In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Engr. Ashraf Kunting

A person duly charged with a criminal offense and detained under process issued by a court of competent jurisdiction may not be discharged through habeas corpus, pursuant to Section 4, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court. The writ does not lie where the detention is pursuant to a valid court order and the detainee has been formally charged in court.

Petitioner Ashraf Kunting was a person of interest to both Malaysian and Philippine authorities in connection with kidnapping incidents attributed to the Abu Sayyaf Group in Basilan. He was arrested in Malaysia under the Malaysian Internal Security Act and subsequently turned over to the Philippine National Police Intelligence Group (PNP-IG) and Task Force Salinglahi, which held warrants for his arrest issued by the RTC of Isabela City, Basilan. The PNP-IG sought to detain him temporarily at Camp Crame, Quezon City, citing high security risks and the threat of recovery by the Abu Sayyaf Group, and repeatedly requested the Department of Justice to facilitate a transfer of venue from Isabela City, Basilan to Pasig City.

On October 19, 2001, Ashraf Kunting was arrested in Malaysia for violation of the Malaysian Internal Security Act. On June 12, 2003, the Royal Malaysian Police in Kuala Lumpur turned him over to the PNP-IG and Task Force Salinglahi pursuant to warrants for his arrest issued by the Regional Trial Court of Isabela City, Basilan, Branch 2, Ninth Judicial Region. Kunting was charged with four counts of Kidnapping for Ransom and Serious Illegal Detention under separate Amended Informations docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 3674-1187, 3537-1129, 3608-1164, and 3611-1165. He was immediately flown to the Philippines and brought to the PNP-IG at Camp Crame for booking and custodial investigation.

On July 3, 2003, Atty. Guillermo G. Danipog, Jr., Police Superintendent and Chief of the Legal Affairs Division, PNP-IG, informed the Branch Clerk of Court of the RTC that Kunting was already in PNP-IG custody. Atty. Danipog requested Kunting's temporary detention at Camp Crame due to the high security risks involved and prayed for the issuance of a corresponding commitment order. On July 9, 2003, Acting Clerk of Court Emilio F. Enriquez replied, conveying the instruction of Judge Danilo M. Bucoy that Kunting may be temporarily detained at PNP-IG by virtue of the alias warrant of arrest, but that considering he was a high security risk, he should be brought to Isabela, Basilan as soon as the necessary security escort could be provided for his transfer, where the proper commitment order could be issued as the case was about to be submitted by the prosecution.

On September 15, 2003, the RTC issued an Order directing the PNP-IG to immediately turn over Kunting to the trial court, as Kunting had filed an Urgent Motion for Reinvestigation. On November 5, 2003, PNP-IG Director Arturo C. Lomibao wrote to Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito R. Zuño of the Department of Justice, requesting representation and a motion for transfer of venue from Isabela City, Basilan to Pasig City, citing intelligence reports that the Abu Sayyaf Group would exert utmost effort to recover Kunting's custody and that inadequate security facilities in Basilan made recovery by the ASG a serious possibility. On August 13, 2004, the RTC rendered a decision against Kunting's co-accused in the consolidated cases, finding 17 of the accused guilty of the crimes charged.

On February 11, 2005, the RTC issued an Order denying Kunting's Motion to Set Case for Preliminary Investigation since the PNP-IG had not turned him over. The trial court reiterated its September 15, 2003 order directing the PNP-IG to turn over Kunting to the court. On February 22, 2005, Police Chief Superintendent Ismael R. Rafanan reiterated the request to Chief State Prosecutor Zuño to facilitate the transfer of venue, citing the same grounds and adding that had Kunting been transferred to Basilan, he could have been among the escapees in a jail break on April 10, 2004. On March 15, 2005, Police Inspector Amado L. Barbasa, Jr. filed a Motion to Defer Implementation of the RTC's February 11, 2005 order, citing the existence of a pending motion for transfer of venue allegedly filed by the DOJ before the Supreme Court. Kunting, for his part, asserted that he never participated in the kidnapping incident and that he was never informed of the charges against him until his family researched in Zamboanga City and discovered his name on the list of accused in the RTC of Isabela City, Basilan in connection with the June 2, 2001 kidnapping incident in Lamitan, Basilan. Having received no further information on the status of his case, he filed the present petition for habeas corpus on March 14, 2005, seeking to end his detention classified in the records as "for safekeeping purposes only."

• Illegal Detention: Petitioner asserted that he had been restrained of his liberty since June 12, 2003 by the PNP-IG without lawful basis, as his detention was classified merely "for safekeeping purposes only."
• Lack of Information: Petitioner alleged that he was never informed of the charges filed against him until his family researched in Zamboanga City and discovered his name on the list of accused in the RTC of Isabela City, Basilan.
• Innocence: Petitioner asserted that he never participated in the kidnapping incident that occurred on June 2, 2001 in Lamitan, Basilan, and promptly filed an Urgent Motion for Reinvestigation on September 8, 2003.
• Inaction by Trial Court and DOJ: Petitioner maintained that since no action was taken by the trial court or the DOJ on his Motion to Set Case for Preliminary Investigation filed on January 26, 2005, he filed the petition to put an end to his illegal detention.

