PEREZ VS CA
offender has sexual intercourse with the nonetheless each constituted by a common set
 1974: Case No. 618 - Consented Abduction (CA-
acquitted)
 1984: Qualified Seduction
 Petitioner: Motion to quash invoking double jeopardy
and waiver and/or estoppel on the part of the
complainant (denied)
 Petitioner: the filing of the subsequent information for
Qualified Seduction is barred by his acquittal in the case
for Consented Abduction, maintains that since the same
evidence would support charges for both offenses a trial
and conviction for one, after he was acquitted for the
other, would constitute double jeopardy.
 The term "same offense" means Identical offense or
any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof
or any offense which necessarily includes or is
necessarily included in the offense charged in the
former complaint or information.
 two offenses - arose from the same facts BUT does not
preclude the filing of another information against him if
from those facts, two distinct offenses, each requiring
different elements, arose.
 A single act may be an offense against two statutes and
if each statute requires proof of an additional fact
which the other does not, an acquittal or conviction
under either statute does not exempt the defendant
from prosecution and conviction under the other.
 protection against double jeopardy may be invoked
only for the same offense or Identical offense
 elements of these two crimes would show that although
they may have arisen from the same set of facts, they
are not Identical offenses
 Same Elements:
1. offended party is a virgin
2. over twelve and under eighteen
Consented Abduction:
1. the taking away of the offended party must be
with her consent, after solicitation or cajolery
from the offender
2. the taking away of the offended party must be
with lewd designs.
Qualified Seduction:
1. committed by abuse of authority,
confidence or relationship
2.
woman.
PETITION DENIED.
LAMERA VS CA
 an owner-type jeep, driven by petitioner,
allegedly "hit and bumped" a tricycle then driven
by Ernesto Reyes resulting in damage to the
tricycle and injuries to Reyes and Gonzal.
 two informations were filed:
- reckless imprudence resulting in damage to
property with multiple physical injuries under
(365)
- Abandonment of one's victim (275)
 275: guilty then appealed to CA
 Arraigned for 365
 275: CA reduced penalty
 Appeal denied by CA
ISSUE: Could there be a valid charge for alleged
abandonment which provides as basis for
prosecution "2. Anyone who shall fail to help
another whom he has accidentally wounded or
injured" when, he was previously charged with
"reckless imprudence resulting in damage to
property with multiple physical injuries"
 charged for two separate offenses under the RPC
 where two different laws (or articles of the same
code) defines two crimes, prior jeopardy as to
one of them is no obstacle to a prosecution of
the other, although both offenses arise from the
same facts, if each crime involves some
important act which is not an essential element
of the
other.
 Since the informations were for separate
offenses — the first against a person and the
second against public peace and order — one
cannot be pleaded as a bar to the other under
the rule on double jeopardy.
 Not all the technical elements constituting the
first offense need be present in the technical
definition of the second offense. The law here
seeks to prevent harassment of an accused
person by multiple prosecutions for offenses
which though different from one another are
or overlapping sets of technical elements.
PEOPLE VS RELOVA
 Batangas City Police with personnel of the Batangas
Electric Light System, with a search warrant searched
and examined the premises of the Opulencia Carpena
Ice Plant and Cold Storage owned and operated by the
private respondent.
 electric wiring, devices and contraptions had been
installed, without the necessary authority from the city
government, and "architecturally concealed inside the
walls of the building side the walls of the building"
owned by the private respondent. - designed purposely
to lower or decrease the readings of electric current
consumption
 ACP: Violation of Ordinance No. 1- unauthorized
installation
 Pleaded not guilty; filed a motion to dismiss the
information - crime had already prescribed and that the
civil indemnity there sought to be recovered was
beyond the jurisdiction of the Batangas City Court to
award
 After 14 days Acting ACP: theft of electric power under
Art 308 in relation to 309
 Petitioner: two offences not the same; that the second
offense is not an attempt to commit the first or
a frustration thereof and that the second offense is
not necessarily included in the offense charged in the
first information
 offenses charged are penalized either by different
sections of the same statute or by different statutes:
important inquiry relates to the IDENTITY OF OFFENSES
charge: DJ available only where an Identity is shown to
exist between the earlier and the subsequent offenses
charged.
 offense is charged under a municipal ordinance while
the other is penalized by a statute: IDENTITY OF THE
ACTS alleged to have given rise to the two offenses: DJ
available as the acts which constitute or have given rise
to the first offense under a municipal ordinance are the
same acts which constitute or have given rise to the
offense charged under a statute
 Question of identity of the acts: examine the location of
such acts in time and space.
