DATUKAN MALANG SALIBO V WARDEN Yes.

An application for a writ of habeas corpus may be made through a

Facts:
Butukan S. Malang, one of the accused in the Maguindanao massacre,
had a pending warrant of arrest issued by the trial court in People vs
Ampatuan Jr. et. al. When Datukan Malang Salibo learned that the
police officers of Datu Hofer Police Station in Maguindanao suspected
him to be Butukan S. Malang, he presented himself to clear his name.
Salibo presented to the police pertinent portions of his passport,
boarding passes and other documents tending to prove that a certain
Datukan Malang Salibo was in Saudi Arabia when the massacre
happened. The authorities, however, apprehended and detained him.
He questioned the legality of his detention via Urgent Petition for
Habeas Corpus before the CA, maintaining that he is not the accused
Batukan S. Malang. The CA issued the writ, making it returnable to the
judge of RTC Taguig. After hearing of the Return, the trial court
granted Salibos petition and ordered his immediate release from
detention.
petition filed before CA or any of its members, the CA or any of its
members in instances authorized by law, or the RTC or any of its
presiding judges. The court or judge grants the writ and requires the
officer or person having custody of the person allegedly restrained of
liberty to file a return of the writ. A hearing on the return of the writ is
then conducted.
The return of the writ may be heard by a court apart from that which
issued the writ. Should the court issuing the writ designate a lower
court to which the writ is made returnable, the lower court shall
proceed to decide the petition of habeas corpus. By virtue of the
designation, the lower court acquires the power and authority to
determine the merits of the petition for habeas corpus. Therefore, the
decision on the petition is a decision appealable to the court that has
appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the lower court.

On appeal by the Warden, the CA reversed the RTC ruling. The CA

held that even assuming Salibo was not the Batukan S. Malang named
in the Alias Warrant of Arrest, orderly course of trial must be pursued
and the usual remedies exhausted before the writ of habeas corpus
may be invoked. Salibos proper remedy, according to the CA, should
have been a motion to quash information and/or warrant of arrest.

On the other hand, Salibo believes that the Warden erred in appealing
the RTC decision before the CA. Salibo argued that although the CA
delegated to the RTC the authority to hear the Wardens Return, the
RTCs ruling should be deemed as the CA ruling, and hence, it should
have been appealed directly before the SC.

Issue 1: W/N Salibo properly availed the remedy of a petition for writ of
habeas corpus

Yes. Habeas corpus is the remedy for a person deprived of liberty due
to mistaken identity. In such cases, the person is not under any lawful
process and is continuously being illegally detained.

First, it was Butukan S. Malang, not Salibo, who was charged and
accused in the Information and Alias Warrant of Arrest issued in the
case of People vs Ampatuan. Based on the evidences presented,
Salibo sufficiently established that he could not have been Butukan S.
Malang. Therefore, Salibo was not arrested by virtue of any warrant
charging him of an offense, nor restrained under a lawful process or an
order of a court. Second, Salibo was not validly arrested without a
warrant. When he was in the presence of authorities, he was neither
committing nor attempting to commit an offense, and the police officers
had no personal knowledge of any offense that he might have
committed. Salibo was also not an escape prisoner.

The police officers have deprived him of his liberty without due process
of law. Therefore, Salibo correctly availed himself of a Petition for
Habeas Corpus.

Issue 2: W/N a motion to quash information and/or warrant of arrest is

the proper remedy in cases where a person with a mistaken identity is
detained

No, the CAs contention is not correct. Salibos proper remedy is not a
Motion to Quash Information and/or Warrant of Arrest. None of the
grounds for filing a Motion to Quash Information apply to him. Even if
petitioner Salibo filed a Motion to Quash, the defect he alleged could
not have been cured by mere amendment of the Information and/or
Warrant of Arrest. Changing the name of the accused appearing in the
Information and/or Warrant of Arrest from Butukan S. Malang to
Datukan Malang Salibo will not cure the lack of preliminary
investigation in this case. Likewise, a motion for reinvestigation will not
cure the defect of lack of preliminary investigation.

Issue 3: W/N the Warden correctly appealed the RTC ruling on the
Return before the CA