CRIM PRO

GR No. 182497
AMPATUAN V MACARAIG Date: June 29, 2010
Perez, J:
NURHIDA AMPATUAN JUDGE VIRGILIO MACARAIG
Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the Order of the RTC of Manila denying the petition by Nurhida Ampatuan
on behalf of her husband PO1 Basser Ampatuan
FACTS
1. Husband was assigned in Sultan Kudarat Police Station and was asked by the Chief to report to the Director of
Shariff Kabunsuan, Superintendent Esmael Ali. Ali brought PO1 Ampatuan to the Provincial Director of PNP-
Maguindanao. He was restrained inside the Provincial Office without being informed of the cause (April 14,
2008)
2. April 15, 2008- He was brought on a plane bound to Manila and was brought to Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim. He
was subjected to a press briefing where it was said that he was arrested for killing 2 COMELEC Officials. He was
detained in a police jail in UN Avenue, Manila before being transferred in Camp Bagong Diwa, Taguig.
3. While under inquest, Prosecutor Nelson Salva ordered his release. But, Police Senior Superintendent Co Yee Co
and Chief Inspector Quimson refused to do so. A petition for habeas corpus was then filed by petitioner in the
RTC of manila on April 23, 2008.
4. April 24- RTC Judge ordered his body to be produced and ordered the Co and Quimson to show cause why they
were restraining PO1 Ampatuan. The latter said that they withheld PO1 Ampatuan because he was facing an
administrative case of grave misconduct. They cited Manalo v Calderon, which states that habeas corpus
cannot lie for a PNP personnel under restrictive custody. But, petitioner argues that the administrative case
was merely ante-dated before the date of filing of the habeas corpus petition.
5. Judge Macaraig dismissed the petition for habeas corpus, arguing that the PNP had a right to detain him
because of its administrative case against him.
ISSUE/S

WHETHER OR NOT THE PO1 CAN BE DETAINED DESPTE THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS, BY
VIRTUE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CASE FILED AGAINST HIM- Yes.
RATIO
The Objective of the Writ is to determine whether the confinement or detention is valid or lawful. Even if a detention
was illegal, it may be possible that because of some supervening event, it be no longer such and the habeas corpus may
be granted anymore. To issue the writ, the individual seeking relief must be deprived of his freedom of movement or
placed under some form of illegal restraint.

The respondents were correct in saying that the release ordered by the inquest prosecutor was only pertaining to his
being restrained on the criminal charge of murder. But, He was under Restrictive Custody as allowed by RA 6975,
where members of the police force who are subject to administrative cases may be restrained.

Restrictive custody is, at best, nominal restraint which is beyond the ambit of habeas corpus. It is neither actual nor
effective restraint that would call for the grant of the remedy prayed for. It is a permissible precautionary measure to
assure the PNP authorities that the police officers concerned are always accounted for. This can be in the form of
continued detention or monitoring of their movements.

The remedy, therefore, is administrative, and not a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
RULING
Petition is denied.
Notes
In a petition for habeas corpus the judge must inquire whether the person is being restrained of his liberty first. If this is
absent, the writ cannot be issued. If the reason is unlawful, then the court will grant the petition.
2-S 2015-16 (CHAN)