conducted an e$amination of the private complainant, but stated that he had not been subpoenad. !rial was &e!ched'#ed. !he &e!ched'#ed &)a# d)d n$ (&$ceed because petitioner#s counsel filed a manifestation that he was re'uired to be present in an e$ecution sale. ,escheduled again. %r. &ar'ue( failed to receive the subpoena. ,escheduled. -ubpoena was issued again against the doctor. -till, the doctor failed to receive. ,escheduled. !he .udge issued an order to be replaced. ,escheduled.

3.

9.

f. g. h. i.

?. A.

a. !he trial court reasoned that there was n$ -)$#a )$n $f he (e ) )$ne&.! &)*h $ !(eedy &)a#, considering that the apparent dela"s could not be attributed to the fault of the prosecution alone. b. !he motion for reconsideration was considered to be abandoned upon filing of motion to dismiss b" the petitioner. CA: !he petitioner filed a 4 Pe ) )$n f$& Habeas Corpus and5or Certiorari and Prohibition.4 a. C6 as7ed which remed" would petitioner avail between 1abeas Corpus and Certiorari. Petitioner chose 1abeas Corpus. b. !he petitioner averred that (1) he was deprived of his right to a speed" trial and his constitutional right to a speed" disposition of the case8 and ( ) the trial court committed grave abuse of its discretion in den"ing his petition for bail. P:!;!;*+ <*, HABEAS CORPUS is %;-&;--:%. 6ccording to the appellate court= a. ;t was not the proper remed" to review and e$amine the proceedings before the trial court as a relief from the petitioner#s perceived oppressive situation in the trial court. b. 6 %&) $f habeas corpus )! NOT a %&) $f e&&$&8 that it could not e$ercise its certiorari >urisdiction over the acts or omission of the respondent >udge as a concomitant remed"8 and that the remed" for habeas corpus and certiorari are different in nature, scope and purpose. !he petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration @ %:+;:% 1ence, this petition (certiorari - rule 32)

/. Petitioner filed a petition for bail. a. !he trial court den)ed the petition for bail, on its finding that the evidence of guilt against the petitioner was strong. 0. Petitioner filed a M$ )$n f$& Rec$n!)de&a )$n of the court#s *rder den"ing his petition for bail. a. 1owever, the petitioner preempted the resolution of his motion for reconsideration and f)#ed a M$ )$n $ D)!,)!! the case on the ground that his &)*h $ !(eedy &)a# had "een -)$#a ed. 2. !rial court den)ed petitioner#s motion to dismiss.

ISSUE/0: Bhether the proper remed" from the appellate court#s denial of a petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus is a petition for certiorari under ,ule 32 of the ,ules of Court8 HELD: +o. Petitioner should have filed an appeal instead. !he resort to a petition for certiorari is inappropriate. -ection /A of Batas Pambansa Blg. 1 A provides that the period for a((ea# from the >udgment of an" court in habeas corpus cases !ha## "e f$& y1e)*h 234+ h$'&! from notice of the >udgment appealed from.

<ollowing the rule, the petitioner should have appealed to this Court from the C6 decision den"ing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, as well as the denial of his motion for reconsideration thereof8 instead, the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under ,ule 32 of the ,ules of Court, as amended. The %e##1!e #ed &'#e )! ha ce& )$&a&) )! n$ a-a)#a"#e %he&e he a**&)e-ed (a& y.! &e,edy $f a((ea# )! (#a)n, !(eedy and ade5'a e )n he $&d)na&y c$'&!e, he &ea!$n "e)n* ha ce& )$&a&) cann$ c$1e6)! %) h an a((ea# $& any $ he& ade5'a e &e,edy. !he e$istence and availabilit" of the right to appeal are antithetical to the availment of the special civil action for certiorari. !hese two remedies are mutuall" e$clusive. 6n appeal in this case would still have been a speed" and ade'uate remed". Conse'uentl", when the petitioner filed his petition in this Court, the decision of the C6 was alread" final and e$ecutor".

ISSUE/7: Bhether the petitioner is entitled to the issuance of the writ. HELD: +o. !he records show that the petitioner was charged with rape punishable b" reclusion perpetua and was detained based on the said charge8 hence, if the evidence of his guilt is strong, he shall not be admitted to bail regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution. !here is no 'uestion that the trial court had >urisdiction over the offense charged and over the person of the petitioner. !he >ail warden has the authorit" and, in fact, is mandated to detain the petitioner until granted bail b" the court, or the case against him dismissed, or until he is ac'uitted after trial. The (e ) )$ne& fa)#ed $ e! a"#)!h ha h)! )nca&ce&a )$n pendente lite %a! )##e*a#, and #)8e%)!e fa)#ed $ e! a"#)!h e6ce( )$na# c)&c',! ance! %a&&an )n* he )!!'ance $f a %&) $f habeas corpus "y he a((e##a e c$'& 6bout 1abeas Corpus= 6 writ of habeas corpus is not the proper remed" to assail the trial court#s denial of the petitioner#s motion to dismiss the case, the denial of the petition for bail, as well as the voluntar" inhibition of .udge )aurea. 1abeas corpus is that of a civil proceeding in character. ;t see7s the enforcement of civil rights. ,esorting to the writ is not to in'uire into the criminal act of which the complaint is made, but

