FRANCISCO BERNARTE et.al v.

CA
610 SCRA 19 | October 18, 1996
Romero, J.

Doctrine: Even if the arrest was illegal, supervening events such as issuance of judicial process
or filing of a complaint/information may bar the release or discharge of the person detained. The
remedy lies not on petition for habeas corpus but on quashal of the information or warrant of
arrest duly issued.

FACTS
Petitioners in this case assail the decision of the CA which dismissed their petition for
writ of habeas corpus. The facts would show that a certain Estrella Arastia together with several
others filed a complaint against petitioners for a violation of the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law. It is alleged in the said complaint that petitioners organized themselves into the
Anibang Manggagawa sa Agricultura and illegally intruded into the lands owned by
complainants. The complainants also prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction
which was granted by the RTC. The trial court ordered petitioners to desist and vacate the land
immediately. As an answer, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by
the court for the lack of merit. The court then deputized members of the PNP to enforce the said
writ.
Not giving up, petitioners filed a complaint before the DARAB, alleging that the
complainant resulted to the use of force and armed men in order to force them to evacuate the
assailed lands and deprive them of their property. Petitioners also prayed for a writ of
preliminary injunction. In the decision issued by DARAB, it declared the subject land as part of
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law and issued a writ of preliminary injunction prohibiting
the complainants from entering, intruding and disturbing the farming activities of the petitioners.
Relying on the writ issued by DARAB, petitioners went back to the subjet land which
prompted the police to dispatch several policemen to the area to remind the petitioners of the
earlier issued writ of preliminary injunction and ordered the petitioners to leave said premises.
Upon their refusal to leave, the policemen arrested them and subsequently charged them with
resistance and/or disobedience to the lawful order of persons in authority before the Municipal
Trial Court of Lubao. On the same day, petitioners were released from the police custody and
they went back to the subject land. As a result of this, police arrested petitioners without warrant
for having entered he landholding and for resisting and intimidating said police officers.
Petitioners were then detained and subsequently charged with direct assault upon agents of a
person in authority.
After the filing of the information, petitioners then filed before the Court a petition for
habeas corpus, questioning the legality of their arrest and detention. The same was remanded to
the CA who issued the assailed decision dismissing the said petition. The CA upheld the validity
of the arrest of the petitioners
ISSUES AND HOLDING

1. W/N the arrest was legal- YES.

In justifying the legality of the arrest, the CA held that the PNP team was merely
enforcing a lawful order from the Court and by seriously resisting the same, the
petitioners have committed the crime of Direct Assault Upon An Agent of A Person in

SERAPIO C2021 | 1
 Authority and therefore, a warrant was not necessary as provided in the Sec 5(a), Rule
113, Rules on Criminal Procedure namely in flagrante delicto, hot pursuit and escapee.
Also, no explicit rule requiring a judge, after an accused has been arrested without a
warrant for an offense cognizable by the regional trial court and later charged in a
complaint or information conformably with the provisions of Rule 112, Section 7 of the
1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure to still issue a warrant of arrest or order of
commitment for the said accused because it would lead to an absolute superfluity.

2. W/N trial court erred in dismissing the writ of habeas corpus- NO.
The writ of habeas corpus under Rule 102 of the Rules of Court extends to all
cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty,
or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled
thereto. It is meant to inquire to the legality of one’s detention. However, once the person
detained is duly charged in court, he may no longer question his detention by petition of
writ of habeas corpus. His remedy lies either to the quashal of the information and or the
warrant of arrest duly issued.
In the present case, the petitioners were immediately charged with the crime of
Direct Assault upon their detention. As held in Velasco v CA, even if the arrest was
illegal, supervening events such as issuance of judicial process or filing of a
complaint/information may bar the release or discharge of the person detained. Hence,
the petition for habeas corpus has been rendered moot and academic. Moreover, almost
all of them already posted bail. It is also elementary that by filing a motion for bail
tantamount to voluntary submission of his person to the jurisdiction of the court.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari is hereby DENIED. No

cost.

SERAPIO C2021 | 2