JURRY ANDAL, RICARDO RICA RDO ANDAL vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. Nos. 138268-69. !" 26, 1999 FACTS#
The case before us is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Jury Andal, Andal, Ricard Ricardo o Andal ndal and Edwin Edwin Mendoz Mendoza, a, all convic convicted ted of rape rape with with homicide in Criminal Case No !"#$%" and !"%$%", Re&ional Trial Court, 'atan&as, 'ranch (), *emery, affirmed by this Court in a decision en banc promul&ated on +eptember ), !%%-, and a resolution promul&ated on .ebruary !-, !%%# They are scheduled for e/ecution on June !0, !-, and !#, !%%% 1etitioners see2 a writ of habeas corpus on the basis of a claim of mistri mistrial al and3o and3orr that that the decisi decision on of the Re&ion Re&ional al Trial Trial Court, Court, 'atan& 'atan&as, as, 'ranch (), *emery, was void They They pray for a temporary restrainin& order to stay stay thei theirr e/ec e/ecut utio ion n and3 and3or or a prel prelim imin inar ary y in4u in4unc ncti tion on en4o en4oin inin in& & thei their r e/ecution
The petition petitioners ers rely rely on the ar&umen ar&umentt that that the trial court was ousted ousted of 4urisdiction to try their case since the pre$trial identification of the accused was made without the assistance of counsel and without a valid waiver from the accused The petitioners cite the case of 5la&uer v Military Military Commission No 6"78, wherein in a separate opinion, Justice Claudio Teehan2ee Teehan2ee stated that 5nce a deprivation of a constitutional ri&ht is shown to e/ist, the court that rendered the 4ud&ement is deemed ousted of its 4urisdiction and habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy to assail the le&ality of the detention
9e a&ree a&ree with petitioners that the e/tra$ordinary writ of habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy to in:uire into :uestions of violation of the petitioners constitutional ri&hts and that this Court has 4urisdiction to entertain this review ;ndeed, under the Constitution, the 4urisdiction of this Court has been e/panded to determine whether or not there has been a &rave abuse of discretion amountin& to lac2 or e/cess of 4urisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of of the
And under Rule !(, +ection ! of the Revised Rules of Court, it is provided that E/cept as otherwise e/pressly provided by law, the writ of habeas corpus shall e/tend to all cases of ille&al confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty, or by which the ri&htful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto =e may also avail himself of the writ where as a conse:uence of a 4udicial proceedin& >a? there has been a deprivation of a constitutional ri&ht resultin& in the restraint of a person@ >b? the court had no 4urisdiction to impose the sentence@ or >c? an e/cessive penalty has been imposed, as such sentence is void as to such e/cess
ISSUE# 95N the NA testin& is valid RULING#
=owever, in this case, we find that there was no violation of the constitutional ri&hts of the accused and a resultant deprivation of liberty or due process of law ;n fact, the petition may be viewed as an attempt at a second motion for reconsideration of a final decision of the Court, dis&uised as one for habeas corpus The accused were sentenced to the supreme penalty of death as a result of a valid accusation, trial, and 4ud&ment by a court of competent 4urisdiction, after a fair and e:uitable trial
The factual milieu does not show a mistrial or a violation of the constitutional ri&hts of the accused As ruled by this Court, in its decision of +eptember ), !%%-, the constitutional infirmity cannot affect the conclusion since accused$appellants did not ma2e any confessions or admissions in re&ard to the crime char&ed .urther the earrin& recovered from Jury Andal was not obtained in the course of the investi&ation itself, but obtained throu&h a search incident to a lawful arrest
The Court has held in a lon& cases, that any ille&ality attendant durin& the arrest is deemed cured when the accused voluntarily submitted themselves to the 4urisdiction of the court by enterin& their plea
The trial court therefore had 4urisdiction to try the case The Court subse:uently affirmed the decision based on a careful consideration of the evidence presented both by the prosecution and the defense The absence of the testimony of Rufino Andal due to the failure of the defense counsel to present him as a witness will not ma2e the 4ud&ment of the lower court invalid or void The case was decided on the evidence presented, which this Court considered sufficient to support the 4ud&ment of conviction
The issue of NA tests as a more accurate and authoritative means of identification than eye$witness identification need not be belabored The accused were all properly and duly identified by the prosecutions principal witness 5limpio Corales, a brother in law of accused Jurry and Ricardo Andal NA testin& proposed by petitioners to have an ob4ective and scientific basis of identification of semen samples to compare with those ta2en from the va&ina of the victim are thus unnecessary or are for&otten evidence too late to consider now
