HABEAS

CORPUS
RULE 102
“PRODUCE THE BODY”
What is the Writ of Habeas corpus ?

∙ a writ directed to the person DETAINING ANOTHER,

∙ commanding him TO PRODUCE THE BODY OF THE

PRISONER

∙ at a designated TIME AND PLACE,

∙ with the DAY AND CAUSE OF HIS CAPTURE AND

DETENTION,

∙ to do, submit to, and receive whatsoever the court or

judge awarding the writ shall consider in that behalf
Section 1. To what habeas corpus extends. —
Except as otherwise expressly provided by
law, the writ of habeas corpus shall extend to:

a. all cases of illegal confinement or

detention by which any person is
deprived of his liberty, or
Section 1. To what habeas
corpus extends. — Except as
otherwise expressly provided
by law, the writ of habeas
corpus shall extend to:

b. by which the rightful

custody of any person is
withheld from the person
entitled thereto.
Section 2. Who may grant the writ. — The writ
of habeas corpus may be granted by:

a. by the Supreme Court, or any member thereof,

on any day and at any time, or

b. by the Court of Appeals or any member thereof

in the instances authorized by law, and if so
granted it shall be enforceable anywhere in the
Philippines, and may be made returnable before
the court or any member thereof, or before the
Court of First Instance, or or any judge thereof
for the hearing and decision on the merits.
Section 2. Who may grant the writ. — The writ
of habeas corpus may be granted by:

c. by a Court of First Instance (Regional Trial

Court), or a judge thereof, on any day and at
any time, and returnable before himself,
enforceable only within his judicial district.

d. Sandiganbayan in aid of its appellate

jurisdiction – not original (RA 7975 as
amended by RA 8249) Bar 2009

e. MTC - Special Jurisdiction in the

absence of RTC judges.
Section 3. Requisites of application therefor. —
Application for the writ shall be by petition signed
and verified either by the party for whose relief it
is intended, or by some person on his behalf, and
shall set forth:
a. That the person in whose behalf the application
is made is imprisoned or restrained on his
liberty;
b. The officer or name of the person by whom
he is so imprisoned or restrained; or, if both are
unknown or uncertain, such officer or person
may be described by an assumed appellation,
and the person who is served with the writ shall
be deemed the person intended;
Section 3. Requisites of application therefor.
— Application for the writ shall be by
petition signed and verified either by the
party for whose relief it is intended, or by
some person on his behalf, and shall set
forth:
a. The place where he is so imprisoned or
restrained, if known;
b. A copy of the commitment or cause of
detention of such person, if it can be
procured without impairing the efficiency
of the remedy; or, if the imprisonment or
restraint is without any legal authority,
such fact shall appear.
Section 4. When writ not allowed
or discharge authorized. — If it
appears that the person alleged
to be restrained of his liberty:

a. is in the custody of an officer

under process issued by a
court or judge or by virtue
of a judgment or order of
a court of record, and;
Section 4. When writ not allowed or
discharge authorized. — If it appears
that the person alleged to be restrained
of his liberty:

b. that the court or judge had jurisdiction

to issue the process, render the
judgment, or make the order;

c. or if the jurisdiction appears after

the writ is allowed, the person shall
not be discharged by reason of any
informality or defect in the process,
judgment, or order.
Section 4. When writ not allowed or discharge
authorized. — If it appears that the person
alleged to be restrained of his liberty:

d. When a person is charged with or

convicted of an offense in the Philippines,

e.When a person is suffering imprisonment

under lawful judgment.
Section 6. To whom writ directed, and what to require. —

a. In case of imprisonment or restraint by an officer

the writ shall be directed to him, and shall command him to have the body of the person
restrained of his liberty before the court or judge designated in the writ at the time and
place therein specified.

