RULE 102

Habeas Corpus

Section 1. To what habeas corpus extends. — Except as otherwise expressly provided

by law, the writ of habeas corpus shall extend to:
a. all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived
of his liberty, or
b. by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person
entitled thereto.
c.
Section 2. Who may grant the writ. — The writ of habeas corpus may be granted by:
a. the Supreme Court, or any member thereof in the instances authorized by law,
and if so granted it shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines, and may be
made returnable before the court or any member thereof, or before RTC, or any
judge thereof for the hearing and decision on the merits.

b. It may also be granted by RTC, or a judge thereof, on any day and at any time,
and returnable before himself, enforceable only within his judicial district.

Section 3. Requisites of application therefor. — Application for the writ shall be by

petition signed and verified either by the party for whose relief it is intended, or by
some person on his behalf, and shall set forth:
a. That the person in whose behalf the application is made is imprisoned or
restrained on his liberty;
b. The officer or name of the person by whom he is so imprisoned or restrained; or,
if both are unknown or uncertain, such officer or person may be described by an
assumed appellation, and the person who is served with the writ shall be
deemed the person intended;
c. The place where he is so imprisoned or restrained, if known;
d. A copy of the commitment or cause of detention of such person, if it can be
procured without impairing the efficiency of the remedy; or, if the imprisonment
or restraint is without any legal authority, such fact shall appear.

Section 4. When writ not allowed or discharge authorized. — If it appears that the
person alleged to be restrained of his liberty:
a. is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court or judge or by
virtue of a judgment or order of a court of record, and;
 b. that the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the process, render the
judgment, or make the order;

c. or if the jurisdiction appears after the writ is allowed, the person shall not be
discharged by reason of any informality or defect in the process, judgment, or
order.

d. When a person is charged with or convicted of an offense in the Philippines,

e. When a person is suffering imprisonment under lawful judgment.

Section 5. When the writ must be granted and issued. —

When a petition therefor is presented and it appears that the writ ought to issue.

Section 6. To whom writ directed, and what to require. —

a. In case of imprisonment or restraint by an officer

the writ shall be directed to him, and shall command him to have the body of the
person restrained of his liberty before the court or judge designated in the writ
at the time and place therein specified.

b. In case of imprisonment or restraint by a person not an officer,

the writ shall be directed to an officer, and shall command him to take and have
the body of the person restrained of his liberty before the court or judge
designated in the writ at the time and place therein specified, and to summon
the person by whom he is restrained then and there to appear before said court
or judge to show the cause of the imprisonment or restraint.

Section 7. How prisoner designated and writ served.

The person to be produced should be designated in the writ by his name, if

known, but if his name is not known he may be otherwise described or
identified. The writ may be served in any province by the sheriff or other proper
officer, or by a person deputed by the court or judge.

Section 8. How writ executed and returned. — The officer to whom the writ is directed
shall convey the person so imprisoned or restrained, and named in the writ, before the
judge allowing the writ, unless, from sickness or infirmity of the person directed to be
produced, such person cannot, without danger, be bought before the court or judge;
and the officer shall make due return of the writ, together with the day and the cause
of the caption and restraint of such person according to the command thereof.

Section 9. Defect of form. — No writ of habeas corpus can be disobeyed for defect of
form.

Section 10. Contents of return. —

a. Whether he has or has not the party in his custody or power, or under restraint;
b. If in custody: the authority and the true and whole cause thereof, with a copy of
the writ, order execution, or other process, if any, upon which the party is held;
c. If not produced: the nature and gravity of the sickness or infirmity of such party
by reason of which he cannot, without danger, be bought before the court or
judge;
d. If transferred to another custody: to whom, at what time, for what cause, and by
what authority such transfer was made.

Section 13. When the return evidence, and when only a plea. — If it appears that the
prisoner is in custody under a warrant of commitment in pursuance of law, the return
shall be considered prima facie evidence of the cause of restraint, but if he is restrained
of his liberty by any alleged private authority, the return shall be considered only as a
plea of the facts therein set forth, and the party claiming the custody must prove such
facts.

Section 14. When person lawfully imprisoned recommitted, and when let to bail. — If it
appears that the prisoner was lawfully committed, he shall not be released, discharged,
or bailed. If he is lawfully imprisoned or restrained on a charge of having committed an
offense, he may be recommitted to imprisonment or admitted to bail in the discretion of
the court or judge.

Section 15. When prisoner discharged if no appeal. — When the court or judge has
examined into the cause of caption and restraint of the prisoner, and is satisfied that he
is unlawfully imprisoned or restrained, he shall forthwith order his discharge from
confinement, but such discharge shall not be effective until a copy of the order has
been served on the officer or person detaining the prisoner. If the officer or person
detaining the prisoner does not desire to appeal, the prisoner shall be forthwith
released.
Section 16. Penalty for refusing to issue writ, or for disobeying the same. — A clerk of a
court who refuses to issue the writ after allowance thereof and demand therefor, or a
person to whom a writ is directed, who neglects or refuses to obey or make return of
the same according to the command thereof, or makes false return thereof, or who,
upon demand made by or on behalf of the prisoner, refuses to deliver to the person
demanding, within six (6) hours after the demand therefor, a true copy of the warrant
or order of commitment, shall forfeit to the party aggrieved the sum of one thousand
pesos, to be recorded in a proper action, and may also be punished by the court or
judge as for contempt.

