Sangca vs. City Prosecutor of Cebu City

A petition for habeas corpus becomes moot when the person whose liberty is sought to be restored has already been released from detention by order of a competent court, as the writ's singular function is to protect and secure the basic freedom of physical liberty from illegal confinement.

Petitioner Anisah Impal Sangca filed the petition on behalf of Lovely Impal Adam, who was detained at the Cebu City Jail pending prosecution for illegal sale of shabu under Section 5, Article 2 of Republic Act No. 9165. The criminal case, docketed as Criminal Case No. CBU-77562, was pending before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 58. The petition impleaded the City Prosecutor of Cebu City and the Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 58 as respondents, seeking a writ of habeas corpus to secure Adam's release.

In the first week of July 2006, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), Regional Office VII, received information that Lovely Impal Adam was engaged in illegal drug trafficking in Cebu City and neighboring areas. Police Chief Inspector Josefino Ligan, together with FO1 Rayford A. Yap and PO2 Dindo M. Tuliao, planned an entrapment operation. On July 7, 2006, at about 2:00 P.M., Yap and Tuliao contacted the informant to confirm his sincerity, and Ligan composed a team for the buy-bust. A short briefing was conducted where Yap was tasked to receive the shabu while Tuliao served as backup and arresting officer. They prepared a Pre-Operation Report and coordinated with the Tactical Operation Center of the Cebu City Police Office. The pre-arranged signal was that Yap would miscall the team once the transaction was consummated.

At about 9:30 P.M. that same day, the team proceeded to Fuente Osmeña, Cebu City. Yap and the informant entered Pizza Hut, where Adam was already waiting. The informant introduced Yap to Adam as his former customer. Yap asked if she had the item, and Adam replied that it was in her car at the parking area. She asked where the money was, and Yap responded that there was no problem as long as she had the item. Adam instructed Yap to accompany her to the parking area, where she retrieved from the compartment of her Toyota Fortuner one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance and handed it to him. Upon receiving the item, Yap pressed it, determined it was shabu, and miscalled the team to signal that the transaction was consummated. He then identified himself as a PDEA operative and, with Tuliao's assistance, apprehended Adam. They also seized her cellular phone and the Toyota Fortuner. Adam was apprised of the Miranda Doctrine but opted to remain silent. The seized substance, weighing 50.27 grams, was submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory and yielded positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Adam denied the charge. She claimed to be a trader of ready-to-wear clothing who frequently traveled to Asian countries to buy goods for sale in Cebu and Mindanao, supplying various boutiques. She stated that on July 7, 2006, at around 10:00 P.M., she was at Pizza Hut with her four children and their yayas. A friend named Ana had called earlier to say she would repay a loan that evening. While they were eating, Ana received a call from a certain Rose. Rose later arrived and was introduced to Adam by Ana. Adam saw Ana hand a parcel to Rose, and Rose in turn hand a green bag to Ana. As Adam was about to leave, Ana asked to hitch a ride. Outside, Adam noticed a vehicle blocking her car. Instead of moving, one of the men entered her vehicle and demanded the bag allegedly given to Ana. The men pointed guns at Adam and her children, identified themselves as PDEA agents, and arrested her for illegal drug trafficking. They grabbed Adam's green bag, the contents of which she never recovered. At the PDEA office, Adam met Ryan Rubi, who had been arrested earlier and told her he was required to produce a drug trafficker in exchange for his release. Rubi claimed that a certain Rose had been conditionally released on the condition she produce a replacement, and that Ana had agreed to produce Adam. The police blotter reflected an interchange of vehicle assignments between Adam's and Rubi's cases.

The inquest prosecutor recommended dismissal of the case, but the City Prosecutor disapproved and filed an information charging Adam with violation of Section 5, Article 2 of R.A. No. 9165 before the RTC of Cebu City, Branch 58. On petition for review, the Secretary of Justice found no probable cause, observing that no buy-bust money was ever presented or mentioned in the arresting officers' affidavits, and that the certificate of inventory showed no buy-bust money. The Secretary directed the City Prosecutor to withdraw the information. PDEA's motion for reconsideration was denied on December 8, 2006. The trial court, in its Comment, independently confirmed the absence of buy-bust money in the Pre-Operation Report, the blotter excerpts, and the officers' affidavits, noting that the only mention of boodle money appeared in an excerpt that was later admitted by the arresting team's head to contain an inadvertent interchange of facts from another case. On January 26, 2007, Judge Gabriel T. Ingles granted the Motion to Withdraw Information and ordered Adam's immediate release unless another valid ground for detention existed.

• Mootness of Habeas Corpus: Whether the petition for habeas corpus has been rendered moot by the release of the detainee pursuant to the trial court's order granting the motion to withdraw information.

• Mootness of Habeas Corpus: Yes. The petition was dismissed as moot, Adam having already been released from detention by order of the trial court on January 26, 2007, thereby eliminating the involuntary restraint that the writ of habeas corpus was designed to remedy.

• Mootness of Habeas Corpus: The writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention in which a person is deprived of liberty, its essential object being to inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint and to relieve a person from it if such restraint is illegal. The singular function of the petition is to protect and secure the basic freedom of physical liberty. Because the records showed that Adam had already been released upon the trial court's order of January 26, 2007, no involuntary restraint remained to be inquired into or remedied. The petition thus became moot and academic, as there was no longer any actual case or controversy requiring the Court's intervention. The Court relied on In Re: Arguelles, Jr. vs. Balajadia, Jr. (G.R. No. 167211, March 14, 2006) for the definition and purpose of the writ.

• Mootness of Habeas Corpus — A petition for habeas corpus becomes moot when the person whose release is sought has already been freed from detention, as the writ's singular function is to inquire into and remedy involuntary restraint. Once the restraint ceases, there is no longer any case or controversy for the Court to resolve, and the petition must be dismissed as moot and academic.

• "A writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention in which any person is deprived of his liberty, or in which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled to it." — This passage defines the scope and purpose of the writ of habeas corpus, establishing the doctrinal basis for the Court's ruling that the petition became moot upon the detainee's release.

• "The singular function of a petition for habeas corpus is to protect and secure the basic freedom of physical liberty." — This formulation articulates the core rationale for the mootness ruling: once physical liberty has been restored, the writ can serve no further purpose.

• In Re: Arguelles, Jr. vs. Balajadia, Jr., G.R. No. 167211, March 14, 2006, 484 SCRA 653, 657 — Cited as controlling authority for the definition, scope, and purpose of the writ of habeas corpus, including the principle that the petition becomes moot once the restraint is lifted.

• Section 5, Article 2, Republic Act No. 9165 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) — The provision under which Adam was charged, penalizing the sale of dangerous drugs. The DOJ Secretary found no probable cause for violation of this provision because the essential element of payment in a buy-bust operation was not established.

Austria-Martinez, Chico-Nazario, and Nachura, JJ., concurred.