RULE 102

HABEAS
CORPUS
Eufemia E. Rodriguez was a 94-year old widow, allegedly
suffering from a poor state of mental health and deteriorating
cognitive abilities. She was living with Edgardo Veluz, her
nephew, since 2000. He acted as her guardian but has no legal
custody to her.
In the morning of January 11, 2005, the adopted children of
Eufemia, who are Luisa R. Villanueva and Teresita R. Pabello,
took Eufemia from Veluz’ house. She willingly went to them. He
made repeated demands for the return of Eufemia but these
proved futile.
Claiming that they were restraining Eufemia of her liberty, he
filed a petition for habeas corpus in the Court of Appeals on
January 13, 2005.
Was there unlawful restraint on the part of Eufemia’s adopted
children?
WHAT IS A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS?
• It is a writ directed to the person detaining
another and commanding him to produce
the body of the prisoner at a certain time
and place with the day and the cause of his
caption and detention, to do, submit to and
receive whatsoever, the court or judge
awarding the writ shall consider in that
behalf.
(Illusorio v. Bildner, G.R. No. 139789, May 12, 2000)
NATURE OF SCOPE
• Habeas Corpus is a summary remedy.

• It is analogous to a proceeding in rem as it is an inquisition

by the Government, at the suggestion and instance of an
individual, but still in the name and capacity of the sovereign.

• 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 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. (Caballes v. CA, G.R. No. 163108, February 23, 2005).
• The writ is not ordinarily granted where the law
provides for other remedies in the regular
course, and in the absence of exceptional
circumstances.

• It 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.
Eufemia E. Rodriguez was a 94-year old widow, allegedly
suffering from a poor state of mental health and deteriorating
cognitive abilities. She was living with Edgardo Veluz, her
nephew, since 2000. He acted as her guardian but has no legal
custody to her.
In the morning of January 11, 2005, the adopted children of
Eufemia, who are Luisa R. Villanueva and Teresita R. Pabello,
took Eufemia from Veluz’ house. She willingly went to them. He
made repeated demands for the return of Eufemia but these
proved futile.
Claiming that they were restraining Eufemia of her liberty, he
filed a petition for habeas corpus in the Court of Appeals on
January 13, 2005.
Was there unlawful restraint on the part of Eufemia’s adopted
children?
Answer:
No, Eufemia is not restrained of her liberty.
In the case of Veluz vs Villanueva (GR No. 169482, January 29, 2008) the
Supreme Court has held that 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. If he is not, the writ will be refused. Inquiry into the
If the
cause of detention will proceed only where such restraint exists.
alleged cause is thereafter found to be unlawful, then
the writ should be granted and the petitioner
discharged. Needless to state, if otherwise, again the writ will be
refused.
Here, there is no proof that Eufemia is being detained and restrained of her liberty by
her adopted children. As such, nothing reveals that she was forcibly taken by them. On
the contrary, they are taking care of her.
Therefore, the petition for habeas corpus should be denied.
Edwin and Lourdes are husband and wife who have lived together since
1996 but formalized their union only on 28 October 1997. On 30 April 1998,
Lourdes filed a petition for habeas corpus before the RTC claiming that
Edwin left their conjugal home with their daughter, Khriza Mae Tribiana
("Khriza"). Edwin has since deprived Lourdes of lawful custody of Khriza
who was then only one (1) year and four (4) months of age. Later, it turned
out that Khriza was being held by Edwin’s mother, Rosalina Tribiana
("Rosalina"). Edwin moved to dismiss Lourdes’ petition on the ground that
the petition failed to allege that earnest efforts at a compromise were made
before its filing.

On 20 May 1998, Lourdes filed her opposition to Edwin’s motion to dismiss

claiming that there were prior efforts at a compromise, which failed.
Lourdes attached to her opposition a copy of the Certification to File Action
from their Barangay dated 1 May 1998.

