GR 109073; (October, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 109073 October 20, 1999
EDUARDO BALAGTAS, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, THE CEBU CITY POLICE STATION SUPERINTENDENT, THE SUB-STATION COMMANDER OF PARDO, POLICE SUBSTATION, CEBU CITY, SPO-3 FIDEL PAYLARAN, ET. AL., respondents.
FACTS
On November 18, 1991, police officers took Rutchel Apostol from the house of petitioner Eduardo Balagtas without a warrant. Balagtas, claiming to act on Rutchel’s behalf, filed a habeas corpus petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu, asserting Rutchel resided with him for spiritual studies. The RTC ordered respondents to produce Rutchel. The police explained that Rutchel’s mother, Angeles Apostol, sought police assistance to locate her daughter, who had left home. After surveillance, the mother met Rutchel in Cebu, persuaded her to return to Iloilo, and Rutchel voluntarily accompanied her.
The RTC, after Rutchel’s parents failed to produce her, appointed a commissioner to verify a claim that Rutchel was undergoing psychiatric treatment and unfit to travel. The commissioner reported that Rutchel appeared physically healthy, expressed a preference to return to the Chaitanya Mission, and stated she was not held against her will but lacked complete freedom. The psychiatrist present advised against immediate travel due to potential stress but indicated fitness in about four weeks.
ISSUE
Whether the writ of habeas corpus was properly denied despite Rutchel Apostol’s expressed preference to live elsewhere and her initial removal by police without a warrant.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition. The core legal principle is that habeas corpus secures release from illegal restraint, not merely from parental custody one finds disagreeable. The Court found no illegal detention. Rutchel, an adult, was under the care of her parents. The police involvement was initiated at the mother’s request to locate a missing person, and Rutchel voluntarily returned with her mother to Iloilo. The commissioner’s report confirmed she was not forcibly confined; her restrictions were typical parental supervision, not unlawful imprisonment.
The warrantless taking was justified as a valid response to a mother’s plea for assistance, not an arrest. The petition failed because the respondents (the police officers) were not the parties restraining Rutchel; her parents were. A habeas corpus action must be directed against the person actually detaining the individual. Since the parents, who had actual custody, were not impleaded, and their custody was not proven to be illegal, the petition stated no cause of action against the named police respondents. The Court emphasized that the writ does not lie to question the wisdom of parental authority where no deprivation of liberty exists.