Villavicencio-v-Lukban Case Digest

ZACARIAS VILLAVICENCIO ET AL., petitioners, vs. JUSTO LUKBAN, ET AL., respondents.
G.R. No. 14639 | March 25, 1919 | MALCOLM, J.

DOCTRINE
What are the remedies of the unhappy victims of official oppression? The remedies of the citizen are
three:
1. Civil action – The first is an optional but rather slow process by which the aggrieved party may
recoup money damages. It may still rest with the parties in interest to pursue such an action, but it
was never intended effectively and promptly to meet any such situation as that now before us
2. Criminal action - If, after due investigation, the proper prosecuting officers find that any public
officer has violated this provision (Art. 211, Revised Penal Code) of law, these prosecutors will
institute and press a criminal prosecution just as vigorously as they have defended the same
official in this action.
3. 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.
FACTS
 The Mayor of the city of Manila, Justo Lukban, for the best of all reasons, to exterminate vice,
ordered the segregated district for women of ill repute, which had been permitted for a number of
years in the city of Manila.
 (Between October 16 and October 25, 1918) women were kept confined to their houses in the
district by the police. The city authorities quietly perfected arrangements with the Bureau of
Labor for sending the women to Davao, Mindanao, as laborers; with some government office for
the use of the coastguard cutters Corregidor and Negros, and with the Constabulary for a guard of
soldiers.
 (Midnight of October 25) Anton Hohmann, chief of police, and Lukban 170 inmates into patrol
wagons, and placed them aboard the steamers that awaited their arrival. The women were given
no opportunity to collect their belongings, and apparently under the impression that they were
being taken to a police station for an investigation. They had no knowledge that they were
destined for a life in Mindanao.
 Involuntary guests were received on board the steamers by a representative of the Bureau of
Labor and a detachment of Constabulary soldiers. The vessels reached their destination at Davao
on October 29. The women were landed and receipted for as laborers by Francisco Sales,
provincial governor of Davao, and by Feliciano Yñigo and Rafael Castillo.
o Governor and Yñigo had no previous notification that the women were prostitutes who
had been
 C/O attorney for the relatives and friends of a considerable number of the deportees, presented an
application for habeas corpus to a member of the Supreme Court. Assails that women were
illegally re- strained of their liberty by Justo Lukban, Mayor of the city of Manila, Anton
Hohmann, chief of police of the city of Manila, and by certain unknown parties.
 City Fiscal appeared on behalf of the respondents and claims:
o petitioners were not proper parties, because the action should have been begun in the
Court of First Instance for Davao because the respondents did not have any of the women
under their custody or control, and because their jurisdiction did not extend beyond the
boundaries of the city of Manila.
o 170 women were destined to be laborers, at good salaries, on the hacienda of Yñigo and
Governor Sales, and that these women had been sent out of Manila without their consent.
 (November 4) the court orders Lukban, Hohmann, Sales, and Yñigo to bring before the court,
alleged to be deprived of their liberty.
o Before the date, 7 women returned to manila at their own expense
 (December 10, 1918) the court directed that those of the women not in Manila be brought before
the court by respondents Lukban, Hohmann, Sales, and Yñigo on January 13, 1919.
o unless the respondents should demonstrate some other legal motives that made
compliance impossible.
 (January 13, 1919) respondents presented before the court:
o Women who returned to the city in their own effort
o 8 women brought back by respondents
o 81 were found in Davao
o 59 returned to Manila by other means
o 26 could not be located
CRIME CHARGED
Contempt of court
RTC DECISION
For the respondents to have fulfilled the court's order, three optional courses were open:
1. They could have produced the bodies of the persons according to the command of the writ; or
2. They could have shown by affidavit that on account of sickness or infirmity those persons
could not safely be brought before the court; or
3. They could have presented affidavits to show, that the parties in question or their attorney
waived the right to be present. (Code of Criminal Procedure, Sec. 87.)
HOWEVER, they did not produce the bodies of the persons in whose behalf the writ was granted;
they did not show impossibility of performance; and they did not present writings that waived the
right to be present by those interested.
ISSUES
whether the respondents were in contempt of court would later be decided and the reasons for the order
announced in the final decision
RULING
No further action on the writ of habeas corpus is necessary. The respondents Hohmann, Rodriguez,
Ordax, Joaquin, Yñigo, and Diaz are found not to be in contempt of court. Respondent Lukban is found in
contempt of court and shall pay into the office of the clerk of the Supreme Court within five days the sum
of one hundred pesos (P100). The motion of the fiscal of the city of Manila to strike from the record the
Replica al Memorandum de los Recurridos of January 25, 1919, is granted. Costs shall be taxed against
respondents.

Villavicencio-v-Lukban Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Villavicencio-v-Lukban Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Villavicencio-v-Lukban Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ZACARIAS VILLAVICENCIO ET AL., petitioners, vs. JUSTO LUKBAN, ET AL., respondents.

G.R. No. 14639 | March 25, 1919 | MALCOLM, J.

You might also like