Are conciliation proceedings before the barangay are required in petitions

for habeas corpus?
TO WHAT CASES DOES HABEAS
CORPUS EXTEND?

a) Illegal confinement or detention by which any

person is deprived of his liberty; or

b) By which the rightful custody of any person is

withheld from the person entitled thereto
except as otherwise expressly provided by law.
(Sec. 1, Rule 102)
Edwin and Lourdes are husband and wife who have lived together since
1996 but formalized their union only on 28 October 1997. On 30 April 1998,
Lourdes filed a petition for habeas corpus before the RTC claiming that
Edwin left their conjugal home with their daughter, Khriza Mae Tribiana
("Khriza"). Edwin has since deprived Lourdes of lawful custody of Khriza
who was then only one (1) year and four (4) months of age. Later, it turned
out that Khriza was being held by Edwin’s mother, Rosalina Tribiana
("Rosalina"). Edwin moved to dismiss Lourdes’ petition on the ground that
the petition failed to allege that earnest efforts at a compromise were made
before its filing.

On 20 May 1998, Lourdes filed her opposition to Edwin’s motion to dismiss

claiming that there were prior efforts at a compromise, which failed.
Lourdes attached to her opposition a copy of the Certification to File Action
from their Barangay dated 1 May 1998.

Are conciliation proceedings before the barangay are required in petitions

for habeas corpus?
Answer:

No, conciliation proceedings before the barangay are not required in petitions for habeas
corpus.

Under Rule 102 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may resort to a
habeas corpus proceeding in two instances. The first is when any person is
deprived of liberty either through illegal confinement or through detention. The
second instance is when custody of any person is withheld from the person
entitled to such custody.

The most common case falling under the second instance involves children who are taken
away from a parent by another parent or by a relative. The case filed by Lourdes falls under
this category.
The barangay conciliation requirement in Section 412 of the LGC does not apply to habeas
corpus proceedings where a person is "deprived of personal liberty." In such a case, Section
412 expressly authorizes the parties "to go directly to court" without need of any conciliation
proceedings. There is deprivation of personal liberty warranting a petition for habeas corpus
where the "rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto."

Thus, Edwin’s contention are without merit since the law exempts petitions for habeas corpus
from the barangay conciliation requirement. (Tribiana vs Tribiana, GR No. 137359, September
13, 2004)
WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS?
The writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal
confinement or detention by which any person is deprived
of his liberty upon a verified petition setting forth:

a) That the person in whose behalf the application is made is

imprisoned or restrained of his liberty;

b) The officer or name of the person by whom he is so imprisoned or

restrained;

c) The place where he is imprisoned or restrained of his liberty; and

d) A copy of the commitment or cause of detention of such person.

(Sec. 3, Rule 102)
To whom shall a writ of habeas
corpus be directed?

• It may be directed to any officer restraining or

detaining a person if the person is being
imprisoned. (Sec. 6, Rule 102)
What shall a writ of habeas corpus
direct?

• It shall direct the officer or anyone detaining or

restraining another 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 specified to show the cause of
imprisonment or restraint. (Sec. 6, Rule 102)
CONTENTS OF PETITION
a) That the person in whose behalf the application is
made is imprisoned or restrained of 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;
c) The place where he is so imprisoned or restrained,
if known;
d) The cause of his detention; and
e) The verified petition must be signed.
HOW IS THE WRIT BE EXECUTED?
• General Rule: The officer to whom the writ is
directed shall convey the person so imprisoned
or restrained, and named in the writ before:
1. The judge allowing the writ;
2. In case of his absence or disability before some other
judge of the same court, on the day specified in the
writ.
• Exceptions:
1. Sickness of infirmity of the person directed to be
produced;
2. Such person cannot, without danger, be brought in
court.
CONTENTS OF RETURN
1. Whether he has or has not the party in his
custody or power, or under restraint;

2. If he has the party in his custody or power, or

under restraint, the authority and the true and
whole cause thereof, set forth at large, with a
copy of the writ, order, execution, or other
process, if any, upon which the party is held;
3. If the party is in his custody or power or is
restrained by him, and is not produced,
particularly the nature and gravity of the
sickness or infirmity of such party by reason of
which he cannot, without danger, be brought
before the court or judge;

4. If he has had the party in his custody or power,

or under restraint, and has transferred such
custody or restraint to another, particularly to
whom, at what time, for what cause, and by
what authority such transfer was made.
(Sec. 10, Rule 102).
RETURN TO BE SIGNED AND SWORN
TO
GR: The return or statement shall be sworn to
by the person who makes it.
XPN: The return is made and signed by a sworn
public officer in his official capacity.
XPN to the XPN: When the prisoner is not
produced.

