actual case - habeas corpus

7/26/2019 Actual Case - Habeas Corpus

1/46

I.

G.R. No. 169482 January 29, 2008

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OFHABEAS CORPUSOF EUFEMIA E.

RODRIGUEZ, filed by EDGARDO E. VELUZ,petitioner,

vs.

LUISA R. VILLANUEVA and TERESITA R. PABELLO,respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CORONA,J.:

This is a petition for review1of the resolutions

2dated February 2, 2005 and September 2, 2005 of the

Court of Appeals3in CA-G.R. SP No. 88180 denying the petition forhabeas corpusof Eufemia E.

Rodriguez, filed by petitioner Edgardo Veluz, as well as his motion for reconsideration, respectively.

Eufemia E. Rodriguez was a 94-year old widow, allegedly suffering from a poor state of mental health

and deteriorating cognitive abilities.4She was living with petitioner, her nephew, since 2000. He

acted as her guardian.

In the morning of January 11, 2005, respondents Luisa R. Villanueva and Teresita R. Pabello took

Eufemia from petitioner Veluz house. He made repeated demands for the return of Eufemia but

these proved futile. Claiming that respondents were restraining Eufemia of her liberty, he filed apetition forhabeas corpus

5in the Court of Appeals on January 13, 2005.

The Court of Appeals ruled that petitioner failed to present any convincing proof that respondents

(the legally adopted children of Eufemia) were unlawfully restraining their mother of her liberty. He

also failed to establish his legal right to the custody of Eufemia as he was not her legal guardian.

Thus, in a resolution dated February 2, 2005,6the Court of Appeals denied his petition.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration but it was also denied.7Hence, this petition.

Petitioner claims that, in determining whether or not a writ ofhabeas corpusshould issue, a court

should limit itself to determining whether or not a person is unlawfully being deprived of liberty.

There is no need to consider legal custody or custodial rights. The writ ofhabeas corpusis available

not only if the rightful custody of a person is being withheld from the person entitled thereto but also

if the person who disappears or is illegally being detained is of legal age and is not under

guardianship. Thus, a writ ofhabeas corpuscan cover persons who are not under the legal custody of
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt1


2/46

another. According to petitioner, as long as it is alleged that a person is being illegally deprived of

liberty, the writ ofhabeas corpusmay issue so that his physical body may be brought before the court

that will determine whether or not there is in fact an unlawful deprivation of liberty.

In their comment, respondents state that they are the legally adopted daughters of Eufemia and her

deceased spouse, Maximo Rodriguez. Prior to their adoption, respondent Luisa was Eufemias half-

sister8while respondent Teresita was Eufemias niece and petitioners sister.

9

Respondents point out that it was petitioner and his family who were staying with Eufemia, not the

other way around as petitioner claimed. Eufemia paid for the rent of the house, the utilities and

other household needs.

Sometime in the 1980s, petitioner was appointed as the "encargado" or administrator of the

properties of Eufemia as well as those left by the deceased Maximo. As such, he took charge of

collecting payments from tenants and transacted business with third persons for and in behalf of

Eufemia and the respondents who were the only compulsory heirs of the late Maximo.

In the latter part of 2002, Eufemia and the respondents demanded an inventory and return of the

properties entrusted to petitioner. These demands were unheeded. Hence, Eufemia and the

respondents were compelled to file a complaint for estafa against petitioner in the Regional Trial

Court of Quezon City. Consequently, and by reason of their mothers deteriorating health,

respondents decided to take custody of Eufemia on January 11, 2005. The latter willingly went with

them. In view of all this, petitioner failed to prove either his right to the custody of Eufemia or the

illegality of respondents action.

We rule for the respondents.

The writ ofhabeas corpusextends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person

is deprived of his liberty or by which the rightful custody of a person is being withheld from the one

entitled thereto.10It is issued when one is either deprived of liberty or is wrongfully being prevented

from exercising legal custody over another person.11Thus, it contemplates two instances: (1)

deprivation of a persons liberty either through illegal confinement or through detention and (2)

withholding of the custody of any person from someone entitled to such custody.

In this case, the issue is not whether the custody of Eufemia is being rightfully withheld from

petitioner but whether Eufemia is being restrained of her liberty. Significantly, although petitioner

admits that he did not have legal custody of Eufemia, he nonetheless insists that respondents

themselves have no right to her custody. Thus, for him, the issue of legal custody is irrelevant. What

is important is Eufemias personal freedom.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt11


3/46

Fundamentally, in order to justify the grant of the writ ofhabeas corpus,the restraint of liberty must

be in the nature of an illegal and involuntary deprivation of freedom of action.12

In general,the purpose of the writ ofhabeas corpusis to determine whether or not

a particular person is legally held. A prime specification of an application for a writ

ofhabeas corpus,in fact, is an actual and effective, and not merely nominal or moral, illegal

restraint of liberty. "The writ ofhabeas corpuswas devised and exists as a speedy and

effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint, and as the best and only

sufficient defense of personal freedom. A prime specification of an application for a writ

ofhabeas corpusis restraint of liberty. The essential object and purpose of the writ ofhabeas

corpusis 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."13(emphasis supplied)

In passing upon a petition forhabeas corpus, a court or judge must first inquire into whether the

petitioner is being restrained of his liberty.14If he is not, the writ will be refused. Inquiry into the

cause of detention will proceed only where such restraint exists.15If the alleged cause is thereafter

found to be unlawful, then the writ should be granted and the petitioner discharged.16Needless to

state, if otherwise, again the writ will be refused.

Whilehabeas corpusis 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.17Judicial 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.18It is only if the court is satisfied that a person is being unlawfully restrained of his liberty will

the petition forhabeas corpusbe granted.19If the respondents are not detaining or restraining the

applicant or the person in whose behalf the petition is filed, the petition should be dismissed.20

In this case, the Court of Appeals made an inquiry into whether Eufemia was being restrained of her

liberty. It found that she was not:

There is no proof that Eufemia is being detained and restrained of her liberty by

respondents. Nothing on record reveals that she was forcibly taken by

respondents.On the contrary, respondents, being Eufemias adopted children, are takingcare of her.

21(emphasis supplied)

The Court finds no cogent or compelling reason to disturb this finding.22

WHEREFORE, the petition is herebyDENIED.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_169482_2008.html#fnt22


4/46

Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

II.

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 125901. March 8, 2001]

EDGARDO A. TIJING and BIENVENIDA R. TIJING,petitioners, vs.COURT OF APPEALS

(Seventh Division) and ANGELITA DIAMANTE,respondents.

D E C I S I O N

QUISUMBING,J.:

For review is the decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 6, 1996, in CA-G.R. SP No.

39056, reversing the decision of the Regional Trial Court in a petition forhabeas corpusof Edgardo

Tijing, Jr., allegedly the child of petitioners.

Petitioners are husband and wife. They have six children. The youngest is Edgardo Tijing, Jr.,

who was born on April 27, 1989, at the clinic of midwife and registered nurse Lourdes Vasquez in

Sta. Ana, Manila. Petitioner Bienvenida served as the laundrywoman of private respondent Angelita

Diamante, then a resident of Tondo, Manila.

According to Bienvenida in August 1989, Angelita went to her house to fetch her for an urgent

laundry job. Since Bienvenida was on her way to do some marketing, she asked Angelita to wait

until she returned. She also left her four-month old son, Edgardo, Jr., under the care of Angelita as

she usually let Angelita take care of the child while Bienvenida was doing laundry.

When Bienvenida returned from the market, Angelita and Edgardo, Jr., were gone. Bienvenida

forthwith proceeded to Angelitas house in Tondo, Manila, but did not find them there. Angelitas

maid told Bienvenida that her employer went out for a stroll and told Bienvenida to come back

later. She returned to Angelitas house after three days, only to discover that Angelita had moved to

another place. Bienvenida then complained to her barangay chairman and also to the police who

seemed unmoved by her pleas for assistance.

Although estranged from her husband, Bienvenida could not imagine how her spouse would

react to the disappearance of their youngest child and this made her problem even more serious. As


5/46

fate would have it, Bienvenida and her husband reconciled and together, this time, they looked for

their missing son in other places. Notwithstanding their serious efforts, they saw no traces of his

whereabouts.

Four years later or in October 1993, Bienvenida read in a tabloid about the death of Tomas

Lopez, allegedly the common-law husband of Angelita, and whose remains were lying in state in

Hagonoy, Bulacan. Bienvenida lost no time in going to Hagonoy, Bulacan, where she allegedly saw

her son Edgardo, Jr., for the first time after four years. She claims that the boy, who was pointed out

to her by Benjamin Lopez, a brother of the late Tomas Lopez, was already named John Thomas

Lopez.[1]She avers that Angelita refused to return to her the boy despite her demand to do so.