Section 17. Person discharged not to be again imprisoned. — A person who is set at
liberty upon a writ of habeas corpus shall not be again imprisoned for the same offense
unless by the lawful order or process of a court having jurisdiction of the cause or
offense; and a person who knowingly, contrary to the provisions of this rule, recommits
or imprisons, may also be punished by the court or judge granting the writ as for
contempt.

Principles:

1. Preliminary Citation: Requires the respondent to appear and show cause why the
peremptory writ should not be granted

Peremtory Writ: Unconditionally commands the respondent to have the body of

the detained person before the court at a time and place therein specified

2. In general, the purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to determine whether or

not a particular person is legally held.

In passing upon a petition for habeas corpus, a court or judge must first inquire
into whether the petitioner is being restrained of his liberty.[14] If he is not, the
writ will be refused. Inquiry into the cause of detention will proceed only where
such restraint exists. If the alleged cause is thereafter found to be unlawful, then
the writ should be granted and the petitioner discharged.

While habeas corpus is a writ of right, it will not issue as a matter of course or as

a mere perfunctory operation on the filing of the petition. Judicial discretion is
called for in its issuance and it must be clear to the judge to whom the petition is
presented that, prima facie, the petitioner is entitled to the writ (In the matter of
Petition for Habeas Corpus of Eufemia E. Rodriguez, January 29, 2008)
3. It is a proceeding in rem and summary in nature. There can be no judgment
entered against anybody as there is no real plaintiff or defendant (Alimpos v. CA
106 SCRA 159)

4. It may be availed of as a consequence of judicial proceedings when:

a. There has been deprivation of constitutional right resulting to restraint of

a person
b. The court has no jurisdiction to impose the penalty
c. There is an excessive penalty (Feria v. CA, 325 SCRA 525 (2000)

5. The general rule is that the release, whether permanent or temporary, of a

detained person renders the petition for habeas corpus moot and academic,
unless there are restraints attached to his release which precludes freedom of
action, in which case the Court can still inquire into the nature of his involuntary
restraint. Petitioner’s temporary release does not render the petition for writ
moot and academic . There is restraint of liberty when one is deprived of
freedom of action and locomotion(Villavicencio v. Lukban)

Manila Mayor Justo Lukban order the women of ill-repute to be transferred to

Davao as laborers. The relatives of these women filed an application for habeas
corpus with the SC.

One argued that the parties in whose behalf it was asked were under no
restraint; the women, it is claimed, were free in Davao, and the jurisdiction of
the mayor and the chief of police did not extend beyond the city limits.

The SC held, that the essential object and purpose of the writ of habeas
corpus is to inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint as distinguished from
voluntary, and to relieve a person therefrom if such restraint is illegal. Any
restraint which will preclude freedom of action is sufficient. The forcible taking of
these women from Manila by officials of that city, who handed them over to
other parties, who deposited them in a distant region, deprived these women of
freedom of locomotion just as effectively as if they had been imprisoned.

6. Concept of Restraint
 Generally, actual and effective, and not merely nominal or moral, restrained is
required (Zagala v. Ilustre 48 Phil 282)

Actual physical restraint is not always required, any restraint which will prejudice
freedom of action is sufficient. In Moncupa, petitioners were released but with
the condition that if he change his residence, he needs to secure prior approval;
that he shall not participate in any interview conducted by the media; and that
he is required to report regularlty to respondent. (Moncupa v. Enriel G.R. No.
63345, January 30, 1986)

When there is more than moral restraint. The deprivation of personal feedom
includes the freedom of movement, to transfer from one palce to another, to
choose one’s residence. Freedom may be lost due to internal moral compulsion,
to founded or groundless fear, or erroneous belief in the existence of an
imaginary power of an impostor to cause harm if not blindly obeyed, to any
psychological element that may curtail faculty of choice.

7. Jurisdiction of CA to entertain Habeas Corpus in custody cases

The provision of RA 8369 did not divest the SC and CA OF jurisdiction over
habeas corpus cases involving custody of minors. It should be ready in harmony
with BP 129 where SC, CA, and family courts have concurrent jurisdiction. (In the
matter of application of writ of habeas corpus of Richard brian thorton in behalf
of minor sequeira thorton, August 16, 2004)

8. Habeas corpus may not be issued to compel the husband to live with his wife
(Ilusorio v. Buildner, May 12, 2000)

9. When a person is arrested by virtue of a warrant that has been issued without
the legal requirements, habeas corpus is not a remedy. The remedy is to file a
motion to quash the warrant (Alimpoos v CA)

10.Damages cannot be awarded in habeas corpus cases. The sole function of the
writ is relieve a person from unlawful imprisonment and it cannot be used for
another purpose (Alimpoos v. CA)

11.The parents filed a writ of habeas corpus to recover their custody over their 15
year old daughter Felicisima Salvana from the custody of a justice of peace. The
petition is denied on the ground that the parents are guilty of abusing their child
 by compelling her to marry against her wishes. The SC held that habeas corpus
is a proper remedy to regain custody of a minor even if the child is in the
custody of another of her own free will. The parents cannot be deprived of
custody just because they compel their child to marry another. (Salvana v.
Saliendra)

12.JPE and Gregorio Honasa were arrested for the crime of rebellion and murder.
They were denied bail. They filed a petition for habeas corpus invoking the denial
of their constitutional right to bail.

