GR 251693; (September, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. 251693 , September 28, 2020
JODY C. SALAS, EX REL PERSON DEPRIVED OF LIBERTY (PDL) RODOLFO C. SALAS, PETITIONER, VS. HON. THELMA BUNYI-MEDINA, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF THE CITY OF MANILA, BRANCH 32, JCINSP. LLOYD GONZAGA, WARDEN OF THE MANILA CITY JAIL ANNEX, AND ALL THOSE TAKING ORDERS, INSTRUCTIONS AND DIRECTIONS FROM HIM, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Rodolfo C. Salas was convicted of the crime of rebellion in 1992 and served his sentence. In 2020, he was arrested and detained on new charges of 15 counts of murder, which allegedly occurred during the period from 1984 to 1985. His son, Jody Salas, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that Rodolfo’s current detention for murder is illegal. The petitioner contended that the murder charges are absorbed by the crime of rebellion for which he was already convicted and punished, invoking the doctrine of absorption. He asserted that the acts constituting the murders were committed in furtherance of the rebellion, making them mere components of the single crime of rebellion.
The respondents, including the Presiding Judge and the Warden, opposed the petition. They argued that the writ of habeas corpus is not the proper remedy as Rodolfo is detained by virtue of a valid judicial process—the warrants of arrest issued by the Regional Trial Court for the murder charges. They maintained that the issue of whether the murder charges are absorbed by the prior rebellion conviction is a question of fact and law that should be threshed out in the trial court during the murder cases, not in a habeas corpus proceeding.
ISSUE
Whether the writ of habeas corpus is the proper remedy to secure the release of Rodolfo C. Salas from detention for murder charges on the ground that these charges are absorbed by his prior conviction for rebellion.
RULING
No, the writ of habeas corpus is not the proper remedy. The Supreme Court, through Justice Gaerlan, denied the petition. The Court held that habeas corpus is a writ of liberty designed to inquire into the legality of a person’s detention. It is not a remedy for correcting errors of judgment or reviewing the merits of a case. The writ will not issue where the person is detained by virtue of a valid judicial order, such as the warrants of arrest issued by the RTC in the murder cases.
The legal logic is clear: the determination of whether the murder charges are absorbed by the crime of rebellion involves an examination of factual allegations and the application of complex legal doctrines. This is a matter of defense that must be raised and ventilated during the trial of the murder cases themselves, not in a collateral habeas corpus proceeding. The Court emphasized that habeas corpus cannot be used as a substitute for appeal or to preempt trial. Since Rodolfo’s detention is pursuant to a court order issued by a tribunal with jurisdiction, the remedy of habeas corpus is unavailing. The proper course is for him to plead the defense of absorption or double jeopardy in the court where the murder cases are pending.