Bienvenida and Edgardo filed their petition forhabeas corpuswith the trial court in order to

recover their son. To substantiate their petition, petitioners presented two witnesses, namely,

Lourdes Vasquez and Benjamin Lopez. The first witness, Vasquez, testified that she assisted in the

delivery of one Edgardo Tijing, Jr. on April 27, 1989 at her clinic in Sta. Ana, Manila. She supported

her testimony with her clinical records.[2]The second witness, Benjamin Lopez, declared that his

brother, the late Tomas Lopez, could not have possibly fathered John Thomas Lopez as the latter was

sterile. He recalled that Tomas met an accident and bumped his private part against the edge of a

banca causing him excruciating pain and eventual loss of his child-bearing capacity. Benjamin

further declared that Tomas admitted to him that John Thomas Lopez was only an adopted son and

that he and Angelita were not blessed with children.[3]

For her part, Angelita claimed that she is the natural mother of the child. She asserts that at

age 42, she gave birth to John Thomas Lopez on April 27, 1989, at the clinic of midwife Zosima

Panganiban in Singalong, Manila. She added, though, that she has two other children with her real

husband, Angel Sanchez.[4]She said the birth of John Thomas was registered by her common-law

husband, Tomas Lopez, with the local civil registrar of Manila on August 4, 1989.

On March 10, 1995, the trial court concluded that since Angelita and her common-law husband

could not have children, the alleged birth of John Thomas Lopez is an impossibility.[5]The trial court

also held that the minor and Bienvenida showed strong facial similarity. Accordingly, it ruled that

Edgardo Tijing, Jr., and John Thomas Lopez are one and the same person who is the natural child of

petitioners. The trial court decreed:

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered GRANTING the petition

for Habeas Corpus, as such, respondent Angelita Diamante is ordered to immediately release from

her personal custody minor John Thomas D. Lopez, and turn him over and/or surrender his person to

petitioners, Spouses Edgardo A. Tijing and Bienvenida R. Tijing, immediately upon receipt hereof.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn5


6/46

Branch Sheriff of this Court, Carlos Bajar, is hereby commanded to implement the decision of this

Court by assisting herein petitioners in the recovery of the person of their minor son, Edgardo Tijing

Jr., the same person as John Thomas D. Lopez.

SO ORDERED.[6]

Angelita seasonably filed her notice of appeal.[7]Nonetheless, on August 3, 1994, the sheriff

implemented the order of the trial court by taking custody of the minor. In his report, the sheriff

stated that Angelita peacefully surrendered the minor and he turned over the custody of said child to

petitioner Edgardo Tijing.[8]

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the decision rendered by the trial

court. The appellate court expressed its doubts on the propriety of thehabeas corpus. In its view,

the evidence adduced by Bienvenida was not sufficient to establish that she was the mother of the

minor. It ruled that the lower court erred in declaring that Edgardo Tijing, Jr., and John Thomas

Lopez are one and the same person,[9]and disposed of the case, thus:

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision of the lower court dated March 10, 1995 is hereby

REVERSED, and a new one entered dismissing the petition in Spec. Proc. No. 94-71606, and

directing the custody of the minor John Thomas Lopez to be returned to respondent Angelita

Diamante, said minor having been under the care of said respondent at the time of the filing of the

petition herein.

SO ORDERED.

[10]

Petitioners sought reconsideration of the abovequoted decision which was denied. Hence, the

instant petition alleging:

I

THAT THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A GRAVE ERROR WHEN IT

DECLARED THAT THE PETITIONERS ACTION FOR HABEAS CORPUS IS MERELY

SECONDARY TO THE QUESTION OF FILIATION THAT THE PETITIONERS HAD

LIKEWISE PROVEN.

II

THAT THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN REVERSING THE DECISION

OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS

AND DIRECTING THAT THE CUSTODY OF THE MINOR JOHN THOMAS LOPEZ WHO
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn10


7/46

WAS PROVEN TO THE SAME MINOR AS EDGARDO R. TIJING, JR., BE RETURNED TO

THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT.[11]

In our view, the crucial issues for resolution are the following:

(1) Whether or nothabeas corpusis the proper remedy?

(2) Whether or not Edgardo Tijing, Jr., and John Thomas Lopez are one and the same

person and is the son of petitioners?

We shall discuss the two issues together since they are closely related.

The writ ofhabeas corpusextends 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.

[12]

Thus, it is the proper legal remedy to enable parents to regain the custodyof a minor child even if the latter be in the custody of a third person of his own free will. It may even

be said that in custody cases involving minors, the question of illegal and involuntary restraint of

liberty is not the underlying rationale for the availability of the writ as a remedy. Rather, it is

prosecuted for the purpose of determining the right of custody over a child.[13]It must be stressed too

that inhabeas corpusproceedings, the question of identity is relevant and material, subject to the

usual presumptions including those as to identity of the person.

In this case, the minors identity is crucial in determining the propriety of the writ

sought. Thus, it must be resolved first whether the Edgardo Tijing, Jr., claimed by Bienvenida to be

her son, is the same minor named John Thomas Lopez, whom Angelita insists to be her

offspring. We must first determine who between Bienvenida and Angelita is the minors biological

mother. Evidence must necessarily be adduced to prove that two persons, initially thought of to be

distinct and separate from each other, are indeed one and the same.[14]Petitioners must convincingly

establish that the minor in whose behalf the application for the writ is made is the person upon

whom they have rightful custody. If there is doubt on the identity of the minor in whose behalf the

application for the writ is made, petitioners cannot invoke with certainty their right of custody over

the said minor.

True, it is not the function of this Court to examine and evaluate the probative value of all

evidence presented to the concerned tribunal which formed the basis of its impugned decision,

resolution or order.[15]But since the conclusions of the Court of Appeals contradict those of the trial

court, this Court may scrutinize the evidence on the record to determine which findings should be

preferred as more conformable to the evidentiary facts.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn15


8/46

A close scrutiny of the records of this case reveals that the evidence presented by Bienvenida is

sufficient to establish that John Thomas Lopez is actually her missing son, Edgardo Tijing, Jr.

First, there is evidence that Angelita could no longer bear children. From her very lips, she

admitted that after the birth of her second child, she underwent ligation at the Martinez Hospital in

1970, before she lived with Tomas Lopez without the benefit of marriage in 1974. Assuming she had

that ligation removed in 1978, as she claimed, she offered no evidence she gave birth to a child

between 1978 to 1988 or for a period of ten years. The midwife who allegedly delivered the child was

not presented in court. No clinical records, log book or discharge order from the clinic were ever

submitted.

Second, there is strong evidence which directly proves that Tomas Lopez is no longer capable of

siring a son. Benjamin Lopez declared in court that his brother, Tomas, was sterile because of the

accident and that Tomas admitted to him that John Thomas Lopez was only an adopted son.

Moreover, Tomas Lopez and his legal wife, Maria Rapatan Lopez, had no children after almost fifteen

years together. Though Tomas Lopez had lived with private respondent for fourteen years, they also

bore no offspring.

Third, we find unusual the fact that the birth certificate of John Thomas Lopez was filed by

Tomas Lopez instead of the midwife and on August 4, 1989, four months after the alleged birth of the

child. Under the law, the attending physician or midwife in attendance at birth should cause the

registration of such birth. Only in default of the physician or midwife, can the parent register the

birth of his child. The certificate must be filed with the local civil registrar within thirty days after

the birth.[16]Significantly, the birth certificate of the child stated Tomas Lopez and private

respondent were legally married on October 31, 1974, in Hagonoy, Bulacan, which is false because

even private respondent had admitted she is a common-law wife.[17]This false entry puts to doubt

the other data in said birth certificate.

Fourth, the trial court observed several times that when the child and Bienvenida were both in

court, the two had strong similarities in their faces, eyes, eyebrows and head shapes. Resemblance

between a minor and his alleged parent is competent and material evidence to establish parentage.

[18]Needless to stress, the trial courts conclusion should be given high respect, it having had the

opportunity to observe the physical appearances of the minor and petitioner concerned.

Fifth, Lourdes Vasquez testified that she assisted in Bienvenidas giving birth to Edgardo Tijing,

Jr., at her clinic. Unlike private respondent, she presented clinical records consisting of a log book,

discharge order and the signatures of petitioners.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn18


9/46

All these considered, we are constrained to rule that subject minor is indeed the son of

petitioners. The writ ofhabeas corpusis proper to regain custody of said child.

A final note. Parentage will still be resolved using conventional methods unless we adopt the

modern and scientific ways available. Fortunately, we have now the facility and expertise in using

DNA test[19]for identification and parentage testing. The University of the Philippines Natural

Science Research Institute (UP-NSRI) DNA Analysis Laboratory has now the capability to conduct

DNA typing using short tandem repeat (STR) analysis. The analysis is based on the fact that the

DNA of a child/person has two (2) copies, one copy from the mother and the other from the

father. The DNA from the mother, the alleged father and child are analyzed to establish parentage.

