Commander-in-Chief

In Re De Villa
GR 158802
J. Ynares-Santiago

Summarized by Kharina Mostrales :3

A petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus under Rule 102 of RoC.
Reynaldo De Villa joined by his son June De Villa, seek a two-fold relief: (1) that the
Director of Prisons justify the basis for Reynaldo’s imprisonment (2) that Reynaldo be
granted a new trail based on a new evidence from a DNA test, that could prove that the
child borne from the rape was not fathered by petitioner.

IMPORTANT PEOPLE
Reynaldo De Villa (Rapist ), June De Villa (Epal na anak), Aileen Mendoza
(niece by affinity)

FACTS
1. Sometime in the 3rd week of April 1994 at around 10AM, Aileen woke up in her family’
rented room in Pasig, Metro Manila. She saw Reynaldo on top of her. She was then 12
and 10 months old. She couldn’t shout because Reynaldo covered her mouth with a
pillow and threatened to kill her. Reynaldo raped her and ejaculated.
2. A while later Aileen got pregnant and this was noticed by her mom. When her mom
asked where the bump came from, she told her that Reynaldo raped her. They went to
the police to file a complaint. Medical exam showed that she was 8 months along.
3. Reynaldo counters though that he was too old and sick to have an erection and that
during the time of the incident, he was in his hometown of San Luis, Batangas.
4. TC convicted Reynaldo and was sentenced to death. On automatic review, Court
found that the time of Aileen’s birth was consistent with the alleged rape and they
favored the prosecution’s contention that Aileen gave birth on her 8th month.
5. On Feb 21, 2001, Reynaldo was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape by
final judgment.
6. But June alleges that during the trial, he was not aware that DNA testing was in
existence (like duh). And that he only came to know of this magic because an anti-death
penalty civic group told him about it.
7. Reynaldo filed a Motion for Partial Consideration to allow for DNA testing. It was
denied with finality.
8. Undaunted, June asked a grandkid of Reynaldo, who was the classmate of Aileen’s
daughter, to ask the girl to spit in a cup. This she did, and June together with 4 other

1
DNA samples of Reynaldo’s grandchildren submitted it for testing together with
Reynaldo’s sample. The test showed negative. The genetic markers of Reynaldo did not
match with any of the children.
9. Reynaldo argues that because paternity of the girl was now disproved, his conviction
must be overturned. Thus, the petition.

ISSUE with HOLDING

1. Propriety of the writ of habeas corpus to corollary attack a final judgment
a. Nature of a writ of habeas corpus
- A write of hbc applies to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which a person
has been deprived of his liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person has been
withheld thereto. Issuance of writ necessitates that a person be illegally deprived of his
liberty under some form of illegal restraint.
- If the restraint is legal, the writ will not lie. In line with this, a writ will also not lie to
assail a final judgement rendered by a competent court, who did not show any
anomalies or irregularities in its proceedings.
- In Feria vs CA, review of final judgement via write of hbc is only allowed if:
i. deprivation of a constitutional right of a person
ii. court had no jurisdiction
iii. excessive penalty has been imposed
- But petitioner invokes the writ of hbc in order to seek a review of findings long passed
with finality. This relief is beyond the scope of the writ which is not a writ of error, and
should not be used as thus.
- Mere errors or fact or law, which did not have the effect of depriving the TC of its
jurisdiction over the case and the person of the defendant, are not correctible with a writ
of hbc.
- In general, the writ of hbc is a high prerogative writ which furnishes an extraordinary
remedy; it may thus be invoked only under extraordinary circumstances.
- In Calvan vs CA: writ of hbc can be invoked under special circumstances needing
immediate action. In such case, the inquiry of the writ would be addressed to whether
the proceeding or judgment under which a person has been restrained is a complete
nullity.
b. But under the present case, the writ of hbc is unavailing.
- First, denial of a constitutional right has not been alleged. But the court is aware that in
the US, the writ will lie if there’s proof that the counsel’s incompetence has greatly
prejudiced the defendant.

2 2
 - In this case, Reynaldo’s counsel up and left during the middle of his trial
because he was leaving for the US, saying that a petition was granted in his
favor.
- While it’s sad for Reynaldo that his atty left, the court says that there was no
showing of negligence on of the part of his counsel.
- In fine, petitioner invokes the writ of hbc to re-evaluate the records of his case without
asserting any legal grounds for it. He instead asks review based on the DNA test, which
cannot be because it’s outside the scope of the writ.
2. Petitioner seeks new trial to re-litigate the issue of paternity of Aileen’s
daughter
- Rape is not dependent on pregnancy because the latter is not an essential element of
the crime.
- Court says that the DNA test can be a basis to disallow the grant of support if really
proven that the girl was not fathered by petitioner, but it cannot be a basis for his
acquittal.
- Sec 1, Rule 121 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure: motion for new trial may
be filed at any time before a judgment of conviction becomes final, that is 15 days from
its promulgation.
- Sec 2, Rule 121 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure: a new trial may be
granted if it’s shown that (a) errors of law and irregularities were committed during the
trail (b) new and material evidence
- Petitioner invokes the second reason but a new trial under new and material evidence
is allowed only if:
i. evidence was discovered after the trial
ii. even with reasonable diligence, such evidence was not discovered and
presented during the trial
iii. evidence is material and not merely cumulative or corroborative
iv. evidence is so important, that it could probably change the judgment
- Although the DNA test happened after the trial, Court believes that such remedy could
be availed of even during the trial. Petitioner’s claim that he did not know of it is nothing
but negligence on his part.
- And petitioner cannot blame negligence on his counsel when he himself was also
negligent.
- Also as stated by the SolGen, his conviction will still stand regardless of the girl’s
paternity because Aileen’s testimony can convict him anyway.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION
PETITION DENIED