SPECIAL PROCEDURE MAY 23, 2023

Rule 102 WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

The high prerogative writ of habeas corpus is a speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons from
unlawful restraint. It secures to a prisoner the right to have the cause of his detention examined and
determined by a court of justice and to have it ascertained whether he is held under lawful authority.

Broadly speaking, the writ of habeas corpus extends 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. (In re: Abellana, GR No. 232006, July 10, 2019)

The ultimate purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to relieve a person from unlawful restraint. The writ
exists as a speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint and as an effective
defense of personal freedom. It is issued only for the lone purpose of obtaining relief for those illegally
confined or imprisoned without sufficient legal basis. It is not issued when the person is in custody
because of a judicial process or a valid judgment. (Adonis vs. Tesoro, GR No. 182855, June 5, 2013)

In general, the purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to determine whether or not a particular person
is legally held. A prime specification of an application for a writ of habeas corpus, in fact, is an actual
and effective, and not merely nominal or moral, illegal restraint of liberty. The writ of habeas corpus was
devised and exists as a speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint, and as
the best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom. A prime specification of an application for a
writ of habeas corpus is restraint of liberty. 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.

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 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. Needless to state, if otherwise,
again the writ will be refused. (Ampatuan vs. Macaraig, GR No. 182497, June 29, 2010)

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 (Caballes vs. CA, GR No. 163108, February 23, 2005)

Even if the arrest of a person is illegal, supervening events may bar his release or discharge from
custody. What is to be inquired into is the legality of his detention as of, at the earliest, the filing of the
application for a writ of habeas corpus, for even if the detention is at its inception illegal, it may, by
reason of some supervening events, such as the instances mentioned in Sec. 4 of Rule 102, be no
longer illegal at the time of the filing of the application. Among such supervening events is the issuance
of a judicial process preventing the discharge of the detained person x x x Another is the filing of a
complaint or information for the offense for which the accused is detained, as in the instant case. By
then, the restraint of liberty is already by virtue of the complaint or information and, therefore, the writ
of habeas corpus is no longer available. (Velasco vs. CA, GR No. 118644, July 7, 1995)

A restrictive custody and monitoring of movements or whereabouts of police officers under investigation
by their superiors is not a form of illegal detention or restraint of liberty. (Ampatuan vs. Macaraig, GR
No. 182497, June 29, 2010)

It cannot be availed of where accused is entitled to bail not as a matter of right but on the discretion of
the court and the latter has not abused such discretion in refusing to grant bail, or has not even
exercised said discretion. The proper recourse is to file an application for bail with the court where the
criminal case is pending and to allow hearings thereon to proceed. (Serapio vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No.
148468, January 28, 2003)

Jurisdiction
The RTC, CA, and SC have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus. The MTC,
by virtue of special jurisdiction under BP. 129, can issue the writ in case there is no available RTC judge.
Hierarchy of courts is not observed.
The writ issued by the RTC is enforceable w/in its territorial jurisdiction. While the writ issued by the CA
or SC is enforceable anywhere in the Philippines.

Contents of the petition of Writ of Habeas Corpus

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 so imprisoned or restrained, if known;
d. Copy of the commitment or cause of detention of such person. If it can be procured without any legal
authority, such fact shall appear.

Contents of the return

a. Whether he has or has not the party in his custody or power, or under restraint;
b. If the party is in his custody or power, or under restraint -- the authority and the true and whole cause
thereof, with a copy of the writ, order, execution, or other processes upon which the party is held
c. If the party, etc., and is not produced – nature and gravity of sickness or infirmity
d. If the party was in his custody, etc. and has transferred such custody or restraint to another – to
whom, at what time, for what cause and by what authority such transfer was made.

Peremptory writ of habeas corpus – unconditionally commanding the respondent to have the body of
the detained person before the court at a time and place therein specified.

Preliminary citation – requiring the respondent to appear and show cause why the peremptory writ
should not be granted.

Writ of habeas corpus as a post-conviction remedy

GR: The writ may not be availed of when the person in custody is under a judicial process or
by virtue of a valid judgment.

XPN: The writ of habeas corpus may also be availed of as a post-conviction remedy when, as a
consequence of a judicial proceeding, any of the following exceptional circumstances is attendant:
1) there has been a deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the restraint of a person;
2) the court had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence; or
3) the imposed penalty has been excessive, thus voiding the sentence as to such excess. (In re: Reyes,
GR No. 251954, June 10, 2020)

Other grounds/circumstances:
1) Where the law is amended, as when the penalty is lowered; (Feria vs. CA, GR No. 122954, February
15, 2000)
2) Denial of right to a speedy trial (since it is jurisdictional);
3) Where the results of post-conviction DNA testing are favorable to the convict;
4) Enable the parents to regain custody of a minor child, even if the latter be in the custody of a third
person of her own free will; (Tijing vs. CA, GR No. 125901, March 8, 2001)
5) In determining the constitutionality of a statute; (People vs. Vera, GR No. L-45685, November 16,
1937)
6) When testing the legality of an alien’s confinement and proposed expulsion from the Philippines; (Lao
Tang Bun vs. Fabre, GR No. L-1673, October 22, 1948)
7) In permitting an alien to land in the Philippines; (Lim Cheng vs. Insular Collector of Customs, GR No.
16406, September 13, 1920) and
8) In determining the legality of an extradition. (United States vs. Rauscher, 7 S. Ct. 234, 30 L. Ed. 425,
December 6, 1886)

Q: Who has the burden of proof if the allegation/defense of release is in dispute?

