In a petition for habeas corpus, the Supreme Court ruled that the release of a detained individual renders the petition moot. This means that once the person is no longer confined, the court’s intervention to secure their release is unnecessary. This decision underscores the principle that the writ of habeas corpus serves to address actual, ongoing deprivation of liberty, and it ceases to have practical effect once the detention has ended.

Drug Bust or Bust? Unraveling the Case of Anisah Impal Sangca

The case revolves around Anisah Impal Sangca’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus to secure the release of Lovely Impal Adam, who was detained for allegedly violating Section 5, Article 2 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Adam was arrested following a buy-bust operation conducted by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). The Department of Justice (DOJ), however, found no probable cause to charge Adam, leading to a motion to withdraw the information filed against her. The central issue is whether the petition for habeas corpus remains valid after Adam’s release, ordered by the trial court upon granting the motion to withdraw the information.

The factual backdrop involves PDEA’s receipt of information about Adam’s alleged involvement in illegal drug trafficking. This led to a planned entrapment operation. However, critical inconsistencies emerged during the investigation. According to the Justice Secretary, a key element of a buy-bust operation—the exchange of money for drugs—was missing.

A very thorough and careful scrutiny of the records, particularly the affidavit of arrest, reveals that no payment was ever made by the police officers for the supposed object of the buy-bust operations. The police officers have not even alleged in their affidavits that payment was made to respondent in exchange for the shabu. No buy-bust money was ever presented. The certificate of inventory does not show any buy-bust money. These stick out like a sore thumb in the case at bar.

This deficiency, coupled with the lack of any mention of buy-bust money in the pre-operation report and inconsistencies in the PDEA blotter, raised serious doubts about the validity of the arrest. Judge Ingles of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 58, also noted the absence of any reference to buy-bust money in the affidavits of the arresting officers.

The court emphasizes that the writ of habeas corpus serves a specific purpose: to address unlawful confinement. As articulated in In Re: Arguelles, Jr. v. Balajadia, Jr., the essential object and purpose of habeas corpus is to inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint and to relieve a person from it if such restraint is illegal.

A writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention in which any person is deprived of his liberty, or in which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled to it. Its essential object and purpose is to inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint and to relieve a person from it if such restraint is illegal. The singular function of a petition for habeas corpus is to protect and secure the basic freedom of physical liberty.

Given that Adam was released pursuant to a court order, the Supreme Court determined that the petition for habeas corpus had become moot. The Court’s reasoning rests on the fundamental principle that habeas corpus is a remedy against unlawful detention. Once that detention ceases, the remedy becomes unnecessary. This principle is well-established in Philippine jurisprudence, reflecting the practical nature of the writ.

The procedural history of the case is important to understanding the context of the Supreme Court’s decision. The inquest prosecutor initially recommended the dismissal of the case against Adam, a recommendation that was initially disapproved by the City Prosecutor. However, upon review by the Department of Justice, Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez reversed this decision, finding no probable cause to hold Adam liable. This reversal was based on the significant evidentiary gaps in the prosecution’s case, particularly the absence of any evidence of a buy-bust operation, such as marked money or testimony regarding the exchange of money for drugs.

The trial court’s decision to grant the motion to withdraw the information further solidified the basis for Adam’s release. Judge Ingles, after reviewing the evidence presented, concluded that there was insufficient evidence to proceed with the criminal charges. This decision led to the issuance of an order for Adam’s immediate release, unless there were other valid grounds for her continued detention. The PDEA’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied by the Justice Secretary, reinforcing the determination that the case against Adam was fundamentally flawed.

This case serves as a reminder of the critical importance of due process and the need for law enforcement agencies to adhere to established procedures in conducting buy-bust operations. The failure to follow these procedures can result in the dismissal of criminal charges and the release of the accused. In addition, it highlights the role of the courts in protecting individual liberties against unlawful detention. The writ of habeas corpus remains a vital tool for ensuring that individuals are not deprived of their freedom without due process of law. However, it is equally important to recognize that this remedy is only available when there is an actual, ongoing deprivation of liberty. Once the detention has ceased, the petition for habeas corpus becomes moot, and the court’s intervention is no longer warranted.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a petition for habeas corpus remains valid after the detained individual has been released from custody.
What is a writ of habeas corpus?	A writ of habeas corpus is a legal remedy used to challenge unlawful detention. It compels the government to bring a detained person before the court to determine the legality of their confinement.
What is a buy-bust operation?	A buy-bust operation is a law enforcement technique where police officers pose as buyers of illegal drugs to arrest drug dealers. It requires proper procedures, including the exchange of marked money for drugs.
What does it mean for a case to be moot?	A case is considered moot when the issue presented is no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. In habeas corpus cases, mootness occurs when the detention has ended.
Why was the petition dismissed in this case?	The petition was dismissed because Lovely Impal Adam had already been released from detention. The court found that the writ of habeas corpus was no longer necessary.
What was the basis for Adam’s release?	Adam was released because the Department of Justice found no probable cause to charge her with violating the Dangerous Drugs Act. There was a lack of evidence of a buy-bust operation.
What is probable cause?	Probable cause is a reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed. It is a necessary element for law enforcement to make an arrest or obtain a warrant.
What happens to the seized drugs in a dismissed drug case?	The court orders the seized drugs to be confiscated in favor of the state for proper disposition. This ensures that the illegal substances are not returned to the accused.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Sangca v. City Prosecutor of Cebu City reaffirms the established principle that a petition for habeas corpus becomes moot upon the release of the detained individual. This ruling underscores the importance of addressing actual and ongoing deprivations of liberty, ensuring that the writ of habeas corpus remains a focused and effective remedy for unlawful confinement.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Anisah Impal Sangca v. City Prosecutor of Cebu City, G.R. No. 175864, June 08, 2007