IN RE SALIBO V.

WARDEN

Facts:
 Datukan Malang Salibo and other Filipinos were allegedly in Saudi Arabia
for the Hajj Pilgrimage. When he came back to the Philippines, he
discovered that police officers in Maguindanao suspected him to be
Butukan Malang, one of the accused in the Maguindanao Massacre.
Malang had a pending warrant of arrest.
 Salibo went to the Datu Hofer Police Station in Maguindanao to clear his
name, specifically, that he was in Saudi Arabia at the time the massacre.
He also presented documents to prove this. He was assured that he would
not be arrested.
 However, police officers apprehended Salibo and tore off page 2 of his
passport (the page that evidenced his departure for Saudi). They then
detained Salibo at the Datu Hofer Police Station for about 3 days. He was
then transferred to the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group in
Cotabato City where he was detained for another 10 days. While in
Cotabato, he was allegedly made to sign and affix his thumbprint on
documents. He was then transferred to Quezon City Jail Annex, BJMP,
where he is currently detained.
 Salibo filed before the CA an Urgent Petition for Habeas Corpus.
 CA: issued the writ returnable to the RTC Branch 153 Pasig.
 TC: found that Salibo was not restrained of his liberty under process
issued by a court, since all of the documents presented in court charged
Malang, not Salibo. The TC was also convinced that Salibo was not the
Malang charged in connection with the Maguindanao Massacre.
 CA: reversed and set aside the TC decision. It found that Salibo’s arrest
and subsequent detention were made under a valid Information and
Warrant of Arrest. Even assuming that Salibo was not the Butukan S.
Malang named in the Alias Warrant of Arrest, the Court of Appeals said
that the orderly course of trial must be pursued and the usual remedies
exhausted before the writ may be invoked.
 Salibo filed a petition for review with urgent application for a preliminary
mandatory injunction before the SC.

Issue and Held:

 WoN respondent Warden correctly appealed before the CA- YES.
o Once a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is granted, the officer or
person having custody of the person allegedly restrained of liberty
is ordered to file a return of the writ. A hearing on the return of the
writ is then conducted. The return of the writ may be heard by a
court apart from that which issued the writ. Should the court issuing
the writ designate a lower court to which the writ is made
returnable, the lower court shall proceed to decide the petition of
habeas corpus. By virtue of the designation, the lower court
acquires the power and authority to determine the merits of the
 petition. Therefore, the decision on the petition is a decision
appealable to the court that has appellate jurisdiction over
decisions of the lower court.
o In this case, Salibo filed his petition before the CA. The CA issued a
writ, making it returnable to the RTC Branch 153 Pasig. The TC
then heard Warden on his Return and decided the petition on the
merits. The decision on the petition for habeas corpus, therefore,
was the decision of the TC, not of the CA. Since the CA is the court
with appellate jurisdiction over decisions of TCs, Warden correctly
filed the appeal before the CA.
 WoN Salibo’s proper remedy is to file a petition for habeas corpus- YES.
o In the cases of Ilagan and Umil, the court held that in cases where
criminal charges have been filed in the proper courts against the
petitioners, instead of availing themselves of the extraordinary
remedy of a petition for habeas corpus, persons restrained under a
lawful process or order of the court must pursue the orderly course
of trial and exhaust the usual remedies. The ordinary remedy is to
file a motion to quash the information or the warrant of arrest.
o HOWEVER, Ilagan and Umil do not apply to this case. Petitioner
was not arrested by virtue of any warrant charging him of an
offense. He was not restrained under a lawful process or an order
of a court.
o The Information and Warrant refer to Malang, not Salibo. Neither
was there a proper warrantless arrest.

Ruling:
 Petition granted.