In all cases, the return or statement shall

be signed by the person who makes it.
(Sec. 11, Rule 102).
WHO MAY GRANT THE WRIT?
A. SUPREME COURT. The writ is enforceable
throughout the Philippines.
B. COURT OF APPEALS. The writ is
enforceable throughout the Philippines.
C. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT. The writ is
enforceable within its respective judicial
region. When there is no available RTC Judge,
the MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT.
D. SANDIGANBAYAN. Only is it is in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction.
MAY THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BE AVAILED
OF IF A PERSON HAS BEEN CHARGED IN COURT?
• General Rule:

No. Once a person detained is duly charged in

court, he may no longer file a petition for habeas
corpus. His remedy would be to quash the
information or warrant.
• EXCEPTIONS:
A writ of habeas corpus can be availed of as a
consequence of a judicial proceeding where:

a) There has been 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.
(Feria v. CA, G.R. No. 122954, February 15, 2000).
Roger Chavez was charged along with other accused with
qualified theft. They all plead not guilty.
During the trial, the prosecutor asked Chavez to be the first
witness. His counsel opposed it.
The prosecutor contends that the accused will only be an
ordinary witness and not a State witness.
The defense counsel asserts that it will only incriminate his
client.
The court allowed it.
Chavez was convicted.

He filed a petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus?

Was the petition proper?

If so, will it void the judgment?
Yes, the petition is proper.

The Supreme Court has held in the case of Chavez vs CA (GR L-29169) that habeas
corpus is a high prerogative writ. It is traditionally considered as an exceptional
remedy to release a person whose liberty is illegally restrained such as when the
accused's constitutional rights are disregarded. Such defect results in the absence or
loss of jurisdiction and therefore invalidates the trial and the consequent conviction
of the accused whose fundamental right was violated.

In the case at bar, Chavez was asked to testify for the crime they were accused of,
which vilolated the defendant’s constitutional immunity from being called to testify
against himself.

The judgment of conviction shall be void through a collateral attack.

In the same case, the Court has held that void judgment of conviction may be
challenged by collateral attack, which is precisely the function of habeas corpus. This
writ may issue even if another remedy which is less effective may be availed of by the
defendant.
DISALLOWANCE AND DISCHARGE OF
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

• In cases of supervening events such as issuance

of a process and filing of an information;

• In cases of improper arrest or lack of preliminary

investigation;

• In cases of invalid arrest due to deportation

cases cured by filing of the deportation
proceedings;
• Petition for habeas corpus is not the appropriate
vehicle for asserting a right to bail or vindicating
its denial; and

• 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.
Kunting was arrested in Malaysia for violation of the Malaysian Internal
Security Act. On June 12, 2003, the Royal Malaysian Police in Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia, turned over Kunting to the PNP-IG and Task Force Salinglahi pursuant
to warrants for his arrest issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Isabela
City, Basilan, Branch 2, Ninth Judicial Region. Kunting was charged with four
counts of Kidnapping for Ransom and Serious Illegal Detention with the RTC.
Kunting was immediately flown to the Philippines and brought to the PNP-IG at
Camp Crame for booking and custodial investigation.
In a letter dated July 3, 2003, Atty. Guillermo G. Danipog, Jr., Police
Superintendent and Chief of the Legal Affairs Division, PNP-IG, informed the
Branch Clerk of Court of the RTC that Kunting was already in the custody of the
PNP-IG.
Atty. Danipog requested for Kunting's temporary detention at the PNP-IG,
Camp Crame, Quezon City due to the high security risks involved and prayed for
the issuance of a corresponding commitment order.
Hence, Kunting filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
Can the petition prosper?
Answer:
No, the petition cannot prosper.
Section 4, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court provides when the writ is not allowed:
SEC. 4. When writ not allowed or discharge authorized. If it appears that the person
alleged to be restrained of his liberty 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 that the
court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the process, render the judgment, or make the
order, the writ shall not be allowed; 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. Nor shall anything in this rule be held to authorize the
discharge of a person charged with or convicted of an offense in the Philippines, or of a
person suffering imprisonment under lawful judgment.
In this case, Kunting's detention by the PNP-IG was under process issued by the RTC. He
was arrested by the PNP by virtue of the alias order of arrest. His temporary detention at
PNP-IG, Camp Crame, Quezon City, was thus authorized by the trial court.
Moreover, Kunting cannot be discharged since he has been charged with a criminal
once the person detained is duly charged in court, he
offense. Thus,
may no longer question his detention by a petition for the
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. (In Re: Kunting)
When must a Writ of Habeas Corpus
be granted?

