Section 12
G.R. No. 185710 January 19, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROMULO TUNIACO, JEFFREY DATULAYTA and ALEX ALEMAN, Accused.
ALEX ALEMAN, Appellant.
Accused Tuniaco, Datulayta, and Aleman were charged with murder before the RTC of General Santos City. Accused Aleman raises two issues: a) whether or not the prosecution was able to present evidence of corpus delicti; and b) whether or not accused Aleman’s extrajudicial confession is admissible in evidence.
ISSUE: What is the doctrine of “interlocking confessions” ? Did the accused Aleman correctly invoked the Galit doctrine?
HELD: It is improbable that the police fabricated Aleman’s confession and just forced him to sign it. The confession has details that only the person who committed the crime could have possibly known. What is more, accused Datulayta’s confession corroborate that of Aleman in important details. Under the doctrine of interlocking confessions, such corroboration is circumstantial evidence against the person implicated in it.
Accused Aleman claims, citing People v. Galit, that long questions followed by monosyllabic answers do not satisfy the requirement that the accused is amply informed of his rights. But this does not apply here. Tabucon testified that he spoke to Aleman clearly in the language he knew. Aleman, joined by Atty. Besinga, even signed a certification that the investigator sufficiently explained to him his constitutional rights and that he was still willing to give his statement.
Section 15
In Re-Petition for habeas corpus of
CAPT. GARY ALEJANO, PN, et. al. v. GEN. PEDRO CABUAY,et al.
GR 160792, August 25, 2005
A directive was issued to all Major Service Commanders to take into custody the military personnel under their command who took part in the Oakwood incident. Petitioners filed a petition for habeas corpus with SC. The SC issued a resolution, which required respondents to make a return of the writ and to appear and produce the persons of the detainees before the CA. CA dismissed the petition because the detainees are already charged of coup d’etat. Habeas corpus is unavailing in this case as the detainees’ confinement is under a valid indictment.
ISSUE: What is the objective of the writ of habeas corpus?
HELD: The duty to hear the petition for habeas corpus necessarily includes the determination of the propriety of the remedy. The remedy of habeas corpus has one objective: to inquire into the cause of detention of a person. The purpose of the writ is to determine whether a person is being illegally deprived of his liberty. If the inquiry reveals that the detention is illegal, the court orders the release of the person. If, however, the detention is proven lawful, then the habeas corpus proceedings terminate. The use of habeas corpus is thus very limited. It is not a writ of error. Neither can it substitute for an appeal.
G.R. No. 164915 March 10, 2006
ERIC JONATHAN YU vs. CAROLINE T. YU
Eric Jonathan Yu filed a petition for habeas corpus before CA alleging that his estranged wife Caroline Yu unlawfully withheld from him the custody of their minor child Bianca. Subsequently, respondent filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage and dissolution of the absolute community of property. The petition included a prayer for the award to her of the sole custody of Bianca and for the fixing of schedule of petitioner’s visiting rights "subject only to the final and executory judgment of the CA.
ISSUE: Is WHC available to determine the custodial rights of parents over their children?
HELD:
No. Articles 49 and 50 of the Family Code provides that the issue on the custody of the spouse’s common children is deemed pleaded in the declaration of nullity case. Hence, the writ of habeas corpus cannot be availed of by either spouse. Pursuant to the aforementioned provisions, it is the court who shall determine the custody of the common children in the case for declaration of nullity.
G.R. No. 167211 March 14, 2006
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE HABEAS CORPUS OF ATTY. FERNANDO ARGUELLES, JR. vs. MAJ. GEN. JOSE BALAJADIA, JR., In his capacity as Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate
Petitioners filed a petition for habeas corpus because they were detained in a room at the Senate pursuant to an Order dated March 15, 2005 issued to respondent by the Senate Committee on Banks, Financial Institutions and Currencies (Senate Committee). Theyprayed that respondent be directed to appear before this Court to produce their bodies and to explain why they should not be set at liberty without delay.
ISSUE: Will release of the detainee renders moot a petition for WHC?
HELD: The petition has become moot.
A writ of habeas corpus extends 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 to it. The singular function of a petition for habeas corpus is to protect and secure the basic freedom of physical liberty. Petitioners have been released. While the issues raised by petitioners are important, it is not appropriate to resolve them now in these proceedings. This is all the more so considering that the only respondent here is Maj. Gen. Jose Balajadia, Jr., the Senate sergeant-at-arms, impleaded in that capacity for holding petitioners in custody. The Senate Committee itself has not been made a respondent and, therefore, has not been given the opportunity to be heard on the issues sought to be resolved.
G.R. No. 160922 February 27, 2006
JEANY-VI G. KIANI, Petitioner,
vs.
THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION and DEPORTATION (BID)
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari for the nullification of the decision CA, dismissing the appeal of Jeany-Vi G. Kiani, which assailed the Order of RTC, dismissing her Petition for Habeas Corpus. Kiani was arrested for violation of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940. A Summary Deportation Order revoking the visa issued to Kiani was then issued. The next day, Kiani’s wife filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The BIO officers contend that since Kiani has already been charged and ordered deported the petition had become moot and academic.