[20]Of course, being a novel scientific technique, the use of DNA test as evidence is still open to

challenge.[21]Eventually, as the appropriate case comes, courts should not hesitate to rule on the

admissibility of DNA evidence. For it was said, that courts should apply the results of science when

competently obtained in aid of situations presented, since to reject said result is to deny progress.

[22]Though it is not necessary in this case to resort to DNA testing, in future it would be useful to all

concerned in the prompt resolution of parentage and identity issues.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed DECISION of the Court of

Appeals is REVERSEDand decision of the Regional Trial Court is REINSTATED. Costs against the

private respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza, Buena,andDe Leon, Jr., JJ.,concur.

IV.

FIRST DIVISION

FELIPE N. MADRIAN, G.R. No. 159374

Petitioner,

Present:

PUNO,C.J.,Chairperson,

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,*

- v e r s u s - CORONA,

AZCUNA and

GARCIA,**JJ.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/159374.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/159374.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/159374.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/159374.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/159374.htm#_ftn2


10/46

FRANCISCA R. MADRIAN,

Respondent. Promulgated:

July 12, 2007

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

D E C I S I O N

CORONA,J.:

When a family breaks up, the children are always the victims. The ensuing battle for custody

of the minor children is not only a thorny issue but also a highly sensitive and heart-rending affair.

Such is the case here. Even the usually technical subject of jurisdiction became emotionally charged.

Petitioner Felipe N. Madrian and respondent Francisca R. Madrian were married on July 7,

1993 in Paraaque City. They resided in San Agustin Village, Brgy. Moonwalk, Paraaque City.

Their union was blessed with three sons and a daughter: Ronnick, born on January 30, 1994;

Phillip, born on November 19, 1996; Francis Angelo, born on May 12, 1998 and Krizia Ann, born on

December 12, 2000.

After a bitter quarrel on May 18, 2002, petitioner allegedly left their conjugal abode and took

their three sons with him to Ligao City, Albay and subsequently to Sta. Rosa, Laguna. Respondent

sought the help of her parents and parents-in-law to patch things up between her and petitioner to

no avail. She then brought the matter to theLupong Tagapamayapain their barangay but this too

proved futile.


11/46

Thus respondent filed a petition forhabeas corpusof Ronnick, Phillip and Francis Angelo in

the Court of Appeals, alleging that petitioners act of leaving the conjugal dwelling and going to

Albay and then to Laguna disrupted the education of their children and deprived them of their

mothers care. She prayed that petitioner be ordered to appear and produce their sons before the

court and to explain why they should not be returned to her custody.

Petitioner and respondent appeared at the hearing on September 17, 2002. They initially agreed

that petitioner would return the custody of their three sons to respondent. Petitioner, however, had a

change of heart[1]and decided to file a memorandum.

On September 3, 2002, petitioner filed his memorandum[2]alleging that respondent was unfit to

take custody of their three sons because she was habitually drunk, frequently went home late at

night or in the wee hours of the morning, spent much of her time at a beer house and neglected her

duties as a mother. He claimed that, after their squabble on May 18, 2002, it was respondent who

left, taking their daughter with her. It was only then that he went to Sta. Rosa, Laguna where he

worked as a tricycle driver. He submitted a certification from the principal of the Dila Elementary

School in Sta. Rosa, Laguna that Ronnick and Phillip were enrolled there. He also questioned the

jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals claiming that under Section 5(b) of RA 8369 (otherwise known as

the Family Courts Act of 1997) family courts have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide

the petition forhabeas corpusfiled by respondent.[3]

For her part, respondent averred that she did not leave their home on May 18, 2002 but was

driven out by petitioner. She alleged that it was petitioner who was an alcoholic, gambler and drug

addict. Petitioners alcoholism and drug addiction impaired his mental faculties, causing him to
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/159374.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/159374.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/159374.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/159374.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/159374.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/159374.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/159374.htm#_ftn5


12/46

commit acts of violence against her and their children. The situation was aggravated by the fact that

their home was adjacent to that of her in-laws who frequently meddled in their personal problems.[4]

On October 21, 2002, the Court of Appeals[5]rendered a decision

[6]asserting its authority to

take cognizance of the petition and ruling that, under Article 213 of the Family Code, respondent was

entitled to the custody of Phillip and Francis Angelo who were at that time aged six and four,

respectively, subject to the visitation rights of petitioner. With respect to Ronnick who was then eight

years old, the court ruled that his custody should be determined by the proper family court in a

special proceeding on custody of minors under Rule 99 of the Rules of Court.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals decision but it was denied.

Hence, this recourse.

Petitioner challenges the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over the petition forhabeas

corpusand insists that jurisdiction over the case is lodged in the family courts under RA 8369. He

invokes Section 5(b) of RA 8369:

Section 5.Jurisdiction of Family Courts. The Family Courts shall have

exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases:

x x x x x x x x x

b) Petitions for guardianship, custody of children,habeas corpusin relation

to the latter;

x x x x x x x x x

Petitioner is wrong.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/159374.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/159374.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/159374.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/159374.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/159374.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/159374.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/159374.htm#_ftn8


13/46

InThornton v. Thornton,[7]this Court resolved the issue of the Court of Appeals jurisdiction to

issue writs ofhabeas corpusin cases involving custody of minors in the light of the provision in RA

8369 giving family courts exclusive original jurisdiction over such petitions:

The Court of Appeals should take cognizance of the case since there

is nothing in RA 8369 that revoked its jurisdiction to issue writs ofhabeas

corpusinvolving the custody of minors.

x x x x x x x x x

We rule therefore thatRA 8369 did not divest the Court of Appeals and the

Supreme Court of their jurisdiction overhabeas corpuscases involving the

custody of minors.

x x x x x x x x x

The provisions of RA 8369 reveal no manifest intent to revoke the

jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court to issue writs ofhabeas

corpusrelating to the custody of minors. Further, it cannot be said that the

provisions of RA 8369, RA 7092 [An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court of

Appeals] and BP 129 [The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980] are absolutely

incompatible since RA 8369 does not prohibit the Court of Appeals and the Supreme

Court from issuing writs ofhabeas corpusin cases involving the custody of minors.

Thus, the provisions of RA 8369 must be read in harmony with RA 7029 and BP 129

thatfamily courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals

and the Supreme Court in petitions forhabeas corpuswhere the custody of

minors is at issue.[8](emphases supplied)

The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over petitions forhabeas corpuswas further affirmed by

A.M. No. 03-03-04-SC (April 22, 2004) in Re: Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ ofHabeas

Corpusin Relation to Custody of Minors:

In any case,whatever uncertainty there was has been settled with

the adoption of A.M. No. 03-03-04-SC Re: Rule on Custody of Minors and

Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors. Section 20 of the

rule provides that:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/159374.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/159374.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/159374.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/159374.htm#_ftn10


14/46

Section 20.Petition for writ of habeas corpus. A verified

petition for a writ of habeas corpus involving custody of minors shall

be filed with the Family Court. The writ shall be enforceable within

its judicial region to which the Family Court belongs.

x x x x x x x x x

The petition may likewise be filed with theSupreme

Court,Court of Appeals, or with any of its membersand, if so

granted, the writ shall be enforceable anywhere in the

Philippines. The writ may be made returnable to a Family Court

or to any regular court within the region where the petitioner

resides or where the minor may be found for hearing and decision on

the merits.

From the foregoing, there is no doubt thatthe Court of Appeals andSupreme Court have concurrent jurisdiction with family courts inhabeas

corpuscases where the custody of minors is involved.[9](emphases supplied)

We note that after petitioner moved out of their Paraaque residence on May 18, 2002, he twice

transferred his sons to provinces covered by different judicial regions. This situation is what

theThorntoninterpretation of RA 8369s provision on jurisdiction precisely addressed:

[The reasoning that by giving family courts exclusive jurisdiction overhabeas

corpuscases, the lawmakers intended them to be the sole courts which can issue

writs ofhabeas corpus] will result in an iniquitous situation, leaving individuals like

[respondent] without legal recourse in obtaining custody of their children.

Individuals who do not know the whereabouts of minors they are looking for would

be helpless since they cannot seek redress from family courts whose writs are

enforceable only in their respective territorial jurisdictions.Thus, if a minor is

being transferred from one place to another, which seems to be the case

here, the petitioner in ahabeas corpuscase will be left without legal

remedy. This lack of recourse could not have been the intention of thelawmakers when they passed [RA 8369].[10]

Moreover, a careful reading of Section 5(b) of RA 8369 reveals that family courts are vested

with original exclusive jurisdiction in custody cases, not inhabeas corpuscases. Writs ofhabeas
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/159374.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/159374.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/159374.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/159374.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/159374.htm#_ftn12


15/46

corpuswhich may be issued exclusively by family courts under Section 5(b) of RA 8369 pertain to

theancillary remedythat may be availed of in conjunction with a petition for custody of minors

under Rule 99 of the Rules of Court. In other words, the issuance of the writ is merely ancillary to

the custody case pending before the family court. The writ must be issued by the same court to avoid

splitting of jurisdiction, conflicting decisions, interference by a co-equal court and judicial instability.

