GR 232006; (July, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 232006 , July 10, 2019
IN RE: THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR MICHAEL LABRADOR ABELLANA vs. HON. MEINRADO P. PAREDES, ET AL.
FACTS
Petitioner Michael Labrador Abellana was charged with violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. After his arraignment and the denial of his motion to quash the search warrant, trial ensued. He was initially represented by Atty. Dario Rama, Jr. Petitioner was granted bail. After the prosecution rested, petitioner filed a demurrer to evidence, which was denied. Atty. Raul Albura subsequently entered his appearance as new counsel. On April 30, 2009, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued an order submitting the case for decision due to the failure of petitioner and his counsel to appear at the scheduled hearing for the presentation of the defense evidence. The RTC later set the promulgation of judgment.
Petitioner, through Atty. Albura, filed an Urgent Motion to Defer Promulgation, arguing he was denied due process. He claimed his previous counsel was incompetent for failing to quash the search warrant and file a timely demurrer, and that his new counsel was never furnished court notices despite a formal entry of appearance. The RTC denied the motion and promulgated its judgment convicting petitioner. His conviction was affirmed on appeal. Petitioner then filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging his detention is illegal due to deprivation of his rights to due process and competent counsel.
ISSUE
Whether the writ of habeas corpus should be issued to order the release of petitioner on the grounds of denial of due process and incompetent counsel.
RULING
No. The petition for the writ of habeas corpus is denied. The writ of habeas corpus is a remedy designed to relieve persons from unlawful restraint. It is not a substitute for appeal or a corrective remedy for errors of judgment or procedure that do not render a judgment void. The writ lies only when the judgment is void, or when the court lacked jurisdiction, which can occur if there is a denial of due process so severe as to render the proceedings a nullity.
The Court found petitioner’s claims unmeritorious. The alleged incompetence of his first counsel, such as the failure to quash the search warrant or file a timely demurrer, pertains to tactical errors or mistakes in strategy. These do not equate to a denial of due process or a deprivation of the right to counsel. Furthermore, the claim that his new counsel was not furnished notices is belied by the record, which shows counsel received the notice of promulgation and actively filed motions. The RTC’s order submitting the case for decision due to non-appearance was a consequence of petitioner’s failure to present his evidence, not a denial of opportunity. Petitioner was given ample chance to be heard; his right to due process was not violated. Since the trial court committed no jurisdictional error grave enough to nullify its judgment, the detention pursuant to that final judgment is lawful. Habeas corpus is therefore unwarranted.