Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Jurry Andal, Ricardo Andal vs. People of The Philippines G.R. Nos. 138268-69. May 26, 1999 Facts
Jurry Andal, Ricardo Andal vs. People of The Philippines G.R. Nos. 138268-69. May 26, 1999 Facts
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
G.R. Nos. 138268-69. May 26, 1999
FACTS:
The case before us is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Jury
Andal, Ricardo Andal and Edwin Mendoza, all convicted of rape with
homicide in Criminal Case No. 148-94 and 149-94, Regional Trial Court,
Batangas, Branch 05, Lemery, affirmed by this Court in a decision en banc
promulgated on September 25, 1997, and a resolution promulgated on
February 17, 1998. They are scheduled for execution on June 16, 17, and 18,
1999. Petitioners seek a writ of habeas corpus on the basis of a claim of
mistrial and/or that the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Batangas,
Branch 05, Lemery, was void. They pray for a temporary restraining order to
stay their execution and/or a preliminary injunction enjoining their
execution.
The petitioners rely on the argument that the trial court was ousted of
jurisdiction to try their case since the pre-trial identification of the accused
was made without the assistance of counsel and without a valid waiver from
the accused. The petitioners cite the case of Olaguer v. Military Commission
No. 34[2], wherein in a separate opinion, Justice Claudio Teehankee stated
that Once a deprivation of a constitutional right is shown to exist, the court
that rendered the judgement is deemed ousted of its jurisdiction and habeas
corpus is the appropriate remedy to assail the legality of the detention.
We agree with petitioners that the extra-ordinary writ of habeas corpus is the
appropriate remedy to inquire into questions of violation of the petitioners
constitutional rights and that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this
review. Indeed, under the Constitution, the jurisdiction of this Court has
been expanded to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
branch or instrumentality of the Government.
And under Rule 102, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Court, it is provided
that Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the writ of habeas
corpus shall extend 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. He may also avail
himself of the writ where as a consequence of a judicial proceeding (a) there
has been a deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the restraint of a
person; (b) the court had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence; or (c) an
excessive penalty has been imposed, as such sentence is void as to such
excess.