 When the acts are so related to each other in time and
space as to be reasonably regarded as having taken
place on the same occasion and where those acts have
been moved by one and the same, or a continuing,
intent or voluntary design or negligence, such acts may
be appropriately characterized as an integral whole
capable of giving rise to penal liability simultaneously
under different legal enactments (a municipal ordinance
and a national statute).
 In this case, acts took place w/n the same time frame.
From November 1974 to February 1975. Installed
without permit to reduce electric bill. Corrupt intent
present from the beginning. The "taking" of electric
current was integral with the unauthorized installation
of electric wiring and devices.
 the dismissal of the information for violation of the
Ordinance upon the ground that such offense had
already prescribed, amounts to an acquittal of the
accused of that offense. Under Article 89 Of RPC,
"prescription of the crime" is one of the grounds for
"total extinction of criminal liability." Under the Rules of
Court, an order sustaining a motion to quash based on
prescription is a bar to another prosecution for the
same offense.
 Denied.
IVLER VS SAN PEDRO
 Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical
Injuries for injuries sustained by respondent
 Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and
Damage to Property for the death of respondent
Ponce’s husband and damage to the spouses Ponce’s
vehicle
 Pleaded guilty to first – public censure
 Invoking this conviction, petitioner moved to quash the
Information in second case for placing him in jeopardy
of second punishment for the same offense of reckless
imprudence.
 Petitioner’s conviction in the case of reckless
imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries BARS his
prosecution in criminal reckless imprudence resulting
in homicide and damage to property.
 1) Reckless Imprudence is a Single Crime; its
Consequences on Persons and Property are
Material Only to Determine the Penalty
 Quasi-offenses penalize “the mental attitude or
condition behind the act, the dangerous
recklessness, lack of care or foresight, the
imprudencia punible,” unlike willful offenses
which punish the intentional criminal act. These
structural and conceptual features of quasi-
offenses set them apart from the mass of
intentional crimes.
 2) Prior Conviction or Acquittal of Reckless
Imprudence Bars Subsequent Prosecution for
the Same Quasi-offense
 Once convicted or acquitted of a specific act of
reckless imprudence, the accused may not be
prosecuted again for that same act. For the
essence of the quasi-offense of criminal
negligence under Article 365 of the Revised
Penal Code lies in the execution of an imprudent
or negligent act that, if intentionally done, would
be punishable as a felony. The law penalizes thus
the negligent or careless act, not the result
thereof.
 The gravity of the consequence is only taken into
account to determine the penalty, it does not
qualify the substance of the offense. And, as the
careless act is single, whether the injurious result
should affect one person or several persons, the
offense (criminal negligence) remains one and
the same, and cannot be split into different
crimes and prosecutions.
 3) Article 48 Does Not Apply to Acts Penalized
Under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code

NAVALLO VS SANDIGANBAYAN
 Article 48 is a procedural device allowing single
prosecution of multiple felonies falling under
either of two categories: (1) when a single act
constitutes two or more grave or less grave
felonies (thus excluding from its operation light
felonies); and (2) when an offense is a necessary
means for committing the other. The legislature
crafted this procedural tool to benefit the
accused who, in lieu of serving multiple
penalties, will only serve the maximum of the
penalty for the most serious crime.
 In contrast, Article 365 is a substantive rule
penalizing not an act defined as a felony but the
mental attitude behind the act, the dangerous
recklessness, lack of care or foresight, a single
mental attitude regardless of the resulting
consequences. Thus, Article 365 was crafted as
one quasi-crime resulting in one or more
consequences. Article 48 is incongruent to the
notion of quasi-crime resulting in one or more
consequences.
 Article 48 is incongruent to the notion of quasi-
crimes under Article 365. It is conceptually
impossible for a quasi-offense to stand for (1) a
single act constituting two or more grave or less
grave felonies; or (2) an offense which is a
necessary means for committing another.
 Prosecutions under Article 365 should proceed
from a single charge regardless of the number or
severity of the consequences. In imposing
penalties, the judge will do no more than apply
the penalties under Article 365 for each
consequence alleged and proven. In short, there
shall be no splitting of charges under Article 365,
and only one information shall be filed in the
same first level court.
