Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Gunabe Vs Director

    Uploaded by

    Lara Michelle Sanday Binudin
    231 views1 page
    The petitioners were charged with murder and frustrated murder in 1942 and were being detained by the Director of Prisons under commitment orders from the court. They filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus arguing their detention was unlawful as they were not delivered to judicial authorities within six hours of their arrest. However, the court ruled that any failure to deliver the petitioners within six hours did not affect the legality of their confinement, as they were detained under valid process from a competent court. The writ of habeas corpus was not allowed.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    Gunabe vs Director

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The petitioners were charged with murder and frustrated murder in 1942 and were being detained by the Director of Prisons under commitment orders from the court. They filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus arguing their detention was unlawful as they were not delivered to judicial authorities within six hours of their arrest. However, the court ruled that any failure to deliver the petitioners within six hours did not affect the legality of their confinement, as they were detained under valid process from a competent court. The writ of habeas corpus was not allowed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    231 views1 page

    Gunabe Vs Director

    Uploaded by

    Lara Michelle Sanday Binudin
    The petitioners were charged with murder and frustrated murder in 1942 and were being detained by the Director of Prisons under commitment orders from the court. They filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus arguing their detention was unlawful as they were not delivered to judicial authorities within six hours of their arrest. However, the court ruled that any failure to deliver the petitioners within six hours did not affect the legality of their confinement, as they were detained under valid process from a competent court. The writ of habeas corpus was not allowed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    MACARIO GUNABE, SULPICIO GUNABE and MARGARITO DRILLON Petitioners,

    vs. THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS,Respondent.


    G.R. No. L-1231 January 30, 1947

    FACTS: The petitioners more or less admit that in November, 1942, they were
    charged in criminal cases Nos. 988 and 1010 of the Court of First Instance of Manila
    with murder and frustrated murder and that, in virtue of said cases (continued as
    criminal cases 1838 and 1839) which are still pending, the petitioners have been
    detained by the respondent Director of Prisons under proper commitment orders.
    Nevertheless, in the present petition for the writ of habeas corpus, the petitioners
    pray for their release on the ground that from one to four months after their arrest,
    their detention was unlawful as it was a brazen violation of their right to be delivered
    to the judicial authorities within six hours following their arrest.

    ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners were unlawfully detained as they were not delivered
    within six hours following their arrest.

    RULING: It is sufficient to state that the alleged failure of the authorities (who arrested
    or are detaining the petitioners) to deliver the latter to the judicial authorities within six
    hours - which may of course be the subject of criminal prosecution under article 125 of
    the Revised Penal Code - cannot affect the legality of the confinement of the petitioners
    which is admittedly under subsisting process, issued by a competent court. Indeed, if it
    appears that the persons alleged to be restrained of their liberty are in the custody of an
    officer under process issued by a court or judge having jurisdiction to issue the process,
    the writ of habeas corpus shall not be allowed. (Rules of Court No. 102, section 4.)

    You might also like