G.R. No. L-31435 January 30, 1970
AMALIA B. CELESTE, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, COURT OF APPEALS, and JUDGE RUPERTO KAPUNAN, JR., (In his capacity as Judge, Br. XVIII, CFI, Manila), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Amalia B. Celeste, confined in the Manila City Jail, filed a petition for habeas corpus seeking her liberty. She alleged the nullity of a final and executory Court of Appeals decision dated March 2, 1966, which convicted her of estafa. The conviction stemmed from a transaction where she received jewelry from Eden Patdo on a commission basis, failed to return it, and entrusted it to a third party. Petitioner argued that an earlier Court of Appeals decision dated April 11, 1960, involving a similar transaction with a different offended party (Victoria Vda. de Tengco) for jewelry sold on commission, held her liability to be merely civil. She contended that the two cases involved essentially the same transaction, making her detention illegal. Petitioner claimed she was unaware of the 1966 decision until her arrest on December 13, 1969, as her previous lawyer did not notify her. The petition originated as a special proceeding for certiorari, injunction, and mandamus to annul the 1966 decision and enjoin Judge Kapunan from reading the sentence, but was later converted to a habeas corpus petition.

ISSUE

Whether the writ of habeas corpus should be granted to petitioner Amalia B. Celeste based on the alleged nullity of her conviction due to inconsistency with a prior acquittal in a similar case.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition for habeas corpus, as well as the original petition for certiorari, injunction, and mandamus. The Court held that while the writ of habeas corpus is a vital remedy against illegal detention, it is generally unavailable when detention results from a process, judgment, or sentence issued by a court with jurisdiction, unless a deprivation of constitutional rights ousts that jurisdiction. Here, the Court of Appeals decision convicting petitioner was final and executory, and there was no explicit allegation or clear showing of a denial of constitutional rights. The mere fact that two divisions of the Court of Appeals reached different conclusions (civil liability in 1960 vs. criminal liability in 1966) on similar transactions involving different offended parties did not render the conviction void or the detention illegal. Recourse to executive clemency was suggested as the appropriate remedy. The Court emphasized that the writ cannot be used to annul a final judgment, and the petition lacked legal merit.