G.R. No. L-59962 September 21, 1982
RICARTE VILLEGAS y BORROMEO, petitioner, vs. COLONEL RAMON MONTAÑO, Commander, Special Operations Group, Camp Crame, Quezon City and INSPECTOR JORGE C. MERCADO, Chief Investigation Agent Special Operations Group, Camp Crame, Quezon City, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ricarte Villegas y Borromeo filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging his arrest on March 8, 1982, was illegal. He was apprehended by operatives of the Special Operations Group based on a xerox copy of a warrant of arrest issued by the Court of First Instance of Naval, Leyte, in Criminal Case No. N-0776 for Illegal Possession of Handgrenade. Petitioner contended the xerox copy lacked the court’s dry seal and any specific endorsement to the arresting group, and that he was investigated without counsel.
In their Return, respondents asserted the detention was lawful. They presented the warrant of arrest, which was a certified true copy issued by Judge Godofredo P. Quimsing, setting bail at P40,000.00. They argued the warrant was addressed “To Any Officer of the Law,” which included the arresting officers, and that the investigation was merely for booking and identification purposes. Subsequently, the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation stating that petitioner had posted the required bail bond, which was approved by the trial court on April 7, 1982, leading to his release from detention on April 21, 1982.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for habeas corpus has been rendered moot and academic by the petitioner’s release on bail.

RULING

Yes, the petition is dismissed for being moot and academic. The Court ruled that the petitioner’s release on bail rendered the principal issue of the legality of his detention academic. A habeas corpus petition secures the release of an individual from unlawful restraint. Since petitioner was already released by virtue of his approved bail bond, there was no longer any actual restraint of liberty for the writ to remedy.
Furthermore, the Court found no merit in the substantive challenge to the detention. The arrest was effected under a valid warrant issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. The claim that the xerox copy lacked a dry seal was inconsequential, as it was a certified true copy. The warrant, being addressed to any law officer, was validly served by the respondents as members of the national police force. The investigation cited pertained only to routine booking procedures. Therefore, even absent the supervening event of his release, the detention was justified under a “warrant of commitment in pursuance of law,” which is a specific exception to the grant of the writ under the Rules of Court.