Case #8

Sps. Nerio vs. Arcayan

G.R. No. 183460, March 12, 2013
SERENO, C.J.:

Facts:
The spouses Nerio and Soledad filed a petition for issuance of a writ of amparo against
Barangay Captain Bernabe Arcayan, Tanod Chief Romeo Pador and Tanods Alberto, Carmelo, Roberto,
Winelo, Christopher and Bienvenido, all of Bgy. Tabunan, Cebu City. They allege that rumours
circulated about them cultivating a marijuana plantation, and because of this, the respondents raided
their ampalaya farm, but found none. After the raid, they received invitation letters for a conference
from Bernabe. They referred the letter to their counsel, who advised them to instead send a letter-
reply. When Bernabe read the letter, he took a copy but refused to receive it. The conduct of the raid,
the invitation letter, the refusal of the barangay captain to receive their reply, and the possibility of
more harassment cases threatened their life, liberty and security, thus a writ of amparo is
necessitated.

After the RTC issued the Writ, the respondents filed their Verified Return/Comment. In it, they
alleged that Winelo received a report of an alleged existence of a marijuana plantation in Bgy. Gining;
the matter was referred to ARCAYAN and PADOR who organised a patrol; while Carmelo was taking
his breakfast, Nerio chanced upon him and accused him of uprooting the marijuana plants, which
Carmelo denied. MRTC issued the assailed Resolution denying the petitioners the privilege of the writ
of amparo. The spouses filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, to assail what
they think is a serious and grave error on the part of the RTC.

Issue: WON the issuance of a writ of Amparo is proper.

Ruling: NO. Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo provides for the grounds that may be relied
upon in a petition therefor, as follows: SEC. 1. Petition. – The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy
available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation
by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity. The
writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.

Thus, to be entitled to the privilege of the writ, petitioners must prove by substantial evidence
that their rights to life, liberty and security are being violated or threatened by an unlawful act or
omission. The writ of amparo is an extraordinary remedy adopted to address the special
concerns of extra-legal killings and enforced disappearances. “Accordingly, the remedy ought
to be resorted to and granted judiciously, lest the ideal sought by the Amparo Rule be diluted and
undermined by the indiscriminate filing of amparo petitions for purposes less than the desire to secure
amparo reliefs and protection and/or on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations.”

A closer look at the instant Petition shows that it is anchored on the following allegations: first,
that respondents conducted a raid on the property of petitioner based on information that the latter
were cultivators of marijuana; second, that respondent barangay captain sent them invitation letters
without stating the purpose of the invitation; third, that respondent barangay captain refused to
receive petitioners’ letter-reply; and fourth, that petitioners anticipate the possibility of more
harassment cases, false accusations, and potential violence from respondents. All these allegations
are INSUFFICIENT bases for a grant of the privilege of the writ.

Even assuming that the entry was done without petitioners’ permission, Court cannot grant
the privilege of the writ of amparo based upon a trespass on their ampalaya farm. 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.
Case #10
Mangila vs Pangilinan
GR No 160739 17 July 2013
BERSAMIN, J.:
[Note: Habeas Corpus case. Ambot ngano naa sya under Amparo sa caselist ]

Facts:
Anita Mangila, petitioner, was charged with seven of syndicated estafa. The complaint against
her arose from recruiting and promising employment to private complainants as overseas contract
workers in Toronto, Canada without lawful authority from POEA. By reason of the charged against
petitioner, a warrant of arrest was issued against her. She was arrested. She then filed a petition for
habeas corpus before the CA alleging that she is deprived of the remedy of a motion to quash or a
motion to recall the warrant of arrest because Judge Pangilinan (Judge who issued the warrant) had
already forwarded the entire records of the case to the City Prosecutor who had no authority to lift or
recall the warrant. CA denied the petition.

Issue: Was the petition for Habeas Corpus proper?

Ruling: No. The high prerogative writ of habeas corpus has been devised as a speedy and effective
remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint. Petitioner’s restraint in this case is NOT UNLAWFUL.
She had been arrested and detained by virtue of the valid warrant issued for her arrest. The object of
the writ of habeas corpus is to inquire into the legality of the detention, and, if the detention is found
to be illegal, to require the release of the detainee.

In Caballes v. Court of Appeals, the Court discoursed on the nature of the special proceeding
of habeas corpus in the following manner: A petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is a
special proceeding governed by Rule 102 of the Rules of Court, as amended. In Ex Parte Billings, it
was held that habeas corpus is that of a civil proceeding in character. It seeks the enforcement of civil
rights. Resorting to the writ is not to inquire into the criminal act of which the complaint is made, but
into the right of liberty, notwithstanding the act and the immediate purpose to be served is relief from
illegal restraint. The rule applies even when instituted to arrest a criminal prosecution and secure
freedom. When a prisoner petitions for a writ of habeas corpus, he thereby commences a suit and
prosecutes a case in that court.

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.

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 holds him in what is
alleged to be the unlawful authority. Hence, the only parties before the court are the petitioner
(prisoner) and the person holding the petitioner in custody, and the only question to be resolved is
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.

A writ of habeas corpus, which is regarded as a "palladium of liberty," is a prerogative writ

which does not issue as a matter of right but in the sound discretion of the court or judge. It is,
however, a writ of right on proper formalities being made by proof. Resort to the writ is not to inquire
into the criminal act of which a complaint is made but unto the right of liberty, notwithstanding the
act, and the immediate purpose to be served is relief from illegal restraint. The primary, if not the only
object of the writ of habeas corpus ad subjuciendum, is to determine the legality of the restraint under
which a person is held.
Case #11
Yu vs. Cabcaban
UDK No. 14817 January 13, 2014
ABAD, J.:
[Also this ]

Facts:
Shirly Vingson (Petitioner) alleged that her daughter, Shang Ko Vingson Yu (Shang Ko) ran
away from home. Petitioner received an information from the police station in Bacolod City that
Shang Ko was in the custody of Jovy Cabcaban (Respondent), who was a police officer in the said
station. Since the Respondent would not release Shang Ko to her, the former sought help from the
NBI, who in turn, told her that the latter is in a private organization, Calvary Kids.

Petitioner filed a petition for Habeas Corpus against the Respondent and the unnamed officers
of Calvary Kids before the Court of Appeals (CA), instead of the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City,
because of several threats against her life in the said city. The CA denied her petition for failure to
clearly allege who has custody of Shang Ko. The former also denied the latter’s motion for
reconsideration. Petitioner filed a petition for review in the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether or not the writ of habeas corpus is available in the case.

Ruling: Yes. Under Section 1, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court, the writ of habeas corpus is available,
not only in cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty, but
also in cases involving the rightful custody over a minor. The general rule is that parents should have
custody over their minor children. But the State has the right to intervene where the parents, rather
than care for such children, treat them cruelly and abusively, impairing their growth and well-being
and leaving them emotional scars that they carry throughout their lives unless they are liberated from
such parents and properly counseled.

Since this case presents factual issues and since the parties are all residents of Bacolod City, it
would be best that such issues be resolved by a Family Court in that city. Meantime, considering the
presumption that the police authorities acted regularly in placing Shang Ko in the custody of Calvary
Kids the Court believes that she should remain there pending hearing and adjudication of this custody
case. Besides she herself has expressed preference to stay in that place.