Title
Supreme Court
IN RE: Salibo vs. Warden
Case
G.R. No. 197597
Decision Date
Apr 8, 2015
Salibo, mistaken for a massacre suspect, was detained despite evidence proving his alibi. The Supreme Court ruled his detention unlawful, ordering his release via habeas corpus due to mistaken identity and lack of due process.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 197597)

Petitioner

Datukan Malang Salibo, currently detained at the Quezon City Jail Annex, Bureau of Jail Management and Penology Building, Camp Bagong Diwa, Taguig City.

Respondent

Warden of the Quezon City Jail Annex and all officers acting on his behalf.

Key Dates

• November 7–December 19, 2009: Salibo on Hajj pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia.
• December 20, 2009: Salibo returned to the Philippines.
• August 3, 2010: Salibo learns of police suspicion.
• August 20, 2010: Transferred to Quezon City Jail Annex.
• September 17, 2010: Habeas corpus petition filed with Court of Appeals.
• October 29, 2010: RTC Branch 153 grants habeas corpus.
• April 19, 2011: Court of Appeals reverses.
• July 28, 2011: Petition for review filed with Supreme Court.
• April 8, 2015: Supreme Court decision.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 1 – due process and liberty.
• Rules of Court, Rule 102 (writ of habeas corpus), Rule 113, Sec. 5 (warrantless arrest), Rule 117, Secs. 1–4 (motion to quash).

Remedial Nature of Habeas Corpus

Habeas corpus is an extraordinary, summary remedy under Rule 102, Sec. 1 to inquire into any illegal restraint of liberty and to order immediate relief if the restraint is unlawful. It protects the constitutional right to due process (Const., Art. III, Sec. 1) and may be invoked when no valid judicial process authorizes detention.

Lower Court Proceedings

Salibo filed an urgent petition before RTC Branch 153, Pasig City, contending he was not judicially charged or validly arrested since all warrants and informations named “Butukan S. Malang.” He presented his passport, boarding passes, immigration and airline certifications proving his presence in Saudi Arabia on the massacre date. The RTC found no warrant or information against him, ruled his arrest unlawful, and granted his immediate release on October 29, 2010.

Court of Appeals Proceedings

The Warden appealed to the Court of Appeals, which held Salibo was detained under valid process and that habeas corpus was unavailable once a valid information and warrant exist. It held the proper remedy was a motion to quash and dismissed the petition on April 19, 2011. A motion for reconsideration was denied on July 6, 2011.

Issues Framed for Supreme Court Review

  1. Whether the RTC decision granting habeas corpus was appealable to the Court of Appeals.
  2. Whether Salibo’s proper remedy was habeas corpus or a motion to quash under Rule 117.

Supreme Court Ruling on Appellate Jurisdiction

By issuing the writ returnable to the RTC, the Court of Appeals effectively delegated the determination of the petition’s merits to the trial court, which acquired full authority to decide it. The decision was therefore appealable to the Court of Appeals. The Warden’s appeal was properly filed.

Scope and Purpose of the Writ

The writ of habeas corpus ensures personal freedom against arbitrary detention. It extends to all forms of involuntary restraint (Rule 102, Sec. 1) and remains available so long as the detention is not authorized by valid judicial process (Rule 102, Sec. 4). Once a valid indictment and warrant exist, habeas corpus becomes moot; the accused must pursue ordinary remedies such as a motion to quash.

Remedy in Cases of Lawful Process

If a person is in custody under a valid court process or order, habeas corpus cannot be

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.