a. In case of imprisonment or restraint by a person not an officer,

the writ shall be directed to an officer, and shall command him to take and have the body
of the person restrained of his liberty before the court or judge designated in the writ at
the time and place therein specified, and to summon the person by whom he is restrained
then and there to appear before said court or judge to show the cause of the imprisonment
or restraint.
Section 10. Contents of return. —
a. Whether he has or has not the party in his
custody or power, or under restraint;
b. If in custody: the authority and the true and
whole cause thereof, with a copy of the writ,
order execution, or other process, if any,
upon which the party is held;
c. If not produced: the nature and gravity of
the sickness or infirmity of such party by
reason of which he cannot, without danger,
be bought before the court or judge;
d. If transferred to another custody: to whom,
at what time, for what cause, and by what
authority such transfer was made.
Section 14. When person lawfully
imprisoned recommitted, and when let to
bail. — If it appears that the prisoner was
lawfully committed, he shall not be
released, discharged, or bailed. If he is
lawfully imprisoned or restrained on a
charge of having committed an offense, he
may be recommitted to imprisonment
or admitted to bail in the discretion of
the court or judge.
Section 15. When prisoner discharged if no
appeal. — When the court or judge has
examined into the cause of caption and
restraint of the prisoner, and is satisfied
that he is unlawfully imprisoned or
restrained, he shall forthwith order his
discharge from confinement, but such
discharge shall not be effective until a copy
of the order has been served on the officer
or person detaining the prisoner. If the
officer or person detaining the prisoner
does not desire to appeal, the prisoner
shall be forthwith released.
Administrative Matter No. 01-1-03-SC

The Court resolved to AMEND Section 3, Rule 41 of the

1997 Rules of Civil Procedure to read as follows:
SEC. 3. Period of ordinary appeal; appeal The amendment shall take effect on
in habeas corpus cases. — The appeal July 15, 2001 following the publication
shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from of this Resolution in two (2)
notice of the judgment or final order newspapers of general circulation not
appealed from. Where a record on appeal later than June 30, 2001.
is required, the appellants shall file a
notice of appeal and a record on appeal
within thirty (30) days from notice of the
judgment or final order. However, an
appeal in habeas corpus cases shall be
taken within forty-eight (48) hours from
notice of the judgment or final order
appealed from.
The period of appeal shall be interrupted
by a timely motion for new trial or
reconsideration. No motion for extension
of time to file a motion for new trial or
reconsideration shall be allowed. (n)
Preliminary Citation: Requires the
respondent to appear and show
cause why the peremptory writ
should not be granted

Peremptory Writ: Unconditionally

commands the respondent to have
the body of the detained person
before the court at a time and place
therein specified
ALIMPOOS ET AL., V. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. L-27331 : July 30, 1981

Reynaldo Mosquito was detained by the Chief

of Police in Agusan by virtue of a warrant of
arrest in a criminal case which was
a prosecution for Robbery with Less Serious
Physical Injuries the place which was allegedly
robbed belonged to spouses Alimpoos
The accused! then detained contending that the
warrant was issued without the observance of
the legal requirements for the issuance thereof
instituted the Habeas Corpus case before the
trial court, and damages based on the
provisions of the Civil Code and named as
defendants in this case the Provincial Fiscal and
the spouses Alimpoos.
SC explained:

1. Because the proceedings before the trial Court was a Habeas Corpus case,
the complaint filed was obviously defective. A Habeas Corpus proceeding is
not a suit between parties.
“Not a suit between the parties. — While the issuance of the writ is to all
intents and purposes the commencement of a civil action, a suit, yet
technically the proceedings by Habeas Corpus is in no sense a suit between
private parties. It is an inquisition by the government, at the suggestion and
instance of an individual, most probably, but still in the name and capacity of
the sovereign. It may be analogized to a proceeding in rem and instituted for
the sole purpose of fixing the status of a person. The person restrained is
the central figure in the transaction. The proceeding is instituted solely for
his benefit. As it is not designed to obtain redress against anybody, and as
no judgment can be entered against anybody, and as there is no real
plaintiff and defendant, there can be no suit in the technical sense.”

