GR 1855; (January, 1905) (Digest)
March 6, 2026GR L 1896; (December, 1904) (Digest)
March 6, 2026G.R. No. 2362 : January 14, 1905
FRANK DE L. CARRINGTON, petitioner, vs. J. J. PETERSON, as sheriff of the city of Manila, respondent.
FACTS:
The petitioner, Frank de L. Carrington, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against the respondent sheriff, J. J. Peterson, alleging illegal detention. The detention was based on a warrant issued by the Court of First Instance of Manila on October 14, 1904, in five criminal cases (Nos. 1835-1839). The complaints charged Carrington, who was described as a public official (a Major in the U.S. Army and a disbursing officer for the U.S. Civil Government), with the crime of falsifying a public document, specifically a voucher. After his arrest, Carrington was informed of the charges, granted bail, and later appeared in court. He initially requested time to plead, then filed a demurrer (arguing the facts alleged did not constitute a public offense) and a motion to make the complaint more definite and certain. The court overruled these defenses. Carrington subsequently pleaded not guilty, and the trial was scheduled. He then filed the present habeas corpus petition.
ISSUE:
Whether the writ of habeas corpus should be granted, considering that the petitioner is detained under process issued by a court which had jurisdiction over the crime charged and over his person.
RULING:
The Supreme Court denied the petition for the writ of habeas corpus and ordered the petitioner remanded to the custody of the sheriff. The Court held that under Section 528 of Act No. 190 (the Code of Civil Procedure), a writ of habeas corpus shall not be allowed if the person is in custody under process issued by a court that had jurisdiction to issue it. The Court found that: (1) the crime of falsification of a public document by a public official, as charged, was within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Manila; and (2) the said court acquired jurisdiction over the person of Carrington not only by virtue of the lawful warrant of arrest but also through his subsequent voluntary acts of applying for bail, demurring to the complaint, and pleading to the merits without having timely raised the question of jurisdiction over his person. Consequently, the detention was legal, and habeas corpus was not the proper remedy.