8/19/2019 Velasco v

1/2

Velasco v. CAG.R. No. 118644 July 7, 1995

Facts: A warrant of arrest was issued by Judge Padolina of RTC Pasig, against accused LawrenceLarkins for violations of B.P. Blg. 22. But on 20 ove!ber "##$, a certain %esiree &linea e'ecutedand filed before t(e B) a co!*laint+affidavit accusing Larkins of t(e cri!e of ra*e allegedly

co!!itted against (er on "# ove!ber "##$. &cting on t(e basis of t(e co!*laint of &linea,*etitioners *ecial )nvestigators Resurreccion and -ru!, Jr. *roceeded to t(e office of Larkins inakati and arrested (i!. Larkins was t(en detained at t(e %etention Cell of t(e B), Taft &venue,anila. Two days later , Larkins *osted a bail for t(e BP 22 c(arged by w(ic( Judge Padolina issuedan order directing t(e release of Larkins fro! confine!ent unless ot(erwise detained for so!e ot(er cause. /owever, Resurreccion and -ru! refused to release Larkins because (e was still detainedfor anot(er cause ra*e1, for w(ic( (e would be (eld for inuest. 3n 24 ove!ber "##$, a co!*laintagainst Larkins for ra*e was e'ecuted by &linea before t(e RTC of &nti*olo. 3n 2 %ece!ber "##$,Larkins, t(roug( (is counsel auricio C. 5le*, filed an 5rgent otion for Bail and on 6 %ece!ber "##$, Larkins, t(roug( (is new counsel, &tty. T(eodore 3. Te, filed anot(er 5rgent 3!nibus otionfor t(e %is!issal of t(e Co!*laint and for )!!ediate Release,  based on t(e alleged illegality of (iswarrantless arrest. T(ese two !otions was (owever denied. 5nable to acce*t t(e ruling, Larkins7co!!on+law wife, Cuyag, filed before t(e C& a *etition for habeas corpus wit( certiorari . &fter 

(earing t(e argu!ents of t(e *arties, t(e C& (eld for Larkin8s i!!ediately release.)n t(e *etition *etitioners insist t(at t(e res*ondent court erred in granting t(e *etition

for habeas corpus because Larkins (ad already been c(arged wit( t(e cri!e of ra*e and t(e trialcourt (ad denied (is a**lication for bail. T(ey furt(er clai! t(at t(e warrantless arrest in t(is case isvalid for it was !ade under ection 9b1, Rule ""4 of t(e Rules of Court. 3n t(e ot(er (and, t(e*rivate res*ondent contends t(at habeas corpus is rendered unavailing not by t(e !ere filing of aninfor!ation, but by t(e issuance of a warrant of arrest or warrant of co!!it!ent, w(ic( are t(e onlytwo *rocesses recogni:ed by law to ;ustify de*rivation of liberty, and t(e order of Judge Caballes of 9January "##9 denying t(e *etition for bail does not ualify as suc(. (e asserts t(at t(e *etitioners(ave !isco!*re(ended Paredes vs. Sandiganbayan 17 because t(at case did not rule t(at t(e writ isno longer available after an infor!ation is filed against t(e *erson detained< w(at it stated is t(at t(e writof habeas corpus will not issue w(en t(e *erson alleged to be restrained of (is liberty is in t(e custody of an officer under a *rocess issued by t(e court w(ic( (as ;urisdiction to do so. (e sub!its t(at t(econtrolling doctrine is t(at enunciated in Ilagan vs. Ponce Enrile, 18 adverted to in Sanchez vs. Demetriou, 19 t(at =>t?(e filing of c(arges, and t(e issuance of t(e corres*onding warrant of arrest,against a *erson invalidly detained will cure t(e defect of t(at detention or at least deny (i! t(e rig(t to bereleased because of suc( defect.=

Issue:

". @(et(er Cuyag (as *ersonality to institute t(e action.2. @(et(er @rit of /abeas Cor*us is *ro*er.4. @(et(er by filing (is !otion for bail, Larkins ad!itted t(at (e is under t(e custody of t(e court andvoluntarily sub!itted (is *erson to its ;urisdiction (ence would invalidate fro! availing t(e re!edy of (abeas cor*us.$. @(et(er t(e order denying t(e urgent !otion for bail is i!*ro*er. )f in t(e affir!ative, w(et(er 

Larkins !ay benefit fro! suc( i!*ro*er order.

HeldA". -. Cuyag (as *ersonality to institute on be(alf of (er co!!on+law s*ouse Larkins, on t(e(abeas cor*us as*ect of t(e *etition, as s(e falls wit(in t(e *urview of t(e ter! =so!e *erson= under ection 4, Rule "02 of t(e Rules of Court, w(ic( !eans any *erson w(o (as a legally ;ustifiedinterest in t(e freedo! of t(e *erson w(ose liberty is restrained or w(o s(ows so!e aut(ori:ation to!ake t(e a**lication. (e is not, (owever, t(e real *arty in interest in t(e certiorari as*ect of t(e

8/19/2019 Velasco v

2/2

*etition. 3nly Larkins could institute a *etition for certiorari to set aside order t(e denying (is !otionsfor bail and for t(e dis!issal of t(e co!*laint against (i!.

