GLENN CABALLES y CHUA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. EMMANUEL D. LAUREA, HON. BENJAMIN T.

ANTONIO, and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. FACTS: 1. RTC: Petitioner Glenn Chua Caballes was charged with rape of a minor (Pio) a. Because the petitioner was charged with a non-bailable offense, he was detained. 2. The petitioner was arraigned and pleaded not guilty.
a. b. c. d. e. (The facts below are about the speedy trial issue. Just in case lang) The petitioners original counsel commenced his crossexamination of Pio, but failed to complete the same. Petitioners new counsel continued his cross-examination of Pio but still failed to terminate the same. The trial was set to terminate the cross-examination of Pio but once again failed due to the illness of the private prosecutor. Trial was further reset to another date. Thereafter, the prosecution declared that its next witness would be Dr. Marquez, the Medico-Legal Officer of PNP, who had conducted an examination of the private complainant, but stated that he had not been subpoenad. Trial was rescheduled. The rescheduled trial did not proceed because petitioners counsel filed a manifestation that he was required to be present in an execution sale. Rescheduled again. Dr. Marquez failed to receive the subpoena. Rescheduled. Subpoena was issued again against the doctor. Still, the doctor failed to receive. Rescheduled. The Judge issued an order to be replaced. Rescheduled.

6.

7.

f. g. h. i.

8. 9.

a. The trial court reasoned that there was no violation of the petitioners right to speedy trial, considering that the apparent delays could not be attributed to the fault of the prosecution alone. b. The motion for reconsideration was considered to be abandoned upon filing of motion to dismiss by the petitioner. CA: The petitioner filed a " Petition for Habeas Corpus and/or Certiorari and Prohibition." a. CA asked which remedy would petitioner avail between Habeas Corpus and Certiorari. Petitioner chose Habeas Corpus. b. The petitioner averred that (1) he was deprived of his right to a speedy trial and his constitutional right to a speedy disposition of the case; and (2) the trial court committed grave abuse of its discretion in denying his petition for bail. PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS is DISMISSED. According to the appellate court: a. It was not the proper remedy to review and examine the proceedings before the trial court as a relief from the petitioners perceived oppressive situation in the trial court. b. A writ of habeas corpus is NOT a writ of error; that it could not exercise its certiorari jurisdiction over the acts or omission of the respondent judge as a concomitant remedy; and that the remedy for habeas corpus and certiorari are different in nature, scope and purpose. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration DENIED Hence, this petition (certiorari - rule 65)

3. Petitioner filed a petition for bail. a. The trial court denied the petition for bail, on its finding that the evidence of guilt against the petitioner was strong. 4. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the courts Order denying his petition for bail. a. However, the petitioner preempted the resolution of his motion for reconsideration and filed a Motion to Dismiss the case on the ground that his right to speedy trial had been violated. 5. Trial court denied petitioners motion to dismiss.

ISSUE#1: Whether the proper remedy from the appellate courts denial of a petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court; HELD: No. Petitioner should have filed an appeal instead. The resort to a petition for certiorari is inappropriate. 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 forty-eight (48) hours from notice of the judgment appealed from.

Following the rule, the petitioner should have appealed to this Court from the CA decision denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, as well as the denial of his motion for reconsideration thereof; instead, the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended. The well-settled rule is that certiorari is not available where the aggrieved partys remedy of appeal is plain, speedy and adequate in the ordinary course, the reason being that 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.

ISSUE#2: Whether the petitioner is entitled to the issuance of the writ. HELD: No. The records show that the petitioner was charged with rape punishable by reclusion perpetua and was detained based on the said charge; hence, if the evidence of his guilt is strong, he shall not be admitted to bail regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution. There is no question that the trial court had jurisdiction over the offense charged and over the person of the petitioner. The jail warden has the authority and, in fact, is mandated to detain the petitioner until granted bail by the court, or the case against him dismissed, or until he is acquitted after trial. The petitioner 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 by the appellate court About Habeas Corpus: A writ of habeas corpus is not the proper remedy to assail the trial courts denial of the petitioners motion to dismiss the case, the denial of the petition for bail, as well as the voluntary inhibition of Judge Laurea. 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, notwithstanding 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. When a prisoner petitioner for a writ of HC, he thereby commences a suit and prosecutes a case in that court. Habeas corpus is not in the nature of a writ of error ; nor intended as substitute for the trial courts 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. The inquiry in a habeas corpus proceeding is addressed to the question of whether the proceedings and the assailed order are, for any reason, null and void. The writ is not ordinarily granted where the law provides for other remedies in the regular course, and in the absence of exceptional circumstances. 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. In another case, it was held that habeas corpus cannot be issued as a writ of error or as a means of reviewing errors of law and irregularities not involving the questions of jurisdiction occurring during the course of the trial, subject to the caveat that constitutional safeguards of human life and liberty must be preserved, and not destroyed. It has also been held that where restraint is under legal process, mere errors and irregularities, which do not render the proceedings void, are not grounds for relief by habeas corpus because in such cases, the restraint is not illegal. 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 writ of habeas corpus does not act upon the prisoner who seeks relief, but upon the person who holds him in what is alleged to be the unlawful authority. Hence, 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 thereto ex 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. We agree with the CA that a 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. We also agree with the ruling of the CA that 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. Certiorari 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.

Procedure. He invoked his constitutional right to a speedy disposition of the case against him, for the first time, only in the Court of Appeals when he filed his petition for habeas corpus. Hence, it cannot be said that the petitioner was deprived of his right to a speedy disposition of the case simply because the private prosecutor failed to submit a medical certificate for his absence during the trial of March 6, 2003. The petitioner could have asked the court to cite the private prosecutor in contempt of court for his failure to submit the said certificate; he failed to do so. Moreover, the petitioner failed to establish any serious prejudice by the delay of the trial, and that the State deliberately delayed the trial to prejudice him. PETITION DENIED!

Writ of Habeas Corpus 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. 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.

A writ of certiorari reaches the record

We agree with the petitioner that a petition for the issuance of a writ of 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. However, the petitioner never invoked in the trial court his constitutional right to a speedy disposition of the case against him. What he invoked was his right to a speedy trial under Rule 119 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal