Caballes v. CA Feb. 23, 2005 Callejo Sr., J. Short Version: Caballes was charged with rape. During the trial, he was denied bail, the judge inhibited himself, and the trial suffered from numerous delays. As a result, invoking his right to speedy trial, he filed a “petition for habeas corpus and/or certiorari” to appeal. The CA and SC both dismissed the case. Habeas corpus is not the proper remedy. Its only purpose is to inquire into the propriety of detention, not to impute error on the part of a court. Facts/Procedure: 1. Glenn Caballes was charged with rape of a minor in the RTC of Malabon City. Because the petitioner was charged with a non-bailable offense, he was detained. 2. He was arraigned on February 7, 2002 and pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. 3. Trial ensued. 4. On April 28, 2003, the petitioner filed a petition for bail. 5. The trial was marred with many postponements for various reasons, most prominently the continued failure of Dr. Jose Arnel Marquez to appear as a witness. 6. Caballes then filed a motion seeking an earlier trial date, invoking his right to speedy trial under the Speedy Trial Act of 1998, as well as a motion for the urgent resolution of his petition for bail. 7. The court issued an Order[declaring that the petition for bail was submitted for its resolution and denying the motion for an earlier trial date. 8. It then issued another order denying the petition for bail, on its finding that the evidence of guilt against the petitioner was strong. MR denied. 9. Caballes then filed an MTD invoking his right to speedy trial, claiming that the trial now lasted close to 400 days, far longer than the 180 day reglementary period. Denied. 10. The judge then inhibited himself. 11. Caballes thus filed a “Petition for Habeas Corpus and/or Certiorari and Prohibition.”
12. The CA required him to inform the court of his choice of remedy. 13. In compliance therewith, he filed a manifestation that he had chosen his petition to be treated as a petition for habeas corpus without prejudice “to the concomitant application of certiorari if the court considered the same necessary or appropriate to give effect to the writ of habeas corpus.” 14. CA dismissed the petition for habeas corpus for being the wrong remedy. 15. Hence this SCA for certiorari. Issues: 1. WON the decision had already become final and executory (Yes) 2. WON a petition for habeas corpus is the proper remedy. (No) 3. WON the writ should issue. (No) Ratio: 1. Section 39 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 provides that the period for appeal from the judgment of any court in habeas corpus cases shall be 48 hours from notice of the judgment appealed from. While that provision was not incorporated in the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Administrative Matter No. 01-1-03-SC amending Section 3, Rule 41of the said Rules, provides that appeal in habeas corpus cases shall be taken within forty-eight (48) hours from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from. Thus, Caballes should have appealed from the CA’s denial of his petition rather than filing a petition for certiorari. Certiorari cannot co-exist with an appeal or any other adequate remedy. The existence and availability of the right to appeal are antithetical to the availment of the special civil action for certiorari. These two remedies are mutually exclusive. An appeal in this case would still have been a speedy and adequate remedy. Consequently, when the petitioner filed his petition in this Court, the decision of the CA was already final and executory. 2. A writ of habeas corpus is not the proper remedy to assail the trial court’s denial of the MTD, the denial of the petition for bail, as well as the voluntary inhibition of Judge Laurea. A petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is a special proceeding governed by Rule 102 of the Rules of Court, as amended. In Ex Parte Billings, it was held that habeas corpus is that of a civil proceeding in
character. It seeks the enforcement of civil rights. Resorting to the writ is not to inquire into the criminal act of which the complaint is made, but into the right of liberty, even if the act and the immediate purpose to be served is relief from illegal restraint. The rule applies even when instituted to arrest a criminal prosecution and secure freedom. Habeas corpus is not in the nature of a writ of error; nor intended as substitute for the trial court’s function. It cannot take the place of appeal, certiorari or writ of error. The writ cannot be used to investigate and consider questions of error that might be raised relating to procedure or on the merits. Moreover, habeas corpus should not be granted in advance of trial. The orderly course of trial must be pursued and the usual remedies exhausted before resorting to the writ where exceptional circumstances are extant. 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 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. The writ may be denied if the petitioner fails to show facts that he is entitled theretoex merito justicias. A writ of habeas corpus, which is regarded as a “palladium of liberty” is a prerogative writ which does not issue as a matter of right but in the sound discretion of the court or judge. It, is, however, a writ of right on proper formalities being made by proof. Resort to the writ is to inquire into the criminal act of which a complaint is made but unto the right of liberty, notwithstanding the act, and the immediate purpose to be served is relief from illegal restraint. The primary, if not the only object of the writ of habeas corpus ad subjuciendum is to determine the legality of the restraint under which a person is held. ` What is involved here is a “petition for habeas corpus or, in the alternative, a petition for a writ of certiorari.” However, petition for a writ of habeas corpus cannot be joined with the special civil action for certiorari because the two remedies are governed by a different set of rules. Joinder of causes of action shall not include special actions or actions governed by special rules, thus proscribing the joinder of a special proceeding with a special civil action.
Further, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is a remedy different from the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended. The writ of habeas corpus is a collateral attack on the processes, orders, or judgment of the trial court, while certiorari is a direct attack of said processes, orders, or judgment on the ground of lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. A writ of certiorari reaches only jurisdictional errors. It has no other use, except to bring before the court a record material to be considered in exercising jurisdiction. A writ of certiorari reaches the record. On the other hand, a writ of habeas corpus reaches the body but not the record; it also reaches jurisdictional matters but does not reach the record. However, when jurisdiction is obtained by the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, to bring the body of the person whose liberty is involved into court, and if it is necessary, to provide the record upon which the detention is based, that may be accomplished by using a writ of certiorari as an ancillary proceeding. 3. Caballes failed to establish his right to the writ of habeas corpus. He was charged with rape punishable by reclusion perpetua and was detained based on the said charge. He failed to establish that his incarceration pendente lite was illegal, and likewise failed to establish exceptional circumstances warranting the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. A petition for habeas corpus is not the proper remedy to assail the denial of bail; a petition for certiorari is. That is also the correct remedy from the voluntary inhibition of a judge. Finally, as to a violation of the right of the accused to a speedy trial is violated by the prosecution, the remedy lies in the procedure provided for under Republic Act No. 8493, as implemented by Rule 119. Section 8 of the said Rule provides that a private counsel, the public attorney, or a prosecutor, who allows the case to be set for trial without disclosing that a necessary witness would be unavailable for trial, files a motion solely for delay which he knows is totally frivolous and without merit, makes a statement for the purpose of obtaining continuance which he knows to be false and which is material to the granting of a continuance; or willfully fails to proceed to trial without justification is to be punished with a fine not exceeding P20,000, and denying him the right to practice before the court
trying the case for a period not exceeding 30 days. Thus, habeas corpus is not the proper remedy. Once more, certiorari is. While a petition for habeas corpus may be filed if one is deprived of his right to a speedy disposition of the case under Article IV, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution and of his right to due process, first of all, the delays in this case were not the fault of the prosecution, and secondly, Caballes only invoked this right in his petition for habeas corpus before the CA. Petition denied. Gabe.
