#12 ILAGAN VS ENRILE – CASTILLO
TOPIC: HABEAS CORPUS
DOCTRINES:
1. Special proceeding of habeas corpus inquires on the
legality of one’s detention, but it is no longer proper if
it appears that the person alleged to be restrained of
his liberty 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 that the court or
judge had jurisdiction to issue the process, render the
judgment, or make the order pursuant to Sec. 4, Rule
102.
2. Right to preliminary investigation is waivable and do
not affect the validity of the Information filed nor the
Court’s jurisdiction as provided in People vs. Casiano.
FACTS:
1. IBP, FLAG, and MABINI, filed herein petition for
habeas corpus on behalf of 3 arrested lawyers (Ilagan,
Arellano, and Risonar) pursuant to merely a Mission
Order allegedly issued by the Ministry of National
Defense and were detained at Camp Catitipan in
Davao City.
2. The petitioners were arrested allegedly for their
participation in subversive actions in Davao City,
especially in the “Welgang Bayan”. Petitioners averred
that they were merely negotiating panels.
3. Respondents in their Return required by the Court
averred that arrests were pursuant to PDA issued by
the President, suspension of writ of habeas corpus
(Proc. No. 2045-A), state of rebellion in Davao City, and
ruling in Garcia-Padilla vs. Enrile that Courts lack
authority to inquire to the cause and validity of
detention of persons pursuant to the suspension of the
writ of habeas corpus.
4. For lack of evidence to link petitioners to the
subversive actions, the Court ordered their temporary
release, but the respondents filed an Urgent Motion
that Information for Rebellion was filed against the 3
before the RTC of Davao City, thus, petition should be
dismissed for being moot and academic.
5. Petitioners filed their Opposition alleging there was
no preliminary investigation conducted, thus, violation
of their constitutional right to due process, hence,
Information is void. Furthermore, suspension of the
writ of habeas corpus was unconstitutional for lack of
legal basis as provided in the Constitution.
ISSUES: 1. WON petition for habeas corpus should be
granted?
NO.
2. WON Information was void and RTC had no
jurisdiction for lack of preliminary investigation?
NO.
RATIO:
First Issue: (MAIN)
1. See Doctrine No. 1. The proper remedy in this case
is to file in the RTC Motion to Quash the Warrant of
Arrest, and/or Information or to ask for reinvestigation
of the case.
2. Habeas corpus could not lie after warrant of
commitment was issued by the Court based on the
Information filed. As provided in Sec. 14, Rule 102, a
prisoner lawfully committed and charged with offense
punishable by death, shall not be released, discharged
or bailed, but if not punishable as such, may bail on
judge’s discretion.
Second Issue: (SUB-ISSUE)
1. 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure requires that no
Information be filed to offenses cognizable by RTC
without first conducting preliminary investigation
except those in Sec. 7, Rule 112. However, the
Verification filed by the City Prosecutor stated that the
Information was filed pursuant to Sec. 7, Rule 112 and
he found sufficient ground to hold them for trial. Thus,
preliminary investigation is not required prior to filing
of such Information.
2. Sec. 5, Rule 113 provides for instances when
warrantless arrest is lawful. Thus if the 3 detained
lawyers fall either in a) of that rule (in flagrante
delicto) or in b) (hot pursuit), presentation of evidence
is required, which is proper to be done in court.
3. See Doctrine No. 2. The trial court should not
dismiss the Information if there is no preliminary
investigation, but hold it in abeyance then conduct its
own investigation or ask the fiscal to reinvestigate.
DISPOSITIVE: Petition dismissed for being moot and
academic because detained pursuant to the Warrant of
Arrests issued in relation to the criminal case of
Rebellion filed against them.