GALVEZ V COURT OF APPEALS

ON THE PPT should be: For the discharge of a prisoner in advance of a determination of his case
in court. Read along lang sa Ruling, andun pa rin ang FOR ASSERTING CHUCHU. Its from a case
kasi cited in the Galvez Case. hehe
Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with Petition for Habeas Corpus
FACTS:
1. Mayor Galvez of Bulacan, and Diego were charged with 3 informations (for Homicide and 2
counts for Frustrated Homicide) in the RTC Branch 14
2. Arraignment was deferred to further review evidence, and Respondent Prosecutor Villa
Ignacio was instructed to Re-investigate.
3. By virtue of a Manifestation, proceeding was suspended til Request for Change of Venue be
resolved by the Supreme Court.
4. Before Petitioners be arraigned, Respondent Prosecutor filed a Motion to Withdraw the
Informations, which was granted by Judge Villajuan.
5. Respondent Prosecutor filed 4 new informations (for Murder, 2 counts of Frustated Murder
and for Violation of PD 1866 for illegal possession of firearms.) in the RTC Branch 10.
6. No Bail was recommended for murder and their arrest was ordered.
7. Petitioner filed Motion for Reconsideration before Judge Villajuan of the order that withdrew
the first 3 informations against them.
8. Then filed a Motion to Quash the second 4 informations before Judge Pornillos, which was
denied.
9. Prior to Arraignment of the second 4, the Motion for Reconsideration of the First 3 was
granted.
10. Petitioner filed for Certiorari and Mandamus with Petition for Habeas Corpus, with the Court
of Appeals for the denial of the Motion to Quash of the Second 4, which was denied.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT HABEAS CORPUS IS PROPER
RULING: NO.
In the absence of Exceptional Circumstances, the orderly course of trial should be pursued and
the usual remedies exhausted before the writ may be invoked. Habeas Corpus is not ordinarily
available in advance of trial to determine jurisdictional questions that may arise.
A court can not grant the writ and discharge the prisoner in advance of a determination of his
case in court.
It has also been held in numerous cases that, Habeas Corpus is not the appropriate vehicle for
asserting a right of bail or vindicating its denial. In a case where a criminal case is before the
court, that same court is the normal venue for invoking the right to have provisional liberty,
pending trial and judgment. The correct course of action for the one invoking such right is to file
a petition to be admitted to bail. And only after that remedy is denied by the trial court should
the review jurisdiction of this court be invoked, and even then, not without first applying to the
Court of Appeals, of appropriate relief is also available there.
---
VELASCO V COURT OF APPEALS
Petition for Review for CAs resolution, ordering Release of Larkins.
FACTS:
1. Warrant of Arrest was issued by Judge Padolina of the RTC of Pasig, against Larkin for
Violation of BP 22.
2. On Nov 20, 1994, Desiree Alinea filed at the NBI, an Complaint-Affidavit for Rape.
3. Acting on the Complaint, Petitioners arrested Larkins and was detained at the Detention Cell
of the NBI.
4. On Nov 24, 1994, Larkin posted bail, for the BP 22 case. Judge Padolina set aside the warrant
and ordered his release, unless otherwise detained for some other cause.
5. Petitioners refused to release Larkins.
6. On Nov 23, 1994, Complaint was excuted by Alinea in the RTC of Antipolo.
7. On Dec 2, 1994, Larkins filed an Urgent Motion for Bail and alleged the following:
a. there was no strong evidence against him for rape.
b. he had no carnal knowledge with Alinea
c. he has right to bail
d. he has no intention of leaving the country
8. On Dec 6, 1994, Larkins then filed an Omnibus Motion for Dismissal and Immediate Release,
based on the Illegality of his unwarranted arrest.
9. RTC denied the Motions for lack of merit and Ordered an Hold Order against Larkins.
10. His Common-law wife then filed with the CA, a Petition for Habeas Corpus with Certiorari.
The CA ordered the release of Larkins, as he was detained without a warrant of arrest. And at
the time of his detention, no other complaint was filed, as it was only sometime Nov 25, 1994
that the Complaint of Alinea was formally brought to court.
11. Petitioners insist that Haebas Corpus was improper because Larkins was already charged
with Rape and the RTC denied his application for Bail.
12. The wife contends that Habeas Corpus is unavailing, not by the filing of information, but by
the issuance of warrants of arrest or commitment.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT WAS ILLEGAL, THUS MAKING THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PROPER.
RULING: NO.
Even if arrest is illegal, supervening events may bar his release. What it to be inquired is, legality
of his detention as of the filing of the application for Habeas Corpus. By reason of supervening
events, arrest can no longer be illegal.
Issuance of Judicial Processes and the Filing of Complaint for the offense the accused is detained
are examples of Supervening Events which may bar release. As in the case, the filing of the
Complaint with the RTC of Antipolo, the restraint of liberty is already by virtue of complaint,
therefore Habeas Corpus is no longer available.