A: We have applied the general rule in a number of cases that the release of a detained person renders
the petition for habeas corpus moot and academic x x x The cited general rule postulates that the
release of the detainees is an established fact and not in dispute, and that they do not continue to be
missing persons or desaparecidos. Where, however, there are grounds for grave doubts about the
alleged release of the detainees, which we share, particularly, where the standard and prescribed
procedure in effecting the release has not been followed, then the burden of proving by clear and
convincing evidence the alleged release is shifted to the respondents. Release is an affirmative defense
and "each party must prove his own affirmative allegations," just as the burden of proof of self-defense
in a killing rests on the accused. Moreover, evidence of release lies particularly w/in respondents'
power. (Dizon vs. Eduardo, GR No. L-59118, March 3, 1988)

Writ of Habeas Corpus in relation to custody of minors (AM 03-04-04-SC)

Petition for custody of minors
A verified petition for the rightful custody of a minor may be filed by any person claiming such
right.

Jurisdiction and Venue

Family Court of the province or city where the petitioner resides or where the minor may be found

Contents of the verified petition

(a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner and of the respondent;
(b) The name, age and present whereabouts of the minor and his or her relationship to the petitioner
and the respondent;
(c) The material operative facts constituting deprivation of custody; and (d) Such other matters which
are relevant to the custody of the minor. The verified petition must also be accompanied by a CAFS.

Motion to dismiss
A motion to dismiss the petition is not allowed except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter or over the parties. Any other ground that might warrant the dismissal of the petition may
be raised as an affirmative defense in the answer.

Case study by the social worker

Upon the filing of the verified answer or the expiration of the period to file it, the court may order a
social worker to make a case study of the minor and the parties and to submit a report and
recommendation to the court at least 3 days before the scheduled pre-trial.

Order of preference; Award of provisional custody

(a) Both parents jointly;
(b) Either parent, taking into account all relevant considerations, especially the choice of the minor over
seven years of age and of sufficient discernment, unless the parent chosen is unfit;
(c) The grandparent, or if there are several grandparents, the grandparent chosen by the minor over
seven years of age and of sufficient discernment, unless the grandparent chosen is unfit or disqualified;
(d) The eldest brother or sister over twenty-one years of age, unless he or she is unfit or disqualified;
(e) The actual custodian of the minor over twenty-one years of age, unless the former is unfit or
disqualified; or
(f) Any other person or institution the court may deem suitable to provide proper care and guidance for
the minor.

Factors in awarding custody

In awarding custody, the court shall consider the best interests of the minor and shall give
paramount consideration to his material and moral welfare. The best interests of the minor refer to the
totality of the circumstances and conditions as are most congenial to the survival, protection, and
feelings of security of the minor encouraging to his physical, psychological and emotional development.
It also means the least detrimental available alternative for safeguarding the growth and development of
the minor.

The court shall also consider the following:

(a) Any extrajudicial agreement which the parties may have bound themselves to comply with
respecting the rights of the minor to maintain direct contact with the non-custodial parent on a regular
basis, except when there is an existing threat or danger of physical, mental, sexual or emotional violence
which endangers the safety and best interests of the minor;
(b) The desire and ability of one parent to foster an open and loving relationship between the minor and
the other parent;
(c) The health, safety and welfare of the minor;
(d) Any history of child or spousal abuse by the person seeking custody or who has had any filial
relationship with the minor, including anyone courting the parent; (e) The nature and frequency of
contact with both parents;
(f) Habitual use of alcohol, dangerous drugs or regulated substances;
(g) Marital misconduct;
(h) The most suitable physical, emotional, spiritual, psychological and educational environment for the
holistic development and growth of the minor; and
(i) The preference of the minor over seven years of age and of sufficient discernment, unless the parent
chosen is unfit.

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.

In custody cases involving minors, the writ of habeas corpus is prosecuted for the purpose
of determining the right of custody over a child. The grant of the writ depends on the concurrence of
the following requisites:
(1) that the petitioner has the right of custody over the minor;
 (2) that the rightful custody of the minor is being withheld from the petitioner by the respondents;
and
(3) that it is to the best interest of the minor concerned to be in the custody of petitioner and not
that of the respondents.