The rule therefore is: when by law jurisdiction is conferred on a court or judicial officer, all

auxiliary writs, processes and other means necessary to carry it into effect may be employed by such

court or officer.[11]Once a court acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case, it does so to the

exclusion of all other courts, including related incidents and ancillary matters.

Accordingly, the petition is herebyDENIED.

Costs against petitioner.

V.

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 141443. August 30, 2000]

IN THE MATTER OF PETITION FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OFHABEA !ORP" #

A$"!ENA L. GAR!IA,petitioner.

% E ! I I O N

%E LEON, &R., J.#

Azucena L. Garcia petitions this Court to issue a writ of habeas corpusinorder to free, reie!e and e"onerate her fro# the penat$ of i#prison#entad%ud&ed and i#posed upon her, in &ross !ioation of her constitutiona ri&hts
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/159374.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/159374.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/159374.htm#_ftn13


16/46

to due process of aw and other funda#enta ri&hts'()*pursuant to an ae&ed$!oid %udent rendered on Apri +, )-- /$ the 0e&iona 1ria Court 201C3 of4uezon Cit$, 5ranch 67, in Cri#ina Case No. 48-98:6-.

1he antecedent facts, as found /$ the tria court, are as foows;

On Octo/er +uestin& for certification as to theauthenticit$ of Decaration of 0ea ?ropert$ No. ++


17/46

))


18/46

5en%a#in 5ustos caused a re!iew of his pre!ious order &i!in& due course tothe reconstitution of 1C1 No. :697+ and on the /asis of his findin&s, recaedand set aside, said pre!ious order as far as 1C1 No. :697+ is concerned in aSuppe#enta Order dated Octo/er 6, )--). Bro# said Suppe#enta Order,herein accused interposed an appea to the L0A Ad#inistrator.

On or a/out No!e#/er )), )--), Fuzuarre&ui instituted a cri#ina co#paintwith the Biscas Office of 4uezon Cit$ char&in& the herein accused offasif$in& the technica descriptions and ta" decarations a issued in the na#eof Do#in&o 0. Locsin, father of the accused. Said co#paint was dis#issed inan order dated a$ ), )--+. On u$ )7, )--+, Fuzuarre&ui fied a otionfor 0econsideration of the Order dis#issa 2E"h. )9''3.

" " "

eanwhie, on Au&ust )9, )--+, Sa#ue C. Ceofe, 0e&ister of Deeds of4uezon Cit$, in his rep$ to a etter fro# herein co#painant Fuzuarre&ui,stated that per !erification fro# their Contro Lo& 5oo=, 1C1 No. :697+ is notshown as a#on& those fied in their office 2E"h. A'3.

On Septe#/er )6, )--+, Fuzuarre&uis otion for 0econsideration of theorder dis#issin& his cri#ina co#paint a&ainst the accused was &ranted in aresoution issued /$ Asst. Cit$ ?rosecutor Di#aranan Vida 2E"h.)'3. Accordin&$, herein accused was for#a$ char&ed with three counts offasification of pu/ic docu#ents in three separate cri#ina infor#ations fied

with the 01C of 4uezon Cit$ and doc=eted as Cri#ina Cases Nos. :79-8-+,the first /ein& for fasification of technica description of and and the other two/ein& for fasification of Decarations of 0ea ?ropert$ 2E"hs. ):'@ ):85' and):8C'3.

In the #eanti#e, upon re>uest of certain i&ue V. Sison, r., Officer inChar&e, Director IV, Office of the E"ecuti!e Secretar$, ?residentia ActionCenter, aacaJan&, the Nationa 5ureau of In!esti&ation conducted ane"a#ination of /oth the speci#en and >uestioned si&natures of VicenteCoo$an, for#er 0e&ister of Deeds of 4uezon Cit$, the >uestioned si&natures

/ein& those appearin& on 1C1 No. :697+. On arch -, )--:, DirectorEpi#aco Veasco of the N5I wrote i&ue V. Sison, r. 2E"h. :'3 trans#ittin&cop$ of their findin&s contained in a 4uestioned Docu#ent 0eport No. ))8:-:, dated arch -, )--: 2E"h. 9'3 si&ned /$ 0o&eio G. Azores, Docu#entE"a#iner IV of the N5I 2E"h. 985'3, as appro!ed /$ Arcadio A. 0a#os, Chiefof the 4uestioned Docu#ent Di!ision 2E"h. 98C'3 and noted /$ anue C.0oura, Deput$ Director, 1echnica Ser!ices 2E"h. 98D'3. 1he concusion


19/46

arri!ed at as per the 0eport is that the >uestioned and standard si&natures ofVicenter (sic* Coo$an were written /$ one and the sa#e person.

On Octo/er ):, )--:, in response to a re>uest of 0o&eio Azores whorendered the a/o!e 4uestioned Docu#ent 0eport, 4uezon Cit$ Assosor (sic*

Constantino ?. 0osas issued a Certification 2E"h. K'3 to the effect that 1a"Decarations Nos. ++uest which was one of thedocu#ents su/#itted /$ the accused in support of her appication forad#inistrati!e reconstitution. In rep$ thereto, Eri!e wrote Fuzuarre&ui on

Au&ust )6, )--9 2E"h. '3 infor#in& the atter that their office 2Depart#ent ofEn!iron#ent and Natura resources, Nationa Capita 0e&ion3 has no record ofLot 6++8C8+, ?sd8)--9 and, hence, said technica description was notprepared /$ their office.


20/46

On Septe#/er :, )--9, the L0A Ad#inistrator 0e$nado auit ca#e out with a0esoution 2E"h. +'3 on the appea interposed /$ the accused affir#in& the finait$ ofL0A Ad#inistrati!e 0econstitution Order No. 48+6:2-)3 dated Au&ust +, )--) directin&the 0e&ister of Deeds of 4uezon Cit$ to reconstitute, a#on& others, the ori&ina of 1C1No. :697+ in the na#e of petitioner8appeant Azucena L. Garcia, accused herein and,

therefore, the Suppe#enta Order dated Octo/er 6, )--) coud not ha!e !aid$a#ended the aforestated order of Au&ust +, )--). It added, howe!er, that thereconstitution does not confir# nor ad%udicate ownership o!er the propert$ su/%ectthereof citin& the case of Serra, Serra !s. Court of Appeas, )- SC0A 96+ 2E"h. S'3. (+*

1hus, petitioner was char&ed in Cri#ina Case No. 48-98:6- withfasif$in& the entries in 1ransfer Certificate of 1ite 21C13 No. :697+, for&in&the si&nature therein of Vicente N. Coo$an, and introducin& or usin& said 1C1in support of her appication for reconstitution of tite. Si#iar$, in Cri#inaCase Nos. 48-98:- and 48-98:-), petitioner was char&ed withfasif$in& the entries in Decaration of 0ea ?ropert$ Nos. ++uestions the !aidit$ of the %udentrendered in Cri#ina Case No. 48-98:6-. She contends that whereproceedin&s were attended /$ !ioations of the constitutiona ri&hts of theaccused, the %udent of con!iction is !oid there/$ warrantin& reief /$ thee"traordinar$ e&a re#ed$ of habeas corpus. ence, in her case, thefunda#enta unfairness of the %udent, when !iewed in i&ht of the record,renders the sa#e su/%ect to attac= for /ein& !ioati!e of her ri&ht to dueprocess of aw. ?etitioner e"pains that this funda#enta unfairness ste#sfro# the o#ission and faiure of the tria court, the prosecution and thedefense counse to for#a$ pro%ect into the e!identiar$ strea# the e!idencedecisi!e on the #erits of the case, consistin& of officia deter#inations and

findin&s(:*

on the &enuineness and authenticit$ of Vicente Coo$ans si&natureon the owners cop$ of 1C1 No. :697+, which undera$ the different officiaacts of office hoders participatin& in the proceedin& on ad#inistrati!ereconstitution of the ori&ina of said (1C1* No. :697+ of the 4.C. 0e&ister ofDeeds.'(9*

?etitioner e"pains that the dis>uisition of the tria %ud&e was tota$ sienton the officia findin&s and deter#inations that Coo$ans si&nature on the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/141443.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/141443.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/141443.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/141443.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/141443.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/141443.htm#_edn4


21/46

owners cop$ of the 1C1 No. :697+ was &enuine. Instead, the tria %ud&e#ere$ reied on the testi#on$ of Coo$an that the si&nature appearin& on thephotocop$ of 1C1 No. :697+ is not his. ?etitioner points out that theunfairness of such reiance /eco#es apparent when officia deter#inationsand findin&s as to the &enuineness of Coo$ans si&nature on 1C1 No. :697+are considered.

