HABEAS CORPUS
Rule 102
Habeas Corpus
The writ of habeas Corpus
extends to all cases of illegal
confinement or detention. It
involves either:
a) Deprivation of liberty; or
b) The rightful custody of any
person is withheld from the
person entitled thereto.
(section 1 Rule 102)
The writ is availed of to:
a) Obtain immediate relief from
illegal confinement;
b) Liberate those who may be
imprisoned without sufficient cause;
and
c) Deliver them from unlawful
custody
The basic criterion for the issuance of
the writ is that the individual seeking
such is illegally deprived of his freedom
of movement or placed under some
form of illegal restraint.
NATURE
Habeas Corpus is a summary remedy. It is
analogous to a proceeding in rem when instituted
for the sole purpose of having the person of
restraint presented before the judge in order that
the cause of his detention may be inquired into
and his statements final. The writ of habeas corpus
does not act upon the prisoner who seeks relief,
but upon the person who hold him in what is
alleged to be unlawful authority. Hence the only
parties before the court are the prisoner
(petitioner) and the person holding the prisoner in
custody. The only question to be resolved it
whether the custodian has authority to deprive
the petitioner of his liberty. The writ may be
denied if the petitioner fails to show facts that he
is entitled thereto ex merito justicias.
(Caballes v. Court of Appeals)
AVAILABILITY OF THE WRIT
• The writ may be availed of even if
another remedy, which is less effective
may be availed of by the defendant.
• The remedy is available only when there
is an unlawful deprivation of his liberty.
• the writ of habeas corpus will not issue in
behalf of a person not actually restrained
of his liberty
WHO MAY GRANT THE WRIT
COURT WHEN PETITION MAY ENFORECEABILTIY
BE FILED
Supreme Court or any On any day and at any Anywhere in the
Justice thereof time Philippines
Court of appeals or any Instances authorized by Anywhere in the
Justice thereof law Philippines
Regional trial court or any On any day and at any Only within the court’s
judge thereof time judicial district
REQUISITES
1) The petition must be signed and verified;
2) The petition must contain:
a) That the person in whose behalf the
application is made is imprisoned or
restrained of his liberty;
b) The officer or name of the person by
whom he is so imprisoned or
restrained;
c) The place where he is so imprisoned
or restrained, if known; and
d) Copy of the commitment or cause of
detention of such person. If it can be
procured without any legal
authority, such fact shall appear.
CONTENTS
1) Whether he has or has not the party in his
custody or power, or under restraint;
2) If the party is in his custody or power, or
under restraint – the authority and the true
and whole cause thereof, with a copy of the
writ, order, execution, or other processes
upon which the party is held.
3) If the party, etc., and is not produced –
nature and gravity of sickness or infirmity;
and
4) If the party was in his custody, etc. and has
transferred such custody or restraint to
another – to whom, at what time, for what
cause and by what authority such transfer
was made
WHEN NOT ALLOWED OR DISCHARGED
The writ of habeas corpus shall not be allowed when
the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in
custody of an officer:
a) Under process issued by a court or judge;
b) By virtue of a judgement or order of a court of
record; and
c) The court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the
process, render the judgement or make the
order.
The discharge shall not be authorized upon showing
that a person is:
a) Charged with;
b) Convicted of an offense; or
c) Suffering imprisonment under unlawful judgement.
In the matter of the petition for habeas
corpus of Eufemia Rodriguez
FACTS: Eufemia, a 94-year old widow, was living with Edgargo Veluz,
her nephew and the latter acted as her guardian. In 2005, Luisa
Villanueva and Teresita Pabello took Eufemia from Edgardo’s house.
Edgardo made repeated demands for the return of Eufemia but there
proved futile. Edgardo filed for habeas corpus claiming that Luisa and
Teresita were depriving Eufemia of her liberty.
The lower court and Court of Appeals ruled that Edgardo failed to
present any convincing proof that Luisa and Teresita (eufemia’s legally
adopted children) were unlawfully restraining their mother of her
liberty. Edgardo also failed to establish his legal right to custody.
Edgardo claims in a petition for Habeas Corpus, that the court must
limit itself to determining whether or not a person is being unlawfully
deprived of liberty and that there is no need to consider legal custody or
custodial rights.
ISSUE: Should the writ of habeas corpus be granted?
RULING: NO. The writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal
confinement 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.
In the matter of the petition for habeas
corpus of Eufemia Rodriguez
It is issued when one is either deprived of liberty or is
wrongfully being prevented from exercising legal custody
over another person. Thus, it contemplates two instances: (1)
deprivation of a person’s liberty either through illegal
confinement or through detention; and (2) withholding of the
custody of any person from someone entitled thereto.
In this case, the issued is not whether the custody of Eufemia
is being righfully withheld from petitioner but whether
Eufemia is being restrained of her liberty. Significantly,
although Edgardo admits that he did not have lefal custody
of Eufemia, he nonetheless insists that Luisa and
Teresitathemselves have no right to her custody.
Fundamentally, in order to justify the grant of the writ of
habeas corpus, the restraint of liberty must be in the nature
of an Illegal and involuntary deprivation of freedom of
action.
In the matter of the petition for habeas
corpus of Eufemia Rodriguez
In passing upon a petition for habeas corpus, a court or
judge must first inquire into whether the petitioner is
being restrained of his liberty. If he is not, the writ will
be refused.
Inquiry into the cause of detention will proceed only
where such restraint exists. If the alleged cause is
therefore found to be unlawful, then the writ should be
granted and the petitioner discharged. needless to state,
if otherwise, again the writ will be refused.
In this case, the CA made an inquiry into whether
Eufemia was being restrained of her liberty. It found
that she was not:
There was no proof that Eufemia is being detained and
restrained of her liberty by the respondents. Nothing on
the record reveals that she was forcibly taken by the
respondents. On the contrary, respondents, being
Eufemia’s adopted children, are taking care of her.
TO WHOM DIRECTED AND WHAT TO
REQUIRE
• When an officer commits the imprisonment or
restraint, the writ shall be directed to him. The
writ shall command the officer to have the body
of the person restrained before the court
designated in the writ at the time and place
stated therein.
• In case imprisonment or restraint is committed by
a person not an officer, the writ shall nevertheless
be directed to an officer. The officer is
commanded to take and have the body of the
person restrained before the court.
• The writ shall summon the person who causes the
restraint to show the cause of imprisonment or
restraint
HOW PRISONER DESIGNATED AND HOW
WRIT IS SERVED
The writ must specify the name of the person to be produced, if such
name is known. If his name is not known, he may be otherwise
described or identified.
SERVICE OF WRIT
1) Sheriff
2) Other officer
3) By a person deputed by the court or judge
The writ is served by leaving the original with the person to whom it
is directed. A copy must be preserved because the return shall be
made.
If the person cannot be found or does not have the prisoner in his
custody, the sheriff is authorized to serve the writ on any other person
having or exercising such custody.
Return must be signed and sworn to by the person making it because
it serves as prima facie evidence of the cause of the restraint.
