8/9/2019 SpecPro_Digest of Habeas Corpus and Amparo Case

1/2

Writ of Habeas Corpus

(8.) MANGILA vs. JUDGE PANGILINAN

FACTS:

 Anita Mangila was charged with seven criminalcomplaints with syndicated estafa in violation of 

 Art. 315 of RPC, PD 1!", and Migrant #or$ers Act of 1""5. %he complaints arose from therecr&iting and promising of employment 'yMangila and the others to the privatecomplainants as overseas contract wor$ers in%oronto, Canada, and from the collection of visaprocessing fees, mem'ership fees and on(lineapplication witho&t a&thority from P)*A.

+ollowing the preliminary investigation P-cond&cted 'y /&dge Pangilinan of M%CC inP&erto Princesa, a warrant of arrest was iss&ed

against Mangila and her cohorts witho&t 'ail. 0yvirt&e of the arrest warrant, Mangila wasarrested in Manila and detained at the 0-.

Mangila filed a petition for ha'eas corp&s 'eforethe CA to o'tain her release. 2he arg&ed that/&dge Pangilinan had no a&thority to cond&ctthe P- that the P- was not yet completed whenthe arrest warrant was iss&ed and that therewas no finding of pro'a'le ca&se prior to theiss&ance of arrest warrant.

%he CA denied Mangila4s petition.

ISSUE:1. #hat is the nat&re of ha'eas corp&s6. #) the writ of ha'eas corp&s was theproper remedy to o'tain the release of Mangilafrom detention.

HELD:

1. A petition for the iss&ance of a writ of habeas corpus is a special proceeding governed'y R&le 176 of the R&les of Co&rt, as amended.-n Ex Parte Billings, it was held that habeas

corpus is that of a civil proceeding in character.-t see$s the enforcement of civil rights. Resortingto the writ is not to in8&ire into the criminal act of which the complaint is made, '&t into the right of li'erty, notwithstanding the act and theimmediate p&rpose to 'e served is relief fromillegal restraint. %he r&le applies even wheninstit&ted to arrest a criminal prosec&tion andsec&re freedom. #hen a prisoner petitions for awrit of habeas corpus, he there'y commences as&it and prosec&tes a case in that co&rt.

%he in8&iry in a habeas corpus proceeding isaddressed to the 8&estion of whether theproceedings and the assailed order are, for anyreason, n&ll and void. %he writ is not ordinarilygranted where the law provides for other remedies in the reg&lar co&rse, and in thea'sence of e9ceptional circ&mstances.Moreover, habeas corpus sho&ld not 'e grantedin advance of trial. %he orderly co&rse of trialm&st 'e p&rs&ed and the &s&al remediese9ha&sted 'efore resorting to the writ wheree9ceptional circ&mstances are e9tant. -n another case, it was held that habeas corpus cannot 'eiss&ed as a writ of error or as a means of reviewing errors of law and irreg&larities not

involving the 8&estions of :&risdiction occ&rringd&ring the co&rse of the trial, s&':ect to the

caveat that constit&tional safeg&ards of h&manlife and li'erty m&st 'e preserved, and notdestroyed. -t has also 'een held that whererestraint is &nder legal process, mere errors andirreg&larities, which do not render theproceedings void, are not gro&nds for relief 'yhabeas corpus 'eca&se in s&ch cases, therestraint is not illegal.

6. ). -t was clear that &nder 2ection 5,1R&le 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the resol&tion of the investigating

 :&dge was not final '&t was still s&':ect to thereview 'y the p&'lic prosec&tor who had thepower to order the release of the detainee if nopro'a'le ca&se sho&ld 'e&ltimately fo&ndagainst her. -n the conte9t of the r&le, Mangilahad no need to see$ the iss&ance of the writ of habeas  corpus to sec&re her release fromdetention. ;er proper reco&rse was to 'ring the

s&pposed irreg&larities attending the cond&ct of the preliminary investigation and the iss&ance of the warrant for her arrest to the attention of theCity Prosec&tor, who had 'een meanwhile giventhe most direct access to the entire records of the case, incl&ding the warrant of arrest,following /&dge Pangilinan4s transmittal of themto the City Prosec&tor for appropriate action. %hewrit of habeas corpus  co&ld not 'e &sed asas&'stit&te for another availa'le remedy.

