Saulo vs. Cruz

A writ of habeas corpus issued by the Supreme Court is enforceable anywhere in the Philippines and may be made returnable before a Court of First Instance, which then has authority to inquire into all questions of law and fact and determine the legality of the detention.

Alfredo B. Saulo was the petitioner in a habeas corpus proceeding against Brig. Gen. Pelagio Cruz, Commanding General of the Philippine Constabulary. The governing framework is Rule 102 of the Rules of Court, particularly section 2 on the grant of the writ and the court to which it may be made returnable, and sections 12 to 15 on the hearing and disposition of the return; Act No. 654 and General Orders No. 59 also address original petitions filed in the SC.

Alfredo B. Saulo filed a petition in the SC praying that a writ of habeas corpus be issued and that, after appropriate proceedings, he be discharged on the ground that he was illegally detained and deprived of his liberty. On December 24, 1958, the SC issued a resolution ordering Brig. Gen. Pelagio Cruz, Commanding General of the Philippine Constabulary, to file within five days from notice an answer returnable to the Court of First Instance of Manila. The writ was made returnable to the CFI of Manila.

On January 14, 1959, the CFI of Manila issued an order stating that the facts set forth in the petition—except the conclusion that petitioner's detention was illegal—had been substantially admitted in respondent's answer. Respondent, however, assailed the jurisdiction of the CFI under section 2, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court to pass upon the issues in the case. The CFI framed those issues as whether a person may be arrested without warrant for an alleged violation of an Act which expressly provides that no prosecution thereunder shall be made unless a preliminary investigation has been conducted by the proper Court of First Instance, and whether, when such person has been so arrested, he is entitled to be released during the time the preliminary investigation is being conducted. Without passing upon the question of jurisdiction, the CFI directed that the record of the case—including the transcript of the proceedings had during the hearing and the memoranda of the parties—be forwarded to the SC for further proceedings.

Respondent maintained that the CFI referred to in section 2, Rule 102 is the court of first instance within whose jurisdiction the petitioner is confined, under the theory that the decision of such court would be enforceable only within its judicial district. Respondent invoked the preliminary investigation in Criminal Case No. 46410 against petitioner as justification for his detention. The SC noted that the CFI of Manila had been conducting, and was still conducting, that preliminary investigation.

• Illegal Detention: Petitioner sought the writ of habeas corpus on the ground that he was illegally detained and deprived of his liberty.

• Jurisdiction of the CFI: Respondent maintained that the CFI referred to in section 2, Rule 102 is the court of first instance within whose jurisdiction the petitioner is confined, because the decision of such court would be enforceable only within its judicial district.
• Justification for Detention: Respondent invoked the preliminary investigation in Criminal Case No. 46410 against petitioner as justification for his detention.

• Jurisdiction of the Return Court: Whether the CFI of Manila, to which the SC made the writ of habeas corpus returnable, has authority to pass upon the issues and determine the legality of petitioner's detention, or whether only the CFI within whose jurisdiction petitioner is confined may act.
• Remand to the CFI: Whether the SC should adjudicate the merits of the habeas corpus petition itself or remand the case to the CFI of Manila for appropriate action.

• Jurisdiction of the Return Court: Yes. The CFI of Manila, as the court to which the SC made the writ returnable, may validly inquire into the legality of petitioner's restraint and issue appropriate orders; a writ issued by the SC is enforceable anywhere in the Philippines and may be made returnable before a CFI.
• Remand to the CFI: Yes. The SC remanded the record to the CFI of Manila for appropriate action because that court had already acquired jurisdiction and was conducting the preliminary investigation in Criminal Case No. 46410, making it better situated to ascertain the facts.

• Jurisdiction of the Return Court: Section 2, Rule 102 provides that the writ may be granted by the SC or any member, the CA or any member, or a CFI or judge. If granted by the SC or CA, it is enforceable anywhere in the Philippines and may be made returnable before the court or any member, or before a CFI or any judge. The last sentence limiting a CFI-issued writ to the judicial district does not apply because the writ was issued by the SC. Sections 12 to 15 of Rule 102 show that the court or judge to whom the writ is returned has the authority and duty to inquire into the facts and law and to order discharge if the prisoner is unlawfully imprisoned or restrained. Act No. 654, section 7, and General Orders No. 59, section 81, support making an original SC petition returnable to a CFI. The writ is comparable to a summons: service gives the court jurisdiction over the respondent, and the court to which the writ is returned acts in place of the appellate court and may render a decision enforceable anywhere in the Philippines. American jurisprudence, cited by the SC, states that the court or judge to whom the return is made passes upon all questions of law and fact and determines whether the prisoner is wrongfully restrained. Thus the CFI of Manila could validly inquire into the legality of petitioner's restraint.
• Remand to the CFI: The SC considered it best for the CFI of Manila to undertake the task because (1) it had already acquired jurisdiction over the case, the writ having been made returnable and returned to it, and (2) it had been conducting, and was still conducting, the preliminary investigation in Criminal Case No. 46410 against petitioner, which respondent invoked to justify the detention, so the lower court was better situated to ascertain the pertinent facts and make a reasonable appraisal. The SC expressly stated that the remand should not be construed as sanctioning indefinite detention without a warrant of arrest or order of commitment, or the custody of a person charged under the Anti-Subversion Act (Republic Act No. 1700) without such warrant or order regardless of the duration of the preliminary investigation. It cited Lino vs. Fuguso and Sayo vs. Chief of Police of Manila but did not alter their doctrines.