?etitioner then ae&es that the prosecution faied to ca the attention ofthe tria court to these officia deter#inations and findin&s which constitutede"cupator$ e!idence in her fa!or. ?etitioner further fauts the prosecution inwifu$ presentin& Coo$an as a witness to discai# his si&naturenotwithstandin& indications in the record that he was hired and was possi/$ acorrupt witness. She #aintains that the prosecution shoud ha!e e"ertedtheir /est efforts to safe&uard the tria process a&ainst this t$pe of witness,who fro# a reasona/e indicators is a paid and per%ured witness.'(*

?etitioner i=ewise cai#s that she was denied due process of aw /$reason of her /ein& represented /$ ineffecti!e counse. ?etitioner iustratesthat her counse faied to for#a$ offer in e!idence e"hi/its, consistin& of theofficia acts of the 0e&ister of Deeds of 4uezon Cit$ and officias of the L0A,(7*for the specific purpose of pro!in& the &enuineness of Coo$anssi&nature. ?etitioners counse aso too= no steps to /ar Coo$an fro# /ein&presented as a witness for the prosecution and was not especia$ aert to thedan&er or ris= of a per%ured witness. In this re&ard, petitioner #aintains thather counse coud ha!e as=ed for a defer#ent of the tria to &i!e hi# ti#e to

#a=e a fu in!esti&ation of the circu#stances attendin& the presentation ofCoo$an as a witness.

?etitioner concudes that the fore&oin& ar&u#ents and precedents warrantthe &rant of prei#inar$ in%uncti!e reief in the for# of a status quoorder, and,after consideration of the #erits of the case, a writ of habeas corpusannuin&the %udent of con!iction rendered a&ainst her.

1he Office of the Soicitor Genera 2OSG3, on the other hand, states thatthe writ of habeas corpus is a re#ed$ a!aia/e to a person who is ie&a$i#prisoned or restrained of his i/ert$. Conse>uent$, a person dischar&ed or

out on /ai, i=e petitioner, is not entited to the writ.Burther#ore, the &round in!o=ed /$ petitioner pertains to the appreciation

of e!idence, a #atter which fas within the e"cusi!e discretion andprero&ati!e of the tria court. 1he OSG stresses that a writ of habeascorpuscan issue on$ for want of %urisdiction of the sentencin& court, andcannot function as a writ of error. As such, the writ wi not ie to correctae&ed #ista=es of fact or of aw co##itted /$ a court in the e"ercise of its
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/141443.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/141443.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/141443.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/141443.htm#_edn6


22/46

functions. 1he OSG aso points out that the &round in!o=ed /$ petitioner isone which has /een considered, passed upon and found to /e without #eritnot on$ /$ the Court of Appeas /ut /$ this Court as we. 1he OSG is of the!iew that the instant petition is #ere$ intended to dea$ the ad#inistration of

%ustice.

e den$ the petition.

1he hi&h prero&ati!e writ of habeas corpuswas de!ised and e"ists as aspeed$ and effectua re#ed$ to reie!e persons fro# unawfu restraint.(uire into the e&ait$ of ones detention, and if found ie&a, toorder the reease of the detainee.(6*owe!er, it is e>ua$ we8setted that thewrit wi not issue where the person in whose /ehaf the writ is sou&ht is out on/ai,(-*or is in the custod$ of an officer under process issued /$ a court or

%ud&e or /$ !irtue of a %udent or order of a court of record, and that thecourt or %ud&e had %urisdiction to issue the process, render the %udent, or#a=e the order.()*In the case at /ar, therefore, petitioner can no on&er see=reief viaa petition for habeas corpusha!in& /een con!icted /$ fina %udentof the cri#e of fasification of pu/ic docu#ent and use thereof. Said

%udent is aread$ fina and e"ecutor$. ?etitioner e!en discoses that entr$of %udent was #ade on Apri 6, )---, or ei&ht 263 #onths prior to the fiin&of this petition. 1he OSG has aso pointed out that petitioner is sti out on/ai. 1o this petitioner #ere$ repied that;

Bor purposes of habeas corpus, 0ES10AIN1' is not confined toi#prison#ent or actua ph$sica custod$. 0ecent federa %urisprudence has

e"tended this to accused under fina con!iction, who are out on /ai, and tocon!icts on paroe. Such %urisprudence is part of An&o8A#erican

%ueisprudence 2sic3, which is hi&h$ persuasi!e in this %urisdiction /ecause ouraw on Habeas Corpusis of An&o8A#erican ori&in.())*

E!en if we disre&ard the fact that petitioner is out on /ai, the writ pra$edfor shoud not /e &ranted. Indeed, we ha!e hed that once a depri!ation of aconstitutiona ri&ht is shown to e"ist, the court that rendered the %udent isdee#ed ousted of %urisdiction and habeas corpusis the appropriate re#ed$ toassai the e&ait$ of his detention.()+*?etitioner, howe!er, has faied to

persuade this Court that the proceedin&s /efore the tria court were attended/$ !ioations of her ri&ht to due process, or for that #atter, other constitutionari&hts.

It is apparent fro# the ar&u#ents ad!anced /$ petitioner that the purposeof this petition is to cause this Court to once a&ain re8e"a#ine and pass

%udent upon the tria courts appreciation of the e!idence presented,especia$ the credi/iit$ of Coo$an as a witness. 1he Decision dated Apri +,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/141443.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/141443.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/141443.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/141443.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/141443.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/141443.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/141443.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/141443.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/141443.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/141443.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/141443.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/141443.htm#_edn12


23/46

)-- of the Court of Appeas, affir#in& the dis>uisition of the Court ofAppeas, and the 0esoution dated Octo/er +


24/46

ae&ation that her counse faied to adduce e"cupator$ e!idence. ?etitionersBor#a Offer of E"hi/its /efore the tria court shows that a#on& the e!idenceoffered /$ her counse were the foowin&;

E"hi/it2s3 Description2s3 ?urpose2s3" " " " " " """:, 9 and 98A 985, 2a3 N5I Directors 2)3 1o pro!e that the N5I e"a#ined98C and 98D Letter dated arch -, 1C1 No. :697+ and the

)--:, 2E"h. :3 si&nature of Vicente N. Coo$antrans#ittin& to on. 2+3 1o pro!e that the N5Ii&ue V. Sison, r findin&s is that the si&naturethe N5I 4uestioned of Vicente N. Coo$an appearin&Docu#ents 0eport on 2sic3 1C1 No. :697+ is writtenNo. ))8:-: /$ one and the sa#e Vicente N.

Coo$an, Actin& 0e&ister of2/3 4uestioned N5I Deeds, whose standard si&naturesDocu#ents 0eport No. appear on !arious tites on))8:-) dated arch fie with the 0e&istr$ of-, )--: Deeds, 4uezon Cit$

2:3 to pro!e that this 4uestionedDocu#ents 0eport No. ))8:-:su/#itted /$ Docu#ent E"a#iner0o&eio G. Azores was appro!ed/$ N5I293 1o pro!e that 1C1 No.:697+ is &enuine, not fasified

""" """ """7 Ad#. 0econstitution 2)3 1o pro!e that the L0A

Order No. 48+6: 2-)3 appro!ed the Ad#inistrati!e

issued on Au&ust +, )--) 0econstitution of the/$ Land 0e&istration Accuseds 1C1 No. :697+

Authorit$ 2L0A3 throu&h for Lot 6++8C8) and Lotthe 0econstitution Officer, Att$. 6++8C8+, ?iedad Estate5en%a#in 5usto

2+3 1o pro!e that this Ad#.0econstitution Order hadaread$ ac>uired finait$when the reconstitutionof 1C1 No.:697+was recaed /$ Att$. 5usto

2:3 1o pro!e that 1C1No. :697+ is &enuine,not fasified)72nderscorin& ours3

It appears, howe!er, that these docu#ents were a#on& the officia actsrepeated$ cited /$ petitioner as presupposin& officia deter#ination andfindin&s that Coo$ans si&nature on 1C1 No. :697+ was &enuine and,therefore, ae&ed$ constituted e!idence e"e#ptin& petitioner fro# cri#ina
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/141443.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/141443.htm#_ftn1


25/46

ia/iit$. ?etitioner fauted her counse in Cri#ina Case No. 48-98:6- for/ein& ineffecti!e in that her counse ae&ed$ faied to for#a$ offer ine!idence the said docu#ents /ut the record shows that her counse did notfai to do so.

Si&nificant$, it is not disputed that petitioner appeaed the ad!erseDecision or %udent of con!iction dated Apri +, )-- of the 01C of 4uezonCit$ to the Court of Appeas@ that the Court of Appeas and ater this Courtaffir#ed the con!iction of the petitioner@ and that Entr$ of udent was #adeon Au&ust 6, )---. 1he petitioner, therefore, #a$ not !aid$ resort to thispresent petition for ha/eas corpus in ieu of her ost or dis#issed appea in thesaid cri#ina case. 1he petition of herein petitioner who is out on /ai,appears to /e patent$ intended for dea$.