A court or judge authorized to grant the writ

must, when a petition therefore is presented and
it appears that the writ ought to issue, grant the
same forthwith, and immediately thereupon the
clerk of the court shall issue the writ under the
seal of the court; or in case of emergency, the
judge may issue the writ under his own hand,
and may deputize any officer or person to serve
it. (Sec. 5, Rule 102)
PRELIMINARY CITATION vs.
PREEMPTORY
• Preliminary Citation is issued when a
government officer has the person in his custody, the
illegality of which is not patent, to show cause why
the writ of habeas corpus should not issue.

• Peremptory Writ is issued when the cause of the

detention appears to be patently illegal and the non-
compliance therewith is punishable.
(Lee Yick Hon v. Collector of Customs, G.R. No. 16779, March 30,
1921).
 RULES ON CUSTODY OF
MINORS AND WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS IN
RELATION TO CUSTODY OF
MINORS
Who may file a Petition for Custody
of Minor ?

• A verified petition for the rightful custody of a

minor may be filed by any person claiming:
a) The unlawful deprivation of the custody of the
minor
b) Which parent shall have the care and custody of
a minor, when such parent is in the midst of
nullity, annulment or legal separation
(Sec. 2, AM No. 03-04-04-SC)
Where is it filed?

• The petition for custody of minor is filed with the Family

Court of the province or city:

a) where the petitioner resides; or

b) where the minor may be found.

(Sec. 3, AM No. 03-04-04-SC)

Where is it filed?

• The petition for habeas corpus involving custody of minor is

filed with:

a. the Family Court;

b. the regular courts in the absence of the presiding judge in
the Family Court or in places where there no Family Courts; or
c. the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or any of its
members.

(Sec. 20, AM No. 03-04-04-SC)

On March 24, 2011, Raquel M. Cada-Deapera filed before the RTC-Caloocan a verified
petition for writ of habeas corpus. In the said petition, respondent demanded the
immediate issuance of the special writ, directing petitioner Ma. Hazelina Tujan-Militante
to produce before the court respondent's biological daughter, minor Criselda M. Cada
(Criselda), and to return to her the custody over the child. Additionally, respondent
indicated that petitioner has three (3) known addresses where she can be served with
summons and other court processes, to wit: (1) 24 Bangkal St., Amparo Village,
Novaliches, Caloocan City; (2) 118B K9Street, Kamias, Quezon City; and (3) her office at
the Ombudsman-Office of the Special Prosecutor, 5th Floor, Sandiganbayan, Centennial
Building, Commonwealth Avenue cor. Batasan Road, Quezon City.
Arguing that the RTC-Caloocan lacked jurisdiction over the case, petitioner relies on
Section 3 of A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC and maintains that the habeas corpus petition should
have been filed before the family court that has jurisdiction over her place of residence
or that of the minor or wherever the minor may be found.
As to respondent, she asserts, among others, that the applicable rule is not Section 3
but Section 20 of A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC.
If you were the judge, will you grant the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus?
Answer:
As the judge, I will grant the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus.
Section 20 of A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC and Rule 102 of the Rules of Court provides that 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.

In the case at bar, respondent filed the petition before the family court of Caloocan City. Since
Caloocan City and Quezon City both belong to the same judicial region, the writ
issued by the RTC-Caloocan can still be implemented in Quezon City.
Consequently, in consideration that the writ is made enforceable within a judicial region, petitions for
the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus, whether they be filed under Rule 102 of the Rules of Court
therefore be filed with any of the
or pursuant to Section 20 of A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC, may
proper RTCs within the judicial region where enforcement thereof is sought.
(Tujan-MIlitante vs Cada Decpera)
Contents of the Verified Petition
1. The personal circumstances of the petitioner and
of the respondent.
2. The name, age and present whereabouts of the
minor and his or her relationship to the petitioner
and the respondent.
3. The material operative facts constituting
deprivation of custody.
4. Such other matters which are relevant to the
custody of the minor.
5. Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping signed
personally by the petitioner (Sec. 4, AM No. 03-
04-04-SC).