In Re de Villa

IN RE: THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR REYNALDO DE VILLA G.R. 158802 November 17, 2004 J. Ynares-Santiago Lacking the requisites set by Feria, petition for writ of habeas corpus unavailing as a collateral attack to a final judgment. Aileen Mendoza, 12, was raped by her uncle, Reynaldo de Villa in her home in Pasig. Her pregnancy prompted the filing of charges by her parents against de Villa. De Villa: 1. sickness, old age of 67 rendered me incapable of erection 2. Mendozas bear a grudge against me 3. Alibi: in hometown of San Luis, Laguna at time of crime RTC: de Villa guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified rape, sentenced to death. Case automatically elevated to SC for automatic review due to penalty imposed. SC: affirmed RTC decision, modified by awarding moral damages. SC found date of birth of Aileen’s child, Leahlyn medically consistent with time of rape. June de Villa, son of accused, alleged that defense counsel only learned of DNA testing to resolve paternity issue at time of pendency of SC automatic review. His 2 MRs of the case praying for DNA tests to be conducted were denied. DNA tests obtained from Billy de Villa, grandson of Reynaldo, and Leahlyn showed that de Villa could not have sired the latter. June thus filed petition for writ of habeas corpus for his father. Issue: WON writ of habeas corpus a proper remedy in the instant case. Held: No. Ratio of the Court. 1. On the issue of writ of habeas corpus as proper remedy: a. individual is illegally deprived of his freedom of movement or placed under some form of illegal restraint b. however, cannot be used to directly assail a judgment rendered by a competent court or tribunal which, having duly acquired jurisdiction, was not deprived or ousted of this jurisdiction c. It is the nullity of an assailed judgment of conviction due to said lack of jurisdiction which makes it susceptible to collateral attack through HC

2. 3. 4.

5.

d. Feria v. CA doctrine allowed HC as post-conviction remedy only when there exists: i. deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the restraint ii. court had no jurisdiction iii. penalty being excessive, is voided e. June did not allege any of the three conditions in Feria to avail of HC Proper remedy should have been certiorari or appeal *On the issue of denial of de Villa’s effective aid of counsel who left for the US in the middle of appeal a. SC did not find negligence amounting to denial of constitutional right *On the issue of the relevance of the DNA test as to de Villa’s guilt a. Pregnancy not an essential element of crime of rape b. Results of DNA test could not conclusively determine de Villa’s guilt for the crime of rape *On the issue of remedy of motion for new trial a. Rule 121 of Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure:

SEC. 2. Grounds for a new trial.—The court shall grant a new trial on any of the following grounds: (a) That errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused have been committed during the trial; (b) That new and material evidence has been discovered which the accused could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial and which if introduced and admitted would probably change the judgment. b. Requisites for motion for new trial: (a) that the evidence was discovered after trial; (b) that said evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; (c) that it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching; and (d) that the evidence is of such weight that that, if admitted, it would probably change the judgment c. Lack of knowledge of DNA testing attributable to negligence of counsel, and the same is binding upon de Villa d. Other means to determine paternity were previously available to de Villa anyway. Dispositive. Petition for habeas corpus and motion for new trial dismissed. *only a nice to know factoid, includes all subheadings