The Accused, therefore, should have limited his complaint against the Chief
of Police of Bayugan, the person having him in alleged illegal custody.
2. The Accused’s allegation as to, and prayer for,
damages was out of place. In Habeas Corpus cases, the
judgment in favor of the applicant cannot contain a
provision for damages. It has to be confined to what is
provided for in Section 15, Rule 102, which reads:
“SEC. 15. When prisoner discharged if no
appeal. — When the court or Judge has
examined into the cause of caption and restraint
of the prisoner, and is satisfied that he is
unlawfully imprisoned or restrained, he shall
forthwith order his discharge from confinement,
but such discharge shall not be effective until a
copy of the order has been served on the officer
or person detaining the prisoner. If the officer or
person detaining the prisoner does not desire to
appeal, the prisoner shall be forthwith released.”
It will be observed that there is no provision for
serving copy of the discharge on any other private
party defendant, nor for an award of damages.
As it has been held:
“The sole function of the writ is to relieve from
unlawful imprisonment, and ordinarily it cannot
properly be used for any other purpose. Thus it has
been held that the writ cannot properly be used: To
enforce a right to service; to determine whether a
person has committed a crime; in determine a
disputed interstate boundary line; to punish
respondent or to afford the injured person redress, for
the illegal detention; to recover damages or other
money award;
Villavicencio v. Lukban

Manila Mayor Justo Lukban order the women of ill-repute to be

transferred to Davao as laborers. The relatives of these
women filed an application for habeas corpus with the SC.

One argued that the parties in whose behalf it was asked were
under no restraint; the women, it is claimed, were free in
Davao, and the jurisdiction of the mayor and the chief of
police did not extend beyond the city limits.

The SC held, that the essential object and purpose of the writ
of habeas corpus is to inquire into all manner of involuntary
restraint as distinguished from voluntary, and to relieve a
person therefrom if such restraint is illegal. Any restraint which
will preclude freedom of action is sufficient. The forcible taking
of these women from Manila by officials of that city, who
handed them over to other parties, who deposited them in a
distant region, deprived these women of freedom of
locomotion just as effectively as if they had been imprisoned.
The general rule is that the release, whether permanent
or temporary, of a detained person renders the petition
for habeas corpus moot and academic, unless there are
restraints attached to his release which precludes freedom
of action, in which case the Court can still inquire into the
nature of his involuntary restraint. Petitioner’s temporary
release does not render the petition for writ moot and
academic . There is restraint of liberty when one is
deprived of freedom of action and
locomotion(Villavicencio v. Lukban)
1. In general, the purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to determine whether or not a particular
person is legally held.

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.[14] 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
thereafter found to be unlawful, then the writ should be granted and the petitioner discharged.

While habeas corpus is a writ of right, it will not issue as a matter of course or as a mere
perfunctory operation on the filing of the petition. Judicial discretion is called for in its issuance
and it must be clear to the judge to whom the petition is presented that, prima facie, the
petitioner is entitled to the writ (In the matter of Petition for Habeas Corpus of Eufemia
E. Rodriguez, January 29, 2008)
As Post-Conviction Remedy
It may be availed of as a consequence of
judicial proceedings when:

a. There has been deprivation of

constitutional right resulting to
restraint of a person
b. The court has no jurisdiction to
impose the penalty
c. There is an excessive penalty (Feria v.
CA, 325 SCRA 525 (2000)
d. DNA Testing after conviction
Chavez v. CA – Aug 19, 1968
Qualified Theft of a Motor Vehicle

The thrust of petitioner's case presented in his

original and supplementary petitions invoking
jurisdiction of this Court is that he is entitled,
on habeas corpus, to be freed from
imprisonment upon the ground that in the trial
which resulted in his conviction he was
denied his constitutional right not to be
compelled to testify against himself.
CHAVEZ V. CA – AUG 19,
1968

QUALIFIED THEFT OF A
MOTOR VEHICLE
Chavez v. CA – Aug 19, 1968

The trial opened with the following dialogue, which for the great bearing it has on this case, is here reproduced:.
COURT: The parties may proceed.

FISCAL GRECIA: Our first witness is Roger Chavez [one of the accused].
ATTY. CARBON [Counsel for petitioner Chavez]:
I am quite taken by surprise, as counsel for the accused Roger Chavez, with this move of the Fiscal in presenting
him as his witness. I object.

