AMPATUAN V MACARAIG

FACTS:

Petitioner alleged in her petition that her husband PO1 Ampatuan was asked by his Chief of Police to report to the Provincial
Director of Shariff Kabunsuan,. He was directed to stay at the Police Provincial Office of Maguindanao without being informed
of the cause of his restraint. The next day, he was brought to Manila and was turned over to policemen of Manilawas where it was
announced that PO1 Ampatuan was arrested for the killing of two Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Officials. He was then
detained at the Police Jail,Manila.

Petitioner continues that, Chief Inquest Prosecutor Nelson Salva ordered the release for further investigation of PO1
Ampatuan. 4 The Order was approved by the City Prosecutor of Manila. But Police Senior Superintendent Co Yee Co, Jr., and
Police Chief Inspector Agapito Quimson refused to release PO1 Ampatuan. This prompted Petitioner to file the petition for
writ of habeas corpus in the RTC of Manila.
Private respondents narrated that a sixty-four-year-old man, Atty. Alioden D. Dalaig, Head of the, was killed. Investigation
conducted by the Manila Police District (MPD) Homicide Section yielded the identity of the male perpetrator as PO1
Ampatuan. Consequently, PO1 Ampatuan was commanded to the MPD District Director for proper disposition. Likewise,
inquest proceedings were conducted by the Manila Prosecutor's Office.
Atty. Clarence V. Guinto, rendered his Pre-Charge Evaluation Report against PO1 Ampatuan, finding probable cause to charge
PO1 Ampatuan with Grave Misconduct (Murder) and recommending that said PO1 Ampatuan be subjected to summary
hearing.
City Prosecutor of Manila recommended that the case against PO1 Ampatuan be set for further investigation and that the latter
be released from custody unless he is being held for other charges/legal grounds. 11
Respondent Judge Virgilio V. Macaraig ordered the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus commanding therein respondents to
produce the body of PO1 Ampatuan and directing said respondents to show cause why they are withholding or restraining the
liberty of PO1 Ampatuan, still he was not released.

HELD:

*Essentially, a writ of habeas corpus applies to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of
his liberty. 15
*Rule 102 of the 1997 Rules of Court sets forth the procedure to be followed in the issuance of the writ. The Rule provides:

RULE 102

HABEAS CORPUS

SEC. 1. To what habeas corpus extends. Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the writ of
habeas corpus shall extend 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.

SEC. 2. Who may grant the writ. The writ of habeas corpus may be granted by the Supreme Court, or
any member thereof, on any day and at any time, or 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 a Court of First Instance, or any
judge thereof for hearing and decision on the merits. It may also be granted by a Court of First Instance, or
a judge thereof, on any day and at any time, and returnable before himself, enforceable only within his
judicial district. CITaSA

xxx xxx xxx

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.

*The objective of the writ is to determine whether the confinement or detention is valid or lawful. If it is, the writ cannot be
issued. What is to be inquired into is the legality of a person's detention as of, at the earliest, the filing of the application for
the 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 Section 4 of Rule 102, be no longer illegal at the time of the filing of the application. 16
*Plainly stated, the writ obtains immediate relief for those who have been illegally confined or imprisoned without sufficient
cause. The writ, however, should not be issued when the custody over the person is by virtue of a judicial process or a valid
judgment. 17
*The most basic criterion for the issuance of the writ, therefore, is that the individual seeking such relief is illegally deprived of
his freedom of movement or placed under some form of illegal restraint. If an individual's liberty is restrained via some legal
process, the writ of habeas corpus is unavailing. 18 Fundamentally, in order to justify the grant of the writ of habeas corpus,
the restraint of liberty must be in the nature of an illegal and involuntary deprivation of freedom of action. 19
*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. It is only if the court is satisfied that a person is being
unlawfully restrained of his liberty will the petition for habeas corpus be granted. If the respondents are not detaining or
restraining the applicant or the person in whose behalf the petition is filed, the petition should be dismissed. 22
*In the instant case, PO1 Ampatuan is also facing administrative charges for Grave Misconduct. They cited the case of Manalo
v. Calderon, 24 where this Court held that a petition for habeas corpus will be given due course only if it shows that petitioner is
being detained or restrained of his liberty unlawfully, but 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.

*PO1 Ampatuan has been placed under Restrictive Custody, clearly provides that members of the police force are subject to the
administrative disciplinary machinery of the PNP. Section 41 (b) of the said law enumerates the disciplinary actions, including
restrictive custody that may be imposed by duly designated supervisors and equivalent officers of the PNP as a matter of internal
discipline.

*Given that PO1 Ampatuan has been placed under restrictive custody, such constitutes a valid argument for his continued
detention. This Court has held that 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. 26
*Restrictive custody is, at best, nominal restraint which is beyond the ambit of habeas corpus. It is neither actual nor
effective restraint that would call for the grant of the remedy prayed for. It is a permissible precautionary measure to assure
the PNP authorities that the police officers concerned are always accounted for. 27
*Since the basis of PO1 Ampatuan's restrictive custody is the administrative case filed against him, his remedy is within such
administrative process.
DECISION: petition is DISMISSED