CRIMPRO RULE 122
Title GR No. 141443
IN THE MATTER OF PETITION FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF THE Date: August 30, 2000
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS OF AZUCENA L. GARCIA Ponente: DE LEON, JR., J.
AZUCENA L. GARCIA – Petitioner
Nature of the case: Azucena L. Garcia petitions this Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus in order "to free, relieve and
exonerate her from the penalty of imprisonment adjudged and imposed upon her, in gross violation of her constitutional
rights to due process of law and other fundamental rights” pursuant to an allegedly void judgment rendered on April 20,
1995 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 86, in Criminal Case No. Q-94-53589.
FACTS
On October 27, 1989, accused Azucena Locsin Garcia filed an application for land registration with the RTC of Quezon City
(Branch 80) docketed as LRC Case No. 89-007 covering two parcels of land identified as Lots Nos. 822-C-1 and 822-C-2
with an area of 32,350 and 28,750 sq. m., respectively. Appended to said application were the following documents, to
wit: (1) Tax Declaration No. 2273 with PIN-21-11773-1 for Lot 822-C-1; (2) Tax Declaration No. 22732 with PIN-21-11773-2
for Lot 822-C-2; Subdivision Plan Psd-19954; (4) Technical Description of Lot 822-C-1; and Technical Description of Lot
822-C-2.
Said application was abandoned because on May 8, 1991, accused, who is the applicant in the land registration case, filed
an application this time for administrative reconstitution of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 308462 with the Land
Registration Authority. On June 20, 1991, TCT No. 308462 was ordered reconstituted, along with other TCTs in the names
of other applicants, pursuant to Administrative Order No. Q-283(91) signed by Benjamin M. Bustos, Reconstituting Officer
of the Land Registration Authority.
On September 10, 1991, complainant Antonio de Zuzuarregui wrote the Quezon City Assessor’s Office requesting for
certification as to the authenticity of Declaration of Real Property No. 2273, and Declaration of Real Property No. 22732
both issued in the name of Domingo R. Locsin and purportedly signed by Jose C. Gonzales, then acting City Assessor of
Quezon City, because the lot embraced by the said declarations are allegedly within the boundary of said complainant’s
property per his TCT No. 181095.
In reply to the above letter, Q.C. City Assessor Constantino P. Rosas wrote Zuzuarregui on September 11, 1991 stating that
no such records (Declarations of Real Property Nos. 2273 and 22732) exist in their office and the same appear to be
spurious.
On October 4, 1991, Zuzuarregui wrote another letter this time to Mrs. Brigida Llave, Technical Records Section of the
Bureau of Lands, NCR, Q.C. requesting for certification as to the authenticity of the following documents:
1) Annex "1" – xerox copy of Plan Psd-19954 of Lot 822-C in the name of Domingo R. Locsin;
2) Annex "2" – xerox copy of the technical description of Lot 822-C-1, Psd-19954, also in the name of Domingo R. Locsin;
and
3) Annex "3" – xerox copy of the technical description of Lot 822-C-2, Psd-19954, likewise in the name of Domingo R.
Locsin.
In Llave’s reply of October 7, 1991, she stated that the alleged plan, Psd-19954, is non-existing in their files and called
attention to the fact that she has no signature over her stamped name "Brigida R. Llave" on said plan. Also, on August 14,
1992, Samuel C. Cleofe, Register of Deeds of Quezon City, in his reply to a letter from herein complainant Zuzuarregui,
stated that per verification from their Control Log Book, TCT No. 308462 is not shown as among those filed in their office.
Herein accused was formally charged with three counts of falsification of public documents in three separate criminal
informations filed with the RTC of Quezon City and docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 36490-92, the first being for
falsification of technical description of land and the other two being for falsification of Declarations of Real Property.
Meanwhile, Criminal Cases Nos. 36490-92 for falsification of public documents filed by the herein complainant against the
herein accused were raffled to Branch 85 of this Court then presided by the Honorable Benjamin P. Abesamis and
subsequently by the Honorable Judge Mariano M. Umali. In a decision penned by the latter, dated May 17, 1994, the
herein accused was acquitted of all the above charges on reasonable doubt.
