ArticuLaw Primo

GR. No. L-63345, January 30, 1986

Efren C. Moncupa vs. Juan Ponce Enrile, Fabian C. Ver

 

 

Facts:

 

          Efren Moncupa and eight others were arrested for the reason that they were suspected of being a member of the National Democratic Front.

 

            A two separate  investigations was conducted by Taskforce Makabansa and the investigating Fiscal of Quezon City. Both committee concluded that Efren Moncupa was not a member of the NDF, and instead recommend for the filing an information for violation of PD 1866 against Moncupa. In filing the information Moncupa was excluded.

 

              And because he was excluded in the information, his counsel filed a petition for Habeas Corpus.

 

            The respondent in their return of writ justified the validity of petitioner’s detention on the ground that the privilege of the writ has been suspended. However on August 30, 1983 the respondent filed a motion to dismiss stating that on May 11, 1983 the petitioner was  temporarily release from detention and stated that since the petitioner is free and no longer under the custody of the respondent the present petition for Habeas Corpus may be deemed moot and academic.

 

 

Issue:

 

Whether or not the instant petition has become moot and academic in view of petitioner’s temporary release.

 

 

Held:

 

            It is to be noted that attached to the petitioner’s temporary release are restrictions imposed on him and these are:

 

1. His freedom of movement is curtailed by the condition that the petitioner gets approval of respondent          for any travel outside Metro Manila.

 

2. His liberty of abode is restricted because prior approval of respondent is also required in case the petitioner wants to change his residence.

 

3. His freedom of speech is muffled by the prohibition that he should not participate in any interview.

 

4. He is required to report regularly to respondent or their representatives.

 

           The petitioner stresses that his temporary release did not render the instant petition 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.

 

          The Supreme Court held that the reservations of the military in the form of restrictions attached to the temporary release of the petitioner constitute restraint 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 temporary release does not render the petition moot and academic if such temporary release attached a restrictions or conditions.

 

           Wherefore the petition is Granted and the conditions attached to the temporary release of the petitioner are declared null and void.