2. 3. -ven if t(e arrest of a *erson is illegal, su*ervening events !ay bar (is release or disc(argefro! custody. @(at is to be inuired into is t(e legality of (is detention as of, at t(e earliest, t(e filingof t(e a**lication for a writ of habeas corpus, for even if t(e detention is at its ince*tion illegal, it

!ay, by reason of so!e su*ervening events, suc( as t(e instances !entioned in ection $ of Rule"02, be no longer il legal at t(e ti!e of t(e filing of t(e a**lication. &!ong suc( su*ervening events ist(e issuance of a ;udicial *rocess *reventing t(e disc(arge of t(e detained *erson.

 &not(er is t(e filing of a co!*laint or infor!ation for t(e offense for w(ic( t(e accused is detained,as in t(e instant case. By t(en, t(e restraint of liberty is already by virtue of t(e co!*laint or infor!ation and, t(erefore, t(e writ of habeas corpus is no longer available.

4. -. T(e filing of a *etition or !otion for bail in cases w(ere no bail is reco!!ended (as t(esa!e legal i!*ort and effect as t(e *osting of bail in cases w(ere bail is reco!!ended. )t is settledt(at t(e giving or *osting of bail by t(e accused is tanta!ount to sub!ission of (is *erson to t(e

 ;urisdiction of t(e court. )n t(e case of Carrington vs. Peterson, 40 t(is Court declared t(at w(en adefendant in a cri!inal case is broug(t before a co!*etent court by virtue of a warrant of arrest orot(erwise, in order to avoid t(e sub!ission of (is body to t(e ;urisdiction of t(e court (e !ust raiset(e uestion of t(e court7s ;urisdiction over (is *erson at t(e very earliest o**ortunity. )f (e gives bail,de!urs to t(e co!*laint or files any dilatory *lea or *leads to t(e !erits, (e t(ereby gives t(e court

 ;urisdiction over (is *erson. tate e' rel. Jo(n Brown vs. it:gerald, 9" inn., 94$1 )n 5nited tatesvs. Drant, 4" t(is Court (eld t(at conceding again t(at t(e warrant issued in t(is case was void fort(e reason t(at no *robable cause was found by t(e court before issuing it, t(e defendant waived all(is rig(ts to ob;ect to t(e sa!e by a**earing and giving bond.@(ile it !ay be true t(at on 6 %ece!ber "##$, or four days after t(e filing of t(e 5rgent otion forBail, Larkins, t(ru a new counsel, filed an 5rgent 3!nibus otion for %is!issal of t(e Co!*laint andfor )!!ediate Release based on t(e alleged illegality of (is warrantless arrest, t(e said !otion wasa !ere aftert(oug(t w(ic( ca!e too late in t(e day. By t(en, t(e trial court (ad fir!ly acuired

 ;urisdiction over (is *erson./ence, even granting t(at Larkins was illegally arrested, still t(e *etition for a writ of (abeas cor*us

will not *ros*er because (is detention (as beco!e legal by virtue of t(e filing before t(e trial court of t(e co!*laint against (i! and by t(e issuance of t(e 9 January "##9 order.

$. 3. T(e trial court did not conduct a (earing of t(e urgent !otion for bail, as reuired underection 9, Rule ""$ of t(e Rules of Court. T(e grant or denial of bail !ust be based u*on t(e court7sdeter!ination as to w(et(er or not t(e evidence of guilt is strong. T(is discretion !ay only bee'ercised after evidence is sub!itted at t(e (earing conducted for t(at *ur*ose. T(e court7s ordergranting or refusing bail !ust contain a su!!ary of t(e evidence for t(e *rosecution followed by itsconclusion w(et(er or not t(e evidence of guilt is strong< ot(erwise, t(e order would be defective andvoidable. )n fact, even if t(e *rosecutor refuses to adduce evidence in o**osition to t(e a**lication togrant and fi' bail, t(e court !ay ask t(e *rosecution suc( uestions as would ascertain t(e strengt(of t(e tate7s evidence or ;udge t(e adeuacy of t(e a!ount of bail. )t was t(us incu!bent u*on t(etrial court to receive t(e evidence for t(e *rosecution on t(e urgent !otion for bail. or t(is

*rocedural s(ortco!ing, Larkins s(ould also be *artly bla!ed. /e did not *ress for a (earing aftert(e sc(eduled (earing on 9 %ece!ber "##$ was cancelled because, as (e clai!ed, t(e *residingJudge was out of t(e country.