Moreover, petitioner was charged in Criminal Case No. Q-94-53589 with falsifying the entries in Transfer Certificate of
Title (TCT) No. 308462, forging the signature therein of Vicente N. Coloyan, and introducing or using said TCT in support
of her application for reconstitution of title. Similarly, in Criminal Case Nos. Q-94-53590 and Q-94-53591, petitioner was
charged with falsifying the entries in Declaration of Real Property Nos. 22731 and 22732, respectively, forging the
signatures therein of Jose C. Gonzales, and introducing or using the same in support of her application before the Land
Registration Administration (LRA).
In its Decision dated April 20, 1995, the trial court found petitioner guilty of three (3) counts of falsification of public
documents. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court, and subsequently this Court, affirmed
petitioner’s conviction. Entry of judgment was made on April 8, 1999.
Petitioner’s Contentions:
Petitioner only questions the validity of the judgment rendered in Criminal Case No. Q-94-53589.
She contends that where proceedings were attended by violations of the constitutional rights of the accused, the
judgment of conviction is void thereby warranting relief by the extraordinary legal remedy of habeas corpus.
Hence, in her case, the fundamental unfairness of the judgment, when viewed in light of the record, renders the
same subject to attack for being violative of her right to due process of law.
Petitioner explains that the disquisition of the trial judge was totally silent on the official findings and
determinations that Coloyan’s signature on the owner’s copy of the TCT No. 308462 was genuine. Instead, the
trial judge merely relied on the testimony of Coloyan that the signature appearing on the photocopy of TCT No.
308462 is not his.
OSG’s Contentions:
The writ of habeas corpus is a remedy available to a person who is illegally imprisoned or restrained of his liberty.
Consequently, a person discharged or out on bail, like petitioner, is not entitled to the writ.
The ground invoked by petitioner pertains to the appreciation of evidence, a matter which falls within the
exclusive discretion and prerogative of the trial court.
A writ of habeas corpus can issue only for want of jurisdiction of the sentencing court, and cannot function as a
writ of error. As such, the writ will not lie to correct alleged mistakes of fact or of law committed by a court in the
exercise of its functions.
ISSUE/S
Whether or not the petition for the writ habeas corpus should be granted – NO.
RATIO
The high prerogative writ of habeas corpus was devised and exists as a speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons
from unlawful restraint. Its object is to inquire into the legality of one’s detention, and if found illegal, to order the
release of the detainee. However, it is equally well-settled that the writ will not issue where the person in whose behalf
the writ is sought is out on bail, or is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court or judge or by virtue of a
judgment or order of a court of record, and that the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the process, render the
judgment, or make the order. In the case at bar, therefore, petitioner can no longer seek relief via a petition for habeas
corpus having been convicted by final judgment of the crime of falsification of public document and use thereof. Said
judgment is already final and executory.
The writ of habeas corpus is not a remedy for the correction of such errors. Court cannot, in habeas corpus proceedings,
review the record in a criminal case after judgment of conviction has been rendered, and the defendants have entered on
the execution of the sentence imposed, to ascertain whether the facts found by the trial court were in accordance with
the evidence disclosed by the record, or to pass upon the correctness of conclusions of law by the trial court based on the
facts thus found. A commitment in due form based on a final judgment convicting and sentencing a defendant in a
criminal case is conclusive evidence of the legality of his detention under such commitment, unless it appears that the
court which pronounced the judgment was without jurisdiction or exceeded its jurisdiction in imposing the penalty. Mere
errors of fact or law, which did not have the effect of depriving the trial court of its jurisdiction over the cause and the
person of the defendant, if corrected at all, must be corrected on appeal in the form and manner prescribed by law.
RULING
WHEREFORE, petitioner Azucena L. Garcia, having failed to establish sufficient cause to warrant issuance of a writ of
habeas corpus, the instant petition is hereby DENIED.
2-S 2016-17 (ELMIDO)
[Link]