View full case

NORBERTO FERIA Y PACQUING v. CA

FACTS:

Norberto Feria, the petitioner, has been incarcerated since May 21, 1981, after being convicted of Robbery with Homicide in Criminal Case No. 60677. Wanting to be transferred from Manila City Jail to the Bureau of Corrections in Muntinlupa City, Feria was informed that this could not be accomplished without submitting the Commitment Order or Mittimus, Decision, and Information. However, it was discovered that the entire case records, including the judgment copy, had gone missing. The Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila and the Clerk of Court of Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 2 affirmed that they were unable to locate the records. Further investigations revealed that the records had been lost or destroyed in a fire at the Manila City Hall on November 3, 1986.

To challenge the legality of his continued detention without a valid judgment, Feria filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, asserting a violation of his constitutional right to due process. The Second Division of the Supreme Court granted the writ and directed the Executive Judge of RTC Manila to conduct a case raffle. In response, Branch 9 of RTC Manila dismissed the petition, contending that the loss of the records did not nullify the judgment or warrant the petitioner's release, while emphasizing that the proper remedy was record reconstitution. The Court of Appeals concurred with the lower court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, with the modification that Feria could be transferred to the Bureau of Corrections even without submitting the requirements pending record reconstitution. Dissatisfied, Feria lodged a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether petitioner's continued detention is violative of his constitutional right to due process.

  2. Whether there is sufficient evidence to establish petitioner's conviction and legal basis for his detention.

  3. Whether or not the petitioner's release from confinement is warranted.

RULING:

  1. The Court found that there is sufficient evidence on record to establish petitioner's conviction, which serves as the legal basis for his detention. Petitioner made judicial admissions, both verbal and written, that he was charged with and convicted of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, and sentenced to suffer imprisonment "habang buhay." Petitioner's declarations as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him under Section 23 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. Further, petitioner does not claim any mistake nor does he deny making such admissions.

  2. The records include a certified true copy of the Monthly Report of the judge attesting to petitioner's conviction of the crime of Robbery with Homicide. Such Monthly Report constitutes an entry in official records under Section 44 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, which is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. Public respondents also presented a certified true copy of a newspaper article that petitioner was convicted of the crime and sentenced to life imprisonment. However, newspaper articles are hearsay evidence and are inadmissible without any probative value, unless offered for a purpose other than proving the truth of the matter asserted. In this case, the news article is admissible only as evidence that such publication does exist with the tenor of the news therein stated.

  3. The petition for habeas corpus is denied for lack of merit, and the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The writ of habeas corpus may be availed of where there has been a deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the restraint of a person.

  • The burden of proving illegal restraint by the respondent rests on the petitioner who attacks such restraint.

  • When a prisoner is in custody under a warrant of commitment in pursuance of law, the return shall be considered prima facie evidence of the cause of restraint. If the petitioner is restrained by an alleged private authority, the return shall be considered only as a plea.

  • Section 4 of Rule 102 of the Rules of Court provides that if it appears that the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in custody under a process issued by a court or judge, the writ of habeas corpus shall not be allowed.

  • The mere loss or destruction of the record of the case does not invalidate the judgment or the commitment, or authorize the prisoner's release.

  • A judgment, order, or decree of a court with jurisdiction is not subject to collateral attack by habeas corpus. Collateral attack is only available when a judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction.

  • Judicial records are subject to reconstitution without exception, whether they refer to pending cases or finished cases.