 May 1978: appropriate and misappropriate to his
own private benefit, public funds he was holding in
trust as Collecting and Disbursing Officer of the
Numancia National Vocational School
 Warrant of arrest issued but he could not be found
 December 1978: PD 1606 took effect creating the
Sandiganbayan and conferring on it original and
exclusive jurisdiction over crimes committed by
public officers in RPC
 1984: Novella arrested but posted bail bond
 1985: arraigned, pleaded not guilty
 1986: upon motion of prosecution, cased was
transferred from RTC to SB.
 1989: SP: RTC has already arraigned appellant
before transfer to SB so it should take cognizance
of the case
 referred to the Office of the Ombudsman which held
otherwise
 info docketed in SB: new order of arrest, was
returned with a certification by the RTC Clerk of
Court that the accused had posted a bail bond.
 having been later found to be defective, a new bond
was approved and transmitted to the SB
 Navallo: motion to quash; since the accused had
already been arraigned by the RTC Surigao City, the
attempt to prosecute him before the Sandiganbayan
would constitute double jeopardy.
 Double jeopardy requires the existence of the
following requisites:
 (1) The previous complaint or information or
other formal charge is sufficient in form and
substance to sustain a conviction;
 (2) The court has jurisdiction to try the case;
 (3) The accused has been arraigned and has
pleaded to the charge; and
 (4) The accused is convicted or acquitted or the
case is dismissed without his express consent.
When all the above elements are present, a
second prosecution for (a) the same offense, or
(b) an attempt to commit the said offense, or (c)
a frustration of the said offense, or (d) any
offense which necessarily includes, or is
necessarily included in, the first offense charged,
can rightly be barred.
 In the case at bench, the RTC was devoid of
jurisdiction when it conducted an arraignment of
the accused which by then had already been
conferred on the Sandiganbayan. Moreover,
neither did the case there terminate with
conviction or acquittal nor was it dismissed.
 Dismissed.
PEOPLE VS JUDGE VILLARAMA
 Jaime Manuel - violation of Section 16, Article
111, RA 6425, for possession, custody and
control 0.08 grams of Shabu
 Arraignment - a plea of not guilty
 trial ensued, the prosecution rested its case
 counsel for private respondent verbally
manifested in open court that private
respondent was willing to change his former plea
of "not guilty" to that of "guilty" to the lesser
offense of violation of Section 17, R.A. No. 6425,
as amended
 respondent Judge issued an order granting the
motion and rendered decision of less penalty
 Change of plea and his conviction to the lesser
offense of violation of Section 17, RA No. 6425 as
amended is no longer open to review otherwise
his constitutional right against double jeopardy
will be violated.
 The right against double jeopardy given to the
accused in Section 2, Rule 116 of the Rules of
Court applies in cases where both the fiscal and
the offended party consent to the private
respondent's change of plea. Since this is not the
situation here, the private respondent cannot
claim this privilege. (w/o consent of prosecutor)
 The conviction of the accused shall not be a bar
to another prosecution for an offense which
necessarily includes the offense charged in the
former complaint or information under the plea
of guilty to the lesser offense was made without
the consent of the Fiscal and of the offended
party
 the private respondent could still be prosecuted under
the original charge of violation of Section 16 of RA 6425
as amended because of the lack of consent of the Fiscal
who also represents the offended party, i.e., the state.
More importantly, the trial court's approval of his change
of plea was irregular and improper. GRANTED.
PEOPLE VS BALISACAN
 Homicide for assaulting and stabbing Leoncio
Buloat
 arraigned, entered a plea of guilty

he was allowed to present evidence to prove
mitigating circumstances
 accused testified to the effect that he stabbed
the deceased in self-defense because the latter
was strangling him.
 surrendered himself voluntarily to the police
authorities.
 ACQUITTED

the trial court erred in acquitting the accused of
the offense charged despite the latter's plea of
guilty when arraigned.
 whether this appeal placed the accused in double
jeopardy
 It is settled that the existence of a plea is an
essential requisite to double jeopardy.
 In the present case, it is true, the accused had
first entered a plea of guilty. Subsequently,
however, he testified, in the course of being
allowed to prove mitigating circumstances, that
he acted in complete self-defense. Said
testimony, therefore — as the court a
quo recognized in its decision — had the effect
of vacating his plea of guilty and the court a
quo should have required him to plead a new
on the charge, or at least direct that a new plea
of not guilty be entered for him. This was not
done. It follows that in effect there having been
no standing plea at the time the court a
quo rendered its judgment of acquittal, there
can be no double jeopardy with respect to the
appeal herein.