E0EBO0E, petitioner Azucena L. Garcia, ha!in& faied to esta/ishsufficient cause to warrant issuance of a writ of ha/eas corpus, the instantpetition is here/$ DENIED.

O OR%ERE%.

VI.

BI0S1 DIVISION

[G.R. No. 13'()'. M*+ 12, 2000]

ERLIN%A . IL"ORIO,petitioner,vs. ERLIN%A I. BIL%NER *- /LVIA

. IL"ORIO, &OHN %OE *- &ANE %OE,respondents.es#

[G.R. No. 13')0). M*+ 12, 2000]

POTEN!IANO IL"ORIO, MA. ERLIN%A I. BIL%NER, *- /LVIA

IL"ORIO,petitioners, vs.!O"RT OF APPEAL *- ERLIN%A .

IL"ORIO, respondents.

% E ! I I O N

PAR%O, J.#

a$ a wife secure a writ of habeas corpusto co#pe her hus/and to i!e withher in con%u&a /issM 1he answer is no. arita ri&hts incudin& co!erture and


26/46

i!in& in con%u&a dwein& #a$ not /e enforced /$ the e"tra8ordinar$ writof habeas corpus.

A writ of habeas corpuse"tends to a cases of ie&a confine#ent or

detention,()*

or /$ which the ri&htfu custod$ of a person is withhed fro# theone entited thereto.(+*S"

"Habeas corpusis a writ directed to the person detainin& another,co##andin& hi# to produce the /od$ of the prisoner at a desi&nated ti#e andpace, with the da$ and cause of his capture and detention, to do, su/#it to,and recei!e whatsoe!er the court or %ud&e awardin& the writ sha consider inthat /ehaf.(:*

It is a hi&h prero&ati!e, co##on8aw writ, of ancient ori&in, the &reat o/%ect ofwhich is the i/eration of those who #a$ /e i#prisoned without sufficientcause.(9*It is issued when one is depri!ed of i/ert$ or is wron&fu$ pre!entedfro# e"ercisin& e&a custod$ o!er another person.(*

1he petition of Erinda K. Iusorio(7*is to re!erse the decision(


27/46

separated fro# /ed and /oard for undiscosed reasons. ?otenciano i!ed atrdaneta Condo#iniu#, A$aa A!e., a=ati Cit$ when he was in ania andat Iusorio ?enthouse, 5a&uio Countr$ Cu/ when he was in 5a&uio Cit$. Onthe other hand, Erinda i!ed in Antipoo Cit$.

Out of their #arria&e, the spouses had si" 273 chidren, na#e$; 0a#onIusorio 2a&e 3@ Erinda Iusorio 5idner 2a&e +3@ a"i#o 2a&e 3@ S$!ia2a&e 9-3@ arietta 2a&e 963@ and Shereen 2a&e :-3.

On Dece#/er :, )--uence, ?otencianos heath deteriorated.

On Be/ruar$ +, )--6, Erinda fied with the 0e&iona 1ria Court, Antipoo Cit$a petition()*for &uardianship o!er the person and propert$ of ?otencianoIusorio due to the atters ad!anced a&e, frai heath, poor e$esi&ht andi#paired %udent.

On a$ :), )--6, after attendin& a corporate #eetin& in 5a&uio Cit$,

?otenciano Iusorio did not return to Antipoo Cit$ and instead i!ed atCe!eand Condo#iniu#, a=ati.S"sc

On arch )), )---, Erinda fied with the Court of Appeas a petitionfor habeas corpusto ha!e the custod$ of aw$er ?otenciano Iusorio. Sheae&ed that respondents())*refused petitioners de#ands to see and !isit herhus/and and prohi/ited ?otenciano fro# returnin& to Antipoo Cit$.

After due hearin&, on Apri , )---, the Court of Appeas rendered decision

the dispositi!e portion of which reads;

E0EBO0E, in the i&ht of the fore&oin& dis>uisitions,%udent is here/$ rendered;

2)3 Orderin&, for hu#anitarian consideration and upon petitioners#anifestation, respondents Erinda K. Iusorio 5idner and S$!ia
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139789_ilusorio.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139789_ilusorio.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139789_ilusorio.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139789_ilusorio.htm#_ftn11


28/46

Iusorio8ap, the ad#inistrator of Ce!eand Condo#iniu# oran$where in its pace, his &uards and ?otenciano Iusorios staffespecia$ s. Aurora onte#a$or to aow !isitation ri&hts to?otenciano Iusorios wife, Erinda Iusorio and a her chidren,

notwithstandin& an$ ist i#itin& !isitors thereof, under penat$ ofconte#pt in case of !ioation of refusa thereof@ """

2+3 O0DE0ING that the writ of ha/eas corpus pre!ious$ issued/e recaed and the herein petition for ha/eas corpus /e DENIEDDE CO0SE, as it is here/$ DISISSED for ac= of unawfurestraint or detention of the su/%ect of the petition.

SO O0DE0ED.()+*

ence, the two petitions, which were consoidated and are herein %oint$decided.

As heretofore stated, a writ of ha/eas corpus e"tends to a cases of ie&aconfine#ent or detention,():*or /$ which the ri&htfu custod$ of a person iswithhed fro# the one entited thereto. It is a!aia/e where a person continuesto /e unawfu$ denied of one or #ore of his constitutiona freedo#s, wherethere is denia of due process, where the restraints are not #ere$ in!ountar$

/ut are unnecessar$, and where a depri!ation of freedo# ori&ina$ !aid hasater /eco#e ar/itrar$.()9*It is de!ised as a speed$ and effectua re#ed$ toreie!e persons fro# unawfu restraint, as the /est and on$ sufficient defenseof persona freedo#.()*=s#P Q R

1he essentia o/%ect and purpose of the writ of habeas corpusis to in>uire intoa #anner of in!ountar$ restraint, and to reie!e a person therefro# if suchrestraint is ie&a.()7*

1o %ustif$ the &rant of the petition, the restraint of i/ert$ #ust /e an ie&a andin!ountar$ depri!ation of freedo# of action. ()


29/46

issuance of the writ. 1he fact that aw$er ?otenciano Iusorio is a/out 67 $earsof a&e, or under #edication does not necessari$ render hi# #enta$incapacitated. Soundness of #ind does not hin&e on a&e or #edica condition/ut on the capacit$ of the indi!idua to discern his actions.

After due hearin&, the Court of Appeas concuded that there was no unawfurestraint on his i/ert$.

1he Court of Appeas aso o/ser!ed that aw$er ?otenciano Iusorio did notre>uest the ad#inistrator of the Ce!eand Condo#iniu# not to aow his wifeand other chidren fro# seein& or !isitin& hi#. e #ade it cear that he did noto/%ect to seein& the#.

As to aw$er ?otenciano Iusorios #enta state, the Court of Appeaso/ser!ed that he was of sound and aert #ind, ha!in& answered a theree!ant >uestions to the satisfaction of the court.

5ein& of sound #ind, he is thus possessed with the capacit$ to #a=e choices.In this case, the crucia choices re!o!e on his residence and the peope heopts to see or i!e with. 1he choices he #ade #a$ not appea to so#e of hisfa#i$ #e#/ers /ut these are choices which e"cusi!e$ /eon& to?otenciano. e #ade it cear /efore the Court of Appeas that he was not

pre!ented fro# ea!in& his house or seein& peope. ith that decaration, anda/sent an$ true restraint on his i/ert$, we ha!e no reason to re!erse thefindin&s of the Court of Appeas.

ith his fu #enta capacit$ couped with the ri&ht of choice, ?otencianoIusorio #a$ not /e the su/%ect of !isitation ri&hts a&ainst his free choice.Otherwise, we wi depri!e hi# of his ri&ht to pri!ac$. Needess to sa$, this wirun a&ainst his funda#enta constitutiona ri&ht.EsP #

1he Court of Appeas e"ceeded its authorit$ when it awarded !isitation ri&htsin a petition for habeas corpuswhere Erinda ne!er e!en pra$ed for suchri&ht. 1he ruin& is not consistent with the findin& of su/%ects sanit$.


30/46

hen the court ordered the &rant of !isitation ri&hts, it aso e#phasized thatthe sa#e sha /e enforced under penat$ of conte#pt in case of !ioation orrefusa to co#p$. Such assertion of raw, na=ed power is unnecessar$.

1he Court of Appeas #issed the fact that the case did not in!o!e the ri&ht ofa parent to !isit a #inor chid /ut the ri&ht of a wife to !isit a hus/and. In casethe hus/and refuses to see his wife for pri!ate reasons, he is at i/ert$ to doso without threat of an$ penat$ attached to the e"ercise of his ri&ht.