• Availability of Habeas Corpus: Whether the petition for habeas corpus can prosper given that petitioner is detained under process issued by a court and has been charged with a criminal offense.

• Availability of Habeas Corpus: No. The writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued where the person detained is in custody under process issued by a court of competent jurisdiction and has been duly charged with a criminal offense, pursuant to Section 4, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court.

• Availability of Habeas Corpus: Section 1, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court extends the writ of habeas corpus to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of liberty, or by which rightful custody is withheld. The remedy serves a single objective: to inquire into the cause of detention, and if found illegal, to order release. However, Section 4, Rule 102 provides that if the person restrained is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court or judge, and that court had jurisdiction to issue the process, the writ shall not be allowed. The same section further provides that nothing in the rule authorizes the discharge of a person charged with or convicted of an offense in the Philippines. In this case, Kunting's detention by the PNP-IG was under process issued by the RTC — specifically, the alias order of arrest issued by Judge Danilo M. Bucoy. His temporary detention at Camp Crame was authorized by the trial court. Moreover, Kunting had been charged with four counts of Kidnapping for Ransom and Serious Illegal Detention in Criminal Case Nos. 3608-1164, 3537-1129, 3674-1187, and 3611-1165. Under the last sentence of Section 4, the writ cannot be issued and Kunting cannot be discharged since he had been charged with a criminal offense. The Court cited Bernarte vs. Court of Appeals, which holds that once a person detained is duly charged in court, he may no longer question his detention through habeas corpus. Nevertheless, the Court noted that the RTC had been waiting for two years for the PNP-IG to turn over Kunting's person, the delay being attributable to the PNP-IG's awaiting the DOJ's action on a motion for transfer of venue. In the absence of evidence that the DOJ had indeed filed such a motion, the Court directed the Police Chief Superintendent to take positive steps to comply with the RTC's February 11, 2005 order to turn over Kunting to the trial court.

• Habeas Corpus; When Writ Not Allowed — Under Section 4, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court, the writ of habeas corpus shall not be allowed if the person alleged to be restrained 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 the court had jurisdiction to issue the process, render the judgment, or make the order. Additionally, the rule does not authorize the discharge of a person charged with or convicted of an offense in the Philippines, or of a person suffering imprisonment under lawful judgment. The Court applied this provision by finding that Kunting's detention was pursuant to an alias warrant of arrest issued by the RTC of Isabela City, Basilan, and that he had been formally charged with four counts of Kidnapping for Ransom and Serious Illegal Detention, thus barring the writ.

• Effect of Filing of Criminal Charges on Habeas Corpus — Once a person detained is duly charged in court, he may no longer question his detention by a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. This principle, drawn from Bernarte vs. Court of Appeals, was applied to bar Kunting's petition, as criminal informations had already been filed against him in the RTC.

• "If, however, the detention is proven lawful, then the habeas corpus proceedings terminate." — This passage states a fundamental limitation on the writ: it is available only where detention is shown to be illegal, and lawful detention under valid court process terminates the proceedings.

• "once the person detained is duly charged in court, he may no longer question his detention by a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus." — This quotation from Bernarte vs. Court of Appeals articulates the controlling rule that the filing of criminal charges precludes recourse to habeas corpus, and was the direct basis for dismissing the petition.

• In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Capt. Gary Alejano, et al., G.R. No. 160792, August 25, 2005 — Cited for the proposition that the remedy of habeas corpus has one objective: to inquire into the cause of detention of a person.
• In Re: Azucena L. Garcia, G.R. No. 141443, August 30, 2000, 339 SCRA 292 — Cited for the proposition that if the detention is found illegal, the court orders the release of the detainee; and that if the detention is proven lawful, habeas corpus proceedings terminate.
• Bernarte vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107741, October 18, 1996, 263 SCRA 323 — Cited as controlling authority for the rule that once a person detained is duly charged in court, he may no longer question his detention through habeas corpus. This was the principal precedent supporting dismissal of the petition.

• Section 1, Rule 102, Rules of Court — Defines the scope of the writ of habeas corpus, extending to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto. Applied to frame the purpose of the writ as inquiring into the cause of detention.
• Section 4, Rule 102, Rules of Court — Provides when the writ is not allowed or discharge is not authorized: if the person restrained is in custody under process issued by a court or judge with jurisdiction, the writ shall not be allowed; nor does the rule authorize discharge of a person charged with or convicted of an offense in the Philippines. This was the controlling provision barring the issuance of the writ, as Kunting was detained under a valid court-issued warrant and had been formally charged with criminal offenses.

Justice Reynato S. Puno (on leave), Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez (Acting Chairperson), Justice Renato C. Corona, and Justice Cancio C. Garcia concurred. No separate concurring opinions were noted.