 Judgment set aside.
PEOPLE VS SANDIGANBAYAN
 Villapando ran for Mayor of San Vicente,
Palawan
 Tiape, relative of latter’s wife- Mayor of
Kitcharao, Agusan Del Norte,
 V-won, T-lost
 Villapando designated Tiape as Mun.
Administrator of San Vicente
 Case filed for violation of Art 244 of RPC,
unlawful appointment
 V-pleaded not guilty in SB; T-death
 V moved for leave to file a demurrer to
evidence; granted.
 respondent court acted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of or excess of
jurisdiction in giving due course to, and
eventually granting, the demurrer to evidence.
 Court held in Pp vs SB: that once a court grants
the demurrer to evidence, such order amounts
to an acquittal and any further prosecution of
the accused would violate the constitutional
proscription on double jeopardy, such ruling on
the matter shall not be disturbed in the absence
of a grave abuse of discretion.
 In this case, the Sandiganbayan, in disregarding
basic rules of statutory construction, acted with
grave abuse of discretion. Its interpretation of
the term legal disqualification in Article 244 of
the Revised Penal Code defies legal cogency.
Legal disqualification cannot be read as
excluding temporary disqualification in order to
exempt therefrom the legal prohibitions under
the 1987 Constitution and the Local Government
Code of 1991. We reiterate the legal maxim ubi
lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemus.
Basic is the rule in statutory construction that
where the law does not distinguish, the courts
should not distinguish. There should be no
distinction in the application of a law where
none is indicated.
 denied Villapandos Motion for Leave to File
Demurrer to Evidence yet
accommodated Villapando by giving him five days
within which to inform it in writing whether he will
submit his demurrer to evidence for resolution
without leave of court.
 Notably, a judgment rendered with grave abuse
of discretion or without due process is void, does
not exist in legal contemplation and, thus,
cannot be the source of an acquittal.
 
GRANTED.
Demurrer to the evidence is an objection by one
of the parties in an action, to the effect that
the evidence which his adversary produced is
insufficient in point of law, whether true or not,  Pleaded guilty and start serving his sentence, 1
to make out a case or sustain the issue. mon, 1 day
 Balaba's injuries did not heal within the period
CARMELO VS PEOPLE estimated, info- serious physical injuries.
 require medical attendance and incapacitated
him for a period of from 1 ½ months to 2 ½
 frustrated homicide - Benjamin Obillo, with a
months
kitchen knife; requiring medical attendance for a
 whether the prosecution and conviction of
period of more than 30 days, and incapacitating
Balaba for less serious physical injuries is a bar to
him from performing his habitual labor for the
same period of time.
the second prosecution for serious physical
injuries
 accused pleaded not guilty, in the evening of the
 We do not believe that a new fact supervened,
same day, Obillo died from his wounds
or that a new fact has come into existence.
 Amended information - consummated
 first physician - 10 to 15 days to heal and
homicide.
incapacitated - basis of this certificate- found guilty
 accused filed a motion to quash the amended
of less serious physical injuries and sentenced
information alleging double jeopardy, (denied)
 Another physician-Xray- 1 ½ months to 2 ½
 hence, the instant petition for prohibition to
months barring complications
enjoin the respondent court from further
 If the X-ray examination - fracture must have
entertaining the amended information
existed when the first examination, no now or
 On who has been charged with an offense cannot be
supervening fact that could be said to have
again charged with the same or identical offense
developed or arisen since the filing of the original
though the latter be lesser or greater than the former
action, which would justify the application of the
 This rule of identity does not apply, however when
ruling enunciated by us in the cases.
the second offense was not in existence at the time
 We attribute the new finding of fracture, which
of the first prosecution, for the simple reason that in
evidently lengthened the period of healing of the
such case there is no possibility for the accused,
wound, to the very superficial and inconclusive.
during the first prosecution, to be convicted for an
Had an X-ray examination taken at the time, the
offense that was then inexistent.
fracture would have certainly been disclosed. The
 Stating it in another form, the rule is that "where
wound causing the delay in healing was already in
after the first prosecution a new fact supervenes for
existence at the time of the first examination, but
which the defendant is responsible, which changes
said delay was caused by the very superficial
the character of the offense and, together with the
examination then made.
fact existing at the time, constitutes a new and
 Conviction set aside, acquitted of serious
distinct offense”,the accused cannot be said to be in
physical injuries.
second jeopardy if indicated for the new offense.