No court is e#powered as a %udicia authorit$ to co#pe a hus/and to i!e withhis wife. Co!erture cannot /e enforced /$ co#pusion of a writ of habeascorpuscarried out /$ sheriffs or /$ an$ other #esne process. 1hat is a #atter/e$ond %udicia authorit$ and is /est eft to the #an and wo#ans free choice.

WHEREFORE, in G. 0. No. ):-


31/46

1he #ere oss or destruction of the records of a cri#ina case su/se>uent tocon!iction of the accused wi not render the %udent of con!iction !oid, norwi it warrant the reease of the con!ict /$ !irtue of a writ of habeas corpus.1he proper re#ed$ is the reconstitution of %udicia records which is as #uch a

dut$ of the prosecution as of the defense.

Su/%ect of this petition for re!iew on certiorariare 2)3 the Decision dated Apri+6, )--, of the Ei&hth Di!ision of the Court of Appeas, which affir#ed thedis#issa of the petition for habeas corpusfied /$ petitioner, and 2+3 the0esoution of the Court of Appeas dated Dece#/er ), )--, which denied theotion for 0econsideration. As hereafter eucidated, we sustain the %udentof respondent appeate court.

5ased on the a!aia/e records and the ad#issions of the parties, theantecedents of the present petition are as foows;

?etitioner Nor/erto Beria $ ?ac>uin& has /een under detention since a$ +),)-6), up to present()*/$ reason of his con!iction of the cri#e of 0o//er$ witho#icide, in Cri#ina Case No. 77uiries #ade /$ counse of petitioner, /oth the Office ofthe Cit$ ?rosecutor of ania and the Cer= of Court of 0e&iona 1ria Court ofania, 5ranch + attested to the fact that the records of Cri#ina Case No.77uiries, theentire records appear to ha!e /een ost or destro$ed in the fire which occurredat the second and third foor of the ania Cit$ a on No!e#/er :, )-67.(9*
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/122954.html#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/122954.html#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/122954.html#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/122954.html#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/122954.html#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/122954.html#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/122954.html#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/122954.html#_ftn4


32/46

On Octo/er :, )--9, petitioner fied a ?etition for the Issuance of a ritof HabeasCorpus [5]with the Supre#e Court a&ainst the ai arden of theania Cit$ ai, the ?residin& ud&e of 5ranch +, 0e&iona 1ria Court ofania, and the Cit$ ?rosecutor of ania, pra$in& for his dischar&e fro#

confine#ent on the &round that his continued detention without an$ !aid%udent is ie&a and !ioati!e of his constitutiona ri&ht to due process.

In its 0esoution dated Octo/er ), )--9,(7*the Second Di!ision of this Courtreso!ed 8

" " " 2a3 to ISSE the rit of a/eas Corpus@ 2/3 to O0DE0 theE"ecuti!e ud&e of the 0e&iona 1ria Court of ania to conductan i##ediate 0ABBLE of this case a#on& the incu#/ent %ud&es

thereof@ and 2c3 to 0E4I0E ()* the ud&e to who# this case israffed to SE1 the case for EA0ING on 1hursda$, Octo/er ):,)--9 at 6;: A.., tr$ and decide the sa#e on the #erits andthereafter B0NIS this Court with a cop$ of his decisionthereon@ (+* the respondents to #a=e a 0E10N of the rit on or/efore the cose of office hours on ednesda$, Octo/er )+, )--9and A??EA0 ?E0SONALL and ?0ODCE the person ofNor/erto Beria $ ?a(c*>uin& on the aforesaid date and ti#e ofhearin& to the ud&e to who# this case is raffed, and (:* theDirector Genera, ?hiippine Nationa ?oice, throu&h his du$authorized representati!e2s3 to SE0VE the rit and ?etition, and#a=e a 0E10N thereof as pro!ided /$ aw and, specifica$, hisdu$ authorized representati!e2s3 to A??EA0 ?E0SONALL andESCO01 the person of Nor/erto Beria $ ?a(c*>uin& at theaforesaid date and ti#e of hearin&.

1he case was then raffed to 5ranch - of the 0e&iona 1ria Court of ania,

which on No!e#/er ), )--9, after hearin&, issued an Order(


33/46

?etitioner du$ appeaed said Order to the Court of Appeas, which on Apri +6,)--, rendered the assaied Decision(6*affir#in& the decision of the tria courtwith the #odification that in the interest of order$ ad#inistration of %usticeand under the pecuiar facts of the case petitioner #a$ /e transferred to the

5ureau of Corrections in untinupa Cit$ without su/#ission of there>uire#ents 2itti#us, Decision and Infor#ation3 /ut without pre%udice to thereconstitution of the ori&ina records.

1he otion for 0econsideration of the aforesaid Order ha!in& /een denied forac= of #erit,(-*petitioner is now /efore us on certiorari, assi&nin& the foowin&errors of aw;()*

I. E1E0 O0 NO1, NDE0 1E ?ECLIA0

CI0CS1ANCES OB 1IS CASE, E0E 1E 0ECO0DSOB CONVIC1ION E0E LOS1, 1E ?E1I1IONE0SCON1INED INCA0CE0A1ION IS S1IBIED NDE0 1ELA.

CO0OLLA0 1O 1IS, E1E0 O0 NO1 1E CO01 OBA??EALS 0ESOL1ION, ABBI0ING 1E DENIAL OBE0EIN A??ELLAN1S ?E1I1ION BO0 A5EAS CO0?S IS,IN CON1E?LA1ION OB LA, A DGEN1 O0 A

S5S1I11E DGEN1, IC CAN 5E 1ILIFED AS ASBBICIEN1 5ASIS BO0 IS INCA0CE0A1ION.

II. E1E0 O0 NO1 1E 0ECONS1I11ION OB OBBICIAL0ECO0DS LOS1DES10OED SOLD 5E INI1IA1ED 51E GOVE0NEN1 AND I1S O0GANS, O A0E INCS1OD OB SC, O0 5 1E ?0ISONE0, OSELI5E01 IS 0ES10AINED.

?etitioner ar&ues that his detention is ie&a /ecause there e"ists no cop$ ofa valid%udent as re>uired /$ Sections ) and + of 0ue )+ of the 0ues ofCourt,())*and that the e!idence considered /$ the tria court and Court of

Appeas in the habeas corpusproceedin&s did not esta/ish the contentsofsuch %udent. ?etitioner further contends that our ruin& in Gunabe v.Director of Prisons,


34/46

the dut$ of the prosecution as of the defense has /een #odified ora/andoned in the su/se>uent case of rdone! v. Director of Prisons, +:SC0A )+, ) 2)--93, wherein we hed that (i*t is not the faut of theprisoners that the records cannot now /e found. If an$one is to /e /a#ed, it

sure$ cannot /e the prisoners, who were not the custodians of thoserecords.

In its Co##ent,()+*the Office of the Soicitor Genera contends that the soein>uir$ in this habeas corpusproceedin& is whether or not there is e&a /asisto detain petitioner. 1he OSG #aintains that pu/ic respondents ha!e #orethan sufficient$ shown the e"istence of a e&a &round for petitionerscontinued incarceration, vi!., his con!iction /$ fina %udent, and underSection 9 of 0ue )+ of the 0ues of Court, the dischar&e of a person

sufferin& i#prison#ent under awfu %udent is not authorized. ?etitionersre#ed$, therefore, is not a petition forhabeas corpus/ut a proceedin& for thereconstitution of %udicia records.

1he hi&h prero&ati!e writ of habeas corpus, whose ori&in is traced to anti>uit$,was de!ised and e"ists as a speed$ and effectua re#ed$ to reie!e personsfro# unawfu restraint, and as the /est and on$ sufficient defense of personafreedo#.():*It secures to a prisoner the ri&ht to ha!e the cause of his detentione"a#ined and deter#ined /$ a court of %ustice, and to ha!e the issueascertained as to whether he is hed under awfu authorit$.()9*Conse>uent$,the writ #a$ aso /e a!aied of where, as a conse>uence of a %udiciaproceedin&, 2a3 there has /een a depri!ation of a constitutiona ri&ht resutin&in the restraint of a person, 2/3 the court had no %urisdiction to i#pose thesentence, or 2c3 an e"cessi!e penat$ has /een i#posed, as such sentence is!oid as to such e"cess. ()*?etitioners cai# is anchored on the first &roundconsiderin&, as he cai#s, that his continued detention, notwithstandin& theac= of a cop$ of a valid%udent of con!iction, is !ioati!e of his constitutiona

ri&ht to due process.

5ased on the records and the hearin& conducted /$ the tria court, there issufficient e!idence on record to esta/ish the fact of con!iction of petitionerwhich ser!es as the e&a /asis for his detention. ?etitioner #ade %udiciaad#issions, /oth !er/a and written, that he was char&ed with and con!icted


35/46

of the cri#e of 0o//er$ with o#icide, and sentenced to suffer i#prison#entha/an& /uha$.

