G.R. No. 118644 . July 7, 1995.
DIRECTOR EPIMACO A. VELASCO, NBI SPECIAL OPERATIONS GROUP, SPECIAL INVESTIGATORS FLOR L. RESURRECCION and ANTONIO M. ERUM, JR., and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and FELICITAS S. CUYAG, for and in behalf of LAWRENCE A. LARKINS, respondents.

FACTS

Lawrence A. Larkins was arrested without a warrant by NBI agents on November 21, 1994, based on a complaint for rape filed by Desiree Alinea. He was detained at the NBI. Concurrently, Larkins had pending criminal cases for violations of B.P. Blg. 22. On November 22, he posted bail for those cases, and the issuing judge ordered his release “unless otherwise detained for some other cause.” The NBI refused to release him, citing the rape complaint. A formal complaint for rape was subsequently filed and raffled to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo.
Larkins filed an urgent motion for bail and an omnibus motion for dismissal and immediate release, arguing his warrantless arrest was illegal. The RTC denied both motions. Consequently, Felicitas S. Cuyag, Larkins’s common-law wife, filed a petition for habeas corpus with certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The CA granted the petition, ordering Larkins’s immediate release, ruling that his continued detention was illegal due to the invalid warrantless arrest.

ISSUE

Whether the writ of habeas corpus is the proper remedy to secure the release of Lawrence A. Larkins.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled the CA decision, and held that habeas corpus was improperly issued. The legal logic is anchored on the nature and limitations of the writ. Habeas corpus is a remedy to inquire into the legality of detention. However, under Section 4, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court, the writ is not allowed if the person is in custody under a process issued by a court with jurisdiction, or is charged with or convicted of an offense.
At the time the habeas corpus petition was filed, a formal complaint for rape had already been filed with the RTC of Antipolo, and the court had acquired jurisdiction over Larkins’s person. His detention was therefore by virtue of a judicial process. Any question regarding the legality of his warrantless arrest or his right to bail should be addressed to that trial court through the appropriate motions and remedies, not via habeas corpus. The writ cannot be used to correct errors of judgment or to serve as a substitute for appeal or certiorari. The proper recourse for Larkins was to pursue his pending motions in the RTC or to seek a review of its orders through regular appellate channels. The Supreme Court emphasized that the writ’s purpose is to relieve persons from unlawful restraint, not to interrupt orderly judicial proceedings.