COURT: On what ground, counsel? .

ATTY. CARBON:
On the ground that I have to confer with my client. It is really surprising that at this stage, without my being notified
by the Fiscal, my client is being presented as witness for the prosecution. I want to say in passing that it is only at
this very moment that I come to know about this strategy of the prosecution.

COURT (To the Fiscal): You are not withdrawing the information against the accused Roger Chavez by making [him
a] state witness?.
FISCAL GRECIA:I am not making him as state witness, Your Honor. I am only presenting him as an ordinary
witness.
ATTY. CARBON:
As a matter of right, because it will incriminate my client, I object.
 Chavez v. CA – Aug 19, 1968

COURT: [after the recess] Are the parties ready? .

FISCAL: We are ready to call on our first witness, Roger Chavez.
ATTY. CARBON:
As per understanding, the proceeding was suspended in order to enable me to confer with my client.
I conferred with my client and he assured me that he will not testify for the prosecution this morning
after I have explained to him the consequences of what will transpire.

COURT: What he will testify to does not necessarily incriminate him, counsel.
And there is the right of the prosecution to ask anybody to act as witness on the witness-stand
including the accused.

If there should be any question that is incriminating then that is the time for counsel to interpose his
objection and the court will sustain him if and when the court feels that the answer of this witness to the
question would incriminate him.

Counsel has all the assurance that the court will not require the witness to answer questions which
would incriminate him. But surely, counsel could not object to have the accused called on the
witnessstand.
ATTY. CARBON:
I submit.
Chavez v. CA – Aug 19, 1968
Qualified Theft of a Motor Vehicle

Chavez was convicted, the trial court held:

As to Roger Chavez, however, the court had this to say: "Roger Chavez does not offer
any defense. As a matter of fact, his testimony as witness for the prosecution establishes
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt."5 The trial court branded him "a self-confessed
culprit".6

Chavez appealed to the CA, but the

appeal was dismissed for failure to file
the Brief.

And so the Petition for Habeas Corpus

was filed before the Supreme Court.
Chavez v. CA – Aug 19, 1968
Qualified Theft of a Motor Vehicle

a. There has been deprivation of constitutional right against

self-incrimination. The court may not extract from his
own lips and against his will an admission of guilt. He has
the right to forego to testimony, to remain silent, unless
he chooses to take the witness stand with undiluted and
unfettered exercise of his own free will
b. A Void judgment is in effect no judgment. Being worthless
itself, it neither binds nor bars any one. All acts
performed under it and all claims flowing out of it are
void.
c. Petitioner is entitled to Habeas Corpus as he was already
serving his sentence. He was ordered released.
 Moncupa v. Enriel G.R. No. 63345, January 30, 1986
Concept of Restraint

In Moncupa, petitioners were released but with the

condition that if he change his residence, he needs to
secure prior approval; that he shall not participate in
any interview conducted by the media; and that he is
required to report regularly to respondent.

Actual physical restraint is not always required, any restraint

which will prejudice freedom of action is sufficient.

When there is more than moral restraint. The

deprivation of personal freedom includes the freedom
of movement, to transfer from one place to another,
to choose one’s residence. Freedom may be lost due
to internal moral compulsion, to founded or
groundless fear, or erroneous belief in the existence
of an imaginary power of an impostor to cause harm
if not blindly obeyed, to any psychological element
that may curtail faculty of choice.
Concept of Restraint

Generally, actual and effective, and not merely

nominal or moral, restrained is required (Zagala v.
Ilustre 48 Phil 282)

Actual physical restraint is not always required,

any restraint which will prejudice freedom of
action is sufficient. In Moncupa, petitioners were
released but with the condition that if he change
his residence, he needs to secure prior approval;
that he shall not participate in any interview
conducted by the media; and that he is required
to report regularly to respondent. (Moncupa v.
Enrile G.R. No. 63345, January 30, 1986)
Habeas corpus may not be
issued to compel the husband
to live with his wife (Ilusorio v.
Buildner, May 12, 2000)
When a person is
arrested by virtue of a
warrant that has been
issued without the legal
requirements, habeas
corpus is not a remedy.
The remedy is to file a
motion to quash the
warrant (Alimpoos v CA)
Damages cannot be awarded in habeas
corpus cases. The sole function of the writ
is relieve a person from unlawful
imprisonment and it cannot be used for
another purpose (Alimpoos v. CA)
1. The petition for habeas corpus was properly filed together with their present petition
for certiorari and mandamus.

