G.R. No. 167193 ; April 19, 2006
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS: ENGR. ASHRAF KUNTING, Petitioner.

FACTS

Petitioner Ashraf Kunting was arrested in Malaysia in 2001 and turned over to the Philippine National Police-Intelligence Group (PNP-IG) in June 2003 pursuant to warrants issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Isabela City, Basilan, for multiple counts of Kidnapping for Ransom and Serious Illegal Detention. The PNP-IG detained him at Camp Crame, citing high security risks due to his alleged importance to the Abu Sayyaf Group. The RTC acknowledged the temporary detention but subsequently issued orders directing the PNP-IG to turn over Kunting to the court for trial, especially after he filed an Urgent Motion for Reinvestigation.
The PNP-IG, however, did not comply with the turnover orders. Instead, it requested the Department of Justice (DOJ) to facilitate a transfer of the trial venue from Basilan to Pasig City, citing security concerns, including a prior jailbreak in Basilan. Despite repeated RTC directives, the PNP-IG deferred compliance, pending the resolution of its requested transfer of venue. Having been detained since 2003 without being brought before the trial court, Kunting filed this petition for habeas corpus, alleging illegal detention classified merely as “for safekeeping purposes.”

ISSUE

The main issue is whether the petition for a writ of habeas corpus can prosper given the circumstances of Kunting’s detention.

RULING

The petition is dismissed. The writ of habeas corpus is a remedy to inquire into the legality of a person’s detention. However, under Section 4, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court, the writ shall not be allowed if the person is in custody under a lawful process issued by a court or judge, or by virtue of a judgment of a court of record. The legal logic is clear: once a person is duly charged in court, any question regarding the legality of his detention should be addressed through the judicial process of the court where the information is filed, not via a separate habeas corpus proceeding.
Here, Kunting’s detention is pursuant to valid warrants of arrest issued by the RTC in relation to filed criminal Informations. Therefore, his confinement is under a lawful process, which bars the grant of the writ. The Supreme Court cited Bernarte v. Court of Appeals, which holds that once a detainee is duly charged in court, he may no longer question his detention via habeas corpus. Nevertheless, the Court took note of the PNP-IG’s undue delay in complying with the RTC’s lawful orders to turn over Kunting for trial. While the petition was dismissed, the Court directed the PNP-IG to take positive steps to comply with the RTC’s turnover order and to resolve the pending motion for transfer of venue, thereby ensuring that the delay does not perpetuate a de facto detention without trial.