In its Order dated Octo/er )


36/46

:. 1hat after the sentence was pro#u&ated, the ?residin& ud&etod the counce 2sic3 that accused has the ri&ht to appea thedecision@

9. 1hat whether the de oficio counse appeaed the decision is/e$ond the accused co#prehension 2sic3 /ecause the ast ti#ehe saw the counse was when the decision was pro#u&ated.

. 1hat e!er$ti#e there is chan&e of arden at the ania Cit$ai atte#pts were #ade to &et the Co##it#ent Order so thattransfer of the accused to the 5ureau of Corrections can /eaffected, /ut a in !ain@

?etitioners decarations as to a ree!ant fact #a$ /e &i!en in e!idencea&ainst hi# under Section +: of 0ue ): of the 0ues of Court. 1his rue is/ased upon the presu#ption that no #an woud decare an$thin& a&ainsthi#sef, uness such decaration were true, ()6*particuar$ with respect to such&ra!e #atter as his con!iction for the cri#e of 0o//er$ with o#icide.Burther, under Section 9 of 0ue )+-, (a*n ad#ission, !er/a or written, #ade/$ a part$ in the course of the proceedin&s in the sa#e case, does not re>uireproof. 1he ad#ission #a$ /e contradicted on$ /$ a showin& that it was #adethrou&h papa/e #ista=e or that no such ad#ission was #ade. ?etitioner

does not cai# an$ #ista=e nor does he den$ #a=in& such ad#issions.

1he records aso contain a certified true cop$ of the onth$ 0eport datedanuar$ )-6()-*of then ud&e 0osaio A. De Leon, attestin& to the fact thatpetitioner was con!icted of the cri#e of 0o//er$ with o#icide on anuar$ )),)-6. Such onth$ 0eport constitutes an entr$ in officia records underSection 99 of 0ue ): of the 0e!ised 0ues on E!idence, which ispriafaciee!idence of facts therein stated.

?u/ic respondents i=ewise presented a certified true cop$ of ?eopesourna dated anuar$ )6, )-6, pa&e +,(+*issued /$ the Nationa Li/rar$,containin& a short news artice that petitioner was con!icted of the cri#e of0o//er$ with o#icide and was sentenced to ife i#prison#ent. owe!er,newspaper artices a#ount to hearsa$ e!idence, twice re#o!ed (+)*and aretherefore not on$ inad#issi/e /ut without an$ pro/ati!e !aue at a whether


37/46

o/%ected to or not,(++*uness offered for a purpose other than pro!in& the truthof the #atter asserted. In this case, the news artice is ad#issi/e on$ ase!idence that such pu/ication does e"ist with the tenor of the news thereinstated.

As a &enera rue, the /urden of pro!in& ie&a restraint /$ the respondentrests on the petitioner who attac=s such restraint. In other words, where thereturn is not su/%ect to e"ception, that is, where it sets forth process which onits face shows &ood &round for the detention of the prisoner, it is incu#/ent onpetitioner to ae&e and pro!e new #atter that tends to in!aidate the apparenteffect of such process.(+:*If the detention of the prisoner is /$ reason of awfupu/ic authorit$, the return is consideredpria faciee!idence of the !aidit$ ofthe restraint and the petitioner has the /urden of proof to show that the

restraint is ie&a. 1hus, Section ): of 0ue )+ of the 0ues of Court pro!ides;

SEC. ):. #hen the return evidence$ and %hen onl& a plea.TIf itappears that the prisoner is in custod$ under a warrant ofco##it#ent in pursuance of aw, the return sha /e consideredpri#a facie e!idence of the cause of restraint, /ut if he isrestrained of his i/ert$ /$ an$ ae&ed pri!ate authorit$, the returnsha /e considered on$ as a pea of the facts therein set forth,and the part$ cai#in& the custod$ #ust pro!e such facts.

?u/ic respondents ha!in& sufficient$ shown &ood &round for the detention,petitioners reease fro# confine#ent is not warranted under Section 9 of 0ue)+ of the 0ues of Court which pro!ides that 8

Sec. 9. #hen %rit not allo%ed or dischar'e authori!ed. ( If itappears that the person ae&ed to /e restrained of his i/ert$ is inthe custod$ of an officer under process issued /$ a court or %ud&eor /$ !irtue of a %udent or order of a court of record, and thatthe court or %ud&e had %urisdiction to issue the process, render the

%udent, or #a=e the order, the writ sha not /e aowed@ or if the%urisdiction appears after the writ is aowed, the person sha not/e dischar&ed /$ reason of an$ infor#ait$ or defect in theprocess, %udent, or order. Nor sha an$thin& in this rue /e hedto authorize the dischar&e of a person char&ed with or con!icted
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/122954.html#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/122954.html#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/122954.html#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/122954.html#_ftn23


38/46

of an offense in the ?hiippines, or of a person sufferin&i#prison#ent under awfu %udent.

In the case of Goe! v. Director of Prisons, ))Phil.96 2)-973, accused was

con!icted /$ the tria court of the cri#e of rape, and was co##itted to theNew 5ii/id ?rison. ?endin& appea with the Court of Appeas, the records ofthe case were, for reasons undiscosed, co#pete$ destro$ed or ost.

Accused then fied a petition for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpuswiththe Supre#e Court. 1he Court denied the petition, ruin& thus;

1he petition does not #a=e out a case. 1he Director of ?risons ishodin& the prisoner under process issued /$ a co#petent court inpursuance of a awfu, su/sistin& %udent. 1he prisoner hi#sef

ad#its the e&ait$ of his detention. 1he #ere oss or destructionof the record of the case does not in!aidate the %udent or theco##it#ent, or authorize the prisoners reease.

Note further that, in the present case, there is aso no showin& that petitionerdu$ appeaed his con!iction of the cri#e of 0o//er$ with o#icide, hence fora intents and purposes, such %udent has aread$ /eco#e fina ande"ecutor$. hen a court has %urisdiction of the offense char&ed and of thepart$ who is so char&ed, its %udent, order, or decree is not su/%ect to

coatera attac= /$ habeas corpus.(+9*

?ut another wa$, in order that a %udent#a$ /e su/%ect to coatera attac= /$ habeas corpus, it #ust /e !oid for ac=of %urisdiction.(+*1hus, petitioners in!ocation of our ruin& in *e&es v. Directorof Prisons, supra, is #ispaced. In the *e&es case, we &ranted the writ andordered the reease of the prisoner on the &round that (i*t does not appearthat the prisoner has /een sentenced /$ an$ tri/una du$ esta/ished /$ aco#petent authorit$ durin& the ene#$ occupation and not /ecause therewere no copies of the decision and infor#ation. ere, a cop$ of the ittiusis

a!aia/e. And, indeed, petitioner does not raise an$ %urisdictiona issue.1he proper re#ed$ in this case is for either petitioner or pu/ic respondents toinitiate the reconstitution of the %udent of the case under either Act No.:)),(+7*the &enera aw &o!ernin& reconstitution of %udicia records, or underthe inherent power of courts to reconstitute at an$ ti#e the records of theirfinished cases in accordance with Section 2h3 of 0ue ): of the 0ues of
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/122954.html#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/122954.html#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/122954.html#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/122954.html#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/122954.html#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/122954.html#_ftn26


39/46

Court.(+


40/46

% E # I " I O N

P$NO,J.:

This is a consolidated petition for certiorariand habeas corpus. The petition

for certiorariwas filed by David Cr! y "on!a#a $estionin# the Resoltion of the

Cort of %ppeals in C%&".R. CR No. '()** which dis+issed his appeal fro+ the

,d#+ent of conviction of the Re#ional Trial Cort- ranch '(/- 0asi#- Metro Manila

for failre to file appellant1s brief. The petition for habeas corpuswas filed by David

Cr!1s +other- Maria Cr! y "on!a#a- a#ainst respondents Sperintendent of the

National 0enitentiary and the Director of the rea of Corrections.2'3

0etitioner David Cr! y "on!a#a was char#ed before the Re#ional Trial Cort-

ranch '(/- 0asi#- Metro Manila with a violation of Repblic %ct 4R.%.5 No. (*67-the Dan#eros Dr#s %ct of ')/6. 8e alle#edly sold to another person on %pril ''-

'))6 dried +ari,ana fritin# tops wei#hin# 6./9 #ra+s. On Septe+ber 6:- ')):- the

trial cort fond David Cr! #ilty of the cri+e char#ed and sentenced hi+ to sffer

life i+prison+ent with all the accessory penalties of the law and to pay a fine of

069-999.99 and the costs.

David Cr! seasonably appealed to this Cort. The First Division accepted his appeal

and the case was doc;eted as ".R. No. ''::)9.

actual case - habeas corpus

Documents