The writs of habeas corpus and certiorari may be ancillary to each other where necessary
to give effect to the supervisory powers of the higher courts. A writ of habeas
corpus reaches the body and the jurisdictional matters, but not the record. A writ
of certiorari reaches the record but not the body. Hence, a writ of habeas corpus may be
used with the writ of certiorari for the purpose of review. However, habeas corpus does
not lie where the petitioner has the remedy of appeal or certiorari because it will not be
permitted to perform the functions of a writ of error or appeal for the purpose of
reviewing mere errors or irregularities in the proceedings of a court having jurisdiction
over the person and the subject matter.

Neither can we grant the writ at this stage since a writ of habeas corpus is not intended
as a substitute for the functions of the trial court. In the absence of exceptional
circumstances, the orderly course of trial should be pursued and the usual remedies
exhausted before the writ may be invoked. (GALVEZ V. CA (October 24, 1994)
In Re Pet. For HC of Datukan Malang Salibo

He was accused of being Butukan S. Malang, one of the accused in Maguindanao Massacre.
He was questioned by the police and when he explained that he was in Saudi at that time
of the incident they tore off the page in his passport that reflected his departure. He was
detained.

He filed a HC before the CA and the latter MADE THE WRIT returnable to the RTC of Pasig.
RTC granted that petition and respondents appealed to the CA.

Is the RTC decision appealable to the CA? – Once a superior court makes a writ returnable to the trial
court, the lower court does not only become a recommendatory bod whose findings are devoid of
effect. The decision in the HC is the decision of the lower court not the superior court. The trial court
acquired the power and authority to determine the merits of the petition.

The writ of habeas corpus is different from the final decision of the petition. The writ commands the
body of the person to be produced while the final decision determines the legality of confinement

Between the final decision and the writ, it is the writ which is essential as it sets in motion the speedy
inquiry on the legality of the restraint
1. 2005 BAR

Mariano was convicted for raping Victoria. While serving sentence, they got married. What remedy
should Mariano take to secure his most expeditious release?

File a Petition for Habeas Corpus, because there would be no more legal basis

1. BAR 1998

A live-n partner of A filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus of the latter when A was arrested by virtue of a
warrant. Does A have personality to file?

Yes, Habeas Corpus may be filed by some person in behalf of the person detained under Rule 102

1. BAR 2003

The grandfather of 2 girls filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus to claim custody over the children, whose
mother leaves at night and work as a prostitute. The Family Court in Angeles issued the writ. When the
mother learned of the writ, sheriff of Angeles went to Cebu City to serve the writ. Is the enforcement of
the writ correct?

No, when issued by RTC it is enforceable only within its judicial region.
1. 2007 BAR

H filed a petition for dec. of nullity before the RTC of Pasig. W files a petition for habeas corpus before
RTC Pasay, praying for the custody of their child.

The Petition for Habeas Corpus should be dismissed to avoid duplicity of suits

1. BAR 2008

After being convicted and during the service of her sentence, Alma filed for habeas corpus on the ground
that the SC in Vaca v. CA reduced the sentence of the convict from imprisonment to double the amount
of the check.

Since Alam is already convicted by a final judgment.

SECTION 15.

“THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SHALL NOT BE

SUSPENDED EXCEPT IN CASES OF INVASION OR REBELLION OR WHEN
THE PUBLIC SAFETY REQUIRES IT (ARTICLE III, 1987 CONSTITUTION”

What does this mean?

