0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)
70 visualizzazioni1 pagina
Efren Moncupa was arrested in 1982 and detained under a Presidential Commitment Order alleging he was a member of a subversive organization. Two investigations found he was not actually a member of any such group. Moncupa filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the legality of his detention. He was then temporarily released but with restrictions on his movement and freedom. The respondents argued this temporary release rendered the habeas petition moot. However, the court found the restrictions on Moncupa's release still constituted an unlawful restraint, so the petition was not moot. It ruled involuntary restraints beyond just physical custody could still be challenged through habeas corpus.
Efren Moncupa was arrested in 1982 and detained under a Presidential Commitment Order alleging he was a member of a subversive organization. Two investigations found he was not actually a member of any such group. Moncupa filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the legality of his detention. He was then temporarily released but with restrictions on his movement and freedom. The respondents argued this temporary release rendered the habeas petition moot. However, the court found the restrictions on Moncupa's release still constituted an unlawful restraint, so the petition was not moot. It ruled involuntary restraints beyond just physical custody could still be challenged through habeas corpus.
Efren Moncupa was arrested in 1982 and detained under a Presidential Commitment Order alleging he was a member of a subversive organization. Two investigations found he was not actually a member of any such group. Moncupa filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the legality of his detention. He was then temporarily released but with restrictions on his movement and freedom. The respondents argued this temporary release rendered the habeas petition moot. However, the court found the restrictions on Moncupa's release still constituted an unlawful restraint, so the petition was not moot. It ruled involuntary restraints beyond just physical custody could still be challenged through habeas corpus.
vs. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, FABIAN C. VER, GALILEO KINTANAR, FERNANDO GOROSPE, AND JOSE CASTRO, respondents. FACTS: Petitioner Efren C. Moncupa, together with others, was arrested on April 22, 1982 and was brought to MIG-15 Camp Bago Bantay, Quezon City where he was detained. On April 23, 1982, on the allegation that he was a National Democratic Front (NDF) staff member, a Presidential Commitment Order (PCO) was issued against him and eight (8) other persons. After two separate investigations, it was ascertained that the petitioner was not a member of any subversive organization. Both investigators recommended the prosecution of the petitioner only for illegal possession of firearms and illegal possession of subversive. Petitioners filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss stating that petitioner was temporarily released from detention and since the petitioner is free and no longer under the custody of the respondents, the present petition for habeas corpus may be deemed moot and academic as in similar cases. Petitioner stresses that his temporary release did not render the instant petitioner moot and academic but that "it merely shifted the inquiry from the legality of his actual detention to the legality of the conditions imposed by the respondents." ISSUE: whether or not the instant petition has become moot and academic in view of the petitioner's temporary release. HELD: No. Restraints attached to his temporary release, however, preclude freedom of action and warrant this Court's inquiry into the nature of his involuntary restraint and relieving him of such restraints as may be illegal. The reservation of the military in the form of restrictions attached to the temporary release of the petitioner constitute restraints on the liberty of Mr. Moncupa. Such restrictions limit the freedom of movement of the petitioner. It is not physical restraint alone which is inquired into by the writ of habeas corpus. A release that renders a petition for a writ of habeas corpus moot and academic must be one which is free from involuntary restraints. Where a person continues to be unlawfully denied one or more of his constitutional freedoms, where there is present a denial of due process, where the restraints are not merely involuntary but appear to be unnecessary, and where a deprivation of freedom originally valid has, in the light of subsequent developments, become arbitrary, the person concerned or those applying in his behalf may still avail themselves of the privilege of the writ.
ABRAHAM RIMANDO, Petitioner, vs. NAGUILIAN EMISSION TESTING CENTER, INC., Represented by Its President, ROSEMARIE LLARENAS and HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.