ISSUE: Will WHC be availing if the detainee is lawfully charged later?
HELD: No. As held in Caballes v. CA, habeas corpus is not in the nature of a writ of error; nor intended as substitute for the trial court’s function. It cannot take the place of appeal, certiorari or writ of error. The writ cannot be used to investigate and consider questions of error that might be raised relating to procedure or on the merits. The inquiry in a habeas corpus proceeding is addressed to the question of whether the proceedings and the assailed order are, for any reason, null and void. The writ is not ordinarily granted where the law provides for other remedies in the regular course, and in the absence of exceptional circumstances. Moreover, habeas corpus should not be granted in advance of trial. The orderly course of trial must be pursued and the usual remedies exhausted before resorting to the writ where exceptional circumstances are extant. In another case, it was held that habeas corpus cannot be issued as a writ of error or as a means of reviewing errors of law and irregularities not involving the questions of jurisdiction occurring during the course of the trial, subject to the caveat that constitutional safeguards of human life and liberty must be preserved, and not destroyed. It has also been held that where restraint is under legal process, mere errors and irregularities, which do not render the proceedings void, are not grounds for relief by habeas corpus because in such cases, the restraint is not illegal.
In this case, when petitioner filed her Petition for Habeas Corpus with the RTC in behalf of her husband, a Charge Sheet had already been filed against him. The filing of the Charge Sheet cured whatever irregularities or infirmities were attendant to his arrest.
G.R. No. 182484 June 17, 2008
DANIEL MASANGKAY TAPUZ vs. HON. JUDGE ELMO DEL ROSARIO
This is petition for certiorari and for the issuance of the writs of amparo and habeas data filed petitioners. The petitioners posit as well that the MCTC has no jurisdiction over the complaint for forcible entry that the private respondents filed.
ISSUE: What is writ of Amparo? What is wirt of habeas data?
HELD: The writ of amparo was originally conceived as a response to the extraordinary rise in the number of killings and enforced disappearances, and to the perceived lack of available and effective remedies to address these extraordinary concerns. It is intended to address violations of or threats to the rights to life, liberty or security, as an extraordinary and independent remedy beyond those available under the prevailing Rules, or as a remedy supplemental to these Rules. What it is not, is a writ to protect concerns that are purely property or commercial. Neither is it a writ that we shall issue on amorphous and uncertain grounds.
The writ on Habeas data on the other hand, is intended to address the unjustified violation of the right to privacy related to the right to life, liberty and security.
G.R. No. 185710 January 19, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROMULO TUNIACO, JEFFREY DATULAYTA and ALEX ALEMAN, Accused.
ALEX ALEMAN, Appellant.
Accused Tuniaco, Datulayta, and Aleman were charged with murder before the RTC of General Santos City. Accused Aleman raises two issues: a) whether or not the prosecution was able to present evidence of corpus delicti; and b) whether or not accused Aleman’s extrajudicial confession is admissible in evidence.
ISSUE: What is the doctrine of “interlocking confessions” ? Did the accused Aleman correctly invoked the Galit doctrine?
HELD: It is improbable that the police fabricated Aleman’s confession and just forced him to sign it. The confession has details that only the person who committed the crime could have possibly known. What is more, accused Datulayta’s confession corroborate that of Aleman in important details. Under the doctrine of interlocking confessions, such corroboration is circumstantial evidence against the person implicated in it.
Accused Aleman claims, citing People v. Galit, that long questions followed by monosyllabic answers do not satisfy the requirement that the accused is amply informed of his rights. But this does not apply here. Tabucon testified that he spoke to Aleman clearly in the language he knew. Aleman, joined by Atty. Besinga, even signed a certification that the investigator sufficiently explained to him his constitutional rights and that he was still willing to give his statement.
Section 15
In Re-Petition for habeas corpus of
CAPT. GARY ALEJANO, PN, et. al. v. GEN. PEDRO CABUAY,et al.
GR 160792, August 25, 2005
A directive was issued to all Major Service Commanders to take into custody the military personnel under their command who took part in the Oakwood incident. Petitioners filed a petition for habeas corpus with SC. The SC issued a resolution, which required respondents to make a return of the writ and to appear and produce the persons of the detainees before the CA. CA dismissed the petition because the detainees are already charged of coup d’etat. Habeas corpus is unavailing in this case as the detainees’ confinement is under a valid indictment.
ISSUE: What is the objective of the writ of habeas corpus?
HELD: The duty to hear the petition for habeas corpus necessarily includes the determination of the propriety of the remedy. The remedy of habeas corpus has one objective: to inquire into the cause of detention of a person. The purpose of the writ is to determine whether a person is being illegally deprived of his liberty. If the inquiry reveals that the detention is illegal, the court orders the release of the person. If, however, the detention is proven lawful, then the habeas corpus proceedings terminate. The use of habeas corpus is thus very limited. It is not a writ of error. Neither can it substitute for an appeal.
