SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 245919. June 3, 2019.]
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF SIMPLICIO R. PUNZALAN; MRS. AMADA G. PUNZALAN, petitioner.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated03 June 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 245919 — In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Simplicio R. Punzalan; Mrs. Amada G. Punzalan, petitioner
Before the Court is a Petition for HabeasCorpus filed by Amada G. Punzalan (Amada), wife of Simplicio R. Punzalan (Simplicio).
Amada avers that: On June 21, 2018, Simplicio was illegally taken and detained by elements of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in its Manila main office, based on the suspicion that Simplicio violated Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9208 1 as amended by R.A. No. 10364 2 or that he was engaged in "trafficking in person." Four months passed and he was transferred to, and detained at the Pasay City Jail where he is being detained up to the present.
On August 24, 2018, while Simplicio is under detention, a Criminal Information for violation of R.A. 9208 as amended by R.A. 10364 was filed against him, docketed as Criminal Case No. R-PSY-18-17708-CR entitled "People vs. Simplicio Punzalan." The case was raffled to Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 113, Pasay City. On August 29, 2018, RTC Branch 113 issued a Commitment Order.
On September 3, 2018, Simplicio filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Commitment Order. On September 6, 2018, the RTC granted the Prosecutor ten (10) days from date, to file opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration. The Prosecutor, however, failed to file any opposition.
On October 24, 2018, the RTC issued an Order setting the hearing of the petition for bail of Simplicio on November 9, 2018, at 10 o'clock in the morning. On November 21, 2018, the prosecution manifested that it will no longer comment on the petition for bail.
The hearing for the petition for bail was set on November 28, 2018, at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon. On said date, the RTC issued an Order for the continuation of the direct examination of Atty. Dugayon of the NBI on February 15, 2019, at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon, which setting was cancelled by the court.
She further averred that during the hearing on Simplicio's Motion to Quash on February 18, 2019, the RTC set the hearings of Simplicio's application for bail continuously for March 11, 18, 25 and April 1, 2019. However, for two successive settings, March 11 and 19 (sic), 2019 the hearings were cancelled because the presiding judge was not present.
Amada asserts that since Simplicio has not been arraigned within the reglementary period provided by law and the rules, his right to speedy trial has been violated. 3
The Court finds no merit in the petition.
Section 1, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court, provides that the writ of habeascorpus "shall extend to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto." The writ's primary purpose is to inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint as distinguished from voluntary, and to relieve a person therefrom, if such restraint is illegal. "Called the 'great writ of liberty,' the writ of habeascorpus was devised and exists as a speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint, and as the best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom." 4
In this case, petitioner avers that the delay in Simplicio's arraignment violates his right to speedy trial and thus, entitles him to a writ of habeas corpus.
Petitioner herself admitted that an Information for violation of R.A. No. 9208 as amended by R.A. No. 10364 was filed against Simplicio on August 24, 2018.
Case law has held that the filing of Information, rendered a petition for habeascorpus moot and academic. This is because, the rule is if a person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court or judge, and that the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the process or make the order, or if such person is charged before any court, the writ of habeascorpus will not be allowed. In such cases, persons restrained under a lawful process or order of the court must pursue the orderly course of trial and exhaust the usual remedies, instead of availing themselves of the extraordinary remedy of a petition for habeascorpus. An ordinary remedy is to file a motion to quash the information or warrant of arrest. 5
Here, petitioner herself alleged that Simplicio through counsel has filed a Petition for Bail as well as a Motion to Quash. While there were two dates when the hearings did not push through due to the absence of the judge, there is no showing that it caused great delay tantamount to a violation of the accused's right to speedy trial.
As the petition failed to show that issuance of the writ is warranted in this case, the same is hereby denied.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Habeas Corpus is DENIED.
J. Caguioa on official leave."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Otherwise known as the "Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003." Approved May 26, 2003.
2. Also known as the "Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012." Approved February 6, 2013.
3.Rollo, pp. 3-6.
4.In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Dalukan Malang Salibo v. Warden, Quezon City Jail Annex, 757 Phil. 630, 644 (2015).
5.Id. at 652.