Habeas corpus is not the proper remedy. They should file a petition to be
admitted to bail

13.The petition for habeas corpus was properly filed together with their present
petition for certiorari and mandamus.

The writs of habeas corpus and certiorari may be ancillary to each other where

necessary to give effect to the supervisory powers of the higher courts. A writ
of habeas corpus reaches the body and the jurisdictional matters, but not the
record. A writ of certiorari reaches the record but not the body. Hence, a writ
of habeas corpus may be used with the writ of certiorari for the purpose of
review.  However, habeas corpus does not lie where the petitioner has the
remedy of appeal or certiorari because it will not be permitted to perform the
functions of a writ of error or appeal for the purpose of reviewing mere errors or
irregularities in the proceedings of a court having jurisdiction over the person
and the subject matter.

Neither can we grant the writ at this stage since a writ of habeas corpus is not
intended as a substitute for the functions of the trial court. In the absence of
exceptional circumstances, the orderly course of trial should be pursued and the
usual remedies exhausted before the writ may be invoked. (GALVEZ V. CA
(October 24, 1994)

Facts: Incumbent Mayor Honorato Galvez, with others, were charged with
homicide. The Information was withdrawn, upon motion of the fiscal, by Judge
Villajuan. On the same day, new Information for murder was filed and raffled to
 sala of Judge Pornillos. In the meanting, petitioners move to reconsider the
withdrawal of the information in the homicide case, which was later on granted.

Petitioner moved to quash the new Information for lack of jurisdiction as the
order of withdrawal of the first information has not attained finality and in fact
had been reconsidered. The same was denied.

The case eventually went up to the SC where a petition for certiorari and
mandamus with Petition for Habeas Corpus was filed.

Rules on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors
(AM No. 03-04-04-SC)

(1)     The Family Court has exclusive original jurisdiction to hear petitions for custody
of minors and the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus in relation to custody of
minors. The Court is tasked with the duty of promulgating special rules or procedure for
the disposition of family cases with the best interests of the minor as primary
consideration, taking into account the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child. It should be clarified that the writ is issued by the Family Court only in relation to
custody of minors. An ordinary petition for habeas corpus should be filed in the regular
Court. The issue of child custody may be tackled by the Family Court without need of a
separate petition for custody being filed.
(2)     The Committee chose the phrase “any person claiming custody” as it is broad
enough to cover the following: (a) the unlawful deprivation of the custody of a minor;
or (b) which parent shall have the care and custody of a minor, when such parent is in
the midst of nullity, annulment or legal separation proceedings (Sec. 2).
(3)     The hearings on custody of minors may, at the discretion of the court, be closed
to the public and the records of the case shall not be released to non-parties without its
approval (Sec. 21).
(4)     A motion to dismiss the petition is not allowed except on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter or over the parties. Any other ground that might
warrant the dismissal of the petition shall be raised as an affirmative defense in the
answer (Sec. 6).
(5)     Upon the filing of the verified answer of the expiration of the period to file it, the
court may order a social worker to make a case study of the minor and the parties and
to submit a report and recommendation to the court at least three days before the
scheduled pre-trial (Sec. 8).
(6)     Hold Departure Order – The minor child subject of the petition shall not be
brought out of the country without prior order from the court while the petition is
pending. The court motu propio or upon application under oath may issue ex parte a
hold departure order addressed to the BID of the DOJ a copy of the hold departure
order within 24 hours from its issuance and through the fastest available means of
transmittal (Sec.16).

Bar Questions:

1. 2005 BAR

Mariano was convicted for raping Victoria. While serving sentence, they got
married. What remedy should Mariano take to secure his most expeditious
release?

File a Petition for Habeas Corpus, because there would be no more legal basis

2. BAR 1998

A live-n partner of A filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus of the latter when A was
arrested by virtue of a warrant. Does A havvve personality to file?

Yes, Habeas Corpus may be filed by some person in behalf of the person
detained under Rule 102

3. BAR 2003

The grandfather of 2 girls filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus to claim custody
over the children, whose mother leaves at night and work as a prostitute. The
Family Court in Angeles issued the writ. When the mother learned of the writ,
sheriff of Angeles went to Cebu City to serve the writ on A. Is the enforcement of
the writ correct?

No, when issued by RTC it is enforceable only within its judicial region.

The grandparent has the personality as it may have right to custody over the 2
children, as against their mother who is a prostitute.

4.