G.R. No. 178920 ; October 15, 2007
SPO2 GERONIMO MANALO, SPO2 LEO MORCILLA, PO3 RICO M. LANDICHO, PO2 ROMEO MEDALLA, JR., SPO2 WILLIAM RELOS, JR., P/INSP. ROBERTO N. MARINDA, Petitioners, vs. HON. PNP CHIEF OSCAR CALDERON, HON. P/DIR. GEARY BARIAS, HON. REGIONAL DIRECTOR, POLICE CHIEF SUPT. NICASIO J. RADOVAN, HON. POLICE SR. SUPT. AARON DEOCARES FIDEL, HON. POLICE SR. SUPT. LUISITO DE LEON, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, police officers assigned to the PNP Regional Special Operations Group in Region 4-A, were implicated in a serious election-related incident. They were accused of involvement in the burning of the Pinagbayanan Elementary School in Taysan, Batangas on May 15, 2007, which resulted in the deaths of two individuals and injuries to several others. Following the incident and the ensuing investigation, the PNP hierarchy issued memoranda placing the petitioners under restrictive custody and monitoring their movements. They were relieved from their unit and reassigned to the Regional Headquarters Support Group, with orders that their movements within camp be monitored, that they be escorted if leaving camp, and that their whereabouts be logged.
The petitioners filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the PNP memoranda imposing restrictive custody and monitoring constituted an illegal restraint on their liberty. They contended that these orders effectively placed them under detention without formal charges, thereby depriving them of their freedom of movement.

ISSUE

Whether the imposition of restrictive custody and movement monitoring on the petitioner police officers by the PNP constitutes illegal restraint or detention sufficient to justify the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and DISMISSED the case. The Court held that the writ of habeas corpus is a remedy designed to relieve a person from unlawful imprisonment or restraint. For the writ to be issued, there must be an actual deprivation of liberty tantamount to illegal detention. The Court ruled that the petitioners were not illegally detained. The memoranda in question were internal administrative orders issued by the PNP in the exercise of its disciplinary authority and command responsibility over its personnel who were under investigation for grave allegations. Restrictive custody, which involved reassignment and monitored movements, is a recognized administrative measure within the police force to ensure the availability of personnel for investigation and to prevent them from possibly influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. It does not equate to incarceration or confinement in a jail cell. The petitioners retained a significant degree of liberty, as they were merely required to report their whereabouts and were escorted when necessary. Therefore, no unlawful restraint existed to warrant the extraordinary remedy of habeas corpus.