This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-08-03 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| x x x Since no evidence has been presented at that stage, the error would appear or be discoverable from a review of the records of the preliminary investigation. Of course, that fact may be perceived by the trial judge himself but, again, realistically it will be the prosecutor who can initially determine the same. That is why such error need not be manifest or evident, nor is it required that such nuances as offenses includible in the offense charged be taken into account. It necessarily follows, therefore, that the prosecutor can and should institute remedial measures[.][42] (emphasis and underscoring supplied) | |||||
|
2005-08-25 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the remedy of habeas corpus is not the proper remedy to address the detainees' complaint against the regulations and conditions in the ISAFP Detention Center. The remedy of habeas corpus has one objective: to inquire into the cause of detention of a person.[8] The purpose of the writ is to determine whether a person is being illegally deprived of his liberty.[9] If the inquiry reveals that the detention is illegal, the court orders the release of the person. If, however, the detention is proven lawful, then the habeas corpus proceedings terminate. The use of habeas corpus is thus very limited. It is not a writ of error.[10] Neither can it substitute for an appeal.[11] | |||||