(9.) IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FORHABEAS CORPUS OF MINOR SHANG KO

VINGSON YU SHIRLY VINGSON SHIRLYVINGSON DEMAISIP vs. JOVY CABCABAN

FACTS:2hang & 2hang

8/9/2019 SpecPro_Digest of Habeas Corpus and Amparo Case

2/2

ISSUE:  p to what e9tent ha'eas corp&s isavaila'le

HELD:nder 2ection 1, R&le 176 of the R&les of Co&rt,the writ of ha'eas corp&s is availa'le, not only incases of illegal confinement or detention 'ywhich any person is deprived of his li'erty, '&talso in cases involving the rightf&l c&stody over a minor.16 %he general r&le is that parents sho&ldhave c&stody over their minor children. 0&t the2tate has the right to intervene where theparents, rather than care for s&ch children, treatthem cr&elly and a'&sively, impairing their growth and well('eing and leaving thememotional scars that they carry thro&gho&t their lives &nless they are li'erated from s&ch parentsand properly co&nseled.

Writ of Amparo

(!.) TAPU" vs. JUDGE #$% ROSARIO

FACTS:%he spo&ses 2amson filed an action for forci'leentry against the %ap& heirs in the M&nicipalCirc&it %rial Co&rt of A$lan. %he 2amsonsalleged that the %ap&es, &sing force andintimidation, entered into their one(hectareproperty, overwhelmed the sec&rity g&ardsstationed to patrol the premises and '&ilt somestr&ct&res thereon.

-n t&rn, the %ap&es alleged that they were thetr&e, act&al physical prior possessor of the landand that the tile presented 'y the plaintiff wasfa$e. After trial, the MC%C r&led in favo&r of the2amsons.

%he %ap&es appealed the decision to the R%C.Eater on, the R%C wo&ld iss&e a writ of demolition. )n appeal to the Co&rt of Appealsvia petition for review, and while this is pending,the %ap&es filed a petition for certiorari and for the iss&ance of the writs of amparo and ha'eas

data.

ISSUE: #) the writ of amparo may 'e &sed toprotect concerns that are p&rely property or commercial in nat&re.

HELD:). %o start off with the 'asics, the writof amparo was originally conceived as aresponse to the e9traordinary rise in the n&m'er of $illings and enforced disappearances, and tothe perceived lac$ of availa'le and effectiveremedies to address these e9traordinaryconcerns. -t is intended to address violations of or threats to the rights to life, li'erty or sec&rity,as an e9traordinary and independent remedy'eyond those availa'le &nder the prevailingR&les, or as a remedy s&pplemental to theseR&les. &' * *s +,- *s /* , 0/,$11,+1$/+s ' /$ 02/$%3 0/,0$/3 ,/ 1,44$/1*%. N$*'$/ *s * /* ' $ s'%%*ss2$ ,+ 4,/0',2s +# 2+1$/*+ 5/,2+#s.

#hen reco&rses in the ordinary co&rse of lawfail 'eca&se of deficient legal representation or the &se of improper remedial meas&res, neither the writ of certiorari  nor that of amparo (

e9traordinary tho&gh they may 'e ( will s&ffice toserve as a c&rative s&'stit&te. %he writ

of amparo, partic&larly, sho&ld not iss&e whenapplied for as a s&'stit&te for the appeal or certiorari process, or when it will inordinatelyinterfere with these processes F the sit&ationo'taining in the present case.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/udk_14817_2014.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/udk_14817_2014.html#fnt12