 Denied. Respondent court may proceed to the
trial of the criminal case under the amended PEOPLE VS TRIA
information
 Violation of Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
PEOPLE VS BULING Act for possession, custody and control of shabu
 Acquitted on ground of reasonable doubt
Assailed decision via a petition
 serious physical injuries, inflicted wounds on Isidro
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
Balaba - "require, medical attendance for a period
from 10 to 15 days and will incapacitate the Balaba  Petitioner: Double Jeopardy Clause does permit
from the performance of his customary labors for a review of acquittals decreed by trial
the game period of time. magistrates where, as in this case, no retrial will
be required even if the judgment should be
 overturned. It thus argues that appealing the
acquittal of private respondent would not be
violative of the constitutional right of the
accused against double jeopardy.
 whether or not the decision of respondent court
acquitting private respondent can be reviewed
on a petition for review on certiorari.
 an acquittal is immediately final and cannot be
appealed on the ground of double jeopardy. The
only exception where double jeopardy cannot
be invoked is where there is a finding of mistrial
resulting in a denial of due process.
 certiorari is hereby DISMISSED
ALMARIO VS CA
 estafa thru falsification of public document
 after arraignment (March 1992), scheduled for
continuous trial, postponed and cancelled
several times
 Sept 1995, case dismissed for failure to
prosecute and considering that the accused is
entitled to speedy trial.
 Order is reconsidered and set aside.
 PETITIONER: Appellate court erred in sustaining
the trial court when it reconsidered the order
which dismissed the criminal cases against him.
 reversal was a violation of the doctrine of
double jeopardy, as the criminal cases were
initially dismissed for an alleged violation of
petitioners constitutional right to a speedy trial
 Jeopardy attaches only (1) upon a valid
indictment, (2) before a competent court, (3)
after arraignment, (4) when a valid plea has
been entered, and (5) when the defendant was
convicted or acquitted, or the case was
dismissed or otherwise terminated without the
express consent of the accused.
 Order of dismissal based on a violation of the
right to speedy trial was made upon motion by
counsel for petitioner before the trial court. It
was made at the instance of the accused before
the trial court, and with his express consent.
Generally, the dismissal of a criminal case
resulting in acquittal made with the express
consent of the accused or upon his own motion
will not place the accused in double jeopardy.
However, this rule admits of two exceptions,
namely: insufficiency of evidence and denial of
the right to speedy trial. Double jeopardy may
attach when the proceedings have been
prolonged unreasonably, in violation of the
accused’s right to speedy trial.
 Delay in the trial was due to circumstances
beyond the control of the parties and of the trial
court.
 The first and third postponements were clearly
justified on the ground of lack of notice to
accused, co-accused, and/or counsel. Another
was made without objection from petitioner’s
counsel. All in all, there were only three re-
setting of hearing dates.
 No oppressive delay in the proceedings, and no
postponements unjustifiably sought, we concur
with the conclusion reached by the Court of
Appeals that petitioners right to speedy trial had
not been infringed.
 For as petitioners right to speedy trial was not
transgressed, this exception to the fifth element
of double jeopardy that the defendant was
acquitted or convicted, or the case was
dismissed or otherwise terminated without the
express consent of the accused was not met. The
trial courts initial order of dismissal was upon
motion of petitioners counsel, hence made with
the express consent of petitioner. That being the
case, despite the reconsideration of said order,
double jeopardy did not attach.
 AFFIRMED.
LEJANO VS PEOPLE
 Court reversed the judgment of the CA and
acquitted the accused in this case, Hubert
Jeffrey P. Webb, Antonio Lejano, Michael A.
