Case Digest (G.R. No. 232413)
Facts:
This is Integrated Bar of the Philippines Pangasinan Legal Aid and Jay-Ar R. Senin v. Department of Justice, Provincial Prosecutor's Office, Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, and Philippine National Police, G.R. No. 232413 [Formerly UDK 15419], July 25, 2017, the Supreme Court En Banc, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Pangasinan Chapter Legal Aid and detainee Jay-Ar Senin; respondents are the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office (PPO), the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP), and the Philippine National Police (PNP). The IBP filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with a petition for declaratory relief alleging that numerous detainees — including Senin — were languishing in detention for months or years without a case filed in court or a definite finding of probable cause as a consequence of DOJ circulars governing automatic review of dismissed drug cases.
Senin was arrested in a buy‑bust operation and indorsed to the PPO on February 9, 2015; he waived the protections of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code and underwent preliminary investigation. The investigating prosecutor initially resolved to dismiss the case and the matter was forwarded for automatic review at the DOJ. While the IBP asserts the DOJ review lingered for more than eight months, the DOJ later reversed the dismissal and on February 10, 2016 Prosecutor Marcelo C. Espinosa filed an information; the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 43, Dagupan City, issued a commitment order and an amended information was filed on February 22, 2016.
The petition challenged the constitutionality and effects of successive DOJ issuances — notably D.C. No. 12 (2012), D.C. No. 22 (2013), D.C. No. 50 (Dec. 18, 2015) providing for release if automatic review is not resolved within 30 days, D.C. No. 003 (Jan. 13, 2016) revoking D.C. No. 50 and reinstating D.C. No. 12, and later D.C. No. 004 (Jan. 4, 2017) which again directed immediate release pending automatic review. The IBP asked (inter alia) exemption from filing fees, issuance of habeas corpus for Senin, declaration of the DOJ issuances unconstitutional, immediate hearing, and a writ of kalayaan for similarly situated detainees.
The BJMP asserted it could not release inmates without a court order and cited its manual and Agbay v. Deputy Ombudsman. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) argued habeas corpus is inappropriate because by February 10, 2016 the DOJ had found probable cause ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the petition moot and academic in view of subsequent DOJ action and judicial proceedings?
- Does a detainee’s waiver of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code permit indefinite detention pending automatic review, reinvestigation, appeal or motion for reconsideration; and are detainees whose preliminary investigation periods have lapsed or whose cases were dismissed but remain under auto...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)