• Habeas Corpus — Nationwide Enforceability of SC-Issued Writ — A writ of habeas corpus issued by the SC is enforceable anywhere in the Philippines and may be made returnable before a CFI or judge. The CFI to which it is returned acts in place of the SC and has full authority to examine all issues of law and fact and determine whether the prisoner is wrongfully restrained. Applied: the CFI of Manila could validly pass on Saulo's detention despite respondent's claim that only the CFI of the place of confinement could act.
• Habeas Corpus — Writ as Comparable to Summons — Service of the writ gives the court jurisdiction over the respondent; once authority over the respondent is established, the court to which the writ is returned may render a decision enforceable anywhere in the Philippines. Applied: the return to CFI Manila gave it jurisdiction over Cruz and authority to decide the case.
• Habeas Corpus — Duty of the Return Court — Under Rule 102, sections 12 to 15, the court or judge to whom the writ is returned must inquire into the facts and law and order the prisoner's discharge if satisfied that the imprisonment or restraint is unlawful. Applied: CFI Manila had the duty to hear and determine the legality of Saulo's restraint.
• Remand to the Court with Prior Jurisdiction and Ongoing Preliminary Investigation — The SC may remand the merits of a habeas corpus petition to the CFI that has acquired jurisdiction through the return and is conducting the preliminary investigation invoked to justify detention, because that court is better situated to ascertain the facts. Applied: the SC remanded to CFI Manila, which had acquired jurisdiction and was conducting the preliminary investigation in Criminal Case No. 46410.
• No Sanction of Indefinite Detention — Remanding a habeas corpus case does not mean the SC sanctions indefinite detention without a warrant of arrest or order of commitment, or the custody of a person charged under the Anti-Subversion Act without such warrant or order regardless of the duration of the preliminary investigation. Applied: the SC expressly disclaimed any such sanction while remanding the record.

• "The writ of habeas corpus may be granted by the Supreme Court, or any member thereof, on any day and at any time, or by the Court of Appeals or any member thereof in the instances authorized by law, and if so granted it shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines, and many be made returnable before the court or any member thereof, or before a Court of First Instance, or any judge thereof." — Section 2, Rule 102, as quoted by the SC, establishes that an SC-issued writ is enforceable nationwide and may be returned to a CFI.
• "Once authority over the latter has thus been established, the appellate court issuing the writ, or the court of first instance to which the writ has been made returnable — acting in place of the appellate court — may render a decision, which — like other decisions of the Supreme Court and of courts of first instance — may be enforced anywhere in the Philippines." — The SC explains that the return court acts in place of the issuing appellate court and its decision has nationwide enforceability.
• "the court or judge to whom the return is made pass upon all questions of both law and fact and determine the ultimate question whether the prisoner is wrongfully restrained of his liberty." — The SC adopts American jurisprudence on the return court's authority to resolve all issues of law and fact.
• "This should not be construed, in any manner whatsoever, as indicating that we sanction the indefinite detention of an individual, without either a warrant of arrest or an order of commitment, or that one charged with a violation of the Anti-Subversion Act (Republic Act No. 1700), penalized therein "by prison mayor to death", may be kept under custody, without said warrant of arrest or order of commitments, regardless of the duration of the preliminary investigation conducted pursuant to the provisions of said Act." — The SC limits the remand and disclaims sanctioning indefinite detention without warrant or commitment order.

• Lino vs. Fuguso, 77 Phil. 933 — Cited by the SC as elucidating the importance of a warrant of arrest or order of commitment, the effect of detention without warrant, the steps after delivery to judicial authority, the purpose and period of preliminary investigation, and the alternatives when no warrant or commitment order has been issued; the SC did not alter its doctrine.
• Sayo vs. Chief of Police of Manila, 80 Phil. 859 — Cited together with the resolution on the motion for reconsideration in that case for the same principles on warrantless detention and preliminary investigation; the SC did not alter its doctrine.

• Section 2, Rule 102, Rules of Court — Governs who may grant the writ and where it may be made returnable. The SC applied it to hold that a writ issued by the SC is enforceable anywhere in the Philippines and may be made returnable before a CFI; the limitation for CFI-issued writs does not apply.
• Section 6, Rule 102, Rules of Court — Defines the writ directed to the officer or person restraining liberty, commanding production of the body before the court or judge designated. The SC used it to explain that the writ is comparable to a summons and gives the court jurisdiction over the respondent.
• Sections 12 to 15, Rule 102, Rules of Court — Set out the hearing on the return, evidence, recommitment or bail, and discharge. The SC relied on them to show that the court or judge to whom the writ is returned has authority and duty to inquire into the facts and law and discharge the prisoner if unlawfully restrained.
• Section 7, Act No. 654 of the Philippine Commission — Provides that when an original petition for habeas corpus is filed in the SC, the SC may issue the writ and make it returnable and direct the hearing before the SC, any judge thereof, or any judge of a CFI. The SC cited it as support for making the writ returnable to the CFI of Manila.
• Section 81, General Orders No. 59 — Substantially identical to section 7 of Act No. 654; cited as supporting the same procedure.