G.R. No. L-61016 and G.R. No. L-61107, April 26, 1983
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF HORACIO R. MORALES, JR. and ANTONIO C. MONCUPA, JR., petitioners, vs. MINISTER JUAN PONCE ENRILE, GEN. FABIAN C. VER and COL. GALILEO KINTANAR, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Horacio R. Morales, Jr. and Antonio C. Moncupa, Jr. were arrested without a warrant on April 21, 1982, by military elements. They filed separate petitions for habeas corpus in July 1982, alleging illegal detention, violation of constitutional rights including the rights to counsel, silence, speedy trial, and bail, and that they were subjected to maltreatment and torture. Subsequently, on July 20, 1982, they were formally charged with rebellion before the Court of First Instance of Rizal. This Court, acting on their plea for reinvestigation and inquiry into their allegations of torture, appointed the City Fiscal of Quezon City as a commissioner. The Fiscal’s report affirmed a prima facie case for rebellion and documented the proceedings on the torture claims.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the petitions for habeas corpus should be granted given the petitioners’ claims of illegal arrest, detention, and violations of constitutional rights during custodial investigation, subsequent to the filing of a formal information for rebellion against them.

RULING

The petitions are dismissed. The legal logic is anchored on the distinction between the legality of detention and the alleged irregularities in the arrest and investigation process. The Court ruled that once a person is duly charged in court for a criminal offense, as petitioners were with rebellion, the remedy of habeas corpus is no longer available to question the legality of their detention. The proper forum to raise violations of constitutional rights, such as those pertaining to arrest and custodial investigation, is within the criminal case pending before the trial court. The Court extensively discussed the constitutional safeguards under Section 20 of the Bill of Rights, emphasizing the duties of arresting officers to inform arrestees of their rights to remain silent and to counsel, and the inadmissibility of any statement obtained in violation of these procedural requirements. However, these pronouncements on custodial investigation rights, while instructive for future guidance, were deemed not directly determinative of the habeas corpus petitions because the petitioners’ continued detention was justified by the pending judicial charge. The legality of their current confinement was based on the court’s jurisdiction over the rebellion case, superseding the initial warrantless arrest.