Writ of habeas corpus vis-a-vis Decision on the petition for the issuance of the writ
The writ of habeas corpus is different from the final decision on the petition for the issuance of the
writ. It is the writ that commands the production of the body of the person allegedly restrained of his or
her liberty. On the other hand, it is in the final decision where a court determines the legality of the
restraint.

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

DEFINITION
It is 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.
AVAILABILITY
To all cases of illegal confinement or detention:
1. By which any person is deprived of his liberty; or
2. By which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto.
PETITIONER/WHO CAN FILE A PETITION?
Filed by the party for whose relief it is intended, or by some person on his behalf.
WHERE TO FILE?
1. RTC where the person is detained;
2. Sandiganbayan;
3. Court of Appeals;
4. Supreme Court; or
5. Any justice of the three preceding courts.
ENFORCEABILITY
If granted by SC, CA or Sandiganbayan: enforceable anywhere In the Philippines;
If granted by RTC: enforceable only w/in the judicial district.
WHERE TO FILE RETURN?
On the day specified in the writ.
REMEDY FROM THE JUDGMENT
By ordinary appeal within 48hours from notice of judgment

WRIT OF AMPARO
DEFINITION
It is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty, and security has been violated or
is threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or
of a private individual or entity. The writ covers extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or
threats thereof.
AVAILABILITY
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
PETITIONER/WHO CAN FILE A PETITION?
Filed by the aggrieved party or by any qualified person or entity in the following order:
(a) Any member of the immediate family, namely: the spouse, children and parents of the aggrieved
party;
(b) Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved party w/in the fourth civil
degree of consanguinity or affinity, in default of those mentioned in the preceding paragraph; or
(c) Any concerned citizen, organization, association or institution, if there is no known member of
the immediate family or relative of the aggrieved party.
WHERE TO FILE?
1. RTC of the place where the threat, act or omission was committed or any of its elements
occurred;
2. SB or any justice thereof;
3. CA or any justice thereof; or 4. SC or any justice thereof.
ENFORCEABILITY
Enforceable anywhere in the Philippines.
WHERE TO FILE RETURN?
W/in 5 working days after service of the writ.
In case respondent fails to file a return, the court, justice or judge shall proceed to hear the petition
ex parte.
PROHIBITED PLEADINGS
(a)Motion to dismiss;
(b) Motion for extension of time to file return, opposition, affidavit, position paper and other
pleadings;
(c) Dilatory motion for postponement;
(d) Motion for a bill of particulars;
(e) Counterclaim or cross-claim;
(f)Third-party complaint; (g)Reply;
(h) Motion to declare respondent in default; (i)Intervention;
(j)Memorandum;
(k)Motion for reconsideration of interlocutory orders or interim relief orders; and
(l) Petition for certiorari, mandamus or prohibition against any interlocutory order.
REMEDY FROM THE JUDGMENT
By a R45 PetRevCert w/in 48 hours from notice of judgment
WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
DEFINITION
It is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or
threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private
individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing data or information regarding
the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.
AVAILABILITY
To any person whose right to privacy in 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 engaged in the:
(a) gathering;
(b) collecting; or
(c) storing of data or information regarding the person family, home and correspondence of the
aggrieved party.
PETITIONER/WHO CAN FILE A PETITION?
GR: Any aggrieved party may file a petition for the writ of habeas data.
XPN: In cases of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, the petition may be filed by:
(a) Any member of the immediate family of the aggrieved party, namely: the spouse, children
and parents; or
(b) Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved party w/in the fourth civil
degree of consanguinity or affinity, in default of those mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
WHERE TO FILE?
1. RTC where the petitioner or respondent resides, or that which has jurisdiction over the place
where the data or information is gathered, collected or stored, at the option of the
petitioner;
2. SB;
3. CA; or
4. SC when the action concerns public data files or government offices.
ENFORCEABILITY
Enforceable anywhere in the Philippines.
WHERE TO FILE RETURN?
W/in 5 working days after service of the writ.
In case respondent fails to file a return, the court, justice or judge shall proceed to hear the petition
ex parte.
PROHIBITED PLEADINGS
(a)Motion to dismiss;
(b) Motion for extension of time to file return, opposition, affidavit, position paper and other
pleadings;
(c) Dilatory motion for postponement;
(d) Motion for a bill of particulars;
 (e) Counterclaim or cross-claim;
(f)Third-party complaint; (g)Reply;
(h) Motion to declare respondent in default; (i)Intervention;
(j)Memorandum;
(k)Motion for reconsideration of interlocutory orders or interim relief orders; and
(l) Petition for certiorari, mandamus or prohibition against any interlocutory order.
REMEDY FROM THE JUDGMENT
By a R45 PetRevCert w/in 48 hours from notice of judgment