GR 160739; (July, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 160739 ; July 17, 2013
ANITA MANGILA, Petitioner, vs. JUDGE HERIBERTO M. PANGILINAN, ASST. CITY PROSECUTOR II LUCIA JUDY SOLINAP, and NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (DIRECTOR REYNALDO WYCOCO), Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Anita Mangila was charged with syndicated estafa and violations of the Migrant Workers Act. On June 17, 2003, after examining a complainant, Judge Heriberto Pangilinan of the MTCC issued a warrant for her arrest without bail. The entire case records were transmitted to the City Prosecutor the next day for review and appropriate action. Mangila was subsequently arrested and detained by the NBI.
Mangila filed a petition for habeas corpus with the Court of Appeals, seeking release from detention. She argued that Judge Pangilinan lacked authority to conduct the preliminary investigation, that it was incomplete when the warrant was issued, and that the warrant lacked a prior finding of probable cause. She contended habeas corpus was proper as she could no longer file a motion to quash the warrant with the judge, who had already forwarded the records to the prosecutor.
ISSUE
Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling that a writ of habeas corpus was not the proper remedy to obtain Mangila’s release from detention?
RULING
No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition. The writ of habeas corpus is a high prerogative writ designed as a speedy remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint. However, it is not a substitute for other available remedies in the regular course of law, nor is it a writ of error to review procedural irregularities. The Court emphasized that where restraint is under legal process, such as a court-issued warrant of arrest, mere errors or irregularities that do not render the proceedings void are not grounds for habeas corpus relief. The restraint, in such a case, is not illegal.
Here, Mangila’s detention was pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued by a judge following a preliminary examination. Any perceived defects in the issuance of that warrant, such as the alleged lack of a complete preliminary investigation, did not render her detention unlawful for the purpose of habeas corpus. Her proper remedy was to seek a review of the finding of probable cause from the City Prosecutor, who, under Rule 112, Section 5 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, is authorized upon review to order the release of a detained accused if no probable cause is found. Since an adequate and speedy remedy was available and not exhausted, the extraordinary writ of habeas corpus was correctly denied.