GR L 57051; (May, 1985) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-57051 May 27, 1985
MERLY M. PAGALUNAN, petitioner, vs. STATION COMMANDER ANGELES CITY POLICE STATION; COMMANDER, METRODISCOM PC-INP, ANGELES CITY; AND/OR STATION COMMANDER, BACOLOR POLICE STATION, respondents.
FACTS
The petitioner, Merly M. Pagalunan, filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus to locate her husband, Avelino Pagalunan, a police officer from Tanay, Rizal. According to her petition, on June 2, 1981, her husband was forcibly taken by about ten unidentified armed men in civilian attire while in his car in Pasig. No warrant of arrest was presented to him or his wife during this incident. Following his seizure, petitioner conducted a futile search at various police and investigative agencies, including the NBI and stations in Angeles City and Bacolor, Pampanga, prompting her to seek judicial relief.
Subsequently, the Court issued the writ. However, even before the respondents could file their Return, the petitioner filed a Manifestation to Withdraw Petition after learning her husband was detained at the NBI in Manila. The respondents, through the Solicitor General, then submitted their Return, stating that Avelino Pagalunan was validly arrested on June 2, 1981, by a composite team based on a Warrant of Arrest issued on May 26, 1981, by Judge Gregorio B. de Jesus of the Municipal Court of Bacolor, Pampanga, in connection with a robbery-hold-up case. The Return further detailed that he was a suspect in multiple serious criminal cases, including other robberies and illegal possession of firearms.
ISSUE
Whether the writ of habeas corpus is available to question the detention of Avelino Pagalunan.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The core legal principle applied is that habeas corpus is a remedy designed to inquire into the legality of a person’s detention. It is not available where the detention is under a valid judicial process. The Court found that the detention of Avelino Pagalunan was pursuant to a lawful Warrant of Arrest issued by a competent court in Criminal Case No. 1931. Furthermore, he was facing other formal charges and investigations for serious offenses. Since his restraint was by virtue of a valid warrant and under the authority of law for pending criminal prosecutions, his detention could not be deemed illegal. Consequently, the extraordinary writ of habeas corpus could not be invoked. The petition was rendered moot by the discovery of his lawful custody, and the Court upheld the respondents’ position that the detention was justified under the circumstances.