GR 48176; (August, 1978) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-48176 August 14, 1978
AMADO E. DE VERA, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE PEDRO SAMSON C. ANIMAS and THE PROVINCIAL WARDEN of South Cotabato, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Amado E. de Vera was convicted for Falsification of Public Documents related to tampering with election returns in the 1967 elections. His conviction had become final and executory. Prior to the promulgation of judgment, he filed a motion for suspension based on his pending application for amnesty under Presidential Decree No. 95. Respondent Judge Pedro Samson C. Animas denied the motion and issued an order of commitment. De Vera subsequently filed this petition for habeas corpus, contending his confinement was illegal because he had applied for amnesty.
The Supreme Court initially granted the writ. During proceedings, the Solicitor General, while defending the legality of the confinement given the final judgment, conceded no objection to allowing petitioner to pursue his amnesty application under the relevant decrees, reflecting a policy of liberalism. Petitioner also filed an urgent motion requesting the case records be forwarded to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), the agency designated to process such amnesty applications.
ISSUE
Whether the petition for habeas corpus is a proper remedy to secure the petitioner’s release based on his pending application for executive amnesty.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The legal logic is clear: a writ of habeas corpus is a remedy against illegal restraint. Here, the petitioner’s conviction was final, and the respondent judge acted within jurisdiction in issuing the commitment order after denying the motion for suspension. The Court held that the petition, on its face, did not present a case of illegal deprivation of liberty warranting the grant of the writ. The proper avenue for the petitioner’s release was not through habeas corpus but through the process of executive clemency, specifically amnesty.
However, the Court acknowledged the petition’s utility in confirming the “latitudinarian scope” of the writ to ensure judicial inquiry into detention. While dismissing the petition, the Court ordered the transmission of the criminal case records to the COMELEC, the appropriate agency designated by the President to evaluate the amnesty application. Pending the COMELEC’s resolution, the Court maintained its earlier order for the petitioner’s temporary commitment at Camp General Aguinaldo. The ruling underscores that habeas corpus cannot be used to circumvent the prescribed procedures for amnesty, which is an executive function, but the judiciary can facilitate access to that executive process.