Gatchalian, Hospicio Fernandez, Miguel
Rodriguez, Peter Estrada, and Gerardo Biong of
the charges against them on the ground of lack
of proof of their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
 Complainant asked the court to reconsider,
invoked the exceptions
 To reconsider a judgment of acquittal places the
accused twice in jeopardy of being punished for
the crime of which he has already been
absolved. There is REASON for this provision of
the Constitution. In criminal cases, the full power
of the State is ranged against the accused. If
there is no limit to attempts to prosecute the
accused for the same offense after he has been
acquitted, the infinite power and capacity of the
State for a sustained and repeated litigation
would eventually overwhelm the accused in
terms of resources, stamina, and the will to fight.
 must ensure that due process is afforded to all
parties and there is no grave abuse of discretion
in the treatment of witnesses and the evidence :
not specified the violations of due process or
acts constituting grave abuse of discretion that
the Court supposedly committed
 he highly questionable and suspicious evidence
for the defense taints with serious doubts the
validity of the decision : mere conclusion drawn
from personal perception
 Does not allege that the Court held a sham
review of the decision of the CA
 wants the Court to review the evidence anew
and render another judgment based on such a
re-evaluation. This is not constitutionally allowed
as it is merely a repeated attempt to secure
Webb, et al’s conviction. The judgment
acquitting Webb, et al is final and can no longer
be disturbed.
A WRIT OF KALIKASAN is a legal remedy under
Philippine law which provides for the protection
one’s right to “a balanced and healthful ecology in
accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature,” as
provided for in Section 16, Article II of the Philippine
Constitution. It is compared with the writ of amparo
but protects one’s right for a healthy environment
rather than constitutional rights
The writ of Kailkasan may be sought to deal with
environmental damage of such magnitude that it
threatens life, health, or property of inhabitants in
two or more cities or provinces.
POWER OF COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS:
Grant immunity from prosecution to any person
whose testimony or whose possession of documents
or other evidence is necessary or convenient to
determine the truth in any investigation conducted by
it or under its authority;
FREEDOM AGAINST INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE:
the prime duty of the Government is to serve and
protect the people. The Government may call upon
the people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment
thereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions
provided by law, to render personal, military or civil
service.
AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH
PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES
 reclusion perpetua - when the law violated
makes use of the nomenclature of the
penalties of the RPC
 life imprisonment - does not
 convicted or sentences reduced to RP shall
not be eligible for parole
POLL TAX- Capitation Tax or Personal tax is collected
by the local government units.
-fixed amount that is imposed to a person that is
residing within a specific territory. This is regardless
to their property, occupation or business.
GO VS RAMOS
 Complaint-affidavit for deportation against
Jimmy T. Go alleging that the latter is an
illegal and undesirable alien.
 represents himself as a Filipino citizen,
Jimmy’s personal circumstances and other
records indicate that he is not so.
 Petition for habeas corpus in RTC but was
denied by the said court.
 They questioned the said decision and filed
a petition for certiorari in the Court of
appeals. The petition was granted.
 Their motion for reconsideration was
denied at Bureau of immigration.
 Hence, this petition.
 ISSUE:
 Whether the petition for habeas corpus continue with the deportation proceedings,
should be dismissed. the petition for habeas corpus is rendered
 RULING: moot and academic. This being so, we find
 A petition for the issuance of a writ of it unnecessary to touch on the other
habeas corpus is a special proceeding arguments advanced by respondents
governed by Rule 102 of the Revised Rules regarding the same subject.
of Court. The objective of the writ is to
determine whether the confinement or
detention is valid or lawful. If it is, the writ
cannot be issued. What is to be inquired
into is the legality of a person’s detention as
of, at the earliest, the filing of the
application for the writ of habeas corpus,
for even if the detention is at its inception
illegal, it may, by reason of some
supervening events, such as the instances
mentioned in Section 4[98] of Rule 102, be
no longer illegal at the time of the filing of
the application.
 Once a person detained is duly charged in
court, he may no longer question his
detention through a petition for issuance of
a writ of habeas corpus. His remedy would
be to quash the information and/or the
warrant of arrest duly issued. The writ of
habeas corpus should not be allowed after
the party sought to be released had been
charged before any court. The term “court”
in this context includes quasi-judicial bodies
of governmental agencies authorized to
order the person’s confinement, like the
Deportation Board of the Bureau of
Immigration. Likewise, the cancellation of
his bail cannot be assailed via a petition for
habeas corpus. When an alien is detained
by the Bureau of Immigration for
deportation pursuant to an order of
deportation by the Deportation Board, the
Regional Trial Courts have no power to
release such alien on bail even in habeas
corpus proceedings because there is no law
authorizing it.

 Given that Jimmy has been duly charged
before the Board, and in fact ordered
arrested pending his deportation, coupled
by this Court’s pronouncement that the
Board was not ousted of its jurisdiction to