CA and SC has concurrent jurisdiction with the family courts in habeas corpus cases involving custody of minors

Facts: Felipe and Francisca were married. After a bitter quarrel, Felipe left the conjugal abode bringing with him their three sons. Francisca filed a petition for habeas corpus in the Court of Appeals for their 2 minor sons on the ground that Felipe’s act disrupted the children's education and deprived them of their mother’s care. Felipe filed a memorandum alleging that Francisca was unfit to take custody of their children and questioned the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals claiming that under Section 5(b) of RA 8369, family courts have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide the petition for habeas corpus. Does the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases involving custody of minors? 

Held: The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over habeas corpus case involving custody of minors. There is nothing in RA 8369 that revoked its jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus involving the custody of minors. RA 8369 did not divest the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of their jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases involving the custody of minors.

The concurrent jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court with family courts in said cases was further affirmed by A.M. No. 03-03-04-SC (April 22, 2004) in Re: Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors which provides that:

Section 20.   Petition for writ of habeas corpus. – A verified petition for a writ of habeas corpus involving custody of minors shall be filed with the Family Court. The writ shall be enforceable within its judicial region to which the Family Court belongs.
                               x x x          x x x          x x x

The petition may likewise be filed with the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or with any of its members and, if so granted, the writ shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines.

Moreover, a careful reading of Section 5(b) of RA 8369 reveals that family courts are vested with original exclusive jurisdiction in custody cases, not in habeas corpus cases. Writs of habeas corpus which may be issued exclusively by family courts under Section 5(b) of RA 8369 pertain to the ancillary remedy that may be availed of in conjunction with a petition for custody of minors under Rule 99 of the Rules of Court. In other words, the issuance of the writ is merely ancillary to the custody case pending before the family court. The writ must be issued by the same court to avoid splitting of jurisdiction, conflicting decisions, interference by a co-equal court and judicial instability.

The rule therefore is: when by law jurisdiction is conferred on a court or judicial officer, all auxiliary writs, processes and other means necessary to carry it into effect may be employed by such court or officer. Once a court acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case, it does so to the exclusion of all other courts, including related incidents and ancillary matters. [Madrian vs. Madrian, 527 SCRA 487, GR No. 159374, July 12, 2007]

Persons out on bail or convicted by final judgment not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus

May a person convicted by final judgment and/or out on bail is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus? 

May the Court, in habeas corpus proceedings, review the record in a criminal case after judgment of conviction has been rendered?

Facts: The trial court found Garcia guilty of three (3) counts of falsification of public documents. The CA confirmed the conviction. Out on bail, Garcia filed a petition for habeas corpus with the Supreme Court, questioning the validity of the judgment rendered. Garcia contends that where proceedings were attended by violations of the constitutional rights of the accused, the judgment of conviction is void thereby warranting relief by the extraordinary legal remedy of habeas corpus. The OSG, on the other hand, states that the writ of habeas corpus is a remedy available to a person who is illegally imprisoned or restrained by his liberty. Consequently, a person discharged or out on bail, like petitioner, is not entitled to the writ.

Held: The high prerogative writ of habeas corpus was devised and exists as a speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint. Its object is to inquire into the legality of ones detention, and if found illegal, to order the release of the detainee. However, it is equally well-settled that the writ will not issue where the person in whose behalf the writ is sought is out on bail, or is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court or judge or by virtue of a judgment or order of a court of record, and that the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the process, render the judgment, or make the order. In the case at bar, therefore, petitioner can no longer seek relief via a petition for habeas corpus having been convicted by final judgment of the crime of falsification of public document and use thereof. Said judgment is already final and executory. 

Even if we disregard the fact that petitioner is out on bail, the writ prayed for should not be granted. Indeed, we have held that once a deprivation of a constitutional right is shown to exist, the court that rendered the judgment is deemed ousted of jurisdiction and habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy to assail the legality of his detention. Petitioner, however, has failed to persuade this Court that the proceedings before the trial court were attended by violations of her right to due process, or for that matter, other constitutional rights.

It is apparent from the arguments advanced by petitioner that the purpose of this petition is to cause this Court to once again re-examine and pass judgment upon the trial courts appreciation of the evidence presented. But the writ of habeas corpus is not a remedy for the correction of such errors. Court cannot, in habeas corpus proceedings, review the record in a criminal case after judgment of conviction has been rendered, and the defendants have entered on the execution of the sentence imposed, to ascertain whether the facts found by the trial court were in accordance with the evidence disclosed by the record, or to pass upon the correctness of conclusions of law by the trial court based on the facts thus found. Under the statute, a commitment in due form based on a final judgment convicting and sentencing a defendant in a criminal case is conclusive evidence of the legality of his detention under such commitment, unless it appears that the court which pronounced the judgment was without jurisdiction or exceeded its jurisdiction in imposing the penalty. Mere errors of fact or law, which did not have the effect of depriving the trial court of its jurisdiction over the cause and the person of the defendant, if corrected at all, must be corrected on appeal in the form and manner prescribed by law. [In Re: Azucena L. Garcia, 339 SCRA 292, GR 141443, August 30, 2000]

Writ of habeas corpus will not issue where the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is charged with an offense

The writ of habeas corpus will not issue where the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is charged with an offense in the Philippines.

Facts: In 1996, Lucien was deported and was barred from again entering the Philippines. In 1997, he was able to re-enter the country using an alias. He was subsequently caught by immigration agents and charged with violation of §45(d) of the Philippine Immigration Act for having entered the country illegally. He then filed a petition for habeas corpus.

Held: The writ of habeas corpus will not issue where the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is charged with an offense in the Philippines. Lucien is charged with violation of §45(d) of the Philippine Immigration Act. He is now detained because of said charge and therefore his petition for release on a writ of habeas corpus is without merit. [Lucien Tran Van Nghia vs. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 139758, January 31, 2000]