GR 182497; (June, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 182497 ; June 29, 2010
NURHIDA JUHURI AMPATUAN, Petitioner, vs. JUDGE VIRGILIO V. MACARAIG, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MANILA, BRANCH 37, DIRECTOR GENERAL AVELINO RAZON, JR., DIRECTOR GEARY BARIAS, PSSUPT. CO YEE M. CO, JR. and POLICE CHIEF INSPECTOR AGAPITO QUIMSON, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Nurhida Juhuri Ampatuan filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of her husband, PO1 Basser Ampatuan. She alleged that on April 14, 2008, PO1 Ampatuan was taken from his assignment in Sultan Kudarat and brought to Manila without being informed of any charges. In Manila, he was presented in a press briefing as a suspect in the murder of a COMELEC official and subsequently detained. On April 21, 2008, the City Prosecutor of Manila ordered his release for further investigation, but police officials refused to comply, prompting the habeas corpus petition.
Respondent police officials presented a contrasting narrative. They asserted that PO1 Ampatuan was a suspect in the November 10, 2007 murder of Atty. Alioden Dalaig. An administrative charge for Grave Misconduct (Murder) was filed against him under the PNP’s disciplinary machinery. Pursuant to Section 52 of Republic Act No. 8551 (The PNP Law), the Chief PNP issued a memorandum placing PO1 Ampatuan under restrictive custody pending the administrative proceedings, which constituted the legal basis for his continued detention despite the prosecutor’s release order.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
RULING
No, the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the denial of the writ of habeas corpus. The Court clarified that habeas corpus is a remedy to inquire into the legality of a person’s detention. The writ will not issue if the detention is proven to be lawful. In this case, the respondents validly invoked Section 52 of R.A. No. 8551 , which grants the Chief PNP the authority to place a police officer under restrictive custody during the pendency of a grave administrative case or after the filing of a grave criminal complaint.
The Court ruled that PO1 Ampatuan’s confinement was by virtue of this specific legal authority, not due to the criminal investigation. His detention was a consequence of the ongoing administrative proceedings for Grave Misconduct, a separate process from the criminal case. Since his deprivation of liberty had a clear legal basis under the PNP’s disciplinary rules, it could not be considered illegal or arbitrary. Therefore, the remedy of habeas corpus was improper, as it is not available to question a detention that is authorized by law. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that her husband’s restraint was unlawful.