into the right of libert", notwithstanding the act and the immediate purpose to be served is relief from illegal restraint. !he rule applies even when instituted to arrest a criminal prosecution and secure freedom. Bhen a prisoner petitioner for a writ of 1C, he thereb" commences a suit and prosecutes a case in that court. Ha"ea! c$&('! )! n$ )n he na '&e $f a %&) $f e&&$& 8 nor intended as substitute for the trial court#s function. ;t cannot ta7e the place of appeal, certiorari or writ of error. !he writ cannot be used to investigate and consider 'uestions of error that might be raised relating to procedure or on the merits. !he in'uir" in a habeas corpus proceeding is addressed to the 'uestion of whether the proceedings and the assailed order are, for an" reason, null and void. !he writ is not ordinaril" granted where the law provides for other remedies in the regular course, and in the absence of e$ceptional circumstances. &oreover, habeas corpus should not be granted in advance of trial. !he orderl" course of trial must be pursued and the usual remedies e$hausted before resorting to the writ where e$ceptional circumstances are e$tant. ;n 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 'uestions of >urisdiction occurring during the course of the trial, sub>ect to the caveat that constitutional safeguards of human life and libert" must be preserved, and not destro"ed. ;t 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 b" habeas corpus because in such cases, the restraint is not illegal. Habeas corpus is a summar" remed". ;t is analogous to a proceeding in rem when instituted for the sole purpose of having the person of restraint presented before the >udge in order that the cause of his detention ma" be in'uired into and his statements final. !he writ of habeas corpus does not act upon the prisoner who see7s relief, but upon the person who holds him in what is alleged to be the unlawful authorit". 1ence, the onl" parties before the court are the petitioner (prisoner) and the person holding the petitioner in custod", and the onl" 'uestion to be resolved is whether the custodian has authorit" to deprive the petitioner of his libert". !he writ ma" be denied if the petitioner fails to show facts that he is entitled thereto ex merito justicias.

6 writ of habeas corpus, which is regarded as a 4palladium of libert"4 is a prerogative writ which does not issue as a matter of right but in the sound discretion of the court or >udge. ;t, is, however, a writ of right on proper formalities being made b" proof. ,esort to the writ is to in'uire into the criminal act of which a complaint is made but unto the right of libert", notwithstanding the act, and the immediate purpose to be served is relief from illegal restraint. !he primar", if not the onl" ob>ect of the writ of habeas corpus ad subjuciendum is to determine the legalit" of the restraint under which a person is held. Be agree with the C6 that a petition for a writ of habeas corpus cannot be >oined with the special civil action for certiorari because the two remedies are governed b" a different set of rules. Be also agree with the ruling of the C6 that a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is a remed" different from the special civil action of certiorari under ,ule 32 of the ,ules of Court, as amended. Ce& )$&a&) 6 writ of certiorari reaches onl" >urisdictional errors. ;t has no other use, e$cept to bring before the court a record material to be considered in e$ercising >urisdiction.

Procedure. 1e invo7ed his constitutional right to a speed" disposition of the case against him, or the irst time , onl" in the Court of 6ppeals when he filed his petition for habeas corpus. 1ence, it cannot be said that the petitioner was deprived of his right to a speed" disposition of the case simpl" because the private prosecutor failed to submit a medical certificate for his absence during the trial of &arch 3, CC/. !he petitioner could have as7ed the court to cite the private prosecutor in contempt of court for his failure to submit the said certificate8 he failed to do so. &oreover, the petitioner failed to establish an" serious pre>udice b" the dela" of the trial, and that the -tate deliberatel" dela"ed the trial to pre>udice him. PETITION DENIED>

9&) $f Ha"ea! C$&('! !he writ of habeas corpus is a collateral attac7 on the processes, orders, or >udgment of the trial court, while certiorari is a direct attac7 of said processes, orders, or >udgment on the ground of lac7 of >urisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to e$cess or lac7 of >urisdiction. *n the other hand, a writ of habeas corpus reaches the bod" but not the record8 it also reaches >urisdictional matters but does not reach the record.

6 writ of certiorari reaches the record

Be agree with the petitioner that a (e ) )$n f$& he )!!'ance $f a %&) $f habeas corpus ,ay "e f)#ed )f $ne )! de(&)-ed $f h)! &)*h $ a !(eedy d)!($!) )$n $f he ca!e 'nde& A& )c#e I:, Sec )$n 0; $f he 0<4= C$n! ) ' )$n and of his right to due process. 1owever, the petitioner never invo7ed in the trial court his constitutional right to a speed" disposition of the case against him. Bhat he invo7ed was his right to a speed" trial under ,ule 11A of the CCC ,ules of Criminal