A.M. NO. 03-04-04-SC APRIL 22, 2003
RE: PROPOSED RULE ON CUSTODY OF MINORS AND WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
IN RELATION TO CUSTODY OF MINORS

SECTION 1. Applicability. - This rule shall apply to

petitions for custody of minors and writs of habeas corpus
in relation thereto.
The Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily.
Section 2. Petition for custody of minors; who may
file.- A verified petition for the rightful custody of a minor
may be filed by any person claiming such right. The party
against whom it may be filed shall be designated as the
respondent.
Section 3. Where to file petition. - The petition for
custody of minors shall be filed with the Family Court of
the province or city where the petitioner resides or
where the minor may be found.
Section 20. Petition for writ of habeas corpus. - A verified petition for a writ of habeas
corpus involving custody of minors shall be filed with the Family Court. The writ shall be
enforceable within its judicial region to which the Family Court belongs.

However, the petition may be filed with the regular court in the absence of the presiding judge
of the Family Court, provided, however, that the regular court shall refer the case to the Family
Court as soon as its presiding judge returns to duty.

The petition may also be filed with the appropriate regular courts in places where there are no
Family Courts.

The writ issued by the Family Court or the regular court shall be enforceable in the
judicial region where they belong.

The petition may likewise be filed with the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or with any of its
members and, if so granted, the writ shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines. The writ
may be made returnable to a Family Court or to any regular court within the region where the
petitioner resides or where the minor may be found for hearing and decision on the merits.
Upon return of the writ, the court shall decide the issue on custody of minors. The appellate
court, or the member thereof, issuing the writ shall be furnished a copy of the decision.
In the matter of application of writ of habeas corpus of Richard Brian Thorton in
behalf of minor Sequeira Thorton, August 16, 2004

Petitioner, an American, and respondent, a

Filipino, respondent gave birth to a baby girl
whom they named Sequeira Jennifer Delle
Francisco Thornton.

On December 7, 2001, respondent left the

family home with her daughter Sequiera
without notifying her husband. She told the
servants that she was bringing Sequiera to
Lamitan, Basilan Province.

Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus in

the designated Family Court in Makati City but
this was dismissed, presumably because of the
allegation that the child was in
Basilan. Petitioner then went to Basilan but
could not find them, thus she filed a habeas
corpus Petition before the CA.
In the matter of application of writ of habeas corpus of Richard Brian Thorton in
behalf of minor Sequeira Thorton, August 16, 2004

CA denied it on the ground that it did not

have jurisdiction over the case. It ruled
that since RA 8369 (The Family Courts
Act of 1997) gave family courts exclusive
original jurisdiction over petitions for
habeas corpus, it impliedly repealed RA
7902 (An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of
the Court of Appeals) and Batas
Pambansa 129 (The Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980):
The provisions of RA 8369 reveal no manifest intent to revoke the jurisdiction of the Court of
Appeals and Supreme Court to issue writs of habeas corpus relating to the custody of
minors.
Further, it cannot be said that the provisions of RA 8369, RA 7092 and BP 129 are
absolutely incompatible since RA 8369 does not prohibit the Court of Appeals and the
Supreme Court from issuing writs of habeas corpus in cases involving the custody of minors.
Thus, the provisions of RA 8369 must be read in harmony with RA 7029 and BP 129 that
family courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court
in petitions for habeas corpus where the custody of minors is at issue.
In any case, whatever uncertainty there was has been settled with
the adoption of A.M. No. 03-03-04-SC Re: Rule on Custody of
Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of
Minors. Section 20 of the rule provides that:
Section 20. Petition for writ of habeas corpus. - A verified petition
for a writ of habeas corpus involving custody of minors shall be
filed with the Family Court. The writ shall be enforceable within its
judicial region to which the Family Court belongs.

xxx xxx xxx

The petition may likewise be filed with the Supreme Court, Court
of Appeals, or with any of its members and, if so granted, the writ
shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines. The writ may be
made returnable to a Family Court or to any regular court within
the region where the petitioner resides or where the minor may be
found for hearing and decision on the merits. (Emphasis Ours)
From the foregoing, there is no doubt that the Court of Appeals
and Supreme Court have concurrent jurisdiction with family courts
in habeas corpus cases where the custody of minors is involved.