G.R. No. 164915 March 10, 2006
ERIC JONATHAN YU vs. CAROLINE T. YU
Eric Jonathan Yu filed a petition for habeas corpus before CA alleging that his estranged wife Caroline Yu unlawfully withheld from him the custody of their minor child Bianca. Subsequently, respondent filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage and dissolution of the absolute community of property. The petition included a prayer for the award to her of the sole custody of Bianca and for the fixing of schedule of petitioner’s visiting rights "subject only to the final and executory judgment of the CA.
ISSUE: Is WHC available to determine the custodial rights of parents over their children?
HELD:
No. Articles 49 and 50 of the Family Code provides that the issue on the custody of the spouse’s common children is deemed pleaded in the declaration of nullity case. Hence, the writ of habeas corpus cannot be availed of by either spouse. Pursuant to the aforementioned provisions, it is the court who shall determine the custody of the common children in the case for declaration of nullity.
G.R. No. 167211 March 14, 2006
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE HABEAS CORPUS OF ATTY. FERNANDO ARGUELLES, JR. vs. MAJ. GEN. JOSE BALAJADIA, JR., In his capacity as Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate
Petitioners filed a petition for habeas corpus because they were detained in a room at the Senate pursuant to an Order dated March 15, 2005 issued to respondent by the Senate Committee on Banks, Financial Institutions and Currencies (Senate Committee). Theyprayed that respondent be directed to appear before this Court to produce their bodies and to explain why they should not be set at liberty without delay.
ISSUE: Will release of the detainee renders moot a petition for WHC?
HELD: The petition has become moot.
A writ of habeas corpus extends 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 to it. The singular function of a petition for habeas corpus is to protect and secure the basic freedom of physical liberty. Petitioners have been released. While the issues raised by petitioners are important, it is not appropriate to resolve them now in these proceedings. This is all the more so considering that the only respondent here is Maj. Gen. Jose Balajadia, Jr., the Senate sergeant-at-arms, impleaded in that capacity for holding petitioners in custody. The Senate Committee itself has not been made a respondent and, therefore, has not been given the opportunity to be heard on the issues sought to be resolved.
G.R. No. 160922 February 27, 2006
JEANY-VI G. KIANI, Petitioner,
vs.
THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION and DEPORTATION (BID)
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari for the nullification of the decision CA, dismissing the appeal of Jeany-Vi G. Kiani, which assailed the Order of RTC, dismissing her Petition for Habeas Corpus. Kiani was arrested for violation of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940. A Summary Deportation Order revoking the visa issued to Kiani was then issued. The next day, Kiani’s wife filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The BIO officers contend that since Kiani has already been charged and ordered deported the petition had become moot and academic.
ISSUE: Will WHC be availing if the detainee is lawfully charged later?
HELD: No. As held in Caballes v. CA, habeas corpus is not in the nature of a writ of error; nor intended as substitute for the trial court’s function. It cannot take the place of appeal, certiorari or writ of error. The writ cannot be used to investigate and consider questions of error that might be raised relating to procedure or on the merits. The inquiry in a habeas corpus proceeding is addressed to the question of whether the proceedings and the assailed order are, for any reason, null and void. The writ is not ordinarily granted where the law provides for other remedies in the regular course, and in the absence of exceptional circumstances. Moreover, habeas corpus should not be granted in advance of trial. The orderly course of trial must be pursued and the usual remedies exhausted before resorting to the writ where exceptional circumstances are extant. In another case, it was held that habeas corpus cannot be issued as a writ of error or as a means of reviewing errors of law and irregularities not involving the questions of jurisdiction occurring during the course of the trial, subject to the caveat that constitutional safeguards of human life and liberty must be preserved, and not destroyed. It has also been held that where restraint is under legal process, mere errors and irregularities, which do not render the proceedings void, are not grounds for relief by habeas corpus because in such cases, the restraint is not illegal.
In this case, when petitioner filed her Petition for Habeas Corpus with the RTC in behalf of her husband, a Charge Sheet had already been filed against him. The filing of the Charge Sheet cured whatever irregularities or infirmities were attendant to his arrest.
G.R. No. 182484 June 17, 2008
DANIEL MASANGKAY TAPUZ vs. HON. JUDGE ELMO DEL ROSARIO
This is petition for certiorari and for the issuance of the writs of amparo and habeas data filed petitioners. The petitioners posit as well that the MCTC has no jurisdiction over the complaint for forcible entry that the private respondents filed.
ISSUE: What is writ of Amparo? What is wirt of habeas data?
HELD: The writ of amparo was originally conceived as a response to the extraordinary rise in the number of killings and enforced disappearances, and to the perceived lack of available and effective remedies to address these extraordinary concerns. It is intended to address violations of or threats to the rights to life, liberty or security, as an extraordinary and independent remedy beyond those available under the prevailing Rules, or as a remedy supplemental to these Rules. What it is not, is a writ to protect concerns that are purely property or commercial. Neither is it a writ that we shall issue on amorphous and uncertain grounds.
The writ on Habeas data on the other hand, is intended to address the unjustified violation of the right to privacy related to the right to life, liberty and security.
Comments
Post a Comment